I receive daily e-mails from Greg Laurie, who is like the modern day Billy Graham, since he visited my hometown (Christchurch NZ) last year. This is one I got in my inbox today, I want to know what people think of it - to what extent is what he says true?
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:36-37
A while ago, I ran into a guy that I once hung out with in school. I hadn't seen him in 25 years. He called to say that he was coming to hear me speak, so we arranged to meet beforehand.
As we talked, he told me he had been married twice and was presently divorced. Then he said, "I basically drank my marriages away." He went on to explain that he had gotten into that and never stopped. He said it had ruined his life.
I told him, "You know, in the Bible, God says, 'You will seek Me and find Me. . . .' "
"You can quote your book and I will quote mine," he said. "I am in fellowship too. . . . I'm in a 12-step program."
We used to hang out and party together, but he never left that lifestyle. I left it at age 17. As I look at the course his life has taken and the course my life has taken, it is clear who really gave up the most.
There might be times as a Christian when you look at unbelievers and think, I don't know. Maybe they are having the good time and I am not. It might look like they are having fun today, but there is a price for sin. You will reap what you sow.
If you live for Christ, if you determine to do things God's way, you won't regret it. Because you won't find happiness or fulfillment through sex, drugs, or drinking. You won't find it through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments. You will find the happiness and fulfillment you are looking for in life through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
My opinion is this, while I greatly admire him for all the work he does, I often find his view of comparing Christian lives with non-Christian lives simplistic and not even general, because they do not represent general (as in the "majority of cases" general) facts. I believe you become a Christian because it's the right thing to do, not because it's what's best for yourself personally.
I don't intend this to be another existence of God debate - I just want to know what people think of his e-mail - do any non-Christians think it is to some extent true?
That last paragraph sounds really cult-ish. Anyway, I don't think anything is set in stone, Christians can have their share of "fun" and not all nonbelievers are twice divorced alcoholics.
Is the moral of the story true? The moral of the story is that the only real lasting happiness is in knowing Jesus Christ. I don't think any non-Christians believe that's true, if they do, they're Christians.
Is the anecdote true? Could be. Could also be pure or partial bullshit. Greg Laurie might be a liar, or a truth stretcher, or a straight shooter. I have no clue.
Is anecdotal evidence useful for coming to general conclusions? It really depends on how much anecdotal evidence you use, but 1 example (as in Greg Laurie's message) is very shakey ground to base an argument on. The fact that a conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence doesn't necessarily make the conclusions you come to wrong, but you should question and test those conclusions. For example: Lets assume I've never seen or experienced or heard about ice. Then a friend of mine told me that he knew a guy that said he owned ice and his ice was cold. From this I can assume that most or all ice is cold, and I'd be right, but the evidence for my conclusion is very poor and I should try and find other sources of evidence for verification. Likewise, let's assue that I've never seen a brunette. Then a friend of mine says he knows a guy named Adolf Hitler who's a genocidal authoritarian and warmonger... and a brunette. From this I can assume that most or all brunettes are genocidal authoritarians and warmongers, but I'd be wrong.
For the record, I think Greg Laurie's message is closer to the Hitler example than the ice example.
I for one believe that God wants us to have fun, wants us to be happy. He certainly doesnt want us to spend like 5h a day praying, especially if its just for the sake of praying. Its much better to say "thank you God for all the good things u gave me, plz guide me thru this day" each day, and then proceed to act nicely to other people, help ppl u can help.
He created this world, he wants us to enjoy it. Im pretty sure he didn put all the good things in the world as traps so as many ppl get some fun and thus go to hell.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body. U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok. But the wrong thing would be to fuck anything that walks just to satisfy the urges.
On April 18 2007 02:39 RebelHeart wrote: I don't intend this to be another existence of God debate - I just want to know what people think of his e-mail - do any non-Christians think it is to some extent true?
On April 18 2007 04:14 niteReloaded wrote: I for one believe that God wants us to have fun, wants us to be happy. He certainly doesnt want us to spend like 5h a day praying, especially if its just for the sake of praying. Its much better to say "thank you God for all the good things u gave me, plz guide me thru this day" each day, and then proceed to act nicely to other people, help ppl u can help.
He created this world, he wants us to enjoy it. Im pretty sure he didn put all the good things in the world as traps so as many ppl get some fun and thus go to hell.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body. U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok. But the wrong thing would be to fuck anything that walks just to satisfy the urges.
I hope you don't go around calling yourself a Christian
On April 18 2007 04:14 niteReloaded wrote: I for one believe that God wants us to have fun, wants us to be happy. He certainly doesnt want us to spend like 5h a day praying, especially if its just for the sake of praying. Its much better to say "thank you God for all the good things u gave me, plz guide me thru this day" each day, and then proceed to act nicely to other people, help ppl u can help.
He created this world, he wants us to enjoy it. Im pretty sure he didn put all the good things in the world as traps so as many ppl get some fun and thus go to hell.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body. U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok. But the wrong thing would be to fuck anything that walks just to satisfy the urges.
I hope you don't go around calling yourself a Christian
On April 18 2007 04:14 niteReloaded wrote: I for one believe that God wants us to have fun, wants us to be happy. He certainly doesnt want us to spend like 5h a day praying, especially if its just for the sake of praying. Its much better to say "thank you God for all the good things u gave me, plz guide me thru this day" each day, and then proceed to act nicely to other people, help ppl u can help.
He created this world, he wants us to enjoy it. Im pretty sure he didn put all the good things in the world as traps so as many ppl get some fun and thus go to hell.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body. U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok. But the wrong thing would be to fuck anything that walks just to satisfy the urges.
I hope you don't go around calling yourself a Christian
that sounds like just about the healthiest view on religion you can have, whats wrong with it?
On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: see that's exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about
i hope YOU don't go around calling yourself a Christian
judge not lest you be judged etc
That's an interesting verse, mind quoting it? Well, I know where it is, in Matthew.
You familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Interesting verse isn't it? You know why I said that? Lets recap some of what he said.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body.
Okay, so you think it's okay to get drunk with your friends?
Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy
Galations 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Uh oh.. Did those verses just condemn being drunk in any situation? Yes, they did. What bible is he reading from? Not the same one I am... Moving along.
U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok.
Really eh? Where did you come up with this? What did Galations 5:19-21 just say? How about..
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
Mark 10:6-8
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God
I'm sorry to be so "judgmental", but there's a thing called "Sunday Christianity" and then there's a thing called a "personal relationship with Christ". What this kid said, at this point in time, he's a Sunday Christian. And until he gets his life right, he has no business going around saying he's a Christian (assuming that he is).
Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.
And for that email, it's general correct in my experience with others.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 08:55 XelNaga wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but to be a christian does not mean should have to be held to all christian theology. EDIT: To clarify, you didn't say 'all' but when you did just rip into his post line by line disputing his beliefs.
And a "personal relationship with Jesus" is by definition a personal thing, a result of which being that he should be able to choose how he keeps his religion.
On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: see that's exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about
i hope YOU don't go around calling yourself a Christian
judge not lest you be judged etc
That's an interesting verse, mind quoting it? Well, I know where it is, in Matthew.
You familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Interesting verse isn't it? You know why I said that? Lets recap some of what he said.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body.
Okay, so you think it's okay to get drunk with your friends?
Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy
Galations 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Uh oh.. Did those verses just condemn being drunk in any situation? Yes, they did. What bible is he reading from? Not the same one I am... Moving along.
U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok.
Really eh? Where did you come up with this? What did Galations 5:19-21 just say? How about..
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
Mark 10:6-8
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God
I'm sorry to be so "judgmental", but there's a thing called "Sunday Christianity" and then there's a thing called a "personal relationship with Christ". What this kid said, at this point in time, he's a Sunday Christian. And until he gets his life right, he has no business going around saying he's a Christian (assuming that he is).
Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.
And for that email, it's general correct in my experience with others.
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'm sorry but to be a christian does not mean you have to be held to all christian theology.
And a "personal relationship with Jesus" is by definition a personal thing, a result of which being that he should be able to choose how he keeps his religion.
You're right, I should have better defined what I said. To be a Christian means you have to hold to scriptural (biblical) teaching. Either way, what the person said wasn't holding true to scripture in any way. You can have the Jesus in your head, as you imagine him. And you can have the Jesus of the bible. And you know what? In the end, it's the Jesus of the bible you're going to have to deal with.
On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: see that's exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about
i hope YOU don't go around calling yourself a Christian
judge not lest you be judged etc
That's an interesting verse, mind quoting it? Well, I know where it is, in Matthew.
You familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Interesting verse isn't it? You know why I said that? Lets recap some of what he said.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body.
Okay, so you think it's okay to get drunk with your friends?
Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy
Galations 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Uh oh.. Did those verses just condemn being drunk in any situation? Yes, they did. What bible is he reading from? Not the same one I am... Moving along.
U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok.
Really eh? Where did you come up with this? What did Galations 5:19-21 just say? How about..
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
Mark 10:6-8
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God
I'm sorry to be so "judgmental", but there's a thing called "Sunday Christianity" and then there's a thing called a "personal relationship with Christ". What this kid said, at this point in time, he's a Sunday Christian. And until he gets his life right, he has no business going around saying he's a Christian (assuming that he is).
Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.
And for that email, it's general correct in my experience with others.
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
You judge him based on your belief of the bible. God believes that there is no such thing as a lesser sin. Do not point out the flaws of others because there are 3 fingers pointing out the flaws of you.
The bible also says things about not lusting, but I'm sure you honor those commandments too, right?
edit: sorry for the choppiness, kind of pissed reading his comments
hang on it takes him a while to respond since he cut off his right hand and cast it from him since it is better to lose a part than lose the whole to the fires of hell
On April 18 2007 09:10 lil.sis wrote: hang on it takes him a while to respond since he cut off his right hand and cast it from him since it is better to lose a part than lose the whole to the fires of hell
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
Oh really? You see, 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that if you're going to go around saying "Hey!! I'm a Christian!!" then you should expect to live you life according to scripture. And when you aren't, then other Christians have that authority to pull you aside, and in light of what scripture teaches question your behavior, which is all I did. You might not like it and you might not understand it and you might think it's unfair, and I feel sorry for you, but that's just how it is.
On April 18 2007 09:06 lil.sis wrote:YOU are the reason why being a christian today is synonymous with being an idiot
Hardly, being a Christian today is synonymous with hypocrisy a holier than thou attitude and not living what you teach. You know, you might not understand the bible, and that's too bad. But that's what it teaches, and for this person to say what he said in light of scripture, is wrong. Because he isn't going to be reaching salvation living the way he wants to live.
On April 18 2007 09:06 lil.sis wrote:YOU are the reason why whenever people are approached by people trying to spread the word nobody gives it the time of day
Really? That hasn't been my experience, a lot of people are open to it. Perhaps your ignorance on the subject is more of a reason for anything than my knowledge on something you clearly know nothing about, nor want to understand anything about.
On April 18 2007 09:06 lil.sis wrote:you preach a message of arrogance, sanctimony, judgement and elitism. 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
I'm glad you actually took the time to read and understand what I posted. I'm glad you didn't respond to me with a post written out of anger, hatred, judgment and an overall disdain for Christianity based on a preconception. What do I preach.. Scripture, can you refute it? Can you tell me I'm taking it out of context? Can you tell me I'm not using it properly? Can you tell me that I shouldn't be telling this person that how he thinks it's okay to live isn't okay by scriptural standards?
Really eh? Who is this "niteReloaded" person? I'll have to look for them later... And darling, you have no idea.
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
You judge him based on your belief of the bible. God believes that there is no such thing as a lesser sin. Do not point out the flaws of others because there are 3 fingers pointing out the flaws of you.
The bible also says things about not lusting, but I'm sure you honor those commandments too, right?
edit: sorry for the choppiness, kind of pissed reading his comments
I judge him based on scripture, not my personal opinions that I've developed. Can you take what he said and how I compared his opinion to what I believe scriptural teaching and say that I took it out of context, or misunderstood it? Can you say that I was wrong in what I was doing? Obviously you would, but the difference between Matthew and Ephesians is that Matthew is speaking of judging someone because of what you think, whereas Ephesians is speaking of comparing the actions of a person to what the bible teaches, which is what I did. So yeah, Matthew is an interesting verse, but nothing close to what I did.
And as for what I do, if you want to bring that in then go ahead. But that really isn't the topic at hand is it? More of a meager attempt to get the focus off something else? And.. I really, really hate to break it to you. But no, I don't lust after anything.
On April 18 2007 09:12 XelNaga wrote: Hardly, being a Christian today is synonymous with hypocrisy a holier than thou attitude and not living what you teach.
sounds familiar
you, and so many like you, are missing the point entirely
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
You judge him based on your belief of the bible. God believes that there is no such thing as a lesser sin. Do not point out the flaws of others because there are 3 fingers pointing out the flaws of you.
The bible also says things about not lusting, but I'm sure you honor those commandments too, right?
edit: sorry for the choppiness, kind of pissed reading his comments
I judge him based on scripture, not my personal opinions that I've developed. Can you take what he said and how I compared his opinion to what I believe scriptural teaching and say that I took it out of context, or misunderstood it? Can you say that I was wrong in what I was doing? Obviously you would, but the difference between Matthew and Ephesians is that Matthew is speaking of judging someone because of what you think, whereas Ephesians is speaking of comparing the actions of a person to what the bible teaches, which is what I did. So yeah, Matthew is an interesting verse, but nothing close to what I did.
And as for what I do, if you want to bring that in then go ahead. But that really isn't the topic at hand is it? More of a meager attempt to get the focus off something else? And.. I really, really hate to break it to you. But no, I don't lust after anything.
You are completely full of shit. To say that you don't lust after anything is complete bullshit and refutes everything of human nature. I hope you enjoy lying to yourself.
And I never stated that what you did was wrong. I'm glad that you feel it necessary to promote the words of God, however I just think you should take more time to reflect on yourself and your own life instead of others
On April 18 2007 09:12 XelNaga wrote: Hardly, being a Christian today is synonymous with hypocrisy a holier than thou attitude and not living what you teach.
sounds familiar
you, and so many like you, are missing the point entirely
You are completely full of shit. To say that you don't lust after anything is complete bullshit and refutes everything of human nature. I hope you enjoy lying to yourself
I'm sorry, I really don't. Human nature? I'm a new creation in God, I don't quite struggle with a lot of the things many other people do, it's called prayer, trust and reliance on God.
What you are doing now is judging me because of your personal opinion, have we forgotten Matthew so quickly?
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
You judge him based on your belief of the bible. God believes that there is no such thing as a lesser sin. Do not point out the flaws of others because there are 3 fingers pointing out the flaws of you.
The bible also says things about not lusting, but I'm sure you honor those commandments too, right?
edit: sorry for the choppiness, kind of pissed reading his comments
I judge him based on scripture, not my personal opinions that I've developed.
Actually you judged him based on your interpretation of the scripture. Which is a subjective thing.
XelNaga, first of all, Christians sin, repent of their sins, and are forgiven.
Also, Christianity is a very broad label that encompasses many different sets of theological beliefs and doctrine. I can tell you with certainty that, in your exegesis, you have limited yourself to only one set. There are many different Christian ways of reading the verses you have quoted, though in your post you are implying that there is only one. Basically, you are making a semantic mistake with respect to the term 'Christian.'
As far as the original post goes, I think there is a difference between worldly happiness and spiritual happiness. I don't believe it's right to say that no happiness can come from the world if you "live for Christ." The world is naturally good; it is only humans who introduce evil into the world by sinning. Basically, a real Christian will not find ultimate happiness through sinful behavior -- he will be filled with guilt. But material pleasure can be a good and pure happiness for a Christian.
On a sidenote, Jesus didn't turn water into wine because there was no wine to begin with. The problem was that all the wine had already run out and Jesus wanted them to have more
I guess I was in the wrong as I no longer follow or practice Christianity because I became fed up with the hypocrisy that you mentioned.
And I never stated that what you did was wrong. I'm glad that you feel it necessary to promote the words of God, however I just think you should take more time to reflect on yourself and your own life instead of others
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.
On April 18 2007 09:20 rS.NonY wrote: XelNaga, first of all, Christians sin, repent of their sins, and are forgiven.
Also, Christianity is a very broad label that encompasses many different sets of theological beliefs and doctrine. I can tell you with certainty that, in your exegesis, you have limited yourself to only one set. There are many different Christian ways of reading the verses you have quoted, though in your post you are implying that there is only one. Basically, you are making a semantic mistake with respect to the term 'Christian.'
Hmm! A good post, even using the word exegesis And yes, if I'm going to argue my position then I'm going to argue what I believe to be true, in this case it would be the literal interpretation of scripture. My hermeneutical studies only reinforce my opinion on that. And in fact yes, I do believe there is only one way to interpret scripture. And while yes, you can interpret it however you like, and most people can twist it however they like, that doesn't mean they are right. So no, I won't disagree with you. I am comparing him to scripture based on my belief on how the bible should be interpreted and that a Christian should live according to what the bible teaches.
On April 18 2007 09:20 rS.NonY wrote:As far as the original post goes, I think there is a difference between worldly happiness and spiritual happiness. I don't believe it's right to say that no happiness can come from the world if you "live for Christ." The world is naturally good; it is only humans who introduce evil into the world by sinning. Basically, a real Christian will not find ultimate happiness through sinful behavior -- he will be filled with guilt. Material pleasure can be a good and pure happiness for a Christian.
I'm no trying to say that you can't get happiness out of the world. But I don't think that comes through drinking or having pre-marital sex. I've heard so many completely horrible stories on the lives some of my closest friends have had to live and I can't believe anyone would ever go through that day after day. Sure, you can have fun, but... I think the problem comes in when it starts going against scripture.
On April 18 2007 09:20 rS.NonY wrote:On a sidenote, Jesus didn't turn water into wine because there was no wine to begin with. The problem was that all the wine had already run out and Jesus wanted them to have more
Yes? I believe the lanauge I used in my original post was referring to being drunk, not drinking.
On April 18 2007 09:20 bErAtEd- wrote:
I guess I was in the wrong as I no longer follow or practice Christianity because I became fed up with the hypocrisy that you mentioned.
And I never stated that what you did was wrong. I'm glad that you feel it necessary to promote the words of God, however I just think you should take more time to reflect on yourself and your own life instead of others
Oh I definitely know what you're getting at, but as NonY said, we're all sinners. And if I'm to always look at myself and get my life right before I challenge the beliefs or opinions of another Christian whom I don't believe to be living to scriptural standards, then that's never going to happen. With all my failing and short comings, people (Christians) still need to have that authoritative voice in their life "You're doing this! Does it line up with scripture? And if not, why do you continue to do it?"
On April 18 2007 09:22 lil.sis wrote: the point you are missing:
that religion should be about loving, not judging
Yes, and should I see what he believes, let him keep going down the path knowing it's wrong and then hide behind my belief that I shouldn't judge? It's all in 2 Timothy 3:16. It is out of love for him that I try to show him "hey! maybe you should re examine what you're living"
On April 18 2007 09:22 lil.sis wrote: that the #1 message of Christianity should be loving others
not pointing out the flaws in other people
What does 2 Timothy 3:16 say? "good for correcting and rebuking?". Do we have a biblical contradiction, or simply a lack of understanding? Seriously, which is it? Yes, as Christians we are supposed to love everyone, but not in the face of letting another Christian go to Hell in a hand basket because we were too worried about offending him because he wasn't living right and we didn't want to bring it up.
On April 18 2007 09:22 lil.sis wrote: not making other people feel that they are small because they subscribe to a different moral codes
Christianity.. Bible.. Scripture.. Christ...
That should be the moral code they are to live by if they call themselves Christian, there's no way around that.
On April 18 2007 09:22 lil.sis wrote: 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!)
Yeah, something just about every religion teaches.
On April 18 2007 09:22 lil.sis wrote: 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.
Really?
Hebrews 10:25
Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
On April 18 2007 09:38 lil.sis wrote: i'm not talking about christans interacting with other christians
im talking about christians treating everyone like shit
"Yeah, something just about every religion teaches."
Hey just because I'm an asshole it's ok for you to be one too then I guess huh?
Quickly pull out the study bible! If your retort doesn't have a quote from the scripture to back it up then I am afraid I can't take it seriously!!
Christians treating everyone like shit? As I recall my post was original directed at (whoever his name) was. It was a few other people who decided to get involved, and when I did legitimately back up what I said with scripture, everyone jumped on me for being judgmental; so don't talk to me about how Christians treat everyone like shit when you, and just about everyone else is the same way. Do I think I treated him like shit? No, probably could have said what I said better, but it's too late for that.
Does Islam not teach that if you don't believe in Allah you won't enter paradise? Judaism, is that not the same way? Do you see what I'm getting at? I wasn't trying to be an ass, but if you're going to point that out with Christianity, then you should also realize that Christianity isn't the only religion like that. Christianity is however, the only religion which teaches that nothing we can do can save us, it's only through God's grace.
Seriously, why are you still going if the only thing you can do is resort to meager insults?
On April 18 2007 09:44 XelNaga wrote: Does Islam not teach that if you don't believe in Allah you won't enter paradise? Judaism, is that not the same way? Do you see what I'm getting at? I wasn't trying to be an ass, but if you're going to point that out with Christianity, then you should also realize that Christianity isn't the only religion like that. Christianity is however, the only religion which teaches that nothing we can do can save us, it's only through God's grace.
XelNaga, you're just acting smug and people are not into it. The main problem with your posting for me is that you're trying to use logical argument from a completely illogical base. You're expecting people to be rational to an extent while you're relying on a completely staggering (though granted, not uncommon) assumption about the truth value of a collection of writings by people from hundreds of years ago. If you want to be a good Christian, there's no point in arguing or being hostile or acting superior. Your goal is to evangelize everyone, and this isn't a super effective way to do so.
Wow, I'm kind of new hear, mostly came for the strats, but this looks like quite the heated discussion.
Something that is interesting to point out is the fact that although XelNaga seems to be saying stuff right out of the Bible, and its meaning is clear, everyone hates it. I too hate it, and really dislike organized religion, not because of what teachings they necessarily have but how they seem to often condemn others.
So you hate organized religion? So did Jesus, in fact Jesus called the religious teachers of His time "brood of vipers". Strangly at the same time He told his disciples to "do as they say but not as they do".
The thing about organized religion is that many times it seems people are hypocrites. Certainly they were when Jesus teached us how to live. But that doesn't mean that everything the Bible said is untrue, or that we should ignore it because it makes us feel uncomfortable.
Laws of scripture are hear to condemn us, but Jesus came to set us free from sin because he loves us.
Does this mean we continue in sin so that grace may abound? NO! Christians are to do their BEST to follow God, and when they do they will discover that all their suffering was not worth being compared to the treasures waiting in heaven.
well of course this is true, wth the kingdom of god is in you stuff. i mean christianity is a pretty revolutionary thing. but going further will just be a debate of what to call people etc.
If you're going to point it out for one thing, point it out for everything; that was the idea.
On April 18 2007 09:49 bine wrote: XelNaga, you're just acting smug and people are not into it. The main problem with your posting for me is that you're trying to use logical argument from a completely illogical base. You're expecting people to be rational to an extent while you're relying on a completely staggering (though granted, not uncommon) assumption about the truth value of a collection of writings by people from hundreds of years ago. If you want to be a good Christian, there's no point in arguing or being hostile or acting superior. Your goal is to evangelize everyone, and this isn't a super effective way to do so.
I think that since this is a conversation about Christianity... Arguing from that viewpoint isn't so far off base? I mean, I definitely understand what you're getting at.. But considering this is a Christianity thread? Eh, you gotta wonder why I shouldn't debate the bible? Does it's teachings really have that many contradictions and holes in it? Really, if I can be rational in my side of the argument, why shouldn't I expect them to be? I'm arguing from scripture to support my belief and opinion and they are... Sorta just sitting there trying to insult me? Really, prove to me one verse wrong in the bible and I'll consider the entire thing a lie. Until then, I'll consider it truth, and I'll argue from it, and people should be mature about it and realize that they should have at least enough knowledge in their beliefs to argue against it.
I don't see Xelnaga as acting smug at all. On the other hand, maybe some of us would benefit from a re-evaluation of what the bible says rather than what we imagine it to say.
It is possible for an atheist to take a texual criticism/interpretation of the bible without hostility.
On April 18 2007 09:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: I don't see Xelnaga as acting smug at all. On the other hand, maybe some of us would benefit from a re-evaluation of what the bible says rather than what we imagine it to say.
Agreed. From all of my experience with religion people say that there are different interpretations to the bible. I can't prove this with scripture, but I think that its only supposed to be read one way, not many.
XelNaga, how do you refute the pastafarian religion?
How is it any different from christianity?
Don't you realize that in this modern age with things such as SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY how rediculous all religions sound? Christianity goes one step further and tries to force upon everyone their obviously flawed ideals.
We no longer need to control the daily habits and lifestyle of the uneducated masses.
I had a random guy come up to me one time while I was playing tennis. He was the pastor for a local church. He stopped me after my game and preached to me about how vain people were and the only way to save our souls was to join christianity. But... doesnt that make god vain? Forcing people to force other people into worshiping him?
On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: see that's exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about
i hope YOU don't go around calling yourself a Christian
judge not lest you be judged etc
That's an interesting verse, mind quoting it? Well, I know where it is, in Matthew.
You familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Interesting verse isn't it? You know why I said that? Lets recap some of what he said.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body.
Okay, so you think it's okay to get drunk with your friends?
Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy
Galations 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Uh oh.. Did those verses just condemn being drunk in any situation? Yes, they did. What bible is he reading from? Not the same one I am... Moving along.
U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok.
Really eh? Where did you come up with this? What did Galations 5:19-21 just say? How about..
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
Mark 10:6-8
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God
I'm sorry to be so "judgmental", but there's a thing called "Sunday Christianity" and then there's a thing called a "personal relationship with Christ". What this kid said, at this point in time, he's a Sunday Christian. And until he gets his life right, he has no business going around saying he's a Christian (assuming that he is).
Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.
And for that email, it's general correct in my experience with others.
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 gonna post something about this, but this reply was pure art.
plus i lol'ed real loud when i read the nitereloaded comment hahah
On April 18 2007 10:14 ZaplinG wrote: Don't you realize that in this modern age with things such as SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY how rediculous all religions sound? Christianity goes one step further and tries to force upon everyone their obviously flawed ideals.
Yeah, but in this "modern" age, science still hasn't disproven any part of the bible; not one verse. In this day and age science is finally starting to catch up with biblical teaching on the natural world. See, the way I see it is... Science without faith is lame, and faith without science is blind. Was my original intent to try to force Christianity on anyone? No, I was answering someone within the context of Christianity and their opinion about God.
On April 18 2007 10:14 ZaplinG wrote: We no longer need to control the daily habits and lifestyle of the uneducated masses.
Oh yeah? You see, that's "religion" doing that, not Christianity. Another thing I like to say is, religion and God are too often confused, and even more abandoned. I think Rob Bell said something along the lines of that...
On April 18 2007 10:14 ZaplinG wrote: I had a random guy come up to me one time while I was playing tennis. He was the pastor for a local church. He stopped me after my game and preached to me about how vain people were and the only way to save our souls was to join christianity. But... doesnt that make god vain? Forcing people to force other people into worshiping him?
If he was forcing you, then that's not good ;( You probably could have stopped him anytime, and if he didn't listen then bad on him -.- Of course it's all under the pretext that Christianity is indeed in fact correct, and if it was... Then why would you abandon an all loving God that blesses you? Hmm.. Good question.
On April 18 2007 04:14 niteReloaded wrote: I for one believe that God wants us to have fun, wants us to be happy. He certainly doesnt want us to spend like 5h a day praying, especially if its just for the sake of praying. Its much better to say "thank you God for all the good things u gave me, plz guide me thru this day" each day, and then proceed to act nicely to other people, help ppl u can help.
He created this world, he wants us to enjoy it. Im pretty sure he didn put all the good things in the world as traps so as many ppl get some fun and thus go to hell.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body. U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok. But the wrong thing would be to fuck anything that walks just to satisfy the urges.
I hope you don't go around calling yourself a Christian
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 09:44 XelNaga wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 09:38 lil.sis wrote:
Does Islam not teach that if you don't believe in Allah you won't enter paradise? Judaism, is that not the same way? Do you see what I'm getting at? I wasn't trying to be an ass, but if you're going to point that out with Christianity, then you should also realize that Christianity isn't the only religion like that. Christianity is however, the only religion which teaches that nothing we can do can save us, it's only through God's grace. Seriously, why are you still going if the only thing you can do is resort to meager insults?[/QUOTE]
Wait....you do realize Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the exact same god right?
On April 18 2007 10:09 Hot_Bid wrote: what, hardcore christians on raping rampages?
If I said everytime you masterbate, a kitten dies, would you counter it by saying what, a kitten dying of ejaculations?
Obviously it's my sarcastic response to his unusual level of beef toward Christians.
i think i speak for all of us when i say:
what the fuck?
and you know who else hates his unusual level of beef? Hindus.
You either translated my original sarcastic post literally or took it word by word with all seriousness, and you had to point out the irony in my post. My above post was to illustrate the pointlessness of it. but it looks like you still don't get it..
On April 18 2007 10:14 ZaplinG wrote: Don't you realize that in this modern age with things such as SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY how rediculous all religions sound? Christianity goes one step further and tries to force upon everyone their obviously flawed ideals.
Yeah, but in this "modern" age, science still hasn't disproven any part of the bible; not one verse. In this day and age science is finally starting to catch up with biblical teaching on the natural world. See, the way I see it is... Science without faith is lame, and faith without science is blind. Was my original intent to try to force Christianity on anyone? No, I was answering someone within the context of Christianity and their opinion about God.
On April 18 2007 10:14 ZaplinG wrote: We no longer need to control the daily habits and lifestyle of the uneducated masses.
Oh yeah? You see, that's "religion" doing that, not Christianity. Another thing I like to say is, religion and God are too often confused, and even more abandoned. I think Rob Bell said something along the lines of that...
On April 18 2007 10:14 ZaplinG wrote: I had a random guy come up to me one time while I was playing tennis. He was the pastor for a local church. He stopped me after my game and preached to me about how vain people were and the only way to save our souls was to join christianity. But... doesnt that make god vain? Forcing people to force other people into worshiping him?
If he was forcing you, then that's not good ;( You probably could have stopped him anytime, and if he didn't listen then bad on him -.- Of course it's all under the pretext that Christianity is indeed in fact correct, and if it was... Then why would you abandon an all loving God that blesses you? Hmm.. Good question.
How the hell are you not aware of the bible says pi = 3 argument. Which by the way, it does. And pi simply cannot = 3. Not in a scientic proven way but just as there can be no square root to -1.
The only defence is that people in ye olden days weren't very good at geometry and meant 3.14.
How the hell are you not aware of the bible says pi = 3 argument. Which by the way, it does. And pi simply cannot = 3. Not in a scientic proven way but just as there can be no square root to -1.
The only defence is that people in ye olden days weren't very good at geometry and meant 3.14.
On April 18 2007 10:47 ZaplinG wrote: and uh, what about the dinosaurs or the other skeletal remains of older human species?
and how do you refute evolution? that is directly disagreeing with the idea that god put everything on this earth.
Dinosaurs and missing links? And upside down geological columns, and the fact that prebiotic fluid isn't naturally existing.. And that little problem of how both sexes evolved at the same time... And uhhh.. Yeah, no? I know they like to teach science and evolution and these "facts", but closer examination proves they are only theories at best, well documented, hardly proven, and not enough to cause Christianity any problems.
Like they say, one disgruntled Creationist is better than 2 biologists.
On April 18 2007 10:09 Hot_Bid wrote: what, hardcore christians on raping rampages?
If I said everytime you masterbate, a kitten dies, would you counter it by saying what, a kitten dying of ejaculations?
Obviously it's my sarcastic response to his unusual level of beef toward Christians.
i think i speak for all of us when i say:
what the fuck?
and you know who else hates his unusual level of beef? Hindus.
You either translated my original sarcastic post literally or took it word by word with all seriousness, and you had to point out the irony in my post. My above post was to illustrate the pointlessness of it. but it looks like you still don't get it..
How the hell are you not aware of the bible says pi = 3 argument. Which by the way, it does. And pi simply cannot = 3. Not in a scientic proven way but just as there can be no square root to -1.
The only defence is that people in ye olden days weren't very good at geometry and meant 3.14.
You can keep quoting. There are two defences given there. That they said it was 3 but meant pi give or take a little. Which in no way changes the fact that it says it is 3. My point was that the bible has been proven wrong. Your defence is that it has been proven wrong, but they didn't mean what it says. Nice going. Or the second defence. The subject change mid sentence. You see, the first measurement is for one circle, the second, with absolutely no indication of the presence of a second, is for a completely different circle. If I were to say the cup was 10 across and 30 around you would assume i was describing the rim of the cup. Not so. What I actually mean was that the rim was 10 across and the base 30 around. So, your defences against this appear to be in the case of the first, absolutely not a defence. My point was the bible says pi = 3. Your defence is it didn't mean that. And in the second, utter nonsense.
I'm sorry but to be a christian does not mean you have to be held to all christian theology.
And a "personal relationship with Jesus" is by definition a personal thing, a result of which being that he should be able to choose how he keeps his religion.
You're right, I should have better defined what I said. To be a Christian means you have to hold to scriptural (biblical) teaching. Either way, what the person said wasn't holding true to scripture in any way. You can have the Jesus in your head, as you imagine him. And you can have the Jesus of the bible. And you know what? In the end, it's the Jesus of the bible you're going to have to deal with.
the jesus of the bible is just words. different people interpret words differently.
On April 18 2007 11:10 Kwark wrote: ^^ That's what I was thinking, but I have the whole troll image hanging over me so thought I'd just explain he was talking shit politely.
It amazes me how the same topic gets discussed over and over again like 2894243 times in tl.net alone yet whenever a thread with a slightest reference to religion gets created it starts all over again. In some ways it demonstrates the level of interest people have toward religion whether it be hate, longing or seeking for an answer...
Christians believe that once you reach heaven, you'll be in the direct presence of God and pretty much worship him 24/7. There will be no sin and such and you spend eternity in fellowship with him. My question is, if being in God's presence is so great/wonderful/superfatasmic, why did Satan along with a staggering number of 1/3 of the angels fall? I know because of pride, but man, if he's in the direct presence of God shouldn't he be pretty much sinless? Does that mean if Christians reach heaven, there still is the possibility of falling from grace?
You can keep quoting. There are two defences given there. That they said it was 3 but meant pi give or take a little. Which in no way changes the fact that it says it is 3. My point was that the bible has been proven wrong. Your defence is that it has been proven wrong, but they didn't mean what it says. Nice going. Or the second defence. The subject change mid sentence. You see, the first measurement is for one circle, the second, with absolutely no indication of the presence of a second, is for a completely different circle. If I were to say the cup was 10 across and 30 around you would assume i was describing the rim of the cup. Not so. What I actually mean was that the rim was 10 across and the base 30 around. So, your defences against this appear to be in the case of the first, absolutely not a defence. My point was the bible says pi = 3. Your defence is it didn't mean that. And in the second, utter nonsense.
On April 18 2007 11:24 pokeyAA wrote: Question to XelNaga:
Christians believe that once you reach heaven, you'll be in the direct presence of God and pretty much worship him 24/7. There will be no sin and such and you spend eternity in fellowship with him. My question is, if being in God's presence is so great/wonderful/superfatasmic, why did Satan along with a staggering number of 1/3 of the angels fall? I know because of pride, but man, if he's in the direct presence of God shouldn't he be pretty much sinless? Does that mean if Christians reach heaven, there still is the possibility of falling from grace?
Couldn't tell you? I don't know. I imagine it would have something to do with the fact that Christians have the choice to obey or not, something satan didn't really have, he was kind of just tossed into it. I'd have to look into that more.
That might be true, still 1/3 of the angels seem like a pretty big number to me. If its an forced obedience issue, it might make more sense to me then to say if he fell out of bitterness, anger, not pride though. Im not asking you to tell me a definite answer though haha, was just wondering if you know more about it than I obviously don't.
On April 18 2007 11:48 pokeyAA wrote: That might be true, still 1/3 of the angels seem like a pretty big number to me. If its an forced obedience issue, it might make more sense to me then to say if he fell out of bitterness, anger, not pride though. Im not asking you to tell me a definite answer though haha, was just wondering if you know more about it than I obviously don't.
Well yeah, I'd have to agree that while pride is probably viewed as the key issue. They were probably angry, bitter etc.
You can keep quoting. There are two defences given there. That they said it was 3 but meant pi give or take a little. Which in no way changes the fact that it says it is 3. My point was that the bible has been proven wrong. Your defence is that it has been proven wrong, but they didn't mean what it says. Nice going. Or the second defence. The subject change mid sentence. You see, the first measurement is for one circle, the second, with absolutely no indication of the presence of a second, is for a completely different circle. If I were to say the cup was 10 across and 30 around you would assume i was describing the rim of the cup. Not so. What I actually mean was that the rim was 10 across and the base 30 around. So, your defences against this appear to be in the case of the first, absolutely not a defence. My point was the bible says pi = 3. Your defence is it didn't mean that. And in the second, utter nonsense.
On April 18 2007 11:24 pokeyAA wrote: Question to XelNaga:
Christians believe that once you reach heaven, you'll be in the direct presence of God and pretty much worship him 24/7. There will be no sin and such and you spend eternity in fellowship with him. My question is, if being in God's presence is so great/wonderful/superfatasmic, why did Satan along with a staggering number of 1/3 of the angels fall? I know because of pride, but man, if he's in the direct presence of God shouldn't he be pretty much sinless? Does that mean if Christians reach heaven, there still is the possibility of falling from grace?
Couldn't tell you? I don't know. I imagine it would have something to do with the fact that Christians have the choice to obey or not, something satan didn't really have, he was kind of just tossed into it. I'd have to look into that more.
So, is the bible infallible or more or less correct. Your original post was that it was all true. I responded with the pi = 3. You respond with "it's roughly true". I respond with no, it really is 3. You say it was a rough estimate. Rough estimates do not equal truth. How can you not see this contradiction in your argument?!?! You start off saying it is absolute truth and defend it as being more or less in the general area give or take some.
On April 18 2007 11:56 ZaplinG wrote: dinosaur bones and the ancestry of humans is far from not being true.
where did the bones come from? i suppose someone planted billions of them all over the world in an effort to disrupt christianity?
Oh crap, evolution debate! My quick thoughts before I duck out: Evolution happened. I'm pretty sure God is smart enough to be able to engineer something like that.
I am a Christian...but, unlike Xelnaga, I am not a Biblical literalist...there are many denominations and beliefs, etc. I admire him for being so adamant in his beliefs, and he is surely expressing true faith.
I have several problems with taking the Bible literally....here are some of them, in brief form:
1. The Bible, while written by those who supposively are writing the Word of God, still were humans. Humans have flaws. We have no way in distinguishing what was written by the Human and what was written 'directly' from God. Evidence of human 'bias' in the Bible is slightly more evident than one might believe...comparing the Old Testament with the New Testament shows a major shift in the way that God is viewed. This, in my opinion, is due to the common beliefs of the time written...a more unforgiving God versus a more merciful God (it isn't exactly that way, but that is a basic summary). While many things in the Bible might be written with Holy inspiration, the hand was still that of a human.
2. In alignment with the above statement, many traditions/practices in the Bible reflect not those of God but those of the culture at that time. For example, the whole conundrum with menstruation and cleansing yourself...in my opinion those aren't the Words of God.
3. If you knew everything in the world....you were God...then how could you explain to humans the process of DNA replication? The motion of the heavens? You can't. So, what do you do? You tell a fable of sorts (think Jesus and his fables that he used to teach lessons)...a story that helps people understand the concept but doesn't necessarily reflect the actual occurence (in my opinion this is what happened to Adam and Eve...I therefore believe in evolution (O GOD THE FLAMING IS COMING ><)).
4. You cannot solve every conflict or event in the world using the Bible...it simply isn't comprehensive enough. No book could be. There will always be gray areas...places where people have to interpret. The Bible has guidelines but not explanations for every event that you will encounter in your life.
So sum it up...I respect the Bible and take it as a guideline for how to live my life, but only loosely. I am not a Biblical literalist.
But I do believe in God and Jesus Christ. That is the one thing that makes the the same as all of you other Christians :D
On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: see that's exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about
i hope YOU don't go around calling yourself a Christian
judge not lest you be judged etc
That's an interesting verse, mind quoting it? Well, I know where it is, in Matthew.
You familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Interesting verse isn't it? You know why I said that? Lets recap some of what he said.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body.
Okay, so you think it's okay to get drunk with your friends?
Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy
Galations 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Uh oh.. Did those verses just condemn being drunk in any situation? Yes, they did. What bible is he reading from? Not the same one I am... Moving along.
U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok.
Really eh? Where did you come up with this? What did Galations 5:19-21 just say? How about..
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
Mark 10:6-8
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God
I'm sorry to be so "judgmental", but there's a thing called "Sunday Christianity" and then there's a thing called a "personal relationship with Christ". What this kid said, at this point in time, he's a Sunday Christian. And until he gets his life right, he has no business going around saying he's a Christian (assuming that he is).
Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.
And for that email, it's general correct in my experience with others.
Amen brother, good find of the Bible verses... I sometimes find myself in hard times, like in church I'm singing and praising and when I come back home I feel the urge to whack off which I know is bad and I've been doing this double life for 3 years, it's hard... need help plz!!
Also, during school, we learned about ancestry of humans and evolution to even life and I start to doubt but then I think about how our bodies are capable of fighting off diseases, and that so many things in life fit together, like our DNA, brain, sensing things, even things like urinating and taking a dump, you rid of your wastes which is a VERY good thing. Even bugs and other animals have feelings, I saw a little document and it was cool how gorillas had all these human like feelings and another document on this one huge gorilla that knows sign language and can say stuff, like I'm hungry, or I'm hungry, and even expressions for sadness. This is a big topic
You can keep quoting. There are two defences given there. That they said it was 3 but meant pi give or take a little. Which in no way changes the fact that it says it is 3. My point was that the bible has been proven wrong. Your defence is that it has been proven wrong, but they didn't mean what it says. Nice going. Or the second defence. The subject change mid sentence. You see, the first measurement is for one circle, the second, with absolutely no indication of the presence of a second, is for a completely different circle. If I were to say the cup was 10 across and 30 around you would assume i was describing the rim of the cup. Not so. What I actually mean was that the rim was 10 across and the base 30 around. So, your defences against this appear to be in the case of the first, absolutely not a defence. My point was the bible says pi = 3. Your defence is it didn't mean that. And in the second, utter nonsense.
On April 18 2007 11:24 pokeyAA wrote: Question to XelNaga:
Christians believe that once you reach heaven, you'll be in the direct presence of God and pretty much worship him 24/7. There will be no sin and such and you spend eternity in fellowship with him. My question is, if being in God's presence is so great/wonderful/superfatasmic, why did Satan along with a staggering number of 1/3 of the angels fall? I know because of pride, but man, if he's in the direct presence of God shouldn't he be pretty much sinless? Does that mean if Christians reach heaven, there still is the possibility of falling from grace?
Couldn't tell you? I don't know. I imagine it would have something to do with the fact that Christians have the choice to obey or not, something satan didn't really have, he was kind of just tossed into it. I'd have to look into that more.
So, is the bible infallible or more or less correct. Your original post was that it was all true. I responded with the pi = 3. You respond with "it's roughly true". I respond with no, it really is 3. You say it was a rough estimate. Rough estimates do not equal truth. How can you not see this contradiction in your argument?!?! You start off saying it is absolute truth and defend it as being more or less in the general area give or take some.
Kwark, noone nows pi with absolute precision, and most likely noone will ever do. 3 is just a rougher estimate than 3,14.
On April 18 2007 09:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: I don't see Xelnaga as acting smug at all. On the other hand, maybe some of us would benefit from a re-evaluation of what the bible says rather than what we imagine it to say.
It is possible for an atheist to take a texual criticism/interpretation of the bible without hostility.
I've taken a bible as lit class, and at the end of it I felt largely as I felt at the beginning, that any text as dense and historically important as the Bible can and probably should be studied. But this doesn't really seem to be relevant to the theological debate happening at the moment.
About the smug comment, I could be mis-internet-inflecting on his behalf, but here's a quickly plucked example of something I read as a bit on the smug side:
Oh really? You see, 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that if you're going to go around saying "Hey!! I'm a Christian!!" then you should expect to live you life according to scripture. And when you aren't, then other Christians have that authority to pull you aside, and in light of what scripture teaches question your behavior, which is all I did. You might not like it and you might not understand it and you might think it's unfair, and I feel sorry for you, but that's just how it is.
What I and I think others are and were reacting to is the way in which the bible is cited, as totally irrefutable and literal fact, something most Christian scholars don't even try to do any more, and as a striking blow to someone else's argument. The impression I got was that Xel felt like everyone else's position was held just out of a simple lack of knowledge about the bible, which in my evaluation hasn't been the case for much of this thread. People were telling him that not all Christians follow every word of the Bible, and he responded with quotes from it.
On April 18 2007 12:13 TheOvermind77 wrote: So sum it up...I respect the Bible and take it as a guideline for how to live my life, but only loosely. I am not a Biblical literalist.
If you can pick and choose at your own will, then what's the point of the thing?
You can make your own morals and guidelines. Sure maybe you can take inspiration from the Bible, but to choose what you take as literal truth and what to ignore sounds absurd - why not ignore the whole thing?
On April 18 2007 12:13 TheOvermind77 wrote: So sum it up...I respect the Bible and take it as a guideline for how to live my life, but only loosely. I am not a Biblical literalist.
If you can pick and choose at your own will, then what's the point of the thing?
You can make your own morals and guidelines. Sure maybe you can take inspiration from the Bible, but to choose what you take as literal truth and what to ignore sounds absurd - why not ignore the whole thing?
I choose not to ignore it because I do believe there was Divine inspiration in the writing of the Bible. When referring to "loose guideline", I should have specified: Things like the Ten Commandments, believing in Jesus, Heaven and Hell, etc are all things that I do not doubt. But I do not take other things...the odd Old Testament rituals, some of the slightly overzealous statements of Paul, the story of creation, Revelations, etc...as literal. I don't make up my own guidelines.
I am a person who is kind to others. I believe in one God. I believe in Jesus. I don't commit crimes. I help out people in need. I do many of the things that the Bible says.
Just not every single word. I don't know if I explained that correctly...is that a better explanation? I was kind of vauge earlier. Sorry ><
On April 18 2007 12:13 TheOvermind77 wrote: So sum it up...I respect the Bible and take it as a guideline for how to live my life, but only loosely. I am not a Biblical literalist.
If you can pick and choose at your own will, then what's the point of the thing?
You can make your own morals and guidelines. Sure maybe you can take inspiration from the Bible, but to choose what you take as literal truth and what to ignore sounds absurd - why not ignore the whole thing?
I choose not to ignore it because I do believe there was Divine inspiration in the writing of the Bible. When referring to "loose guideline", I should have specified: Things like the Ten Commandments, believing in Jesus, Heaven and Hell, etc are all things that I do not doubt. But I do not take other things...the odd Old Testament rituals, some of the slightly overzealous statements of Paul, the story of creation, Revelations, etc...as literal. I don't make up my own guidelines.
I am a person who is kind to others. I believe in one God. I believe in Jesus. I don't commit crimes. I help out people in need. I do many of the things that the Bible says.
Just not every single word. I don't know if I explained that correctly...is that a better explanation? I was kind of vauge earlier. Sorry ><
So you remove anything which to you seems illogical/nonsensical. So I can read the Bible, pick the passages I like, subtract the "God thing", and still be a Christian?
On April 18 2007 12:13 TheOvermind77 wrote: So sum it up...I respect the Bible and take it as a guideline for how to live my life, but only loosely. I am not a Biblical literalist.
If you can pick and choose at your own will, then what's the point of the thing?
You can make your own morals and guidelines. Sure maybe you can take inspiration from the Bible, but to choose what you take as literal truth and what to ignore sounds absurd - why not ignore the whole thing?
"The reasons behind human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them." (if someone can identify this quote, congrats )
One can't take an entirely rational approach. Humans aren't entirely rational creatures. Humans can read a text and relate to it in non-rational ways, some of which are irrational. Nobody can live entirely rationally and so nobody can give an entirely rational account of their lives. So, to say that the exercise is absurd is exactly right. Reason can only take someone far enough to know that reason isn't enough. There's some other quote that I don't have memorized by some ~4th century churchman along the lines of "Christianity is absurd. That's why I like it."
TheOvermind77 "Awaken my child, and embrace the glory that is your birthright. Know that I am the Overmind; the eternal will of the Swarm, and that you have been created to serve me." from that line that i know that you are in God's business for the power he could bestow upon you . all of your arguments are a means to an end, your end, the end that has you standing next to God basking in his glory/power.
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
On April 18 2007 13:09 xM(Z wrote: TheOvermind77 "Awaken my child, and embrace the glory that is your birthright. Know that I am the Overmind; the eternal will of the Swarm, and that you have been created to serve me." from that line that i know that you are in God's business for the power he could bestow upon you . all of your arguments are a means to an end, your end, the end that has you standing next to God basking in his glory/power.
Yes, I want to be a Cerebrate...or just the Overmind. I want to be the Overmind and control all of the Swarms! BWAHAHAHAH!
In seriousness, though, that is not what I desire ><
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
Nowadays we understand the science behind 'discharges' and aren't so afraid of their 'dirtying' that we must murder animals irrationally.
I also think we have the science to realize that this and similar verses are just as irrational:
Genesis, 1. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
[B]On April 18 2007 12:41 bine wrote: People were telling him that not all Christians follow every word of the Bible, and he responded with quotes from it.
How can you consider yourself a Christian if you don't follow what the Bible says? The definition of a Christian is believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ, so we have to at least believe those parts of the Bible, otherwise you aren't believing what he says. Now people are thinking well Jesus didn't write the any of the Bible, and there is only a first hand account of what he says written in the New Testament. To believe in Christ is what makes you Christian, Christ said that the all of the old books of the Bible were valid so just through Christ's words you have to heed the Old Testament and the New Testament.
If you believe in a god fine, if you believe in a god like the Christian God, fine. Just don't misrepresent Christianity and say that you can do anything you want, whenever you want. Your not following the Word of God, and if your not following Jesus' teachings then by definition you aren't a Christian.
A man that says I mess my life up daily, I gamble when I'm not supposed to, have sex without marriage when I'm not supposed to, and get drunk when I'm not supposed to, but I just can't follow God even when I try is a Christian. Anyone that disregards parts of the Bible to fit their lifestyles doesn't even have the right to call themselves a Christian.
If the Bible simply records the ideals of a society, where's it's credibility as divine scripture?
Creation account? Jesus Christ? The prophets? Abraham.. Moses..? The bible records a lot of things. Among them, the rules for a particular society, in this case that being the Hebrew cultural, and their laws for religious cleanliness.
How does that in anyway discredit it's claim of divine revelation?
[QUOTE] [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?[/QUOTE]
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. [/QUOTE] you know thats my attitude towards the "don't sleep with foreign wifes" part, it was a small society and everyone knew everyone else, so that would make problems. nowadays i see it as outdated
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins.
i must have missed the part on how this would cover up my sins. im gonna go hunt for stray cats, brb.
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins.
i must have missed the part on how this would cover up my sins. im gonna go hunt for stray cats, brb.
Yeah you also missed the other half of my paragraph, must be your genetic make up to half ass everything.
On April 18 2007 11:56 ZaplinG wrote: dinosaur bones and the ancestry of humans is far from not being true.
where did the bones come from? i suppose someone planted billions of them all over the world in an effort to disrupt christianity?
Oh crap, evolution debate! My quick thoughts before I duck out: Evolution happened. I'm pretty sure God is smart enough to be able to engineer something like that.
I am a Christian...but, unlike Xelnaga, I am not a Biblical literalist...there are many denominations and beliefs, etc. I admire him for being so adamant in his beliefs, and he is surely expressing true faith.
I have several problems with taking the Bible literally....here are some of them, in brief form:
1. The Bible, while written by those who supposively are writing the Word of God, still were humans. Humans have flaws. We have no way in distinguishing what was written by the Human and what was written 'directly' from God. Evidence of human 'bias' in the Bible is slightly more evident than one might believe...comparing the Old Testament with the New Testament shows a major shift in the way that God is viewed. This, in my opinion, is due to the common beliefs of the time written...a more unforgiving God versus a more merciful God (it isn't exactly that way, but that is a basic summary). While many things in the Bible might be written with Holy inspiration, the hand was still that of a human.
2. In alignment with the above statement, many traditions/practices in the Bible reflect not those of God but those of the culture at that time. For example, the whole conundrum with menstruation and cleansing yourself...in my opinion those aren't the Words of God.
3. If you knew everything in the world....you were God...then how could you explain to humans the process of DNA replication? The motion of the heavens? You can't. So, what do you do? You tell a fable of sorts (think Jesus and his fables that he used to teach lessons)...a story that helps people understand the concept but doesn't necessarily reflect the actual occurence (in my opinion this is what happened to Adam and Eve...I therefore believe in evolution (O GOD THE FLAMING IS COMING ><)).
4. You cannot solve every conflict or event in the world using the Bible...it simply isn't comprehensive enough. No book could be. There will always be gray areas...places where people have to interpret. The Bible has guidelines but not explanations for every event that you will encounter in your life.
So sum it up...I respect the Bible and take it as a guideline for how to live my life, but only loosely. I am not a Biblical literalist.
But I do believe in God and Jesus Christ. That is the one thing that makes the the same as all of you other Christians :D
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
They aren't simple 'Hebrew' Laws. They are, if taken literally, directly from God. Verse one of Leviticus is
1: And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying...
And the rules follow after that. Those of Jewish faith actually follow many of these laws.
So how can you say this is out of context or just 'Hebrew' laws if it says, in the Bible, that God spoke these through Moses?
This is why I cannot be a Biblical literalist. I do NOT believe that all of these rules are meant to be taken word for word, or that all of the rules were actually God's direct commandments.
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
Give me the chapter. Its hard to respond to something when I'm not sure which verse you mean.
If the Bible simply records the ideals of a society, where's it's credibility as divine scripture?
Creation account? Jesus Christ? The prophets? Abraham.. Moses..? The bible records a lot of things. Among them, the rules for a particular society, in this case that being the Hebrew cultural, and their laws for religious cleanliness.
How does that in anyway discredit it's claim of divine revelation?
Because no matter how you look at it, what they said was just wrong . Pointless stupidity can not be inspired by 'divine revelation'. If this part wasn't 'divine' then why should the rest of it be immune from the same judgement.
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins.
i must have missed the part on how this would cover up my sins. im gonna go hunt for stray cats, brb.
Yeah you also missed the other half of my paragraph, must be your genetic make up to half ass everything.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
They aren't simple 'Hebrew' Laws. They are, if taken literally, directly from God. Verse one of Leviticus is
1: And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying...
And the rules follow after that. Those of Jewish faith actually follow many of these laws.
So how can you say this is out of context or just 'Hebrew' laws if it says, in the Bible, that God spoke these through Moses?
This is why I cannot be a Biblical literalist. I do NOT believe that all of these rules are meant to be taken word for word, or that all of the rules were actually God's direct commandments.
What's your take on this issue?
So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins.
i must have missed the part on how this would cover up my sins. im gonna go hunt for stray cats, brb.
Yeah you also missed the other half of my paragraph, must be your genetic make up to half ass everything.
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
Give me the chapter. Its hard to respond to something when I'm not sure which verse you mean.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11 NLT)
On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
Give me the chapter. Its hard to respond to something when I'm not sure which verse you mean.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11 NLT)
New Living Translation? lol
That's talking about arranged marriages. I live in the USA I don't really have a stance on arranged marriages.
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
New Living Translation? lol
That's talking about arranged marriages. I live in the USA I don't really have a stance on arranged marriages.
If by "arranged marriage" you mean "sex slavery" then yes, yes it is.
If the Bible simply records the ideals of a society, where's it's credibility as divine scripture?
Creation account? Jesus Christ? The prophets? Abraham.. Moses..? The bible records a lot of things. Among them, the rules for a particular society, in this case that being the Hebrew cultural, and their laws for religious cleanliness.
How does that in anyway discredit it's claim of divine revelation?
Because no matter how you look at it, what they said was just wrong . Pointless stupidity can not be inspired by 'divine revelation'. If this part wasn't 'divine' then why should the rest of it be immune from the same judgement.
If the Bible simply records the ideals of a society, where's it's credibility as divine scripture?
Creation account? Jesus Christ? The prophets? Abraham.. Moses..? The bible records a lot of things. Among them, the rules for a particular society, in this case that being the Hebrew cultural, and their laws for religious cleanliness.
How does that in anyway discredit it's claim of divine revelation?
Because no matter how you look at it, what they said was just wrong . Pointless stupidity can not be inspired by 'divine revelation'. If this part wasn't 'divine' then why should the rest of it be immune from the same judgement.
Why do you say its "just wrong"?
The idea that sacrifice is a requirement to be cleansed (since someone did mention it was a hygiene-related thing).
[B]On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
New Living Translation? lol
That's talking about arranged marriages. I live in the USA I don't really have a stance on arranged marriages.
If by "arranged marriage" you mean "sex slavery" then yes, yes it is.
How is it sex slavery? Exodus 21 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and MARTIAL RIGHTS. Making things up to suit your inability to read doesn't make them true =/ By inability to read, I mean the fact that I had to requote a verse that you gave me and highlight a portion of it.
I'm not saying that God is wrong in the portion of Leviticus...I'm just saying we can't take every thing word for word in the Bible. There were cultural and personal influences...it is almost impossible for a book of such length to be free of all bias or influence. I believe in God and many of the things said in there.
You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
New Living Translation? lol
That's talking about arranged marriages. I live in the USA I don't really have a stance on arranged marriages.
If by "arranged marriage" you mean "sex slavery" then yes, yes it is.
How is it sex slavery? Exodus 21 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and [b]martial rights.
feeding and fucking someone doesn't mean he isn't your slave
On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
New Living Translation? lol
That's talking about arranged marriages. I live in the USA I don't really have a stance on arranged marriages.
If by "arranged marriage" you mean "sex slavery" then yes, yes it is.
How is it sex slavery? Exodus 21 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and [b]martial rights.
feeding and fucking someone doesn't mean he isn't your slave
Do you want me to even respond in earnest to that?
On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?
Well, I don't know about that. You really think if he knew there were things with external influences he would have said "Well, except for Chapters 6-7 of Leviticus, verses 28-30 of this chapter and this blah blah..."...Nah, I don't think so. The entire meaning and purpose of the Old Testament is what he is referring to, I believe...in that we believe in one God, etc.
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken...
The monumental task of discerning which are the words of God and which are the words of a Human is why we have so many denominations today.
On April 18 2007 13:26 Never Post wrote: So you're saying that Hebrews in poor living conditions should kills birds or they'll be unclean? Frankly, that sounds absolutely stupid.
Your forgetting biblical history though. Why did they sacrifice animals at that time? To cover up their sins. When Christ died on the cross there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals so people in Christianity stopped doing it as soon as they got this message from Christ. The practice of sacrificing animals was stopped by Jesus' teaching.
And the rules for selling your daughter into slavery? How about those?
New Living Translation? lol
That's talking about arranged marriages. I live in the USA I don't really have a stance on arranged marriages.
If by "arranged marriage" you mean "sex slavery" then yes, yes it is.
How is it sex slavery? Exodus 21 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and [b]martial rights.
feeding and fucking someone doesn't mean he isn't your slave
Do you want me to even respond in earnest to that?
well its just an observation, not a question, but if you have anything to say, you are welcome
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
If someone still holds illogical beliefs in the face of strong evidence, most would say they're just being idiotic. 'Faith' encourages one to do this, therefore it is (at least partly) idiotic.
Whole sections of the Bible are taken up with the idea of sacrifices. God told his people in the Old Testament (the early part of the Bible) that they had to bring animal sacrifices, sheep and cows, and kill them in a ritual way in order to be forgiven their sins. The sacrifice reminded the people of the seriousness of their sins. It had consequences for the sinner, who had to pay for the animal he brought - there was cost involved. It cost the animal its life. The animal had to be perfect, without any defect - you could not satisfy God with just any old deformed creature taken from your herd or bought cheaply in the market. It had to be the best.
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.
Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.
The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.
So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.
On April 18 2007 14:11 littleboy wrote: Whole sections of the Bible are taken up with the idea of sacrifices. God told his people in the Old Testament (the early part of the Bible) that they had to bring animal sacrifices, sheep and cows, and kill them in a ritual way in order to be forgiven their sins. The sacrifice reminded the people of the seriousness of their sins. It had consequences for the sinner, who had to pay for the animal he brought - there was cost involved. It cost the animal its life. The animal had to be perfect, without any defect - you could not satisfy God with just any old deformed creature taken from your herd or bought cheaply in the market. It had to be the best.
Oh, so natural bodily functions are sinful and must be repented. Animal Genocide here I come!
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.
Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.
The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.
So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.
Ah, I love deep discussions like this.
I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.
Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.
I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.
Poll: Did Jesus really exist (Vote): Of course he did (Vote): No, it was a number of people that were generally good people (Vote): No he didn't (Vote): Cant say for sure
I voted "Cant say for sure" not only because its hard to take the bible seriously, but also because many other "truths" become distorted over time. what are your thoughts? HIJACKED
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.
Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.
The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.
So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.
Ah, I love deep discussions like this.
I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.
Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.
I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.
Cowardly? I really wasn't trying to invoke such a cruel response...I was more interested in a thought-provoking one.
The problem is that you say humans created God. I say that God created humans. You know we won't get very far in arguing this.
I'm not trying to convince you that a God exists. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs. I'm just saying that any person who has seen this whole thread of arguments before will know that it will end with no one proving anything.
The problem is, you can't create a LOGICAL argument to argue against OR for God. As I said before, if there was such argument, there would be quite a bit of news on it.
I mean, here is an example: Me: God exists. You: No he doesn't. I can't see him. I have no proof. Me: Well he is so powerful and stuff that you can't see him. You: But maybe he doesn't exist then. If it isn't observable or quantifiable...why should I believe it? You have no proof. Me: Well he could exist but you just can't tell because of human limitations. You: You're wrong. Me: You're wrong. I know where you live. You: Let's take it outside. Me: I'll beat you down, sucka. You: I got my brass knuckles so don't even think it. Me: Your mom had brass knuckles. You: That was lame. Me: That's what she said.
And this continues ONTO INFINITY!
So how about we do this instead:
Me: I believe God exists. You: I believe that there is no God. Me: Well, you are free to believe what you will, I have no way of proving to you otherwise. You: Same for your beliefs. Let's go to White Castle and get a Crave Case. Me: Sweet.
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.
Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.
The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.
So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.
Ah, I love deep discussions like this.
I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.
Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.
I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.
Atheists show a different cowardice than Christians but it still can be served to the same end. Anytime a Christian asks you to prove God doesn't exist, you hurl the question right back in the opposite way asking us to prove he does.
Although the Bible was written by the hand of man, it doesn't even remotely indicate that people created God.
I love with Atheists use the 'world is flat' example, lol it shows how determined they are to stick to what they think and not what is proven. The Bible said the world was round long before any European confirmed it.
Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version) 22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
You want to debate logically? I think the only way you can make us unable to logically prove God's existence is by dwindling logic down so far that it is too abstract for US to prove it.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. [/QUOTE] which council do you mean? [QUOTE] I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE] As far as I get it he doesn't believe that god as a being with whatever powers exists at all, so trying to convcice him with "God wanted the book that way, thats why it is that way" won't get you too far
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE]
Go there and see for yourself the ridiculous amount of translations and versions. It is amazing!!!
I don't think God is limited. God made humans with free will, allowing us to sin or not sin, to believe or not. If he revealed himself fully in an entirely indisputable manner, where would this free will go?
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.
Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.
The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.
So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.
Ah, I love deep discussions like this.
I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.
Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.
I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.
Cowardly? I really wasn't trying to invoke such a cruel response...I was more interested in a thought-provoking one.
The problem is that you say humans created God. I say that God created humans. You know we won't get very far in arguing this.
I'm not trying to convince you that a God exists. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs. I'm just saying that any person who has seen this whole thread of arguments before will know that it will end with no one proving anything.
The problem is, you can't create a LOGICAL argument to argue against OR for God. As I said before, if there was such argument, there would be quite a bit of news on it.
I mean, here is an example: Me: God exists. You: No he doesn't. I can't see him. I have no proof. Me: Well he is so powerful and stuff that you can't see him. You: But maybe he doesn't exist then. If it isn't observable or quantifiable...why should I believe it? You have no proof. Me: Well he could exist but you just can't tell because of human limitations. You: You're wrong. Me: You're wrong. I know where you live. You: Let's take it outside. Me: I'll beat you down, sucka. You: I got my brass knuckles so don't even think it. Me: Your mom had brass knuckles. You: That was lame. Me: That's what she said.
And this continues ONTO INFINITY!
So how about we do this instead:
Me: I believe God exists. You: I believe that there is no God. Me: Well, you are free to believe what you will, I have no way of proving to you otherwise. You: Same for your beliefs. Let's go to White Castle and get a Crave Case. Me: Sweet.
I like that ending much better :D
I would have no problem with that were it not with the problem that belief in god limits one person's thinking. No longer will you want to explain the mysteries of the universe or the origins of ourselves, since it's a one word answer: god.
They teach you simpler models of the way electrons work at secondary school, then tell you it's all wrong at sixth form and was just taught to hide the real complexities. This seems exactly like religion, a simple explanation when you don't really understand much.
However if one were to simply accept the 'god' explanations they would never unveil the truth, or even want to. In this way I believe that faith is limitting and not helping humanity advance.
On April 18 2007 14:36 Annor[BbG] wrote: Atheists show a different cowardice than Christians but it still can be served to the same end. Anytime a Christian asks you to prove God doesn't exist, you hurl the question right back in the opposite way asking us to prove he does.
Actually that's not the only counter-argument, but it's the lazy atheists' approach. I don't really want to explain other reasons because I don't see how this one isn't an equal and sufficient reply.
Although the Bible was written by the hand of man, it doesn't even remotely indicate that people created God.
I wasn't talking about what the Bible says about god, I think that's obvious.
I love with Atheists use the 'world is flat' example, lol it shows how determined they are to stick to what they think and not what is proven. The Bible said the world was round long before any European confirmed it.
What are you talking about? I was just making an example of false mass-beliefs, not necessarily religion-related. But if you do want a religious one, how about when the Church convicted those who believed the Earth was not at the centre of the universe?
You want to debate logically? I think the only way you can make us unable to logically prove God's existence is by dwindling logic down so far that it is too abstract for US to prove it.
That doesn't really make sense. What I meant is if I attempt to disprove 'a god', you'll just turn around and say that's not 'your god'.
On April 18 2007 14:02 TheOvermind77 wrote: You bring up the point Never Post that because that portion is wrong, all of it must face the same scrutiny. Yeah, it is almost impossible if you admit that some parts might have external influences to say that the Bible is believeable at all. I suppose that is where something called "faith" comes in :D
Yes that's the point I'm making.
However I think 'faith' is wrongly interpreted as a virtue. If a child really believes in Santa Claus despite all the adults knowing better, that only creates something imaginary in his own mind. Adults know there is no Santa Claus whether a child believes in him or not, little do they realize many of them face the same situation with their 'faith' in god.
Well, the thing is, it is impossible to determine with any sort of proof whether God exists OR doesn't exist...hence the problem. No athiest can prove that God is definitely not in existence, and no Christian can prove to him that God does, in fact, exist. If there were such indisputable proof, more people would certainly be one or the other.
Sure, hypothetically a person could even create a religion about Santa Claus. He could twist it and turn it so that it is impossible to prove wrong. If you are interested in that, please see the Scientology thread.
The difference between that and Christianity is its length of existence, its amount of supporting documents (relating to the faith over a LARGE period of time), and its number of believers. Religion is faith. You can't prove it either way.
So that is what I mean when I say it comes down to faith...no one can prove me wrong! Go ahead, try to prove to me God doesn't exist! Then again, if you ask me to prove that he exists, I am in a similar predicament.
Ah, I love deep discussions like this.
I like how you retreat behind your 'faith' barrier, it reminds me of a primary school child covering their ears and shouting "I'm not listening LALALALALA!" No wait - I don't like it at all, it's cowardly.
Supporting documents were written by people. Believers are people. So people created god? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
Also, just because a lot of people have thought one thing for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against it. It wouldn't be of much use to us if we all still believed the Earth was flat.
I don't want to get into does god exist or not because eventually you'll just redefine god as something abstract enough to avoid logical arguments.
Cowardly? I really wasn't trying to invoke such a cruel response...I was more interested in a thought-provoking one.
The problem is that you say humans created God. I say that God created humans. You know we won't get very far in arguing this.
I'm not trying to convince you that a God exists. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs. I'm just saying that any person who has seen this whole thread of arguments before will know that it will end with no one proving anything.
The problem is, you can't create a LOGICAL argument to argue against OR for God. As I said before, if there was such argument, there would be quite a bit of news on it.
I mean, here is an example: Me: God exists. You: No he doesn't. I can't see him. I have no proof. Me: Well he is so powerful and stuff that you can't see him. You: But maybe he doesn't exist then. If it isn't observable or quantifiable...why should I believe it? You have no proof. Me: Well he could exist but you just can't tell because of human limitations. You: You're wrong. Me: You're wrong. I know where you live. You: Let's take it outside. Me: I'll beat you down, sucka. You: I got my brass knuckles so don't even think it. Me: Your mom had brass knuckles. You: That was lame. Me: That's what she said.
And this continues ONTO INFINITY!
So how about we do this instead:
Me: I believe God exists. You: I believe that there is no God. Me: Well, you are free to believe what you will, I have no way of proving to you otherwise. You: Same for your beliefs. Let's go to White Castle and get a Crave Case. Me: Sweet.
I like that ending much better :D
I would have no problem with that were it not with the problem that belief in god limits one person's thinking. No longer will you want to explain the mysteries of the universe or the origins of ourselves, since it's a one word answer: god.
They teach you simpler models of the way electrons work at secondary school, then tell you it's all wrong at sixth form and was just taught to hide the real complexities. This seems exactly like religion, a simple explanation when you don't really understand much.
However if one were to simply accept the 'god' explanations they would never unveil the truth, or even want to. In this way I believe that faith is limitting and not helping humanity advance.
I don't think I'm missing out on anything. I mean, what am I limiting myself to? I love astronomy and the cosmos...the Big Bang, relativity, black holes, etc....and science. I love hearing about evolution, genetics, origin of life, life on other planets...I really don't know what you mean by telling me that I am limiting myself to anything.
Remember, I am not a Biblical literalist. I believe in the Big Bang and God (O NOES!). I believe in Evolution and God. I am entering a highly scientific field for my masters and an engineer and I follow all new scientific developments. Where are my limitations again?
I want us to keep searching to the answers for the mysteries of life. Find out where it originated! Find out what caused us to spring into existence! Solve the cosmos! That stuff is the only stuff I like reading about in Popular Science, anyways :D.
What caused the Big Bang? What created that event? What created the event that cause THAT event? I can ask that into oblivion. The answer is either God or something else. Since no one knows right now and no one can scientifically prove otherwise, I'll go with God.
Religion does limit the thinking of some people, however. The hardcore right-winged uber-conservative Christians that have very closed minds and go on those rallies with signs that say "God hates fags" are severly limited in their mental capacity. That is where I think people take religion too far...when they start perverting it or something of the like. Those people piss me off.
Plus going to White Castle, as I said before, is clearly the best answer.
God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
So catholics believe in god, because the catholic church told them there is one?
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
So catholics believe in god, because the catholic church told them there is one?
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
So catholics believe in god, because the catholic church told them there is one?
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
So catholics believe in god, because the catholic church told them there is one?
Um no?
Why then?
Because more people than just Catholics believe in God and trust me, if you know any Protestants, they will tell you that the last thing you will want to do is listen to the Vatican.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:38 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE]
Go there and see for yourself the ridiculous amount of translations and versions. It is amazing!!!
I don't think God is limited. God made humans with free will, allowing us to sin or not sin, to believe or not. If he revealed himself fully in an entirely indisputable manner, where would this free will go?
Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of how many translations there are. I just wasn't aware of this mass add/remove of chapters and books which you proclaim to be true, but seemingly ignored when I called you out on it.
On April 18 2007 15:03 TheOvermind77 wrote: What caused the Big Bang? What created that event? What created the event that cause THAT event? I can ask that into oblivion. The answer is either God or something else. Since no one knows right now and no one can scientifically prove otherwise, I'll go with God.
So you're saying god is merely a filler explanation for the unknown. I really don't see how you can call yourself a 'believer'. It's more like you want an answer even if it is probably not true because it's the best thing you have at the moment. Following this logic, the unknown is god, as we learn more and more, god becomes less and less. In the end, nothing.
Religion does limit the thinking of some people, however. The hardcore right-winged uber-conservative Christians that have very closed minds and go on those rallies with signs that say "God hates fags" are severly limited in their mental capacity. That is where I think people take religion too far...when they start perverting it or something of the like. Those people piss me off.
Plus going to White Castle, as I said before, is clearly the best answer.
By the way if I seem hostile I don't really mean to be, it's just around here there are very few Christians willing to debate about their faith, afraid you might say something that makes them doubt it.
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: God gave you a brain, use it. Never ever take the bible word for word, especially since it was translated originally. There is a reason the catholic church basically tells people whats ok and whats not, left to their own devices people come up with conclusions and start judging people etc..
So catholics believe in god, because the catholic church told them there is one?
Um no?
Why then?
Because more people than just Catholics believe in God and trust me, if you know any Protestants, they will tell you that the last thing you will want to do is listen to the Vatican.
Well the protestants have their respective churches to tell them
On April 18 2007 15:06 Slayer91 wrote: whats ok and whats not
. So the question transorms naturally to: So people belonging to some church believe in god, because the church they belong to told them there is one?
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:15 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:38 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE]
Go there and see for yourself the ridiculous amount of translations and versions. It is amazing!!!
I don't think God is limited. God made humans with free will, allowing us to sin or not sin, to believe or not. If he revealed himself fully in an entirely indisputable manner, where would this free will go?
Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of how many translations there are. I just wasn't aware of this mass add/remove of chapters and books which you proclaim to be true, but seemingly ignored when I called you out on it.[/QUOTE]
On April 18 2007 14:36 Annor[BbG] wrote: Atheists show a different cowardice than Christians but it still can be served to the same end. Anytime a Christian asks you to prove God doesn't exist, you hurl the question right back in the opposite way asking us to prove he does.
Actually that's not the only counter-argument, but it's the lazy atheists' approach. I don't really want to explain other reasons because I don't see how this one isn't an equal and sufficient reply.
I love with Atheists use the 'world is flat' example, lol it shows how determined they are to stick to what they think and not what is proven. The Bible said the world was round long before any European confirmed it.
What are you talking about? I was just making an example of false mass-beliefs, not necessarily religion-related. But if you do want a religious one, how about when the Church convicted those who believed the Earth was not at the centre of the universe?
You want to debate logically? I think the only way you can make us unable to logically prove God's existence is by dwindling logic down so far that it is too abstract for US to prove it.
That doesn't really make sense. What I meant is if I attempt to disprove 'a god', you'll just turn around and say that's not 'your god'.
I'm aware its not the only argument, but I have just as many counter reasons as you have reasons, just as you have the same. No one can 'logically' debate you, because you assume your logic is at a higher standard than everyone else's. There is always the problem that its hard to have a logical debate when you, "don't really want to explain other reasons."
Here I'll start you the debate off with this;
There are two parts of the Bible, there are the parts that have been proven true and the parts that are yet to be proven. There are no unproved parts in the Bible. That's a factual statement, which is a lot more than the evolutionary theory has to say about itself.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:15 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:38 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE]
Go there and see for yourself the ridiculous amount of translations and versions. It is amazing!!!
I don't think God is limited. God made humans with free will, allowing us to sin or not sin, to believe or not. If he revealed himself fully in an entirely indisputable manner, where would this free will go?
Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of how many translations there are. I just wasn't aware of this mass add/remove of chapters and books which you proclaim to be true, but seemingly ignored when I called you out on it.[/QUOTE]
I was mostly too lazy to point them out.
Apocrypha is the name of a group of books which have been removed from the Bible. This name applies to a group of books, mainly written during the intertestamental period. Go to [url=http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/LOSTBOOK1.htm]this[/url] site to find out more. Here are some of the books:
I ESDRAS: (about 150 B.C.)-draws considerably from Chronciles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. Adds much legendary material. 2 ESDRAS: (100 A.D.), contains seven visions.
TOBIT: (2nd cent. B.C.)-emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting, prayer, states that almsgiving atones for sin. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722 B.C.) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931 B.C. -time span=209 years), yet his total life-span was only 158 years (14:11; cf. 1:3-5).
JUDITH: (middle 2nd cent. B.C.) Contains subbiblical teachings. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (9:10,13); and historical error-Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (1:1) "William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, 'The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact." (Geisler/Nix).
ADDITIONS TO ESTHER: (about 100 B.C.) The additions have long prayers attributed to Moredecai and Esther, with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON: (about A.D. 40)
ECCLESIASTICUS: Or, The Wisdom of Sirach (about 180 B.C.) Somewhat like Proverbs and contains practical advice. Yet it and the "Wisdom of Solomon" both teach a morality based on experience.
BARUCH: (about A.D. 100) Claims to be written by the scribe who served Jeremiah.
BEL AND THE DRAGON: A chapter which is added to the book of Daniel.
SONG OF THE THREE HEBREW CHILDREN: Follows Daniel 3:23, borrows heavily from Psalm 148.
THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH: Claims to be the prayer of the wicked king Manasseh.
FIRST MACCABEES: (1st cent. B.C.) Records the exploits of the three Maccabean brothers.
SECOND MACCABEES: Which is not a sequel, but a parallel account, treating only the victories of Judas Maccabeus. Teaches prayers for the dead. (12:45-46), which contradicts the Scriptures (Heb. 9:27; Luke 16:25-26).
On April 18 2007 15:03 TheOvermind77 wrote: What caused the Big Bang? What created that event? What created the event that cause THAT event? I can ask that into oblivion. The answer is either God or something else. Since no one knows right now and no one can scientifically prove otherwise, I'll go with God.
So you're saying god is merely a filler explanation for the unknown. I really don't see how you can call yourself a 'believer'. It's more like you want an answer even if it is probably not true because it's the best thing you have at the moment. Following this logic, the unknown is god, as we learn more and more, god becomes less and less. In the end, nothing.
Religion does limit the thinking of some people, however. The hardcore right-winged uber-conservative Christians that have very closed minds and go on those rallies with signs that say "God hates fags" are severly limited in their mental capacity. That is where I think people take religion too far...when they start perverting it or something of the like. Those people piss me off.
Plus going to White Castle, as I said before, is clearly the best answer.
By the way if I seem hostile I don't really mean to be, it's just around here there are very few Christians willing to debate about their faith, afraid you might say something that makes them doubt it.
How does knowing more about something make it become less and less? You keep using words to make your logic seem superior over his. Your logic has a fatal flaw, God does not equal ALL unknown. If you have 2x+3=y and someone tells you that x=2, both sides = 7 not zero. The unknowns are the same as they were before you started.
On April 18 2007 15:19 Annor[BbG] wrote: There are two parts of the Bible, there are the parts that have been proven true and the parts that are yet to be proven. There are no unproved parts in the Bible. That's a factual statement, which is a lot more than the evolutionary theory has to say about itself.
Do you even know what evolution is? No one has yet managed to 'disprove' evolution and what exists is backed by substantial evidence; if you call creationism 'disproving' I will literally just laugh at you.
There are many parts of the Bible that have been proven to be false too, unless you believe evolution/geology/mathematics/etc. is not enough 'proof'. If so, you must have incredible difficulty believing in anything backed by evidence (but no trouble believing in what lacks evidence).
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:20 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:15 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:38 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE]
Go there and see for yourself the ridiculous amount of translations and versions. It is amazing!!!
I don't think God is limited. God made humans with free will, allowing us to sin or not sin, to believe or not. If he revealed himself fully in an entirely indisputable manner, where would this free will go?
Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of how many translations there are. I just wasn't aware of this mass add/remove of chapters and books which you proclaim to be true, but seemingly ignored when I called you out on it.[/QUOTE]
I was mostly too lazy to point them out.
Apocrypha is the name of a group of books which have been removed from the Bible. This name applies to a group of books, mainly written during the intertestamental period. Go to [url=http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/LOSTBOOK1.htm]this[/url] site to find out more. Here are some of the books:
I ESDRAS: (about 150 B.C.)-draws considerably from Chronciles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. Adds much legendary material. 2 ESDRAS: (100 A.D.), contains seven visions.
TOBIT: (2nd cent. B.C.)-emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting, prayer, states that almsgiving atones for sin. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722 B.C.) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931 B.C. -time span=209 years), yet his total life-span was only 158 years (14:11; cf. 1:3-5).
JUDITH: (middle 2nd cent. B.C.) Contains subbiblical teachings. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (9:10,13); and historical error-Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (1:1) "William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, 'The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact." (Geisler/Nix).
ADDITIONS TO ESTHER: (about 100 B.C.) The additions have long prayers attributed to Moredecai and Esther, with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON: (about A.D. 40)
ECCLESIASTICUS: Or, The Wisdom of Sirach (about 180 B.C.) Somewhat like Proverbs and contains practical advice. Yet it and the "Wisdom of Solomon" both teach a morality based on experience.
BARUCH: (about A.D. 100) Claims to be written by the scribe who served Jeremiah.
BEL AND THE DRAGON: A chapter which is added to the book of Daniel.
SONG OF THE THREE HEBREW CHILDREN: Follows Daniel 3:23, borrows heavily from Psalm 148.
THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH: Claims to be the prayer of the wicked king Manasseh.
FIRST MACCABEES: (1st cent. B.C.) Records the exploits of the three Maccabean brothers.
SECOND MACCABEES: Which is not a sequel, but a parallel account, treating only the victories of Judas Maccabeus. Teaches prayers for the dead. (12:45-46), which contradicts the Scriptures (Heb. 9:27; Luke 16:25-26).[/QUOTE]
Oh I thought when you said add/removed you meant after the Council of Nicea. That has no relevance to anything that has been changed recently. There were many books written at that time they didn't add or remove any of them from the Bible.
On April 18 2007 15:03 TheOvermind77 wrote: What caused the Big Bang? What created that event? What created the event that cause THAT event? I can ask that into oblivion. The answer is either God or something else. Since no one knows right now and no one can scientifically prove otherwise, I'll go with God.
So you're saying god is merely a filler explanation for the unknown. I really don't see how you can call yourself a 'believer'. It's more like you want an answer even if it is probably not true because it's the best thing you have at the moment. Following this logic, the unknown is god, as we learn more and more, god becomes less and less. In the end, nothing.
Religion does limit the thinking of some people, however. The hardcore right-winged uber-conservative Christians that have very closed minds and go on those rallies with signs that say "God hates fags" are severly limited in their mental capacity. That is where I think people take religion too far...when they start perverting it or something of the like. Those people piss me off.
Plus going to White Castle, as I said before, is clearly the best answer.
By the way if I seem hostile I don't really mean to be, it's just around here there are very few Christians willing to debate about their faith, afraid you might say something that makes them doubt it.
I'm not saying he is a filler...I mean, if I take the opposite perspective, then God created the world, and as we grow to understand the world and its origins, we grow closer to understanding the works of God and how he put everything in motion. Then God is the endpoint in this case...and because we humans have limitations to things that we can observe and explain (I think it is the general consensus of all scientists, atheist and christian, that we will never be able to explain everything because of how short our lives are and how we are simply a speck in the grain of the celestial sands) then the only way we can truly understand everything is when we are in Heaven and truly can know God and his works.
You see, it can be taken from both perspectives, both of which are believable by any person and both of which are refutible (only in concept, but never in fact). This argument will just go in a circle until old age and arthritis prevent us from typing responses.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 15:19 Annor[BbG] wrote: There are two parts of the Bible, there are the parts that have been proven true and the parts that are yet to be proven. There are no unproved parts in the Bible. That's a factual statement, which is a lot more than the evolutionary theory has to say about itself.
Do you even know what evolution is? No one has yet managed to 'disprove' evolution and what exists is backed by substantial evidence; if you call creationism 'disproving' I will literally just laugh at you.
There are many parts of the Bible that have been proven to be false too, unless you believe evolution/geology/mathematics/etc. is not enough 'proof'. If so, you must have incredible difficulty believing in anything backed by evidence (but no trouble believing in what lacks evidence).
Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole? No. That's not what I said in the first place. I was talking about the Bible, which is the Christian book, and therefore implied I was talking about the Evolutionary documents, which have been changed.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:28 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:20 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 15:15 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:38 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:27 Annor[BbG] wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 14:07 TheOvermind77 wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2007 13:48 Annor[BbG] wrote: So when Jesus said that the Old Testament was accurate, he was actually lying?[/QUOTE]
Also, it is important that we realize that the Bible has been altered in an incredible amount of ways since it was written. Chapters have been removed, books have been removed, books have been added, passages have been re-translated, etc...there are so many factors to consider. I still believe in its overall purpose and I believe in God, but I admit there are some things in there that are definitely not the words that God has spoken.../QUOTE]
Please inform me of which chapters were removed, which books were added after the Council, and which books were removed after the Council. The Bible has been translated, but not re-translated.
I also don't understand how you can believe that God is a limited being without superior powers. If God wanted a book written exactly the way he wanted it written are you saying that is beyond the scope of God's powers? If so, some God that is.[/QUOTE]
Go there and see for yourself the ridiculous amount of translations and versions. It is amazing!!!
I don't think God is limited. God made humans with free will, allowing us to sin or not sin, to believe or not. If he revealed himself fully in an entirely indisputable manner, where would this free will go?
Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of how many translations there are. I just wasn't aware of this mass add/remove of chapters and books which you proclaim to be true, but seemingly ignored when I called you out on it.[/QUOTE]
I was mostly too lazy to point them out.
Apocrypha is the name of a group of books which have been removed from the Bible. This name applies to a group of books, mainly written during the intertestamental period. Go to [url=http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/LOSTBOOK1.htm]this[/url] site to find out more. Here are some of the books:
I ESDRAS: (about 150 B.C.)-draws considerably from Chronciles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. Adds much legendary material. 2 ESDRAS: (100 A.D.), contains seven visions.
TOBIT: (2nd cent. B.C.)-emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting, prayer, states that almsgiving atones for sin. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722 B.C.) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931 B.C. -time span=209 years), yet his total life-span was only 158 years (14:11; cf. 1:3-5).
JUDITH: (middle 2nd cent. B.C.) Contains subbiblical teachings. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (9:10,13); and historical error-Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (1:1) "William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, 'The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact." (Geisler/Nix).
ADDITIONS TO ESTHER: (about 100 B.C.) The additions have long prayers attributed to Moredecai and Esther, with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON: (about A.D. 40)
ECCLESIASTICUS: Or, The Wisdom of Sirach (about 180 B.C.) Somewhat like Proverbs and contains practical advice. Yet it and the "Wisdom of Solomon" both teach a morality based on experience.
BARUCH: (about A.D. 100) Claims to be written by the scribe who served Jeremiah.
BEL AND THE DRAGON: A chapter which is added to the book of Daniel.
SONG OF THE THREE HEBREW CHILDREN: Follows Daniel 3:23, borrows heavily from Psalm 148.
THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH: Claims to be the prayer of the wicked king Manasseh.
FIRST MACCABEES: (1st cent. B.C.) Records the exploits of the three Maccabean brothers.
SECOND MACCABEES: Which is not a sequel, but a parallel account, treating only the victories of Judas Maccabeus. Teaches prayers for the dead. (12:45-46), which contradicts the Scriptures (Heb. 9:27; Luke 16:25-26).[/QUOTE]
Oh I thought when you said add/removed you meant after the Council of Nicea. That has no relevance to anything that has been changed recently. There were many books written at that time they didn't add or remove any of them from the Bible.[/QUOTE]
I should have been more clear. It should be noted, however, that certain quotes in the Bible vary GREATLY from version to version. For example, if you happen to be interested in Paul's antinomianistic views, check out the following from wikipedia:
Colossians 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views, for example the New International Version translates: "...He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."; however the New Revised Standard Version translates this same verse as: "...he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross."; which makes it sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the cross." The interpretation hinges on the word χειρόγραφον, see also Strong's G5498, literally "something written by hand", variously translated as "written code" or "record". (Notice that even the NRSV speaks of "the record ... with its legal demands", which may indicate a law code rather than a charge sheet.)
The point is protestants are supposed to interpret the bible whatever way they want. The smart(er?) people at the Catholic church are much more qualified to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
The best way to spread your religion is to practice it and do good deeds, people may follow your example. Telling people what they are doing wrong is called hypocrisy, its what Jesus said to Pharasee's, and for good reason.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
On April 18 2007 15:33 xM(Z wrote: TheOvermind77, a mind exercise: if someone were to come to you and said : "i am your God" would you believe him?
I hate mind exercises ><
I believe that if God revealed himself to me he would surely reveal to me that he was God with some sort of evidence. Jesus performed miracles, walked on water, etc. I'm sure there would be some sort of sign. God would know how to show that he was true.
Plus, it is said that the site of God throws one to his knees.
If there were no sign...dang, that is a tough. I choose "No comment" as my response
On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote: Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole?
I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc.
Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities.
On April 18 2007 15:33 Slayer91 wrote: The point is protestants are supposed to interpret the bible whatever way they want. The smart(er?) people at the Catholic church are much more qualified to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
Supposed by whom? You see, the thing is that i find it hard to believe that a large group of people will suddenly come up with the exact same belief at the same time. This raises the suspition that they actually believe what they are told to believe (granted by someone they see as nice, benevolent, etc.). So it finally comes to believing a) your parents, b) some nice teacher or friend.
To support this view comes the following argument: no one is born in Syria to a muslim family and becomes christian, no one born to a christian family in the us becomes muslim (this has seen exceptions recently, due to gradual opening of the international relations.)
So, be it the bible, the church or some particular person you like, I think people's beliefs are given to them from somewhere and are not their own.
The best way to spread your religion is to practice it and do good deeds, people may follow your example. Telling people what they are doing wrong is called hypocrisy, its what Jesus said to Pharasee's, and for good reason.
On April 18 2007 15:46 xM(Z wrote: haha, you knew i would own you if you've replied; but still, God didn't show himself to any of the apostols* so why you are so special?
I have no clue. Maybe it is because of my insane starcraft skillz (cough which suck cough)
On April 18 2007 15:28 TheOvermind77 wrote: I'm not saying he is a filler...I mean, if I take the opposite perspective, then God created the world, and as we grow to understand the world and its origins, we grow closer to understanding the works of God and how he put everything in motion. Then God is the endpoint in this case...and because we humans have limitations to things that we can observe and explain (I think it is the general consensus of all scientists, atheist and christian, that we will never be able to explain everything because of how short our lives are and how we are simply a speck in the grain of the celestial sands) then the only way we can truly understand everything is when we are in Heaven and truly can know God and his works.
You see, it can be taken from both perspectives, both of which are believable by any person and both of which are refutible (only in concept, but never in fact). This argument will just go in a circle until old age and arthritis prevent us from typing responses.
Do you believe in a 'personal god'? i.e. one that is able to listen to prayers, perform miracles, intervene, etc. etc.
On April 18 2007 15:48 xM(Z wrote: where is your faith now? is it me or do you want proof?
I see your clever little argument ><
The problem is that if a normal person came up to me and said "I'm your God" I wouldn't be able to discern him from the real God. Luckily, for me, God appeared to people in pretty obvious forums (Massive ownage ray of sunlight from clouds, flaming bush, etc).
On April 18 2007 15:48 xM(Z wrote: where is your faith now? is it me or do you want proof?
I see your clever little argument ><
The problem is that if a normal person came up to me and said "I'm your God" I wouldn't be able to discern him from the real God. Luckily, for me, God appeared to people in pretty obvious forums (Massive ownage ray of sunlight from clouds, flaming bush, etc).
those were stage settings TheOvermind77, your intentions are good and
Me: I believe God exists. You: I believe that there is no God. Me: Well, you are free to believe what you will, I have no way of proving to you otherwise. You: Same for your beliefs. Let's go to White Castle and get a Crave Case. Me: Sweet.
I like that ending much better :D
, is decent. But if you fail humanity because of your believes, i'll kick your ass aergaergrgar gl
On April 18 2007 15:28 TheOvermind77 wrote: I'm not saying he is a filler...I mean, if I take the opposite perspective, then God created the world, and as we grow to understand the world and its origins, we grow closer to understanding the works of God and how he put everything in motion. Then God is the endpoint in this case...and because we humans have limitations to things that we can observe and explain (I think it is the general consensus of all scientists, atheist and christian, that we will never be able to explain everything because of how short our lives are and how we are simply a speck in the grain of the celestial sands) then the only way we can truly understand everything is when we are in Heaven and truly can know God and his works.
You see, it can be taken from both perspectives, both of which are believable by any person and both of which are refutible (only in concept, but never in fact). This argument will just go in a circle until old age and arthritis prevent us from typing responses.
Do you believe in a 'personal god'? i.e. one that is able to listen to prayers, perform miracles, intervene, etc. etc.
Man, you guys are getting a nice profile of my religious views
I do believe in a personal God, but there are lots of "buts" when I say that. I'm really too lazy to elaborate.
On April 18 2007 15:48 xM(Z wrote: where is your faith now? is it me or do you want proof?
I see your clever little argument ><
The problem is that if a normal person came up to me and said "I'm your God" I wouldn't be able to discern him from the real God. Luckily, for me, God appeared to people in pretty obvious forums (Massive ownage ray of sunlight from clouds, flaming bush, etc).
those were stage settings TheOvermind77, your intentions are good and
Me: I believe God exists. You: I believe that there is no God. Me: Well, you are free to believe what you will, I have no way of proving to you otherwise. You: Same for your beliefs. Let's go to White Castle and get a Crave Case. Me: Sweet.
I like that ending much better :D
, is decent. But if you fail humanity because of your believes, i'll kick your ass aergaergrgar gl
i haven't read through all the pages yet but i can see how ignorance has once again become the strawman for antiChrist arguments
XelNaga was right to point out that the Christianity the other user practiced (getting drunk, having sex before marriage) is not Biblical Christianity. that is not an opinion, it is simply fact. that's like saying you abide with US law, but think it's ok to rape someone if you feel like the bitch deserved it, or kill someone if they pissed you off too many times. whatever your reasoning behind it, it simply goes against what is written in the law
as for not judging other people - i am willing to bet me admitting that i am wrong that the people who raised this verse have never even read the New Testament (not including a couple of verses here and there). James 5:20 says - "Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins." the verse in Matthew you atheists have been referring to was when Jesus was attacking the Pharisees for carrying out judgment on people outside the temple - saying XelNaga is guilty of this is like saying someone who accidentally hit someone with a car (when it was in fact the victim's own fault for running onto the road when there was a green light) should be guilty of murder one instead of manslaughter
judgment is different from pointing out the error of a brother's ways. in the Gospels the Pharisees were about to stone a woman for committing adultery - that is carrying out their judgment on her. they were free to say to her - what you did was wrong. that is opinion and pointing out the error of her ways. however, to carry out the punishment is passing judgment on her. it is like the difference between the media and reporters compared to the judge and jury - only one has the complete facts and the authority to pass judgment. Jesus said do not judge others lest you be judged - meaning that if you punish someone for committing a sin, you too will be punished for your sins by God
"Happy are those who show mercy: mercy will be shown to them. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Matthew 6:14
"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart." - Matthew 6:24
Luke 17:3 So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
Luke 17:4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, `I repent,' forgive him."
anyway, the point i am making is this - Jesus was saying to the Pharisees who were about to punish the adulteress, if you guys stone her to death, you too will likewise have to be punished the same way for your sins. and He stooped down on the ground and being an all-knowing Son of God started writing down all their sins in the sand. when the Pharisees saw this they were like, crap we don't want to be stoned, so they left. then Jesus said to the adulteress, i forgive you. Go and sin no more. He did not say, don't worry you don't have to be stoned because I am ok with you committing adultery on your husband. He was saying, what you have done is not ok, but I forgive you so please don't do it again
that is what XelNaga did. he did not judge him and say you think fornication is ok so you cannot be a Christian forever in the future 'cos God will never forgive you for it, he was saying you can be a Christian but if you want to you have to change your ways and God will forgive you for what you believed in the past. that is not judgmental, that is saving him from judgment for continuing in sin. it's like letting the adulteress continue to cheat on her husband and not repent (even though she has 7x77 chances of being forgiven). to become a Christian you must recognise that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), it's the same standard of grace XelNaga has been shown, that God forgives him for his sins but he had to first turn away from them - to be a Christian isn't: "sinning is ok and God doesn't care". that sort of reasoning will lead to this sort of situation: "The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There's not one of them which won't make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it isn't. If you leave out justice you'll find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials "for the sake of humanity" and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man." - C S Lewis
Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?'--'That's my seat, I was there first'--'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'--Why should you shove in first?'--'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine'--'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.
Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature,' they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.
We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.
This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.
I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other book, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:
I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money--the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done--well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it--and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much--we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so--that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
It's called forgiveness... Salvation is ours through Jesus but it's not to be abused or you burn in hell motherfucker.
And I do consider myself a Christian. Even though I masterbated to pics of hot chicks. Think about how badly I can kick this guy's ass. Wish some people would disappear from the world. No i'm not psychotic. I pray every night asking god to forgive me and to also change me to become a better person. And you know what? If you really try to change it'll happen. I'm better now, I don't look at porn. I'm nicer to people. I even have a job, best friends, and people know me as a nice guy.
I also hope that these idiots who go around talking about God and trying to convert them through christianity by talking and telling them, "Hey you're going to hell if you're not a christian." KNOW that they're just the same kind of person as those other idiots who walk around Manhattan with nothing on but a White board saying, "THE END IS COMING!!"
I just want to make sure you realize something. Today, I'm pretty sure most "Christians" don't take the bible word for word and they have beliefs similar to overmind. ( I guess I don't have statistics on this so I could be wrong, but regadl
I just want you guys to realize that you are part of an elitist group and that there are probably more "Christians" like Overmind then there are "Christians" like you. The difference is they claim the only requirement to be christian is belief that Jesus died for your sins.
I'm not really trying to say anything, just stating the fact that the view you guys hold makes alot of today's Christians "fake."
On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote: Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole?
I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc.
Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities.
I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible.
I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train.
Date of the Earth? How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossible
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them.
The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible.
As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will.
On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote: Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole?
I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc.
Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities.
I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible.
I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train.
Date of the Earth? How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossible
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them.
The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible.
As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will.
horrible analogy, lol;o
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes.
As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/
There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of.
Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding.
On April 18 2007 11:56 ZaplinG wrote: dinosaur bones and the ancestry of humans is far from not being true.
where did the bones come from? i suppose someone planted billions of them all over the world in an effort to disrupt christianity?
They existed at the same time is what I was getting at.
lol. humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time? so, like 10,000 years ago there were giant lizard things walking around with humans? haha, then they all died in a giant flood and only noah survived along with every other extant species on the earth today. how old do you think the world is?
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote: Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole?
I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc.
Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities.
I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible.
I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train.
Date of the Earth? How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossible
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them.
The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible.
As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will.
horrible analogy, lol;o
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes.
As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/
There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of.
Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding.
Granted my analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit more accurate than yours. Your analogy assumes that 64 marines spontaneously spawned at the start of the game, that the death rate of the 64 marines IS equal to the death rate of another batch of marines that NEVER existed in that game. Your analogy assumed the world is made up of one thing, marines, and that you KNOW the beginning had 64 marines. The whole point of my analogy was that it was NOT the beginning. Your analogy fails because it assumes you know the BEGINNING and the END which can find you what the MIDDLE is. The whole point of my analogy was too demonstrate that we are somewhere in the MIDDLE and therefore can't know anything besides the MIDDLE. Before you accuse someone of having a horrible analogy, why don't you figure out a better one.
And directed towards the science thing, you would have to have some faith in something, otherwise you would believe in nothing. If you have no faith that the current answers in science are right, please stop posting here, your ruining what was a good discussion.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
On April 18 2007 16:14 OverTheUnder wrote: ok guys (xel, Rebel)
I just want to make sure you realize something. Today, I'm pretty sure most "Christians" don't take the bible word for word and they have beliefs similar to overmind. ( I guess I don't have statistics on this so I could be wrong, but regadl
I just want you guys to realize that you are part of an elitist group and that there are probably more "Christians" like Overmind then there are "Christians" like you. The difference is they claim the only requirement to be christian is belief that Jesus died for your sins.
I'm not really trying to say anything, just stating the fact that the view you guys hold makes alot of today's Christians "fake."
well i don't know where you get your sample from but i would've thought the majority of Christians realise the Bible tells us not to drink to an excess and that sex is intended for married couples. Jesus also sets a higher standard than simply believing in Him. "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2)... anyhow, i was afraid this topic would turn into a debate where people would just try to attack Christianity without having even read the Bible before. i hope you don't mind me showing our conversation Ben but this was more what i had in mind when wanting to discuss the original post...
I was just reading your post about Greg Laurie and I wanted to respond to your post, but granted that the thread has already exploded to 8 pages, I thought it might be difficult to just post in the forum. Though, I can’t give you a non-Christian perspective on a 1st hand basis, since I am Christian, I also believe that we should become Christians not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is the path of greatest blessing. In that sense, I think it also what is best for us personally—I mean, how dreadful would it be to be Christian and constantly wishing we were getting the short end of the stick! =P I think the Bible talks a lot about the joy that we Christians receive from living in accordance with the spirit, and also salvation, which, while it may seem like a small speck in the distance right now, is something we are always looking forward to, and is our greatest blessing.
Anyway, not to swamp you with too much because I’m not really sure what you were asking about, but if you have any questions/concerns, PM me back and I would love to try to answer them.
Take care, ben
thanks for your lovely response : D it's good that you feel like Christianity brings joy in your life. the reason i posted it was 'cos i disagree with what Greg says, because from my experience and this isn't because i'm selfish because i see it happening to other Christians i know, but i think Christianity makes life harder (a worthy sacrifice in order to gain a better afterlife) and what Greg was doing is setting an unrealistic expectation for non-Christians who may later become Christians and be like, hey what a liar my life isn't any better so it must not be true. i don't believe Greg would be able to for example say it to my friend with multiple sclerosis and has to eat and shit through a tube with a straight face that Christianity makes you happier, because she knows God is real yet does not accept that a loving God would create humans in the first place knowing it would someday turn to this. but that's not what Christianity is about - it's not about fairness and justice, but rather righteousness in the face of unfairness and injustice
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
By this you assume the radioactive material had the same rate troughout time for millions of years. And you assume the atmosphare on the earth was about the same troughout that time. Well the bible indicates that this might not have been like this, and that before the flood in the days of Noah, the earth was much more perfect and as it should be, compared to what it is today. The atmosphare was different, an on this basis, it this simply makes it impossible to get carbon dating to work properly. Even with the methods used today, you get so inaccurate values, that i canot belive that they actually use it.
And did it ever occur to ppl that we dont have _ANY_ written history for longer back than around 2300 BC (just around the time of the flood) and alot of anicent mysterys of whole cities and civilizations just disipearing, without any historians having any good explenation. (like atlantis, the most well known)
On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote: Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole?
I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc.
Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities.
I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible.
I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train.
Date of the Earth? How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossible
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them.
The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible.
As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will.
horrible analogy, lol;o
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes.
As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/
There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of.
Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding.
Granted my analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit more accurate than yours. Your analogy assumes that 64 marines spontaneously spawned at the start of the game, that the death rate of the 64 marines IS equal to the death rate of another batch of marines that NEVER existed in that game. Your analogy assumed the world is made up of one thing, marines, and that you KNOW the beginning had 64 marines. The whole point of my analogy was that it was NOT the beginning. Your analogy fails because it assumes you know the BEGINNING and the END which can find you what the MIDDLE is. The whole point of my analogy was too demonstrate that we are somewhere in the MIDDLE and therefore can't know anything besides the MIDDLE. Before you accuse someone of having a horrible analogy, why don't you figure out a better one.
And directed towards the science thing, you would have to have some faith in something, otherwise you would believe in nothing. If you have no faith that the current answers in science are right, please stop posting here, your ruining what was a good discussion.
no, I do not assume to know the end. I said there were 4 marines left, obviously that isn't the end, but the present. The numbers i used are arbitrary. And my analogy was just an example on the process we use to tell the age of things. You are pointing out flaws in my analogy that don't even matter for this particular point.
as for the faith thing, I suppose it depends on your definition, but all the ones I have found that seem most commonplace are like these: -confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love, and certainty that God is.
-Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
-Strong belief in something without proof or evidenc
-Belief without evidence
In those cases, no, I do not have faith. In the much more liberal definition you are using, everything requires faith, but the strips the term down alot from its most common meaning "to believe in something without evidence."
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
By this you assume the radioactive material had the same rate troughout time for millions of years. And you assume the atmosphare on the earth was about the same troughout that time. Well the bible indicates that this might not have been like this, and that before the flood in the days of Noah, the earth was much more perfect and as it should be, compared to what it is today. The atmosphare was different, an on this basis, it this simply makes it impossible to get carbon dating to work properly. Even with the methods used today, you get so inaccurate values, that i canot belive that they actually use it.
And did it ever occur to ppl that we dont have _ANY_ written history for longer back than around 2300 BC (just around the time of the flood) and alot of anicent mysterys of whole cities and civilizations just disipearing, without any historians having any good explenation. (like atlantis, the most well known)
Wow. Do you even know that atlantis is just legend described by Plato? "The Lost City of Atlantis" is just as real as El Dorado. No historian has ever even found any concrete record of atlantis in the archaeological record. Again, you have no idea how carbon dating works. How would the atmospheric content change the rate of a highly stable radioactive carbon isotope's decomposition in an inorganic/organic subatance? It wouldn't. You just assume random bullshit.
Did you ever think that people didn't keep records prior to 2300BC? I'm not familiar with the exact dates, but pure logic would lead to that conclusion quite quickly. Also, wouldn't there be massive geological evidence of a worldwide flood "only" 2.3 millennia ago? Of course there would, but there isn't.
I was just reading the last few pages and I just wanted to make a quick comment. Some members referred to darwin's evolution as a "theory". That is a common misconception. One of the definitions of "theory" is:
"A proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
In simplier words, for something to be labelled as a theory, it has to be "seen in action" either partially or completely. For example, nobody has ever seen a monkey being in the process of turning into a man. Therefore evolution is a postulate, or axiom, it indicates a starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived. It does not have to be self-evident (say, constancy of speed of light is not self-evident). Some axioms are experimental facts, but some are just assumptions not based on anything.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
edit: hahaha, ironically, I am off to church band practice right now, so I will be back later;p
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
Perhaps I shouldn't have just used the words "carbon dating." Radiometric dating is more accurate. There are scores more of radioactive isotopes (uranium hi) that can be used to date far further than carbon14 dating (which btw is applicable for approximately over 10 thousand years). You just have no knowledge of fundamental science. Your analogy of 100 years is like me saying we have only been able to view atoms under an electron microscope for 100 years. How do we know that they weren't different 101 years ago? Are you really narrowing scientific knowledge to what we have been able to observe in a limited time period? That's just plain stupid. Can you tell me some of these "errors" if there are "sooooooo many"
btw. when did the dinosaurs exist? trilobites? when did the P-T extinction happen? how do you explain the Siberian traps? how do you explain all of the bolide impact craters on the earth's surface?
On April 18 2007 17:49 ThePhan2m wrote: Just want to say, thanks to Xel and Rebel
On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
By this you assume the radioactive material had the same rate troughout time for millions of years. And you assume the atmosphare on the earth was about the same troughout that time. Well the bible indicates that this might not have been like this, and that before the flood in the days of Noah, the earth was much more perfect and as it should be, compared to what it is today. The atmosphare was different, an on this basis, it this simply makes it impossible to get carbon dating to work properly. Even with the methods used today, you get so inaccurate values, that i canot belive that they actually use it.
And did it ever occur to ppl that we dont have _ANY_ written history for longer back than around 2300 BC (just around the time of the flood) and alot of anicent mysterys of whole cities and civilizations just disipearing, without any historians having any good explenation. (like atlantis, the most well known)
Wow. Do you even know that atlantis is just legend described by Plato? "The Lost City of Atlantis" is just as real as El Dorado. No historian has ever even found any concrete record of atlantis in the archaeological record. Again, you have no idea how carbon dating works. How would the atmospheric content change the rate of a highly stable radioactive carbon isotope's decomposition in an inorganic/organic subatance? It wouldn't. You just assume random bullshit.
Did you ever think that people didn't keep records prior to 2300BC? I'm not familiar with the exact dates, but pure logic would lead to that conclusion quite quickly. Also, wouldn't there be massive geological evidence of a worldwide flood "only" 2.3 millennia ago? Of course there would, but there isn't.
to add on to this, even major changes in the atmosphere don't account for multiple elements dating back millions of years.
edit: it is possible that our date on how old the earth is is slightly off, but you guys have to understand, you are arguing that the earth is 6-10k years old. Even though PILES of evidence point to earth being at least millions. Even before radiometric dating, people could guess that the earth was millions of years old by looking around us. Clues in the landscape show that the shaping is a constantly changing and gradual process.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I don't understand your question. Are you trying to ask "what has been proven to be older than 6000 years old?" How about the age of the earth for one thing. Can you rephrase please. Also, the egyptians were in no way the first civilization.
On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote: Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that?
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:
Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
On April 18 2007 17:59 littleboy wrote: I was just reading the last few pages and I just wanted to make a quick comment. Some members referred to darwin's evolution as a "theory". That is a common misconception. One of the definitions of "theory" is:
"A proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
In simplier words, for something to be labelled as a theory, it has to be "seen in action" either partially or completely. For example, nobody has ever seen a monkey being in the process of turning into a man. Therefore evolution is a postulate, or axiom, it indicates a starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived. It does not have to be self-evident (say, constancy of speed of light is not self-evident). Some axioms are experimental facts, but some are just assumptions not based on anything.
What are you talking about? I can make up a theory as to why you have no idea what you're talking about, and whether you've seen your bullshit in action or not, it's still a valid theory.
On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote: Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole?
I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc.
Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities.
I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible.
I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train.
Date of the Earth? How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossible
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them.
The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible.
As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will.
horrible analogy, lol;o
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes.
As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/
There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of.
Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding.
Granted my analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit more accurate than yours. Your analogy assumes that 64 marines spontaneously spawned at the start of the game, that the death rate of the 64 marines IS equal to the death rate of another batch of marines that NEVER existed in that game. Your analogy assumed the world is made up of one thing, marines, and that you KNOW the beginning had 64 marines. The whole point of my analogy was that it was NOT the beginning. Your analogy fails because it assumes you know the BEGINNING and the END which can find you what the MIDDLE is. The whole point of my analogy was too demonstrate that we are somewhere in the MIDDLE and therefore can't know anything besides the MIDDLE. Before you accuse someone of having a horrible analogy, why don't you figure out a better one.
And directed towards the science thing, you would have to have some faith in something, otherwise you would believe in nothing. If you have no faith that the current answers in science are right, please stop posting here, your ruining what was a good discussion.
no, I do not assume to know the end. I said there were 4 marines left, obviously that isn't the end, but the present. The numbers i used are arbitrary. And my analogy was just an example on the process we use to tell the age of things. You are pointing out flaws in my analogy that don't even matter for this particular point.
as for the faith thing, I suppose it depends on your definition, but all the ones I have found that seem most commonplace are like these: -confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love, and certainty that God is.
-Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
-Strong belief in something without proof or evidenc
-Belief without evidence
In those cases, no, I do not have faith. In the much more liberal definition you are using, everything requires faith, but the strips the term down alot from its most common meaning "to believe in something without evidence."
Fine Then you know the BEGINNING and the MIDDLE. My analogy was to demonstrate that you only know the MIDDLE, so your analogy still doesn't work. As I said before, before you accuse someone else of having a horrible analogy think of a better one yourself. I'm aware that your analogy was to show how to tell how old something is, that was the whole point someone else and I were talking about, so I'd hope you'd be that capable. The fact remains is that isn't how it works. Hypothetically if you have a rock that you find at the bottom of the ocean and your bring it up to study it, you don't know when the rock was created (64 marines) you only know what the rock is at the present (4 marines). How you get from the 4 to the 64 is a matter of scientific speculation.
I'm aware what radiometric dating is, so a 'wikipedia' thread is utterly useless, unless you want me to also point out the forgivings that your own link provides. The fact that only materials within a perfect vacuum have even close to accurate dates. We all know that the Earth is a perfect vacuum and that all the items they measure are from that 'perfect' vacuum.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it.
When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context.
[quote]
No, just inaccurate.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old?
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote: [quote] The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
radiometric dating isn't some slipshod process... i don't know how effective the dating is to the nearest year, but seeing as it is a widely practiced tool, i'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly.
On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote: [quote] The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
radiometric dating isn't some slipshod process... i don't know how effective the dating is to the nearest year, but seeing as it is a widely practiced tool, i'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly.
Yeah, "I'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly". I hope you aren't the person that was going on about not having to use faith. Your taking a huge step right there, believing in something that someone said, that you've never met personally or ever seen before. Weird... That sounds like the same thing your criticizing me on about the Bible...
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same.
Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha
On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote: [quote] You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
radiometric dating isn't some slipshod process... i don't know how effective the dating is to the nearest year, but seeing as it is a widely practiced tool, i'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly.
Yeah, "I'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly". I hope you aren't the person that was going on about not having to use faith. Your taking a huge step right there, believing in something that someone said, that you've never met personally or ever seen before. Weird... That sounds like the same thing your criticizing me on about the Bible...
On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote: [quote] You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
Yep that's exactly my point.
lol. since when is it faith to assume that a widely accepted scientific process hasn't been tested repeatedly? and one can extrapolate a constant half-life to thousands of thousands of years. etc.
you still haven't answered my questions of how old you believe the earth is, when the dinosaurs existed, how is it physically possible for any of the things you said to be true etc. you're just hung up on carbon dating, because if you could accept even one of its measurements to be true, none of your hogwash about earth being a mere thousand or so years would be true. so please, answer my questions on the previous page.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same.
Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha
oh, the other guy said something about 2300 years ago in one of his posts. i confused him with you. lol, so honestly if you believe that god is some kind of magician there is no point in this conversation at all. in fact, i could be in hell right now doomed to an eternity of starcraft. but i wouldn't know it b/c god can do anything, even if it defies the very fabric of space-time/natural law.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
Lets imagine that you played a game on Xbox, say some really cool game. You and your friends played this game for years and knew everything about it, but you couldn't understand how to beat the last level, it seemed impossible from your point of view. Strangely enough you have no trouble believing that the programmer who made the game could pass that same final level and get the the end credits. How can he do it, maybe he can do stuff you can't?
The way people previously thought they existed and some still do. Sorta like the time of the cavemen, but dinosaurs died out during Noah's flood. This is just a theory that makes rational sense, a flood wiping them out since that is one of the primary theories other than a comet for the extinction of the dinosaurs. I'm open to them existing before mankind if I thought it was proven that they did.
When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever?
I'd say about 12,000BC give or take about 2,000 years.
Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal?
No. I believe that Noah's family built the ark, saved the animals that God wanted them to save, boarded the Ark and floated away. I believe that after this point the human race wasn't effected by Godly events and was allowed to populate freely. Definitely not every animal, I can't stress that enough.
I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Faith without reason is useless. Blind faith is far too much faith for me to be able to handle. I was presented everything and logically came to my own conclusion.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
Well, this has gone so far off topic it's no point arguing it anymore in this thread. Imagine that a "religious" post who knows when enough is enough for the time being... That being said, I'm not going to read back through the past three or four pages, there is no point because the arguments back and forth aren't one of intelligence, but ones of bigotry and hate. Neither person is going to listen to the other, so why are we each trying to convince each other? Beats me? I guess when people think they have the truth they want to share that with the world.
Just replying to this one little post. You realize that to believe Christianity, you have to have faith right? In fact, pretty much everything you believe has to have faith, religion, science, opinions whatever... All faith based. For Noah's ark to work, yeah, you need a God to do the impossible. And yes, if you were to do the equations (Ken Ham has done this) Noahs family would populate the earth to about 8 billion in however many years from the flood.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
Well, this has gone so far off topic it's no point arguing it anymore in this thread. Imagine that a "religious" post who knows when enough is enough for the time being... That being said, I'm not going to read back through the past three or four pages, there is no point because the arguments back and forth aren't one of intelligence, but ones of bigotry and hate. Neither person is going to listen to the other, so why are we each trying to convince each other? Beats me? I guess when people think they have the truth they want to share that with the world.
Just replying to this one little post. You realize that to believe Christianity, you have to have faith right? In fact, pretty much everything you believe has to have faith, religion, science, opinions whatever... All faith based. For Noah's ark to work, yeah, you need a God to do the impossible. And yes, if you were to do the equations (Ken Ham has done this) Noahs family would populate the earth to about 8 billion in however many years from the flood.
whatever. like you said, there is no point to this. i'm going to go do work. enjoy living in ignorance.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
As I've said before, I am not a Biblical literalist, so I am staying out of the actual debate over the life of the Earth, etc. I ASSURE YOU, chemistry HAS NOT CHANGED. The fact that we have only known it for 100 years makes no difference. The elements and their elementary particles DO NOT change. That is why atmospheres, planets, stars, life, etc can exist...because the way these chemicals work is UNCHANGING. If you don't believe this for whatever reason, then I'm REALLY sorry, because that is expressing extreme ignorance. Please, stop arguing over this carbon dating and the functioning of chemicals. Only try to argue me if you have taken a chemistry class at the 400 level or higher.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same.
Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha
oh, the other guy said something about 2300 years ago in one of his posts. i confused him with you. lol, so honestly if you believe that god is some kind of magician there is no point in this conversation at all. in fact, i could be in hell right now doomed to an eternity of starcraft. but i wouldn't know it b/c god can do anything, even if it defies the very fabric of space-time/natural law.
oh, and i don't tihnk noah's flood happened.
What did you expect when you got involved in this conversation? That you'd find someone that believes God isn't all powerful, all knowing and all that other stuff? The whole purpose of God is to be those things, you aren't God if you can't do those things.
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same.
Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha
oh, the other guy said something about 2300 years ago in one of his posts. i confused him with you. lol, so honestly if you believe that god is some kind of magician there is no point in this conversation at all. in fact, i could be in hell right now doomed to an eternity of starcraft. but i wouldn't know it b/c god can do anything, even if it defies the very fabric of space-time/natural law.
oh, and i don't tihnk noah's flood happened.
Oh don't be such a poor sport, just because we suggested God may not play by all the same rules as you doesn't mean you need to reject him. Personally I, like Einstein beleive there is a God, who does play by the rules. And yes the flood is possible.
On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote: [quote] You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I am still living with my parents (I'm 17) and I can say that whenever I have to do anything Church-related, I do not feel a sense of fulfillment or happiness. I feel like my time is being wasted.
On the other hand, when I do things that I enjoy, it's a very different matter.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Got it, we are done. God magically broke the laws of physics to make it happen. Because he can do that. Therefore you don't need to prove that its possible within the rules of physics. You can ignore the fact that fresh water fish would all die in this salt water ocean, plants wouldn't live. . He then hid all geological evidence. Polar bears are given motorcycles to ride down to the ark. Kangaroos hop across the ocean. And when the rain fell, it didn't disperse its kinetic energy into heat - it was magical rain.
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? Is seven days long enough to load every animal onto the ark? How long were they are on the ark? How are the animals fed, what is done with the excrement. How are living environments maintained, how are animals exercised? how is heat transfered, how is it lit? After they get off the ark, there is no food available to most of the animals. Honestly, how do the animals come and go from the ark to their places on earth?
If your entire argument boils down to, whatever i can't explain scientifically how it happened, god did a miracle. Why isn't there any evidence, god hid it.
Btw, you didn't happen to go back and reread the bible to understand he did include unclean animals - right?
On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote: [quote]
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
Look I can find useless quotes too. :p
"A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two."
"The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results."
I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com
"A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
If there was only one man or one test, or even one type of test, you would have a point.
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
Look I can find useless quotes too. :p
"A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two."
"The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results."
I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com
"A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
There are some definite problems in your facts. They are wrong >< ! It doesn't matter if they take in Carbon that isn't Carbon-14...only carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope, the other ones don't decay and don't matter. Also, once an animal dies, it does not injest any more carbon-14 and therefore lots of this stuff you are saying is wrong.
You do have a good argument that the levels of Carbon-14 might change throughout the aging of the Earth, but the problem with that is that the percentage of the isotopes are based upon abundance in the Earth's crust and other factors (I forget) and are constant. Therefore, an animal 5000 years ago still injested the same amount of C-14 as an animal today because the percentage of C-14 compared to the other Carbon atoms is unchanging. :/
A certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Got it, we are done. God magically broke the laws of physics to make it happen. Because he can do that. Therefore you don't need to prove that its possible within the rules of physics. You can ignore the fact that fresh water fish would all die in this salt water ocean, plants wouldn't live. . He then hid all geological evidence. Polar bears are given motorcycles to ride down to the ark. Kangaroos hop across the ocean. And when the rain fell, it didn't disperse its kinetic energy into heat - it was magical rain.
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? Is seven days long enough to load every animal onto the ark? How long were they are on the ark? How are the animals fed, what is done with the excrement. How are living environments maintained, how are animals exercised? how is heat transfered, how is it lit? After they get off the ark, there is no food available to most of the animals. Honestly, how do the animals come and go from the ark to their places on earth?
Just because you have the capabilities to make a joke out of what I said, doesn't mean that it is a joke. You keep taking it from a standpoint that Noah spontaneously built an Ark and that all the animals spontaneously appeared by the ark. How long does it take to build the Ark again, I forget? I've already answered almost all these questions once, yet you skip over them, and pretend I never asked them. Here I'll separate your questions and AGAIN answer them.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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...
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.
On April 18 2007 02:39 RebelHeart wrote: I receive daily e-mails from Greg Laurie, who is like the modern day Billy Graham, since he visited my hometown (Christchurch NZ) last year. This is one I got in my inbox today, I want to know what people think of it - to what extent is what he says true?
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:36-37
A while ago, I ran into a guy that I once hung out with in school. I hadn't seen him in 25 years. He called to say that he was coming to hear me speak, so we arranged to meet beforehand.
As we talked, he told me he had been married twice and was presently divorced. Then he said, "I basically drank my marriages away." He went on to explain that he had gotten into that and never stopped. He said it had ruined his life.
I told him, "You know, in the Bible, God says, 'You will seek Me and find Me. . . .' "
"You can quote your book and I will quote mine," he said. "I am in fellowship too. . . . I'm in a 12-step program."
We used to hang out and party together, but he never left that lifestyle. I left it at age 17. As I look at the course his life has taken and the course my life has taken, it is clear who really gave up the most.
There might be times as a Christian when you look at unbelievers and think, I don't know. Maybe they are having the good time and I am not. It might look like they are having fun today, but there is a price for sin. You will reap what you sow.
If you live for Christ, if you determine to do things God's way, you won't regret it. Because you won't find happiness or fulfillment through sex, drugs, or drinking. You won't find it through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments. You will find the happiness and fulfillment you are looking for in life through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
My opinion is this, while I greatly admire him for all the work he does, I often find his view of comparing Christian lives with non-Christian lives simplistic and not even general, because they do not represent general (as in the "majority of cases" general) facts. I believe you become a Christian because it's the right thing to do, not because it's what's best for yourself personally.
I don't intend this to be another existence of God debate - I just want to know what people think of his e-mail - do any non-Christians think it is to some extent true?
if i see that shit in my inbox.. SPAM i will delete it right away!
now to answer your question... NO, there no extent that is true. What if a person never know the story about Jesus? he wont find happiness? What if that guy find happiness through killing, fucking and/or whatsoever? You say you like his stories about comparing Christian an non-Christian lives? WTF.. it so obvious that it's made up.. True or not, christians can still drink and sin all they want and still can't find happiness.
What do you mean by becoming Christian is the right thing to do?
On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote: [quote]
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
Look I can find useless quotes too. :p
"A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two."
"The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results."
I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com
"A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
There are some definite problems in your facts. They are wrong >< ! It doesn't matter if they take in Carbon that isn't Carbon-14...only carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope, the other ones don't decay and don't matter. Also, once an animal dies, it does not injest any more carbon-14 and therefore lots of this stuff you are saying is wrong.
You do have a good argument that the levels of Carbon-14 might change throughout the aging of the Earth, but the problem with that is that the percentage of the isotopes are based upon abundance in the Earth's crust and other factors (I forget) and are constant. Therefore, an animal 5000 years ago still injested the same amount of C-14 as an animal today because the percentage of C-14 compared to the other Carbon atoms is unchanging. :/
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."
On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote: [quote]
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
If there was only one man or one test, or even one type of test, you would have a point.
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."
On April 18 2007 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote: If you are going to quote an article, provide a link.
I know how to quote, but I'm not talking with you, I'm talking with the person that quoted an article earlier without a source. Therefore all my sources will be nameless as well, hell I could have made them up myself and they'd be just as strong.
On April 18 2007 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote: If you are going to quote an article, provide a link.
I know how to quote, but I'm not talking with you, I'm talking with the person that quoted an article earlier without a source. Therefore all my sources will be nameless as well, hell I could have made them up myself and they'd be just as strong.
The thing is, if this were true, the scientific theory would have to be significantly altered or abandoned. Can you explain why neither has happened?
There will always be ambiguous data, even concerning the most established theories. Every serious scientific analysis will posit a hypothesis for such an ambiguity which can be tested in order to refine the existing theory. It is very easy for individuals to exploit those small ambiguities, out of context, to make the theory seem dogmatic or set in stone - and therefore worthless - when it really is not.
On April 18 2007 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote: If you are going to quote an article, provide a link.
I know how to quote, but I'm not talking with you, I'm talking with the person that quoted an article earlier without a source. Therefore all my sources will be nameless as well, hell I could have made them up myself and they'd be just as strong.
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.
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.
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.
On April 18 2007 08:37 lil.sis wrote: see that's exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about
i hope YOU don't go around calling yourself a Christian
judge not lest you be judged etc
That's an interesting verse, mind quoting it? Well, I know where it is, in Matthew.
You familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Interesting verse isn't it? You know why I said that? Lets recap some of what he said.
However, abusing anything is wrong. U can get drunk with ur friends, but its wrong to drink every day coz its ruining ur body.
Okay, so you think it's okay to get drunk with your friends?
Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy
Galations 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Uh oh.. Did those verses just condemn being drunk in any situation? Yes, they did. What bible is he reading from? Not the same one I am... Moving along.
U can have a girlfriend, perhaps even have sex before marriage if u really like her and feel its ok.
Really eh? Where did you come up with this? What did Galations 5:19-21 just say? How about..
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband
Mark 10:6-8
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God
I'm sorry to be so "judgmental", but there's a thing called "Sunday Christianity" and then there's a thing called a "personal relationship with Christ". What this kid said, at this point in time, he's a Sunday Christian. And until he gets his life right, he has no business going around saying he's a Christian (assuming that he is).
Oh, and for all you people who don't understand. I compared his behavior to scripture and called him out on it. A little different than judging him because of my person opinion.
If he's going to call himself a Christian, then he's expected to be held to Christian theology.
And for that email, it's general correct in my experience with others.
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.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
Look I can find useless quotes too. :p
"A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two."
"The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results."
I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com
"A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
There are some definite problems in your facts. They are wrong >< ! It doesn't matter if they take in Carbon that isn't Carbon-14...only carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope, the other ones don't decay and don't matter. Also, once an animal dies, it does not injest any more carbon-14 and therefore lots of this stuff you are saying is wrong.
You do have a good argument that the levels of Carbon-14 might change throughout the aging of the Earth, but the problem with that is that the percentage of the isotopes are based upon abundance in the Earth's crust and other factors (I forget) and are constant. Therefore, an animal 5000 years ago still injested the same amount of C-14 as an animal today because the percentage of C-14 compared to the other Carbon atoms is unchanging. :/
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."
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
If there was only one man or one test, or even one type of test, you would have a point.
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 ><
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!
On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote: [quote] lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
Look I can find useless quotes too. :p
"A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two."
"The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results."
I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com
"A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
There are some definite problems in your facts. They are wrong >< ! It doesn't matter if they take in Carbon that isn't Carbon-14...only carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope, the other ones don't decay and don't matter. Also, once an animal dies, it does not injest any more carbon-14 and therefore lots of this stuff you are saying is wrong.
You do have a good argument that the levels of Carbon-14 might change throughout the aging of the Earth, but the problem with that is that the percentage of the isotopes are based upon abundance in the Earth's crust and other factors (I forget) and are constant. Therefore, an animal 5000 years ago still injested the same amount of C-14 as an animal today because the percentage of C-14 compared to the other Carbon atoms is unchanging. :/
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."
On April 18 2007 19:35 fusionsdf wrote:
On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:
On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:
On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:
On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote: [quote]
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
If there was only one man or one test, or even one type of test, you would have a point.
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 ><
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!
So basically, XelNaga said some things and people started calling him judgemental. Then a bunch of other Christians came and were like "well I'm not like that!" and start to systematically bastardize themselves to appease the tl.net population. Meanwhile I got this guy calling all the "christians in here insane" mixed in with every other message that basically imply that chrsitians are stupid. Wait, who's judgemental and condescending?
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.
But, considering the aforementioned and specified sections of the Bible mention interesting facts (Age of the Earth, the Ark, etc), we need to turn to science, which deals with things we can talk about within the time frame of measureable and quantifiable science. Sure, I don't do research in Carbon-14 dating, but I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject and can certainly discern a biased article from 100 that are saying the exact opposite. I do not try to 'memorize' fact...that is a very offensive statement...I am just merely trying to show people that you can't make statements with illegitimate data collected by people who are not qualified.
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
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)
I'm not saying you memorized these facts. I was giving an example with children who do something parallel. Whether or not the Bible should be interpreted as literal, partially literal or whatever will depend on the person's interpretation to begin with.
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!!!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Instead of claiming multiple times how science is just barely beginning to catch up on the natural things talked about in the bible, please share with us these divine secrets so we may all benefit rather that just stating that "they are there".
Oh, and a few scientists from as early as the 50's have proven by recreating early earth's atmosphere that random molecules under the right condition could have formed the microscopic beginnings of life matter. I will do my best now to search for proper sources. [edit: a google search led me to this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment - there are sources at the bottom for all of that information]
And one more thing I never really understood about religions is: what do they think about other planets and the rest of the entire galaxy/universe? why are they there? what are their purposes?
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.
You just asked me if Jesus judged people, are you changing your stance now? Honestly though, the main point of Christianity isn't to love everyone. It's a point yes, but not the main point.
We have our right to live by what makes us happy and he has no right to deny that we are in fact, HAPPY!
He has his right to live by what makes him happy and he should be allowed to at least try to persuade to us that his way is better because we all pursuade at some point.
On April 18 2007 23:53 ZaplinG wrote: please do not dodge my post, xelnaga ^^
I am genuinely interested in how you respond
The one immediately above? Okay, I'll probably get to it in a few hours. It's almost 3AM and I can't think.
On April 18 2007 23:06 ZaplinG wrote: Instead of claiming multiple times how science is just barely beginning to catch up on the natural things talked about in the bible, please share with us these divine secrets so we may all benefit rather that just stating that "they are there".
Oh, and a few scientists from as early as the 50's have proven by recreating early earth's atmosphere that random molecules under the right condition could have formed the microscopic beginnings of life matter. I will do my best now to search for proper sources. [edit: a google search led me to this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment - there are sources at the bottom for all of that information]
And one more thing I never really understood about religions is: what do they think about other planets and the rest of the entire galaxy/universe? why are they there? what are their purposes?
Okay so for the Miller Urey experiments.. Sorry to link you to something, but I realize when I can't explain something as well as others, and so I'm not going to attempt it when much smarter people have already done the work.
As for the divine revelations.. They were things like the earth is round (Isaiah) the earth isn't the center of the universe (Isaiah). All snowflakes are unique (Job). Blood is life (Leviticus). Things of that nature, perhaps not considered major revelations, but things that did take scientists and the like a long time to finally figure out and then agree upon.
As for other planets.. They think that God created them, is there life out there? Could be, it wouldn't conflict with the bible. The only question that would be raised is how they view God.
Okay so for the Miller Urey experiments.. Sorry to link you to something, but I realize when I can't explain something as well as others, and so I'm not going to attempt it when much smarter people have already done the work.
that does not address the issue of abiogenesis happening outside of earth, then traveling to earth via meteor (which has been documented many many times to have happened before)
As for the divine revelations.. They were things like the earth is round (Isaiah) the earth isn't the center of the universe (Isaiah). All snowflakes are unique (Job). Blood is life (Leviticus). Things of that nature, perhaps not considered major revelations, but things that did take scientists and the like a long time to finally figure out and then agree upon.
the earth being round/not center of universe -> then why were early astronomist persecuted for blasphemy against the church when they raised these same questions?
Blood is life -> common observation. no blood = death. I'm sure the bible did not mean this in a microbiology way
snowflakes -> please quote the verse -.- Im having trouble seeing why this would be in a bible
As for other planets.. They think that God created them, is there life out there? Could be, it wouldn't conflict with the bible. The only question that would be raised is how they view God.
I'm not talking about life on other planets, I'm talking about the planets themselves. What are their purposes?
this debate has been going on for years, by philsophers, christians and athiests, people who specialise in their beliefs, if they couldn't come to a conclusion, who's to say this forum will?
On April 19 2007 00:39 KrAzYfoOL wrote: this debate has been going on for years, by philsophers, christians and athiests, people who specialise in their beliefs, if they couldn't come to a conclusion, who's to say this forum will?
Haha we're just here to have some fun argueing, let us be :D
Of all the many scientific claims that the Bible makes, it was bound to get some of them right. It might make some correct claims earth is round (Isaiah) the earth isn't the center of the universe (Isaiah). All snowflakes are unique (Job). Blood is life (Leviticus), but for every right claim there's a hundred wrong ones. But fortunately the wrongs ones were of course all intended as metaphors.
And whenever I see a thread like this I'm tempted to read the entire thing but I'll just respond to the original poster. Firstly I really resent the implication that all "unbelievers" are just interested in sex, drugs, or drinking, and that the only way to 'happiness and fulfillment' is through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The whole thing just drips of some kind of indoctrination, saying that there's a price for sin and such. Who is he to say that you won't find happiness and fulfillment through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments? Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but it's your life and it's for you to decide.
I'm really sick of religious people claiming a kind of monopoly on values and meaning in life, as if without their God and teachings everything would just degrade into nihilism. They'll say "if there's no God, and we're just made of atoms, then my life doesn't matter and neither does yours". Speak for yourself! The way I've always seen it, it's not like there's this *one* meaning ultimate meaning out there in the universe that everyone has, but you have it within yourself to make your own meaning; it's different for everyone.
On April 19 2007 00:39 KrAzYfoOL wrote: this debate has been going on for years, by philsophers, christians and athiests, people who specialise in their beliefs, if they couldn't come to a conclusion, who's to say this forum will?
=/ For all the people who flame XelNaga, I think he comes off too strongly, but he does make some legitimate points. XelNaga should try to be a little more polite and the people flaming him should separate the point from the person, or this will just end up like a typical discussion between believers and non-believers-- nowhere.
Oh, and there was a post in the beginning about a guy who talked about drinking and having premarital sex and still calling himself a Christian, and while you guys might not like XelNaga's passion about it, he's kind of right. A person who violates many of the major tenets but still calls himself a part of the religion... isn't. =/ I'm not judging whether or not his lifestyle is better, but he really shouldn't consider himself a part of a group he doesn't agree with or live by.
On April 19 2007 00:42 intotherainx wrote: =/ For all the people who flame XelNaga, I think he comes off too strongly, but he does make some legitimate points. XelNaga should try to be a little more polite and the people flaming him should separate the point from the person, or this will just end up like a typical discussion between believers and non-believers-- nowhere.
On April 19 2007 00:41 Wonders wrote: Of all the many scientific claims that the Bible makes, it was bound to get some of them right. It might make some correct claims earth is round (Isaiah) the earth isn't the center of the universe (Isaiah). All snowflakes are unique (Job). Blood is life (Leviticus), but for every right claim there's a hundred wrong ones. But fortunately the wrongs ones were of course all intended as metaphors.
And whenever I see a thread like this I'm tempted to read the entire thing but I'll just respond to the original poster. Firstly I really resent the implication that all "unbelievers" are just interested in sex, drugs, or drinking, and that the only way to 'happiness and fulfillment' is through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The whole thing just drips of some kind of indoctrination, saying that there's a price for sin and such. Who is he to say that you won't find happiness and fulfillment through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments? Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but it's your life and it's for you to decide.
I'm really sick of religious people claiming a kind of monopoly on values and meaning in life, as if without their God and teachings everything would just degrade into nihilism. They'll say "if there's no God, and we're just made of atoms, then my life doesn't matter and neither does yours". Speak for yourself! The way I've always seen it, it's not like there's this *one* meaning ultimate meaning out there in the universe that everyone has, but you have it within yourself to make your own meaning; it's different for everyone.
I think that there's a difference in the way people define happiness... the person in the original post would seem to value a relationship with Jesus the most, just like you would value whatever you do. I don't think it's wrong to spread your opinion on happiness (if you think about it, our capitalist society tells us that success is what we should ultimately strive for), and I find your generalization of religious people "claiming a kind of monopoly on values" strikingly similar, ironically, to his criticism of non-believers all being lusty drunkards that you were not okay with. I happen to be a believer but I'm not the kind of person that you think religious people are =/.
I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but I do believe that there is a form of truth that you can get to without scientific proof. This body of knowledge, I think, can only be accessed by thinking in a different way than we usually do in a calculating, often oppressive capitalist society. We get to it by our feelings, beliefs, intuitions, imagination, even-- and some people happen to call that "faith." =]
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.
You just asked me if Jesus judged people, are you changing your stance now? Honestly though, the main point of Christianity isn't to love everyone. It's a point yes, but not the main point.
I think you are mixing me up with someone else. That was the first time I said something to you.
On April 19 2007 00:41 Wonders wrote: Of all the many scientific claims that the Bible makes, it was bound to get some of them right. It might make some correct claims earth is round (Isaiah) the earth isn't the center of the universe (Isaiah). All snowflakes are unique (Job). Blood is life (Leviticus), but for every right claim there's a hundred wrong ones. But fortunately the wrongs ones were of course all intended as metaphors.
And whenever I see a thread like this I'm tempted to read the entire thing but I'll just respond to the original poster. Firstly I really resent the implication that all "unbelievers" are just interested in sex, drugs, or drinking, and that the only way to 'happiness and fulfillment' is through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The whole thing just drips of some kind of indoctrination, saying that there's a price for sin and such. Who is he to say that you won't find happiness and fulfillment through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments? Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but it's your life and it's for you to decide.
I'm really sick of religious people claiming a kind of monopoly on values and meaning in life, as if without their God and teachings everything would just degrade into nihilism. They'll say "if there's no God, and we're just made of atoms, then my life doesn't matter and neither does yours". Speak for yourself! The way I've always seen it, it's not like there's this *one* meaning ultimate meaning out there in the universe that everyone has, but you have it within yourself to make your own meaning; it's different for everyone.
I think that there's a difference in the way people define happiness... the person in the original post would seem to value a relationship with Jesus the most, just like you would value whatever you do. I don't think it's wrong to spread your opinion on happiness (if you think about it, our capitalist society tells us that success is what we should ultimately strive for), and I find your generalization of religious people "claiming a kind of monopoly on values" strikingly similar, ironically, to his criticism of non-believers all being lusty drunkards that you were not okay with. I happen to be a believer but I'm not the kind of person that you think religious people are =/.
I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but I do believe that there is a form of truth that you can get to without scientific proof. This body of knowledge, I think, can only be accessed by thinking in a different way than we usually do in a calculating, often oppressive capitalist society. We get to it by our feelings, beliefs, intuitions, imagination, even-- and some people happen to call that "faith." =]
I never described the kind of person that I "think most religious people are", yes of course they're all different, sometimes dramatically so.
There's a difference between what I was saying and what was in the original letter, which actually was making generalizations. I wasn't saying that all religious people claim a monopoly on religious values, I was just saying that it annoyed me every time someone did exactly that, and this is what the guy in the letter was doing.
Yes, if you value a relationship with Jesus Christ the most then that's fine with me, I'm not trying to change you such that you become happy the same way that I do. But this IS what the guy in the original letter is doing, I thought that part about the not finding happiness and fulfillment through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments was a giveaway. My point is that nobody should tell you how to be happy - you find out what makes yourself happy yourself, and if that happens to be through a relationship with Jesus Christ then fine. The bad thing would be to accept that on authority without investigating for yourself what makes you happy.
As for the faith part, hopefully someone else will respond.
On April 18 2007 23:15 XelNaga wrote: You just asked me if Jesus judged people, are you changing your stance now? Honestly though, the main point of Christianity isn't to love everyone. It's a point yes, but not the main point.
On April 19 2007 02:36 Hot_Bid wrote: whats the main point of Christianity then
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:28
here's a good site that talks a bit about it:good site
Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
Atheists don't have a problem with how the world was created, they just have a problem with the concept of God. Since the Evolutionary Theory is based off the Bible, the two theories are very similar except for that 'started' everything is their main difference.
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
That's like saying that you're an atheist with respect to Zeus because you don't want to be struck by lightning.
when the next dumb kid comes up to me as im going to class tonite to bother me about joining his church, im going to think of you as i tell him to piss off. its fucking incredible how close-minded and arrogant you self righteous christian deuchebags can be.
So you are dodging my argument? You accept your weakness and is goign to dodge me? Yes or No, one definitive answer or you're weaksauce. :p
The problem with the argument is that unlike everything else are you looking for an answer, or are you just trying to argue for the heck of it?
If I were to continue to answer it though, I think it would be interesting. Now that you've gotten all confident, I shall try. Essentially you misunderstand the word "omnipotence". Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything he wants, it more describes the amount of God's power. Don't get me wrong, God does in fact have limitless power, but while that's said he can only do whatever is actually possible, does that make sense to you? For instance, can God create a square circle? A married bachelor? A two sided triangle? Can he lie to himself? It is a misunderstanding of the word omnipotence and God's power. By virtue it is truly impossible to create a square circle, it's the same sort of idea with creating a rock he can't lift. Do you understand that? It's a little confusing.
On April 19 2007 02:36 Hot_Bid wrote:
whats the main point of Christianity then
Well, if we're going by commandments, the first is to love God with all our heart and all our soul, and then to love our neighbors. If we're going by purpose it is to spread the good news to all the ends of the earth.
On April 19 2007 05:13 j0ehoe wrote: when the next dumb kid comes up to me as im going to class tonite to bother me about joining his church, im going to think of you as i tell him to piss off. its fucking incredible how close-minded and arrogant you self righteous christian deuchebags can be.
Really eh? A lot of the same could be said for everyone else in this thread.
On April 19 2007 05:09 Hot_Bid wrote: what are you talking about, evolution is basically accepted as scientific fact, you don't need to study it to assume it's truth
it's like saying "wow, you're stupid for believing in gravity or physics because you haven't studied those for more than 3-4 weeks"
and i love your linking believing in scientific fact to leading a careless, consequence free life, those two are surely directly related.
Okay, since they've started asking me the philosophical questions. I've got one for you about evolution.
Those light photons, the one's that initiated the big bang, they came from...?
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
Atheists don't have a problem with how the world was created, they just have a problem with the concept of God. Since the Evolutionary Theory is based off the Bible, the two theories are very similar except for that 'started' everything is their main difference.
Haha holy shit this dude is completely fucking crazy, i guess this is why people aint really bothering with him huh?
edit* And you are almost as crazy xel naga, religion is dying man keep up with the times. You cant defend religion, go back to making a couple of leaps of faith instead.
Haha holy shit this dude is completely fucking crazy, i guess this is why people aint really bothering with him huh?
edit* And you are almost as crazy xel naga, religion is dying man keep up with the times. You cant defend religion, go back to making a couple of leaps of faith instead.
Why would you say that? He's hardly being ridiculous. And religion is dying? Good, I hate religion. Do you not even understand the word religion? Uhm, you know, we take leaps of faith, science takes leaps of faith.. It's nothing out of the ordinary, why is taking a leap of faith so bad?
Haha holy shit this dude is completely fucking crazy, i guess this is why people aint really bothering with him huh?
Why would you say that? He's hardly being ridiculous.
Well little boy, i said that because.. he's completely insane?
Then you say.. hardly being ridiculous? Well, He's doing a psychoanalysis on every atheist in the world. Which is impossible because we dont follow "evolution" in the same way chrisitans follow the bible, christians are often so ignorant that they think we are a bunch of sheep following the evolution theory just like you christians follow the bible.
We dont. You are the sheep(most of the time), we are not. (most of the time)
Well little boy, i said that because uh.. he's completely insane?
Then you say.. hardly being ridiculous? Well, He's doing a psychoanalysis on every atheist in the world. Which is impossible because we dont follow "evolution" in the same way chrisitans follow the bible, christians are often so ignorant that they think we are a bunch of sheep following the evolution theory just like you christians follow the bible.
We dont. You are the sheep, we are not.
Dumbass kids.
Wait a second.. Did you just tell me that he's psychoanalyzing every atheist, an impossibility because every atheist is different and don't follow evolution the same. Then go on to say that every Christian is the same? You do realize that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, different interpretations and opinions? Exegetical and hermenuetical differences? There are many more ways to view and understand and believe Christianity (Not saying they are all right) than there are ways to believe and understand evolution.
Funny.. you degrade him because he made a "generalization" according to you. Then you did the same thing... Why is it that Christians are considered hypocrites? Maybe some of you should start self examining (not meaning to be rude, but really..)
Sheep eh? Yeah, we really are. And God is our shepherd (Psalm 23). But seriously, you'd be appalled to learn that faith and belief can often be the height of intellectuality. We argue from what we believe and so far, except for a few people, everyone here has been arguing out of.. some opinion they were taught when they were younger and didn't question.
I noticed that the low post count members are the ones that seem more adamant about defending their position. I bet it is because they have not yet learned, as the high post count members have, that everybody is going to walk away from this conversation with the exact same beliefs that they entered with.
EDIT: I think that comes off a little more insulting than i meant it to, but you get the point.
On April 19 2007 07:54 Lemonwalrus wrote: I noticed that the low post count members are the ones that seem more adamant about defending their position. I bet it is because they have not yet learned, as the high post count members have, that everybody is going to walk away from this conversation with the exact same beliefs that they entered with.
Assuming this is the first forum we've posted on about this topic? It actually isn't, it's my... sixth? My other forum accounts have around 11,000 posts on them in the span of... two years? (Xel'Naga@www.Starcraftdream.com). The low post count only means we're new in registering, not that we don't know any better.
I didnt mean it as an insult, just that I have never seen a compromise come out of any of the threads like this. EDIT: And I am kind of counting myself as a low post count member. I guess you could say that I am good enough at god debate threads to know I am not very good at god debate threads.
On April 19 2007 07:56 Lemonwalrus wrote: I didnt mean it as an insult, just that I have never seen a compromise come out of any of the threads like this. EDIT: And I am kind of counting myself as a low post count member. I guess you could say that I am good enough at god debate threads to know I am not very good at god debate threads.
On April 19 2007 08:05 oneofthem wrote: are you posing this as a serious question?
Yes he did, he was getting at a question like "Can God create a stone he can't lift". I answered it on the previous page, it's not that great of a question really, just shows a misunderstanding on the askers behalf.
Well little boy, i said that because uh.. he's completely insane?
Then you say.. hardly being ridiculous? Well, He's doing a psychoanalysis on every atheist in the world. Which is impossible because we dont follow "evolution" in the same way chrisitans follow the bible, christians are often so ignorant that they think we are a bunch of sheep following the evolution theory just like you christians follow the bible.
We dont. You are the sheep, we are not.
Dumbass kids.
Wait a second.. Did you just tell me that he's psychoanalyzing every atheist, an impossibility because every atheist is different and don't follow evolution the same. Then go on to say that every Christian is the same? You do realize that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, different interpretations and opinions? Exegetical and hermenuetical differences? There are many more ways to view and understand and believe Christianity (Not saying they are all right) than there are ways to believe and understand evolution.
Funny.. you degrade him because he made a "generalization" according to you. Then you did the same thing... Why is it that Christians are considered hypocrites? Maybe some of you should start self examining (not meaning to be rude, but really..)
Sheep eh? Yeah, we really are. And God is our shepherd (Psalm 23). But seriously, you'd be appalled to learn that faith and belief can often be the height of intellectuality. We argue from what we believe and so far, except for a few people, everyone here has been arguing out of.. some opinion they were taught when they were younger and didn't question.
I didn't really mean to argue that all christians are the same, more like in COMPARISON to atheists/agnostics you are the same, and a bunch of sheep, also brainwashed.
And i don't want to argue any technical points in here about how made up religion is, cause on the internet thats kind of impossible, in real life its easier cause you can immidietly just debunk what they say. But the problem online is that a person can just write a really long message and just ignore you everytime you write a response that's making sense.
You xel naga always debunk our responses even if it makes perfect sense, probably cause you "know" it cant be true, and therefor dont even give it a fucking chance. You dumb piece of shit, intellectually inferior human with nothing but shit for brains and a pair of hands and a keyboard you use to spread your fucking idiocy, suck my balls.
On April 19 2007 08:12 MaxdigsSoda wrote: I didn't really mean to argue that all christians are the same, more like in COMPARISON to atheists/agnostics you are the same, and a bunch of sheep, also brainwashed.
And i don't want to argue any technical points in here about how made up religion is, cause on the internet thats kind of impossible, in real life its easier cause you can immidietly just debunk what they say. But the problem online is that a person can just write a really long message and just ignore you everytime you write a response that's making sense.
You xel naga always debunk our responses even if it makes perfect sense, probably cause you "know" it cant be true, and therefor dont even give it a fucking chance. You dumb piece of shit, intellectually inferior human with nothing but shit for brains and a pair of hands and a keyboard you use to spread your fucking idiocy, suck my balls.
// 666
I "debunk" your responses because I like to argue about everything. Then again.. Even when I say something that makes perfect sense you all try to debunk me? Odd.. That it goes both ways, that is.
I am glad though that you've learned how to string a sentence together using almost nothing but swears and insults etc. That's a real accomplishment. Maybe you'll evolve past Australopithecus in the near future.
On April 19 2007 08:12 MaxdigsSoda wrote: I didn't really mean to argue that all christians are the same, more like in COMPARISON to atheists/agnostics you are the same, and a bunch of sheep, also brainwashed.
And i don't want to argue any technical points in here about how made up religion is, cause on the internet thats kind of impossible, in real life its easier cause you can immidietly just debunk what they say. But the problem online is that a person can just write a really long message and just ignore you everytime you write a response that's making sense.
You xel naga always debunk our responses even if it makes perfect sense, probably cause you "know" it cant be true, and therefor dont even give it a fucking chance. You dumb piece of shit, intellectually inferior human with nothing but shit for brains and a pair of hands and a keyboard you use to spread your fucking idiocy, suck my balls.
// 666
I "debunk" your responses because I like to argue about everything. Then again.. Even when I say something that makes perfect sense you all try to debunk me? Odd.. That it goes both ways, that is.
I am glad though that you've learned how to string a sentence together using almost nothing but swears and insults etc. That's a real accomplishment. Maybe you'll evolve past Australopithecus in the near future.
ur shit doesnt make perfect sense cause it requires leaps of faith to make perfect sense, debunked. OWNEEEED
ur shit doesnt make perfect sense cause it requires leaps of faith to make perfect sense, debunked. OWNEEEED
Yours takes just as much, if not more, faith than what I believe. There's no way around it, and to deny this reality shows a severe ignorance.. Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean, but if you don't think you take leaps of faith with science then you might want to go look at the assumptions science makes... Those are all leaps of faith.
ur shit doesnt make perfect sense cause it requires leaps of faith to make perfect sense, debunked. OWNEEEED
Yours takes just as much, if not more, faith than what I believe. There's no way around it, and to deny this reality shows a severe ignorance.. Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean, but if you don't think you take leaps of faith with science then you might want to go look at the assumptions science makes... Those are all leaps of faith.
Thats bullshit, i'm agnostic (but i dont mind calling myself atheist because of the probability of no god is so large) So i dont do leaps of faith.
And you moron, assumptions arnt leaps of faith you fool. Science thinks "the probability for this being correct is very high, therefor its quite possibly true" That's not leaps of faith you moron, it's merely percentages, theories, proof gathered which adds up into the probability being very high. But if something that debunks it comes up, then science GOES WITH THAT! unlike religion, which denies it and keeps to its 'leap of faith'.
DEBUNKED OWNEEEEEEED, i'm totally crushing you man, what now? isnt it like 5-0 to me? haha i shouldnt pick on kids on internet forums
On April 19 2007 08:28 MaxdigsSoda wrote: Thats bullshit, i'm agnostic (but i dont mind calling myself atheist because of the probability of no god is so large) So i dont do leaps of faith.
Sure you are, your first leap of faith is that you don't believe in God. Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming God doesn't exist.
On April 19 2007 08:28 MaxdigsSoda wrote: And you moron, assumptions arnt leaps of faith you fool. Science thinks "the probability for this being correct is very high, therefor its quite possibly true" That's not leaps of faith you moron, it's merely percentages, theories, proof gathered which adds up into the probability being very high. But if something that debunks it comes up, then science GOES WITH THAT! unlike religion, which denies it and keeps to its 'leap of faith'.
Can you prove it beyond a doubt? Is it something that's repeatable? Were you there to observe and record it? Are you telling me that I'm a brainwashed "sheep", but you went and said "Science says it's true, so it must be", does that not sound a bit odd to you? Assumption --> faith that the assumption is correct. Because if the assumption isn't the theory could possibly crumble. You are taking a leap of faith, don't deny it. Science without faith is lame, and faith without science is blind. Unfortunately, you're going to have to get past the misconception (That you've been taught) that Christians are witless and ignore that which might jeopardize their faith; sorry, it's far from that.
On April 19 2007 08:28 MaxdigsSoda wrote: DEBUNKED OWNEEEEEEED, i'm totally crushing you man, what now? isnt it like 5-0 to me? haha i shouldnt pick on kids on internet forums
Poll: Predict the outcome?! (Vote): Both will walk out believing they are right!! (Vote): One of them will be convinced by the other and go cry on the bed!! (Vote): Both will hug and kiss and make out!!
Maxdigs, please show some respect. Though I do agree with your statements, the insults really are just making you look like an ass. This goes for anyone simply flaming, by the way.
If you want to make your point clear, there is no need to call the person you are discussing to a fool, moron, dumb piece of shit, or say owned after every post. That's most likely the way to get banned, not achieve a discussion that leads anywhere.
As for the discussion ontopic, there three things that I'd like to mention. 1. How can you take the bible literal when it has been translated a million times? The only way, to me, seems to read the bible in it's original language (hebrew if I'm not wrong), so how can you call it the literal word of God? 2. There are a lot of fossils found, and the DNA matches between Humans and Chimpansees for example are almost identical. How do you explain this? 3. Logical thinking. To me, I don't think that a 2000 year old book saying how the world is 6000 years old, that adam and eve were the first two humans alive (thinking about that, wouldn't that require incest after the first time around to get more children?), that some guy built a giant wooden boat to save two of each animal, and so on. What is the logical reason behind your faith? There was another thing, but I forgot it >_>.
I never debunk god, i just say the probability of a god such as what is presented in all religions is practicly near nonexistant , so no i dont do leaps of faith. stop twisting stuff in religion when there is a reasonable approach available, you dumbass. 7-0 to me
idiot, I didnt say "science says its true, so it must be." Stop putting shit in my mouth, I merely said the probability from the proof science gather makes it possibly correct. That's not a leap of faith. It's probability. 99.9% means "yes", 00.1% means "no" in a sense. 8-0
DEBUNKED, CRUSHED,
This is obviously hopeless, i'm so far beyond you in the technicals of religion, agnosticism, atheism, science, and practicly every other area, you dont even put up a fight. Instead all you do is twist my words and think you can get away with it? But it works for your own denial so thats cool for you right?
On April 19 2007 08:41 Artanis[Xp] wrote: Maxdigs, please show some respect. Though I do agree with your statements, the insults really are just making you look like an ass. This goes for anyone simply flaming, by the way.
If you want to make your point clear, there is no need to call the person you are discussing to a fool, moron, dumb piece of shit, or say owned after every post. That's most likely the way to get banned, not achieve a discussion that leads anywhere.
As for the discussion ontopic, there three things that I'd like to mention. 1. How can you take the bible literal when it has been translated a million times? The only way, to me, seems to read the bible in it's original language (hebrew if I'm not wrong), so how can you call it the literal word of God? 2. There are a lot of fossils found, and the DNA matches between Humans and Chimpansees for example are almost identical. How do you explain this? 3. Logical thinking. To me, I don't think that a 2000 year old book saying how the world is 6000 years old, that adam and eve were the first two humans alive (thinking about that, wouldn't that require incest after the first time around to get more children?), that some guy built a giant wooden boat to save two of each animal, and so on. What is the logical reason behind your faith? There was another thing, but I forgot it >_>.
Dude i know i shouldnt treat morons badly, in real life i would never. But i cant do it on the internet, its my only flaw. (and maybe i AM an ass)
On April 19 2007 08:41 Artanis[Xp] wrote: As for the discussion ontopic, there three things that I'd like to mention. 1. How can you take the bible literal when it has been translated a million times? The only way, to me, seems to read the bible in it's original language (hebrew if I'm not wrong), so how can you call it the literal word of God?
Well you can compare our modern interpretations to the Septuagint, the dead sea scrolls etc. Showing how little they've changed (I think a couple words at most, none of which impact the message). As well, it is incredibly important in bible study to be able to speak and read Hebrew, Arabic and Koine Greek. So, if you do know how to speak those languages and you compare that to the english translations we have, then you'll also find there isn't many changes. The most noticeable is that the book order of the OT is different (Hebrew vs English).
On April 19 2007 08:41 Artanis[Xp] wrote: 2. There are a lot of fossils found, and the DNA matches between Humans and Chimpansees for example are almost identical. How do you explain this?
The same reason why there are a lot of matches between our chemical composition and dirt; God used the same materials for everything. It all came from the same materials, but that doesn't mean one evolved from another. As for the fossil evidence.. There really isn't any. For billions of years of evolution, and finding what might be a missing link every 50 years.. Just isn't enough to support it.
On April 19 2007 08:41 Artanis[Xp] wrote: 3. Logical thinking. To me, I don't think that a 2000 year old book saying how the world is 6000 years old, that adam and eve were the first two humans alive (thinking about that, wouldn't that require incest after the first time around to get more children?), that some guy built a giant wooden boat to save two of each animal, and so on. What is the logical reason behind your faith? There was another thing, but I forgot it >_>.
There weren't laws against incest until after Moses, so apparently it was perfectly fine until then, it would have to be for them to reproduce. Noah (that "some guy") built the ark, which they actually believe is on mount Ararat in modern Turkey. Sure, why shouldn't I believe it? I mean, some people believe we evolved from single celled organisms...
Poll: Predict the outcome?! (Vote): Both will walk out believing they are right!! (Vote): One of them will be convinced by the other and go cry on the bed!! (Vote): Both will hug and kiss and make out!!
On April 19 2007 08:54 MaxdigsSoda wrote: I guess i won that battle with him, mainly because he probably did not understand most of my arguements (obvious by his responses)
For the sake of clarification, I didn't respond to you because what would it gain? You don't want answers, you aren't looking for answers, you aren't being serious, you retort back with meager insults. Why should I reply to you? I'm perfectly content reading what you have to say and not replying to it.
Sorry, I thought you'd all be happy at a "religious" poster who knew when to stop most of the time.
On April 19 2007 08:41 Artanis[Xp] wrote: 2. There are a lot of fossils found, and the DNA matches between Humans and Chimpansees for example are almost identical. How do you explain this?
The same reason why there are a lot of matches between our chemical composition and dirt; God used the same materials for everything. It all came from the same materials, but that doesn't mean one evolved from another. As for the fossil evidence.. There really isn't any. For billions of years of evolution, and finding what might be a missing link every 50 years.. Just isn't enough to support it.
my god. you really are a moron. you realize basing your views on a book with no factual backing?
On April 19 2007 08:54 MaxdigsSoda wrote: I guess i won that battle with him, mainly because he probably did not understand most of my arguements (obvious by his responses)
For the sake of clarification, I didn't respond to you because what would it gain? You don't want answers, you aren't looking for answers, you aren't being serious, you retort back with meager insults. Why should I reply to you? I'm perfectly content reading what you have to say and not replying to it.
Sorry, I thought you'd all be happy at a "religious" poster who knew when to stop most of the time.
dude you know how to stop? man i stopped you so bad, i completely CRUSHED you man. Even if what i wrote was badly written and i'm high i completely got to you man.
my god. you really are a moron. you realize basing your views on a book with no factual backing?
Depends what aspect of the book you are talking about. It has "factual" historical backing. It has "factual" scientific backing. It has evidence that points to a global flood (much the same as your "ice age").
On April 19 2007 09:07 MaxdigsSoda wrote: [ Sorry, I thought you'd all be happy at a "religious" poster who knew when to stop most of the time. dude you know how to stop? man i stopped you so bad, i completely CRUSHED you man. Even if what i wrote was badly written and i'm high i completely got to you man.
smoke reefa, 420 tommorow
Oh yes, I was so... Crushed? You really devastated me, I don't think I'll ever be psychologically normal every again.
Um? So if I throw in a
122-8 OWNED OWNED
Does that mean I've won? Or are we just going to continue being idiots? And by "we" I mean "you".
my god. you really are a moron. you realize basing your views on a book with no factual backing?
Depends what aspect of the book you are talking about. It has "factual" historical backing. It has "factual" scientific backing. It has evidence that points to a global flood (much the same as your "ice age").
On April 19 2007 09:07 MaxdigsSoda wrote: [ Sorry, I thought you'd all be happy at a "religious" poster who knew when to stop most of the time. dude you know how to stop? man i stopped you so bad, i completely CRUSHED you man. Even if what i wrote was badly written and i'm high i completely got to you man.
smoke reefa, 420 tommorow
Oh yes, I was so... Crushed? You really devastated me, I don't think I'll ever be psychologically normal every again.
Um? So if I throw in a
122-8 OWNED OWNED
Does that mean I've won? Or are we just going to continue being idiots? And by "we" I mean "you".
I WON Man stop trying to claim the victory, or a draw. you are the one that didnt even understand my arguements.
On April 19 2007 08:41 Artanis[Xp] wrote: 2. There are a lot of fossils found, and the DNA matches between Humans and Chimpansees for example are almost identical. How do you explain this?
The same reason why there are a lot of matches between our chemical composition and dirt; God used the same materials for everything. It all came from the same materials, but that doesn't mean one evolved from another. As for the fossil evidence.. There really isn't any. For billions of years of evolution, and finding what might be a missing link every 50 years.. Just isn't enough to support it.
my god. you really are a moron. you realize basing your views on a book with no factual backing?
Consider for a moment what NO FACTUAL BACKING means. Yes, if we were discussing the book of mormon this would be true, whereas the Bible has recorded tons of stuff, much of which has been PROVEN to be true, and some that has evidence to be true. For example, of all the cities, people, and nations listed in the Bible, they all match up with historical content. There is no historical reference that you can find that is more accurate than the Bible.
xelnaga, have you ever taken a high level geology, chemistry, biology, or evolutionary paleontology class?
Many of the things you say about modern science, such as thiiiis whole thing:
As for the fossil evidence.. There really isn't any. For billions of years of evolution, and finding what might be a missing link every 50 years.. Just isn't enough to support it.
is simply not true. There are reasons missing links are being found all of the time. It is because of other non-religious factors, such as political turmoil, geologic disasters, and the improvement of technology.
I honestly recommend, if you believe in your faith as strong as it seems, to at least give the other side a chance and try to learn about it before completely dismissing it.
And when you say we are taking a leap of faith by believing in science rather than religion, you forget to realize how big these two leaps of faith are. For science, the leap is a very very small one that is gradually becoming smaller as we learn more things. For religion, the gap is large and only widening.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts like these make this entire thread worthwhile
On April 19 2007 08:48 XelNaga wrote: As for the fossil evidence.. There really isn't any. For billions of years of evolution, and finding what might be a missing link every 50 years.. Just isn't enough to support it.
As for the fossil evidence.. There really isn't any. For billions of years of evolution, and finding what might be a missing link every 50 years.. Just isn't enough to support it.
is simply not true. There are reasons missing links are being found all of the time. It is because of other non-religious factors, such as political turmoil, geologic disasters, and the improvement of technology.
I honestly recommend, if you believe in your faith as strong as it seems, to at least give the other side a chance and try to learn about it before completely dismissing it.
And when you say we are taking a leap of faith by believing in science rather than religion, you forget to realize how big these two leaps of faith are. For science, the leap is a very very small one that is gradually becoming smaller as we learn more things. For religion, the gap is large and only widening.
First question, yes I have, a few courses. I don't really know how accurate I would think a missing link is if it's fossils are assembled from bones hundreds of feet, even miles apart, seems like a far stretch? I really don't know why you assume I haven't looked at the "other side"? It would be simply ignorant of me to have not taken the time to look at the "other side".
As for those leaps of faith? Nope.. Religions gap isn't growing wider? Why would you think that? As for science, well good luck with that. I'm going to go back to reading about light photons, still have no answer for that question ;\
I have a curious quesiton: Why do you pick the name of XelNaga knowing it is probably offensive to God who's obviously the creater of protoss and zerg? Isn't it atrocious that Blizzard made a pegan god XelNaga who's the creater of 2 races? Aren't you deeply offensed by it? Why do you pick the name then?
On April 19 2007 11:08 evanthebouncy~ wrote: I have a curious quesiton: Why do you pick the name of XelNaga knowing it is probably offensive to God who's obviously the creater of protoss and zerg? Isn't it atrocious that Blizzard made a pegan god XelNaga who's the creater of 2 races? Aren't you deeply offensed by it? Why do you pick the name then?
It's a fictional world. It is science fiction. It is fun. It is starcraft.
Btw, that article about the evidence against the great flood was very informative and should be read by anyone who wants to continue debating that topic.
Well little boy, i said that because uh.. he's completely insane?
Then you say.. hardly being ridiculous? Well, He's doing a psychoanalysis on every atheist in the world. Which is impossible because we dont follow "evolution" in the same way chrisitans follow the bible, christians are often so ignorant that they think we are a bunch of sheep following the evolution theory just like you christians follow the bible.
We dont. You are the sheep, we are not.
Dumbass kids.
Wait a second.. Did you just tell me that he's psychoanalyzing every atheist, an impossibility because every atheist is different and don't follow evolution the same. Then go on to say that every Christian is the same? You do realize that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, different interpretations and opinions? Exegetical and hermenuetical differences? There are many more ways to view and understand and believe Christianity (Not saying they are all right) than there are ways to believe and understand evolution.
Funny.. you degrade him because he made a "generalization" according to you. Then you did the same thing... Why is it that Christians are considered hypocrites? Maybe some of you should start self examining (not meaning to be rude, but really..)
Sheep eh? Yeah, we really are. And God is our shepherd (Psalm 23). But seriously, you'd be appalled to learn that faith and belief can often be the height of intellectuality. We argue from what we believe and so far, except for a few people, everyone here has been arguing out of.. some opinion they were taught when they were younger and didn't question.
Okay, lets hear your beliefs. 1) Is the Bible the literal word of God or just divinely inspired? 1a) Does the bible contains falsehoods, contradictions, or lies? 2) Is Genesis an accurate description of how the universe was created? 2a) Is Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 or 2:4 to 2:25 the right order? 3) Is Babel why we have different languages on earth? 4) Did the great flood happen? 5) How old is the earth? 6) Does the test for infidelity in the bible work? (Numbers 5) 7) For men who marry their brother's wife, is it an abomination that will not bear children (Leviticus), or is marriage and the duties required? (Deuteronomy) 8) Is mold the same thing as leprosy?
I'm also interested how arguing from belief (opinion) can be the height of intellectuality. I've always considered arguing without supporting facts kind of ridiculous. Isn't that just the "Is so", "Is not" or "I'm not listening la la la la la la la la" argument 8 year olds have?.
If we want to argue in a rational manner, it should go something like this. I believe X. I believe X because of Y. Here are (some) of my reasons. These are my support. Then your opponent can say, I disagree with your reason, I disagree with your support, i have differing reasons, i have differing support.
For example, I do not believe certain events in the bible happened, one of these is the great flood. The ark is physically impossible to build, physically impossible to maintain during the voyage, its physically impossible to gather and spread out the animals, flooding the earth in a short time does not follow the laws of physics. Fish die because of salinity changes, plants die because some can't survive in salt water. There is no geological record of such an event. Since all the other animals die, and you don't believe in evolution (assumption), all parasites & diseases must have been present in the animals on the ark. Since some diseases are fatal to their host and cannot survive outside the host, the ark must have contained larger numbers of animals - yet there is no record of such. As someone mentioned above, talk-origins discusses large number of impossibilities with the ark story.
Now, you can describe what is wrong with this, or you can postulate your own theories and we can discuss them - How it was created, how it was maintained, how the animals were gathered & dispersed, how genetic dispersity works, and why there isn't a geological record.
On April 19 2007 11:08 evanthebouncy~ wrote: I have a curious quesiton: Why do you pick the name of XelNaga knowing it is probably offensive to God who's obviously the creater of protoss and zerg? Isn't it atrocious that Blizzard made a pegan god XelNaga who's the creater of 2 races? Aren't you deeply offensed by it? Why do you pick the name then?
It's offensive? I don't think so, why would it be?
testpat, evolution is just a theory. just like physics parasites diseases geology water water flow floods salt fish animals ark ice age earth language plants architechture ark building salinity time etc
its all theory, unproven, not enough evidence, just not enough to support it
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
Atheists don't have a problem with how the world was created, they just have a problem with the concept of God. Since the Evolutionary Theory is based off the Bible, the two theories are very similar except for that 'started' everything is their main difference.
Actually its more like: "Evolution is a theory that has existed for many centuries (long before Charles Darwin, actually) and since then a vast amount of Scientific evidence and probable theories have arisen, which suggest that the theory of evolution is probably correct. Based on this evidence, and the lack of Scientific evidence in favour of God's existence, I believe that there is no God and that evolution is indeed, a factual theory."
It'd be a bit more like that, except less choppy since I'd bother to take more time in a real life situation. And its obvious Athiests have a problem with the concept of God, thats why arguments such as this thread take place everyday, but its not because we don't want to be held accountable (with laws and civilized society, its rather hard to avoid being held accountable), its because we simply don't believe in your God (or anyone elses, for that matter). It's also very arrogant that you assume you know why people become Athiests, I would never make such a stupid assumption about why Christians are religious, so why don't we take TheOvermind77's advice and go to White castle?
For example, I do not believe certain events in the bible happened, one of these is the great flood. The ark is physically impossible to build, physically impossible to maintain during the voyage, its physically impossible to gather and spread out the animals, flooding the earth in a short time does not follow the laws of physics. Fish die because of salinity changes, plants die because some can't survive in salt water. There is no geological record of such an event. Since all the other animals die, and you don't believe in evolution (assumption), all parasites & diseases must have been present in the animals on the ark. Since some diseases are fatal to their host and cannot survive outside the host, the ark must have contained larger numbers of animals - yet there is no record of such. As someone mentioned above, talk-origins discusses large number of impossibilities with the ark story.
Now, you can describe what is wrong with this, or you can postulate your own theories and we can discuss them - How it was created, how it was maintained, how the animals were gathered & dispersed, how genetic dispersity works, and why there isn't a geological record.
The ark was made to float and to hold life. You look what happened back then with todays eyes, you assume evertyhing was the same back then as it is now, and this is not the case, witch makes all your claims pointless.
There is alot of theroys about this, but you cannot look as i mentioned look at it with todays eyes, earth was alot younger, the bible says that there was a water above earth, in the upper part of the atmosphare in other words, witch protected the earth from the sun, and made life grow stronger and alot larger (like dinosaurs, cuz lizards never stop growing) than it does today. This is why the bible gives the age of the people living before the flood all around 900 years old. Conditions were different, and that is why you cant look at this with todays eyes, or it wouldnt be possible.
There were alot fewer animals, and it was 2 of each species, and the bible also says, that God sent them all to Noah, he didnt need to gather them.
On April 19 2007 11:17 testpat wrote: flooding the earth in a short time does not follow the laws of physics
how can this not follow the law of physics?
On April 19 2007 11:17 testpat wrote: Fish die because of salinity changes, plants die because some can't survive in salt water.
water didnt necceary have to be salt water
(once again you look at the past as if things were exactly as you observe them today) a big event like the flood gives remarkeable changes to the earth, that we observe today, but that doenst mean you know how things were before if the whole earth was washed away!
well i cant explain these things as good as some that really have researched these things, but ive been on several seminars with different ppl that have their backround inside the evolution theory and they have seen how little real evidence there actually is, and that everything is actually based on either lies or poor evidence that actually never was suited as evidence (example Lucy)
if your are more intrested considering this topic, there is alot about this on youtube, if you search on Kent Hovind. Also about the topic, he has a own seminar called "age of the earth". There is also many neutral debates with Kent Hovind vs evolutionists, you can find all this on youtube or on googlevideo or you can download his seminars on http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
For example, I do not believe certain events in the bible happened, one of these is the great flood. The ark is physically impossible to build, physically impossible to maintain during the voyage, its physically impossible to gather and spread out the animals, flooding the earth in a short time does not follow the laws of physics. Fish die because of salinity changes, plants die because some can't survive in salt water. There is no geological record of such an event. Since all the other animals die, and you don't believe in evolution (assumption), all parasites & diseases must have been present in the animals on the ark. Since some diseases are fatal to their host and cannot survive outside the host, the ark must have contained larger numbers of animals - yet there is no record of such. As someone mentioned above, talk-origins discusses large number of impossibilities with the ark story.
Now, you can describe what is wrong with this, or you can postulate your own theories and we can discuss them - How it was created, how it was maintained, how the animals were gathered & dispersed, how genetic dispersity works, and why there isn't a geological record.
The ark was made to float and to hold life. You look what happened back then with todays eyes, you assume evertyhing was the same back then as it is now, and this is not the case, witch makes all your claims pointless.
There is alot of theroys about this, but you cannot look as i mentioned look at it with todays eyes, earth was alot younger, the bible says that there was a water above earth, in the upper part of the atmosphare in other words, witch protected the earth from the sun, and made life grow stronger and alot larger (like dinosaurs, cuz lizards never stop growing) than it does today. This is why the bible gives the age of the people living before the flood all around 900 years old. Conditions were different, and that is why you cant look at this with todays eyes, or it wouldnt be possible.
There were alot fewer animals, and it was 2 of each species, and the bible also says, that God sent them all to Noah, he didnt need to gather them.
On April 19 2007 11:17 testpat wrote: Fish die because of salinity changes, plants die because some can't survive in salt water.
water didnt necceary have to be salt water
(once again you look at the past as if things were exactly as you observe them today) a big event like the flood gives remarkeable changes to the earth, that we observe today, but that doenst mean you know how things were before if the whole earth was washed away!
well i cant explain these things as good as some that really have researched these things, but ive been on several seminars with different ppl that have their backround inside the evolution theory and they have seen how little real evidence there actually is, and that everything is actually based on either lies or poor evidence that actually never was suited as evidence (example Lucy)
if your are more intrested considering this topic, there is alot about this on youtube, if you search on Kent Hovind. Also about the topic, he has a own seminar called "age of the earth". There is also many neutral debates with Kent Hovind vs evolutionists, you can find all this on youtube or on googlevideo or you can download his seminars on http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
Im actually watching some of HIS videos now, I'll get back to you. ( i have seen this guy before though-_-)
we were originally zerg, then evolved to protoss, then later mutated to humans, losing psychic links. our god is xel'nage. earth was flooded with hot metallic liquid, not water. the arc was a spaceship, that carried many other animals from everywhere in the universe.
On April 19 2007 13:22 yisun518 wrote: we were originally zerg, then evolved to protoss, then later mutated to humans, losing psychic links. our god is xel'nage. earth was flooded with hot metallic liquid, not water. the arc was a spaceship, that carried many other animals from everywhere in the universe.
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
Atheists don't have a problem with how the world was created, they just have a problem with the concept of God. Since the Evolutionary Theory is based off the Bible, the two theories are very similar except for that 'started' everything is their main difference.
Actually its more like: "Evolution is a theory that has existed for many centuries (long before Charles Darwin, actually) and since then a vast amount of Scientific evidence and probable theories have arisen, which suggest that the theory of evolution is probably correct. Based on this evidence, and the lack of Scientific evidence in favour of God's existence, I believe that there is no God and that evolution is indeed, a factual theory."
It'd be a bit more like that, except less choppy since I'd bother to take more time in a real life situation. And its obvious Athiests have a problem with the concept of God, thats why arguments such as this thread take place everyday, but its not because we don't want to be held accountable (with laws and civilized society, its rather hard to avoid being held accountable), its because we simply don't believe in your God (or anyone elses, for that matter). It's also very arrogant that you assume you know why people become Athiests, I would never make such a stupid assumption about why Christians are religious, so why don't we take TheOvermind77's advice and go to White castle?
I'll drive, btw.
Yeah all that 'scientific' evidence that explains evolution. Of course scientists have found all the missing links between humans and primates (They've only named them, not found them). Oh, of course life was created from non-life in the beginning (No one on the planet has seen that one reoccur). Oh yeah, they found the Nebraska man, two-points for evolution there. Evolution very properly explains how organisms can spontaneously become two opposite sexes that spontaneously begin sexual reproduction instead of asexual reproduction. Let us not forget how well evolution explains the spontaneous separation of plants and animals in the life chain. Amazing how there are no animals that need photosynthesis and that there are no plants that need to eat other plants or animals. Scientifically all Evolution does is make educated guesses on things they think may be true.
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
Atheists don't have a problem with how the world was created, they just have a problem with the concept of God. Since the Evolutionary Theory is based off the Bible, the two theories are very similar except for that 'started' everything is their main difference.
Actually its more like: "Evolution is a theory that has existed for many centuries (long before Charles Darwin, actually) and since then a vast amount of Scientific evidence and probable theories have arisen, which suggest that the theory of evolution is probably correct. Based on this evidence, and the lack of Scientific evidence in favour of God's existence, I believe that there is no God and that evolution is indeed, a factual theory."
It'd be a bit more like that, except less choppy since I'd bother to take more time in a real life situation. And its obvious Athiests have a problem with the concept of God, thats why arguments such as this thread take place everyday, but its not because we don't want to be held accountable (with laws and civilized society, its rather hard to avoid being held accountable), its because we simply don't believe in your God (or anyone elses, for that matter). It's also very arrogant that you assume you know why people become Athiests, I would never make such a stupid assumption about why Christians are religious, so why don't we take TheOvermind77's advice and go to White castle?
I'll drive, btw.
Yeah all that 'scientific' evidence that explains evolution. Of course scientists have found all the missing links between humans and primates (They've only named them, not found them). Oh, of course life was created from non-life in the beginning (No one on the planet has seen that one reoccur). Oh yeah, they found the Nebraska man, two-points for evolution there. Evolution very properly explains how organisms can spontaneously become two opposite sexes that spontaneously begin sexual reproduction instead of asexual reproduction. Let us not forget how well evolution explains the spontaneous separation of plants and animals in the life chain. Amazing how there are no animals that need photosynthesis and that there are no plants that need to eat other plants or animals. Scientifically all Evolution does is make educated guesses on things they think may be true.
You speak like someone who has no idea at all about the intricacies of Evolution and has not read any real material on it. Let me guess, you're going by your 6th grade science teacher explaing to you how Darwin thought of Canary's and therefore created Evolution? I'm not an expert either, but if those where actually problems with Evolution do you think it would be such an upheld theory? I just googled "evolution two sexes" and read that, and it was pretty informative, no?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex
On April 19 2007 04:48 HumbleZealot wrote: Why are there so many Christians in this thread? Usually the Athiests around here come and bash anyone who tries to say the utter bullshit XelNaga and that [BbG] kid were saying earlier.
It takes more than an atheist that doesn't know his own theories to 'bash' Christianity.
Atheist: I took one biology class!!! Now that I studied evolution for a good 3-4 weeks I know its true. Since evolution is true, I can do whatever I want in life without any consequences.
That's why atheists are atheists, they don't want to be held accountable.
Atheists don't have a problem with how the world was created, they just have a problem with the concept of God. Since the Evolutionary Theory is based off the Bible, the two theories are very similar except for that 'started' everything is their main difference.
Actually its more like: "Evolution is a theory that has existed for many centuries (long before Charles Darwin, actually) and since then a vast amount of Scientific evidence and probable theories have arisen, which suggest that the theory of evolution is probably correct. Based on this evidence, and the lack of Scientific evidence in favour of God's existence, I believe that there is no God and that evolution is indeed, a factual theory."
It'd be a bit more like that, except less choppy since I'd bother to take more time in a real life situation. And its obvious Athiests have a problem with the concept of God, thats why arguments such as this thread take place everyday, but its not because we don't want to be held accountable (with laws and civilized society, its rather hard to avoid being held accountable), its because we simply don't believe in your God (or anyone elses, for that matter). It's also very arrogant that you assume you know why people become Athiests, I would never make such a stupid assumption about why Christians are religious, so why don't we take TheOvermind77's advice and go to White castle?
I'll drive, btw.
Yeah all that 'scientific' evidence that explains evolution. Of course scientists have found all the missing links between humans and primates (They've only named them, not found them). Oh, of course life was created from non-life in the beginning (No one on the planet has seen that one reoccur). Oh yeah, they found the Nebraska man, two-points for evolution there. Evolution very properly explains how organisms can spontaneously become two opposite sexes that spontaneously begin sexual reproduction instead of asexual reproduction. Let us not forget how well evolution explains the spontaneous separation of plants and animals in the life chain. Amazing how there are no animals that need photosynthesis and that there are no plants that need to eat other plants or animals. Scientifically all Evolution does is make educated guesses on things they think may be true.
You speak like someone who has no idea at all about the intricacies of Evolution and has not read any real material on it. Let me guess, you're going by your 6th grade science teacher explaing to you how Darwin thought of Canary's and therefore created Evolution? I'm not an expert either, but if those where actually problems with Evolution do you think it would be such an upheld theory? I just googled "evolution two sexes" and read that, and it was pretty informative, no?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex
Boy did you open a window, let me pull some phrases out of this so that we can see if they know what they are talking about.
Line 1: The evolution of sex is a major puzzle Line2-3: since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test Line 4:several explanations have been suggested by biologists Line 6: It seems Line 8-9: There are three possible reasons why this might happen. Line 13: These classes of hypotheses are further broken down below. Line 13-14: It is important to realise that any number of these hypotheses may be true in any given species Line 14-15: However, a research framework has yet to be found. (lol!)
That was just in the summary, dare I scroll down the page and read one of the many explanations and see if their language is as similar as that. I really like the last sentence of the summary. "research framework has yet to be found." Wouldn't that statement pretty much nullify everything about it?
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
yo annor what will u do when u go to heaven, will u chill, smoke some reefa or perhaps just chill on a cloud which u can stand on and stuff
tell me the deal here, i'm interested to hear it. And dont tell me u havnt thought about it, i mean, you will work your entire life to go there, thats your reward, what will you do with it man.
On April 19 2007 15:00 MaxdigsSoda wrote: yo annor what will u do when u go to heaven, will u chill, smoke some reefa or perhaps just chill on a cloud which u can stand on and stuff
tell me the deal here, i'm interested to hear it. And dont tell me u havnt thought about it, i mean, you will work your entire life to go there, thats your reward, what will you do with it man.
The ark was made to float and to hold life. You look what happened back then with todays eyes, you assume evertyhing was the same back then as it is now, and this is not the case, witch makes all your claims pointless.
The ark was built by a man - the bible is specific enough to give dimensions of it. I assume that things were the same prior and after? I assume that the flood didn't happen - and give support of why i think so. If you wish to postulate things were different before and after and this impacts my evidence, you need to specify these things. Let me give you some help. If you believe that there was less life prior to the ark, so it could fit - then you believe in evolution. You now need to take the time frames involved after the ark, and prove that species could evolve from whatever species exist on the ark. You further need to explain how populations can reproduce with way less than needed minimum species size. Further, you need to explain how fossils exist prior and after the ark. If you don't believe in evolution, you need some mechanism to get all the life from today onto the ark. In either case, you need to describe the care of these creatures during the voyage, and how they are spread out afterwards.
There is alot of theroys about this, but you cannot look as i mentioned look at it with todays eyes, earth was alot younger, the bible says that there was a water above earth, in the upper part of the atmosphare in other words, witch protected the earth from the sun, and made life grow stronger and alot larger (like dinosaurs, cuz lizards never stop growing) than it does today. This is why the bible gives the age of the people living before the flood all around 900 years old. Conditions were different, and that is why you cant look at this with todays eyes, or it wouldnt be possible.
Congratulations. The idea of a water canopy above the earth has some serious side effects.
1. A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling (Morton 1979). A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy (Morton 2000).
2. A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI.
3. Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.
Were dinosaurs on the ark? I just ask because Job saw one. I'm really curious how a dinosaur is going to fit on the ark.
There were alot fewer animals, and it was 2 of each species, and the bible also says, that God sent them all to Noah, he didnt need to gather them.
Evolution. God brings them, man loads them man unloads them, man cares for them. You now have the unenviable task of postulating the set of creatures that has the genetic diversity to create all life known - and explaining why the fossil record doesn't agree with a explosion of life forms between 5 & 10 thousand years ago, and a huge die off in all plant life and animal life.
On April 19 2007 11:17 testpat wrote: flooding the earth in a short time does not follow the laws of physics
how can this not follow the law of physics?
Discussed above about water canopy. You need to create a mechanism for the flood - where did the water come from, where did it go. If its magic, say so. However, the entire earth covered in water in 40 days would leave changes in the geological record that are not present.
On April 19 2007 11:17 testpat wrote: Fish die because of salinity changes, plants die because some can't survive in salt water.
water didnt necceary have to be salt water
(once again you look at the past as if things were exactly as you observe them today) a big event like the flood gives remarkeable changes to the earth, that we observe today, but that doenst mean you know how things were before if the whole earth was washed away!
So you postulate the oceans did not contain salt water pre flood - where does all the salt come from? When does it happen. Why is there no evidence of a mass change in the composition of the oceans?
Again, its up to you to postulate the pre and post changes. We know before the flood the oceans and lands were filled with life (genesis). We know adam named all the animals. Honestly, this whole line can only be true if you believe in evolution - and if you believe in it, you should also know the time frame involved from the flood to now is not enough to create our current earth. Also, its very strange that these magic pre flood fish, that can survive all water salinities, leave no species on earth that can handle abrupt changes in water salinity. I guess its not a survival trait.
Even if you believe this, there would be a geological record - the entire earth dies off in one year that happened in the past 10,000 years. We have no evidence of a die off of this magnitude.
well i cant explain these things as good as some that really have researched these things, but ive been on several seminars with different ppl that have their backround inside the evolution theory and they have seen how little real evidence there actually is, and that everything is actually based on either lies or poor evidence that actually never was suited as evidence (example Lucy)
if your are more intrested considering this topic, there is alot about this on youtube, if you search on Kent Hovind. Also about the topic, he has a own seminar called "age of the earth". There is also many neutral debates with Kent Hovind vs evolutionists, you can find all this on youtube or on googlevideo or you can download his seminars on http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
[/Quote]
I know Hovind, do you know www.talkorigins.org? I think its great that you actually can postulate ideas of what may or may not happened. Simply stating "things were different then" is a start, but not a finish. I think its even better that you think and listen to people try to explain positions - but i would suggest you expand the people that you listen to, and explore the evidence they produce.
All you need to do is create a plausible scenario for Ark 1) Building of the ark 2) Loading / Unloading 3) Gathering / Spreading 4) Feeding / Maintence 5) Genetic diversity Flood Where did the water come from Where did the water go. How do salt water fish survive salinity changes How do fresh water fish survive salinity changes How do fish get put back in their proper place on earth, after the flood retreats Physical Evidence Lack of evidence in the fossil record. Lack of evidence in geological formations.
Its a good project - search the internet and make your case. You'll probably learn a lot about science just by trying.
On April 19 2007 11:21 Hot_Bid wrote: testpat, evolution is just a theory. just like physics parasites diseases geology water water flow floods salt fish animals ark ice age earth language plants architechture ark building salinity time etc
its all theory, unproven, not enough evidence, just not enough to support it
I know the Ice Age is real - i saw the Disney movie. I think they filmed that live. Things sure were a lot cuter back then, but I think i'm happy animals can't speak now.
On April 19 2007 11:21 Hot_Bid wrote: testpat, evolution is just a theory. just like physics parasites diseases geology water water flow floods salt fish animals ark ice age earth language plants architechture ark building salinity time etc
its all theory, unproven, not enough evidence, just not enough to support it
There is more than enough to support the theories listed. Just not enough to prove them.
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
Ever heard of a guy named Josephus? Ever heard of... Historians? Scrolls? etc etc? There are plenty of external evidences for the bible. Ever hear of the Hittite civilization? There used to be a time when the bible was considered completely wrong because it mentioned the Hittites and we had not found them.
Well, we know more about them now than we do about the Egyptians.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
Boy are you mislead, the Bible cites real people, real places, real events, whether or not God exists is just about the only part that the Bible uses itself for. For example, I would seriously hope that when the Bible mentions Egypt as a country that you would be able to verify that Egypt is indeed a country.
On April 19 2007 13:22 yisun518 wrote: we were originally zerg, then evolved to protoss, then later mutated to humans, losing psychic links. our god is xel'nage. earth was flooded with hot metallic liquid, not water. the arc was a spaceship, that carried many other animals from everywhere in the universe.
You are my hero rofl... xD
gg.
last time i read about the tomb of jesus's family. real people, real place. just as believable as the bible. funny the church is so against it. also the lost gospel of judas, church is very against it as well, even though its historically documented, just as evident as any other gospels.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
Boy are you mislead, the Bible cites real people, real places, real events, whether or not God exists is just about the only part that the Bible uses itself for. For example, I would seriously hope that when the Bible mentions Egypt as a country that you would be able to verify that Egypt is indeed a country.
Egypt is a country. I am 26 feet tall. I cry cinnamon buns.
Just because a writing contains some things that are factual and citable in other sources does not mean that the rest of it is also factual. Yes, a large part of the bible, or at least the new testament, is about real people, places and things, but those aren't what is being debated. For instance, few people debate whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, but there is quite a debate about whether he was the son of god and our savior.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
Boy are you mislead, the Bible cites real people, real places, real events, whether or not God exists is just about the only part that the Bible uses itself for. For example, I would seriously hope that when the Bible mentions Egypt as a country that you would be able to verify that Egypt is indeed a country.
Egypt is a country. I am 26 feet tall. I cry cinnamon buns.
Just because a writing contains some things that are factual and citable in other sources does not mean that the rest of it is also factual. Yes, a large part of the bible, or at least the new testament, is about real people, places and things, but those aren't what is being debated. For instance, few people debate whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, but there is quite a debate about whether he was the son of god and our savior.
Stop taking things out of context, he implied the Bible is only self-verified, I corrected his error by making an example. When you take things out of context you completely ruin anything the previous people were talking about.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
Good luck storing months worth of food for 58k animals.
On April 19 2007 17:58 Annor[BbG] wrote: "Stop taking things out of context"
SELF DESTRUCTION COMMENT
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts.
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts.
See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^ Oh too bad, they don't see how ridiculous they sound. I'll put it into context.
How ridiculous you think we sound? Multiply that by 100, and that's how ridiculous you sound.
How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts.
See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^ Oh too bad, they don't see how ridiculous they sound. I'll put it into context.
How ridiculous you think we sound? Multiply that by 100, and that's how ridiculous you sound.
How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha...
I sound like someone who dont want no retards trying to argue factless faithbased 'fantasy' stories as something which is more reasonable than what scientists, and a majority of the modern world consider to be the most likely "theories"(pretty much fact) available. They are only backed by practicly everyone intelligent in the world, but hey, morons like you and annon dont care about that, cause you are retards.
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts.
See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^ Oh too bad, they don't see how ridiculous they sound. I'll put it into context.
How ridiculous you think we sound? Multiply that by 100, and that's how ridiculous you sound.
How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha...
But...there are people who have dedicated their lives to showing how we did evolve from a single cell, and have done conclusively. Go read some books, You too can get this magical substance we on the planet Earth call knowledge. On the other hand...Noah building an ark...the logistics alone cause it to be basically impossible as far as I know, and there is no evidence other than ANCIENT religious texts that there was actually a repopulation of Earth based on 58k creatures or w/e. And plus if you do say there were 58k, then how do you explain the millions of species around today? EVOLUTION MAYBE??? OH THATS RIGHT GOD DID IT.
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote: Looks like THIS COUPLE SERFING FROM FORUM TO FORUM AND ENLIGHTS UNBELIEVERS!!!11 NOOO
Forum surfing? Not really, no.
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote: NO. We evolved. You didn't.[/QUOTE]
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?
I can see it now "But you never told me!!!!!!!" Hmm.. Poor guy ;(
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 sith wrote:
But...there are people who have dedicated their lives to showing how we did evolve from a single cell, and have done conclusively. Go read some books, You too can get this magical substance we on the planet Earth call knowledge. On the other hand...Noah building an ark...the logistics alone cause it to be basically impossible as far as I know, and there is no evidence other than ANCIENT religious texts that there was actually a repopulation of Earth based on 58k creatures or w/e. And plus if you do say there were 58k, then how do you explain the millions of species around today? EVOLUTION MAYBE??? OH THATS RIGHT GOD DID IT.[/QUOTE]
We've done that conclusively? Big bang --> Light Photons (initiated the bang) --> Where did they come from? Do you know? Can you explain it? Or is it still a thorn in scientists side? The assumption is that how it started doesn't really matter, right? Because frankly you can't explain it. I say why not? If you can't explain the very beginning, isn't your whole theory screwed and unprovable until you do? So really.. it's a faith based theory?
But, I won't bring up that point, because it's like asking my philosophical questions.. Oh wait, I had an answer for the one asked me, maybe I should ask you guys that? Millions of species? Adaptation? I have no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution Creationism disagrees with.
Now shhh, you've got nothing conclusively proven. Just faith, assumption and ignorance (seriously).
I see no evidence that you exist other than the fact that you're writing words down. Should I assume that because there is no outside evidence of you existing that you don't?
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:40 XelNaga wrote: [QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote: Looks like THIS COUPLE SERFING FROM FORUM TO FORUM AND ENLIGHTS UNBELIEVERS!!!11 NOOO
Forum surfing? Not really, no.
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote: NO. We evolved. You didn't.[/QUOTE]
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?
I can see it now "But you never told me!!!!!!!" Hmm.. Poor guy ;(
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 sith wrote:
But...there are people who have dedicated their lives to showing how we did evolve from a single cell, and have done conclusively. Go read some books, You too can get this magical substance we on the planet Earth call knowledge. On the other hand...Noah building an ark...the logistics alone cause it to be basically impossible as far as I know, and there is no evidence other than ANCIENT religious texts that there was actually a repopulation of Earth based on 58k creatures or w/e. And plus if you do say there were 58k, then how do you explain the millions of species around today? EVOLUTION MAYBE??? OH THATS RIGHT GOD DID IT.[/QUOTE]
We've done that conclusively? Big bang --> Light Photons (initiated the bang) --> Where did they come from? Do you know? Can you explain it? Or is it still a thorn in scientists side? The assumption is that how it started doesn't really matter what right, because frankly you can't explain it. I say why not? If you can't explain the very beginning, isn't your whole theory screwed?
But, I won't bring up that point, because it's like asking my philosophical questions.. Oh wait, I had an answer for the one asked me, maybe I should ask you guys that? Millions of species? Adaptation? I have no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution Creationism disagrees with.
Now shhh, you've got nothing conclusively proven. Just faith, assumption and ignorance (seriously).[/QUOTE]
Haha dude you completely fuck around with everything dont you, pm me your msn/aim so i can crush you, if you dare..
Well both evolution and creationism cannot be stated as theories as both of them do not have enough proof at all. The main point is this, Creationism came from the bible, Evolution came from our imagination. Lemme pull together an argument on ur carbon dating and battle of our origins.
Richard Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University
In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
This is not an isolated case, there have been human fossils dated as the same age as our gorilla ancestors. In these cases, either carbon dating or evolution is wrong. So accordingly, if carbon dating is valid it states that some modern animals were already there back then, then evolution is screwed. But at the same time, if carbon dating is wrong, then evolution is also screwed.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
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?
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.
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.
testpat, God commanded Noah to take aboard all creatures that breathed through their nostrils, since insects breathe through pores in their skin, Noah did not have to be responsible for them. Besides, if you believe in the flood, you believe in God, so what would it be to God to spawn more insects after the flood?
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
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?
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.
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.
Anyways, all of you are bum-rushing XelNaga saying he's judging everyone but you guys are judging him. From an outsiders point-of-view he's making much more sense than any of you are. You're all just saying the same repeititve bullshit saying "don't judge, you don't know what you're talking about, etc." but not really refuting anything that he is saying. I can see his train-of-thought alot easier than most of you. Atleast he knows what he believes in and has "proof."
On April 19 2007 18:58 Manifesto7 wrote: Annor and XelNaga, are you members here simply to debate the validity of christiany? Just curious.
No that would be pointless, we have better forums to argue over religion. Just so happens we like these kinds of threads.
On April 19 2007 19:04 TheosEx wrote: Lol @ Logical "Phallacies"
Anyways, all of you are bum-rushing XelNaga saying he's judging everyone but you guys are judging him. From an outsiders point-of-view he's making much more sense than any of you are. You're all just saying the same repeititve bullshit saying "don't judge, you don't know what you're talking about, etc." but not really refuting anything that he is saying. I can see his train-of-thought alot easier than most of you. Atleast he knows what he believes in and has "proof."
b.) Although Earth was created around 4.5 billion years ago, life began to exist not long after. Due to the huge timescales involved, there is inconclusive evidence for exact dates, but nonetheless, the eagerness of life to exist was apparent from the beginning. Our Solar System was still young, and the Sun was still cooling down after its creation billions of years beforehand. The unique circumstances of our Solar System and our planet gave rise to life. This was due to a number of characteristics that are exhibited by our ecosphere, the area of a planet capable of sustaining life. Venus, one of our planetary neighbors, is closer to the sun, with the planet exhibiting characteristics that would not be able to support life. On the other hand, Mars is further away from the Sun, and too cold to naturally support life. However, with manipulation by man, via terraforming, Mars could indeed support life in its present state. However, Earth, for billions of years, has possessed all the materials and suitable conditions for supporting life. All living things possess the element carbon within them. In light of this, Earth had to have rich supply of carbon to support a rich diversity of life. This carbon was made available by the volatile nature of the Earth in the beginning, where volcanoes spewed various elements into the Earth's atmosphere. While other elements were present, various chemical reactions began to take place which would result in the creation of new compounds and elements. One of the family of compounds created over time were the amino acids, the building blocks of protein. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein, and thus the building blocks of life. The complex organisms of today harness the biological power of proteins in a variety of ways, such as the use of enzymes as a catalyst. In general, organisms over time in the evolutionary chain have grown and become more complex in their nature, i.e. the first origins of life were likely small, simple and not diversified. One understanding of the origins of life is that it would have been very unlikely that parasites were the beginnings of life. As parasites require biological hosts to reproduce and thus survive as a species, they would have been unable to successfully continue their species during this time period. In light of this, viruses and other parasites would have developed later on in the evolutionary chain. It is believed that heterotrophs were the first beginnings of life on Earth, inhabiting the sea and absorbing the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time (i.e. the creation of amino acids). The building blocks of life created these organisms and also acted as a food source. This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time. Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth A component of all existing life is that it adapts to survive. You either adapt or you already have adapted. If species did not have this instinctive nature via their genetic information, then they would have no desire to continue living as a species. Although the beginnings of life above were successfully reproducing, an economy of scale involving the organisms would point out that their food source (the organic soup) would not be able to sustain all life. In light of this, the organisms on Earth at the time would have to diversify over the long term to survive. It is suggested that around three billion years ago, autotrophic animals had diversified from previous species. These autotrophs are capable of synthesizing energy from inorganic material, i.e. via the sun and elements on the Earth. This had allowed life on Earth to tap into a whole new energy resource, one that was literally inexhaustible - the Sun. Life began to flourish, and the autotrophic organisms had tapped a new niche allowing the biomass of Earth at the time to dramatically increase. The autotrophs en masse were absorbing carbon and light. The light invariably would always be an available source for synthesizing energy, while the carbon was not. CO2 was constantly being absorbed by these organisms, and after the biological reactions responsible for creating energy in them, oxygen would be released as a by-product. This meant that oxygen began to accumulate in the oceans where life existed. This new material would in turn be taken advantage of by the adapting organisms, alias, leading to the creation of aerobic organisms, who used oxygen as a component of their energy creation. This is another example of life diversifying to adapt to its environment and exploit the niches that it could occupy. This type of evolution continued, where the supply of potential energy making elements and compounds outstretched the requirements of life, therefore organisms continued to adapt to fill all available niches as opposed to competing with one another. Pathogens existed by this time, and were able to leech resources from their single cell hosts, kill them, and move on to the next host after multiplying. On top of this, resources for all organisms alive at the time were being stretched by the increasing population of species' and also the diversity of unique species. Alias, the exhaustible materials used by species were limited, and they would have to 'fight for their right' to survive. To do this, natural selection would give them a competitive advantage over other organisms and perhaps relieve stress caused by competition within the species (intraspecific). One noted event in the origins of life is the emergence of protists. Although these organisms were single celled like all other organisms, they were notably bigger, some being visible to the human eye. This adaptation must have been a selective advantage at the time, either over competitors or taking advantage of an ecological niche. In fact, the adaptive change is believed to be anatomical. Unlike other organisms, the protists contained cell organelles, which meant that a fundamental difference in the way life operated had arisen in the case of the protists. The occurrence of the protists was so unique that the diversity of them substantiates the Animalia and Plantae classifications, because differentiating characteristics were noted, i.e. the presence of organelles. Basically, protists are unique because they possess a nucleus which contains the genetic information of the cell and alias the organism. Previous species were more simple in their nature, and did not possess such a complex cellular structure. The mitochondria is present in both animal and plant cells in today's world, suggesting that the arrival of the mitochondria in the evolutionary chain was slightly before recognizable taxonomical differences between animals and plants. The mitochondria is unique in the sense that the organelle contains its own DNA, which is derived from its parents. Naturally, as the mitochondria is responsible for the breakdown of organic molecules to release energy (i.e. respiration), this DNA was responsible for the reactions involved to do this. The remarkable thing about mitochondria is their striking similarity to that of a species of amoeba, where the structure of the two are similar. In this particular species of amoeba, symbiotic bacteria enact what the mitochondria does in more advanced cell structures. The end of this symbiotic relationship no doubt increased parasitism, due to the fact that cells now possessed their own energy supply, they could be exposed and eradicated by the pathogens of the time. Although geological records for this period are sketchy to say the least, evidence suggests that organelles continued to diversify in this period, further differentiating the taxon that we use today to class them. Hair like structures called cilia and flagella were developing in some species, allowing them to move with wind and water currents. This general progression and diversification has lead to the range of functions that cell organelles perform in modern organisms. The most unusual thing about natural is its repetition of a particular characteristic across a broad band of species. Such a situation arises when looking the development of unicellular organisms at the time. The organelles developing within these species all have structural similarities in relation to function. As in the example above, the mitochondria on a single cell is very similar to that of an entire species, yet mitochondria are found in almost all forms of organisms that have existed on Earth. A push-pull relationship is notable in the evolution of these organisms. In one instance, they become more similar, either because the similarity is an advantage or because environmental pressure was forcing natural selection and thus the species to evolve in this way. On the other hand, organisms were diversifying to occupy previously sterile environments, therefore adapting to better suit their new environment. On the other hand of this, other organisms (as above) would adapt closer to them, due to less competition in the habitat and natural selection favoring a move to this environment. In other words, nature at the time, both parasites and uni-cellular organisms, were more in less in equilibrium, continuing to expand but also moving away/moving closer in relation to other organisms...life continued to change into the Cambrian Period, over half a billion years ago. The beginning of the Cambrian era saw a widespread arrival of multi-cellular organisms, particularly in the form of sponges. These species, who inhabited the Earth around half a billion years ago, could grow up to 1 metre across, making this distinctly different from the previous unicellular organisms. This was the beginning of cell specialization into tissues, where particular tissues could perform functions to the well-being of the organism at large. The interesting thing about specialization at the time is the fact that if you segregated the cells of these organisms, each cell could still live independently. This is a prolonged example in evolution where characteristics within organisms are similar to that of whole organisms, as in the mitochondria example mentioned at the foot of the previous page. In fact, some multi-cellular species possess organelles that are indistinguishable from some species. The accumulative induction of advantageous characteristics held by species was obviously being learned by the genome of other organisms, i.e. the permutations and advantages are common and widespread. One major event in time is the development of sexual reproduction. Previous species method of reproduction was simply mitosis, repeated cell division which produced new organisms, and exact copy of their ancestors. Of course, mutations and other factors over time changed their genome causing them to evolve. But with sexual reproduction, genetic information is shared between organisms, meaning that the permutations involved in the long term involving the genome of species greatly increased. This is because of all the variances involved in meiosis meant that the possible genotype of offspring increased, and natural selection could take effect on the unique organisms. Consider the following: Previous life did not use sex as a means of reproduction, they replicated making exact copies of themselves, genetic diversity was only increased by mutation and new chemical reactions occurring on Earth making simple proteins, more modern organisms share genetic information by sexual reproduction, 50% of genetic material is taken from each unique parent, the offspring is unique, containing only 50% of genetic material from each parent, plus any change caused by natural selection and mutations, overall, diversity in the species is increased, causing differences, and thus selective advantages/advantages in comparison to one another within the species, and in relation to their environment. Due to the increased possibilities that life could diversify to with the advent of sex, genetic variation greatly increased, and filled the ecosystems niches to a further extent. Competition for resources with species and against other organisms would be increasing in relation to past times, as populations increased and resources diminished. In light of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest', organisms would have to fight for their right to survive, and be able to adapt fast enough to their environment to stand the test of time. In light of this predicament to life on Earth, further diversity continued, with the creation of distinct animals and plants arriving on the Earth's surface. There are over two million species of arthropods, who initially arrived on Earth in the middle of the Cambrian period. Naturally, they were more evolved than their ancestors in a variety of ways and thus possessed their own unique characteristics. Essentially, arthropods are characterized by possessing jointed limbs and an exoskeleton. They are the most successful animal Phylum on the planet, in regards to population size and species diversity. There is thought to be over 2 million types of arthropod in today's world. The exoskeleton may illustrate what life was like at the time. It is of a defensive, protective nature to possess a shell, thus this suggests that competition was quite fierce in the Cambrian era, both from parasites and potential predators. The arthropods were also the first taxon of species to exhibit more advanced receptors in the form of eyes (photoreceptors) and the development of various chemoreceptors that could be used in both the external and internal environment. Such developments have naturally been advantageous over time, illustrated by ourselves. Since the arthropods possessed such desirable features, their survival over the long term is apparent by their genetic diversity, elaborated upon below. As life originated in the sea, the sea was still a valuable ecological niche to the numerous species of the time. Crustacean means insect of the sea, and is a Subphylum of the Arthropoda Phylum. Although abundant, the crustaceans remain relatively simple in the grand scheme of life, and thus did not diversify well in comparison to other organisms. Some of the species in this class were able to occupy the freshwater ecosystem over time, though not successful as what could have been. Competition from more adaptive organisms would have been a biotic factor here. The continued use of feet was evident in these organisms, as a continuation of the organisms mentioned on the previous page of the timeline. The fact that the species' limbs were now jointed, they could move more flexibly and thus had an advantage. Many crustaceans are herbivores, meaning they obtain food from the consumption of plants. They are of great importance to aquatic ecosystems, and are above species of phytoplankton (micro-scopic plants) in the food chain. This can be related to in the freshwater ecology tutorial investigating food chains and plankton. Also, many crustacean animals feed on mollusks, the more evolutionary primitive animals mentioned on the previous page. Including centipedes and millipedes, these species take advantage of the advent of feet and organs assisting movement across the ground. Since the Myriapods have so many legs, the co-ordinated escape from predators is slow. This has led to them adapting and evolving chemical defenses when potential biological danger comes too close. They also harness the use of chemoreceptors to assist them in their external environment, as well as physiological adaptations to assist them in burrowing into the ground, another method of defense, and also a way of diversifying into ground based environments over time. Arachnids were one of the first taxon of species to occupy dry land, the first transition from dry land from the life origins of the sea. Due to these bold creatures' actions, their ancestors have successfully realized their species goal of survival, occupying previously sterile, unchallenged environments. This would have occurred around a quarter of a billion years ago, approximately the same distance in time between the present > then and then > the origin of life. As a side note, it is quite interesting to note that humans begin to occupy space at around the same time scale involving life moving from the sea to land. The Class Insecta of the Arthropoda Phylum is by far the most successful and diverse taxon on planet Earth. In fact, there are more species of insect than any other species combined. This surely illustrates that insects have particular selective advantages that allow them to take the most advantage of the environment that they live in. The development of insects was a stamping of authority by animals species on life developing at the time. Insects possess all the selective advantages of the arthropods mentioned on the previous page plus their own unique advantages with each species of them. Here are some reasons as to why insects enjoyed their continued existence over such a long period of time (beginning over 400 million years ago). Since some insects developed wings, they could easily escape from predators and travel large distances without any danger in the form of other animals in the air. The more primitive insects, most likely the first insects are wingless, thus this suggests that flying was a natural selective advantage at the time and has continued to be for many insect species. Insects would develop respiratory complications if they grew to an abnormal size. In light of this, the wide range of insect species are small in size, meaning they can occupy small areas and require a small amount of food in order for them to survive. A general rule of thumb in biology is that smaller organisms produce offspring faster, and as organisms of the time reproduced sexually, this meant that the crossing of genetic information was more frequent. This in turn meant that variation in the genome of the species increased as a whole, and thus continued to diversify and compete. Just like the other arthropods, took the opportunity to occupy dry land, and thus evolved to cater for their new environment. Evolutionary adaptations mapped out in insect species points out the minimum water transpired by the organisms, illustrating their relatively audacious transition from a wet environment to dry land. Insects also occupy the sea, though face stiffer competition from the continuous evolution that was happening there with other species, creating environmental pressure and an occupational threshold of habitats. Insects continued to evolve the sense developed by other arthropods and their ancestors, and were capable of interpreting auditory, visual and chemical stimuli. Over the evolutionary timeline we have followed, although plants have not been mentioned much, insects were heavily dependent on plant life. Both insects and plants have co-evolved with one another, and if you had removed one of them at any point in history, scores of species would have never existed in today's world. Butterflies undergo a process called metamorphosis, which is a transition from embryonic to adult form of a species. In the case of the butterfly, adults hatch eggs within plants to camouflage them against potential damage and predators who may eat the eggs. In other cases, insects are herbivores, and thus eat plants as a means of nutrition. In reverse instances, plants like the Venus Fly Trap engulf insects within their defensive mechanisms and kill them. Insects pollinate plants, providing a way for plants to create offspring and successfully pass their genome through the generations. Some species of insects are capable of communicating with one another. This would be one of the first instances of this in the evolutionary chain, and remarkably happening hundreds of millions of years ago. Bees are an example of a social insect, who perform a waggle dance in front of fellow bees from the same hive to indicate the quality and navigational source of a food supply. Indeed, insects were an important factor in life's transition from water to land. While insects and similar types of organism strived to occupy land, the sea was teaming with life aiming to secure their long term survival. As a consequence of this, reproduction occurred and genetic variation increased. This results in the arrival of fish, who were adapting to live in the largest ecosystem on earth, water. There are over 20 000 species of fish, all of which have diversified over time to aptly occupy a particular habitat. Since aquatic environments vary greatly in regards to its characteristics, fish diversity also varies greatly. Depending on season, chronological point in time, depth of water and many other factors, temperature will affect how a fish species would occupy or even exist in an ecosystem. An example is some species being better suited to tropical warm waters while others occupy the polar regions of Earth in its present day. Fish have diversified to occupy saltwater and freshwater in the best way possible. This is further illustrated in the animal water regulation tutorial page. The main reason for this being a significant factor is the effect that salt has on osmoregulation, thus fish have underwent significant anatomical adaptations to occupy the respective environments. Other species may represent competition, danger, a source of food or provide a symbiotic relationship. Nonetheless, all species are inevitably a factor, and this is indeed the same case for fish. Check out the producer / consumer relationship page in the freshwater ecology tutorial for an elaboration of this relationship between organisms. Chemical composition, amount of sunlight and numerous other factors would determine the evolutionary lines of fish from the original ancestors. Many years ago the Earth was still very unstable, rapid and extreme geological change would have wiped out adapted organisms and promoted change in the more adaptive organisms. The most primitive fish are invertebrates, of which some still exist today. These would most likely be the first fish to occupy Earth, having diversified from the primitive crustaceans that occupied the sea beforehand. These primitive and relatively unspecialized organisms would have adapted over a long period of time (millions of years) to take into account the factors above. Also, as competition increased and available habitats decreased, fish would have had to be more aggressive or more co-operative in their nature to survive in the long term. This has led to species like the shark, which is of phenomenal size and represents danger. Other species have taken a different approach, adopting chemical defenses as a means of survival. Others have adapted to occupy very low altitudes, thus avoiding some of the more competitive habitats closer to the water surface. All in all, fish, alongside the later developing mammals, would successfully dominate the seas. In the future, mammals would occupy the sea from land, but fish done the opposite; they evolved from sea on to land just like the arthropods intended. Many amphibians, like many fish and insects, were vertebrates, and are all under the Subphylum taxon Vertebrata. Amphibians are typically characterized by their incomplete transition from water to land. They are a class of organism that typically inhabits coastal areas or surrounding aquatic environments. Obtaining air outside an aquatic environment required species to have suited adaptations, and this was the case of amphibians, many of which contain both gills and lungs for aquatic and above water respiration. An interesting note to take about amphibians is that the typical life cycle of one involves a transition from water to land, just like the overall transition amphibians took as a collective many years ago. The common frog spawns its eggs with the help of plants in the aquatic environment. These young eggs develop into adults, and head towards land. The adolescent frog moves to land. When reaching sexual maturity, the adult returns to water to spawn eggs, as in step 1. So basically, the entire evolutionary emergence of amphibians is re-acted again and again in each successful generation of amphibian species - like the frog. The amphibians never quite made it on to land, but reptiles did. One of the main reasons for this is the two evolutionary adaptations developed by the common early reptile, waterproof skin a shelled eggs (containing their young). Also, although reptiles were cold blooded just like their amphibian ancestors, they were able to adapt to the warmer, dryer environments found on dry land. With this sole advantage at hand, they were provided a gateway to further diversify and occupy the habitats of dry land. At the time, it is important to note that other animals and plants were succeeding in occupying land, and thus provided a framework for the early reptiles to exist within. Although reptiles were occupying bold new environments (land / shore and sea), a degree of co-operation and competition would ensure that they would survive and prosper as a collective in the long term. No other type of animal had successfully occupied land at this time. Through another perspective, biomass on land was low, because not many animals had became adaptive enough to survive on land. With this in hand, many reptiles were herbivores, taking advantage of the hydroseres and other plants available on land or shorelines. But as these organisms occupied land, when they died, the following would have happened, which would have helped life's chances of fully occupying land. The first reptiles and amphibians to tread land, and die on land would have broken down into simpler organic compounds. This would have enriched the nutrients in the soil, allowing plants to grow, and micro-organisms to exist on a large scale. Organisms who rely on the above would migrate to land, as would any other organism capable of existing in the growing habitat. This continued ecosystem succession would inevitably allow land to support life on a scale similar to that of the sea. And indeed this was true. As the Triassic period came around, around 230 million years ago, the dinosaurs were emerging as the dominant force on land. No one truly knows how the dinosaurs became extinct, but the fact is they disappeared and a whole host of ecological niches were made available to other organisms, who could harness the resources of these niches due to the absence of competition (and predation) by dinosaurs. The dinosaurs disappeared around 65 million years ago, with many other land dwelling organisms also dying out around this time. Regardless of what killed off the dinosaurs, it was comprehensive. The general consensus is that a major geological event killed off many of the land dwelling organisms, particularly the larger ones. This would have caused an overall drop of biomass on land, and therefore 'less food to go round' all the organisms that occupied dry land. Also, many food chain relationships would have been disrupted, causing a gradual breakdown of populations in the long term, sometimes leading to extinction, essentially survival of the fittest. Insects, due to their size, were adaptable and already diverse, meaning that at least their short term survival and close relationship with plants (at the bottom of any food chain) was secured. Marine life was still plentiful, and diversifying, while mammals were emerging to be the next dominant force on plant Earth. Birds were also diversifying, and taking advantage of their proportionately larger body in comparison to insects, alongside their ability to fly. On the other hand mammals were specializing on land, and trees, which we further investigate on the next page of the timeline below. Humans are mammals, the most successful taxonomic class of organisms to colonize the Earth. The word mammal derives from the Latin meaning of breast, "mamma", where breasts are a consistent trait among mammals in mothers feeding for feeding their young. Coincidentally, the more scientific name for the breast is the mammary gland, which further illustrates the point. Mammals are a diverse group of organisms, where the majority of them develop their offspring within the uterus of the mother, though exceptions are noted. For example, monotremes lay eggs, like their common ancestors the reptiles and birds. To further diverse, over time mammals have diversified into the placentals and the marsupials. But before we get into that, first look at the ancestors of the mammals to get a better understanding of how the mammals became dominant in the first place, in accordance with natural selection and geological events. The taxonomic class Mammalia is within the Vertebrata phylum, which elementarily suggests that the direct ancestors of mammals were vertebrates. This is true of course, as it would have allowed taxonomists to order the species in light of this. Over three hundred million years ago, when life was beginning to conquer dry land, reptiles had adapted from their ancestors to live on the land, and acquire an ecological niche that otherwise had no competition. It is believed that a niche of reptiles deemed the paramammals, which have sufficient distinctions between both reptiles and mammals, to suggest that mammals indeed evolved from reptiles. Although some reptiles were beginning to possess mammal-like features, it was not for another 50 million years that the first distinctive differences were being noticed in species. Land animals were continuing to diversify and occupy new ecological niches and move away from competitive environments. Herbivores soon diversified from the reptiles, while dog-like species were becoming dominant as a competitor to the more reptile-like creatures. These dog like creatures were beginning to diversify in the land environment, and become a true competitor for land resources, unlike the more water-dependant reptiles. Characteristic changes like cold to warm-blooded, prolonged front teeth, fur and mammary glands helped taxonomists note the difference over time from the transition from reptiles to more mammal like creatures. While the tussle for resources developed, the mammals remained small and continually changed in various ways of adaptation that allowed them to fill in more land based ecological niches. However, this time on Earth saw the dominance of the dinosaurs, who also derived from the reptiles mentioned above. Well known to us, dinosaurs continued to dominate and fill a majority of land's major niches for some years to come, but alias, they did not stand the test of time. No one truly knows why the dinosaurs became extinct, but the suggestion of an asteroid hitting Earth would make it plausible to suggest that mammals survived because they were smaller with many species based underground, and also required less energy to survive. This could mean that the mammals were more prepared for such an occurrence, and thus the reason why they survived through the dinosaur extinction. However, since the dinosaurs were no longer an entity, the mammals now had a huge range of ecological niches to fill, without too much competition stopping them from doing so. Also, while the dinosaurs ruled on their own accord, true mammals were beginning to develop, exhibiting many of the characteristics you would see in any present day mammal. The other descendants of the reptiles, Class Aves (birds), were also a dominant force at the time, adopting some dinosaur like aggressive characteristics that were to prove competitive to mammals for some time to come. Nonetheless, the Class Mammalia of organisms was soon to develop into its own entirety, where all present day mammals are directly descended from. At around 65 million years ago, the first true signs of mammals were to appear. By the time the dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago, the worlds land mass had split up into more or less the present day continents as opposed to the Pangaea that was initially inhabited by the first dinosaurs. Much of this geological change is the factor that moulded the mammalian species of today's planet. It is not entirely known what killed off the dinosaurs, but after this time, the Earth's ecosphere was rapidly changing and throwing up a wide range of ecological niches that new adaptive organisms could fit into. This would further accelerate evolution and adaptation by all animals, including mammals. The most noted difference, as above, was that mammalian species developed in different continents, and although possessed many similar characteristics, they had adapted to suit their own unique environment. Each continent therefore had its own variety of mammalian organisms and their own unique evolutionary chain and direction. This epoch is of importance to mammals because it was the time that the super-continent Eurasia (Europe and Asia) collided with Africa, allowing the previously speciated mammals of both continents to diverse into each others ecological niche's, and to an extent, allow offspring to be produced between Eurasian and African species that were sufficiently similar enough still in ancestral terms to still breed with one another. What was previous a geographical barrier (the ocean) was now a bridge between two continents, which greatly accelerated genetic diversity and competition between species and predator/prey relationships. This survival of the fittest in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution would greatly help in diversifying species to what would become the species of present day Earth. While competition from other organisms (reptiles / fish / birds) was minimal, evolution made its mark on mammal organisms as they continued to evolve and adapt to the ecological niches land offered. In fact, mammals were so good at adapting, that they also began to occupy the air and water in tandem with their main ecological niche, land. Land provided an area for evolution to continue, where man's distant relatives would have lived and taken advantage of their wild habitats millions upon millions of years ago. The mammals diversified to the point of speciation, each inhabiting its own ecological niche and exhibiting its own selective advantages. Although humans in today's world are the most advanced species on the planet, we previously shared the exact same genetic information of other animals in today's world. But all in all, the human ancestral line involves the hominid family, who diversified from the apes around 6 to 8 million years ago. Since then our evolutionary path has proved to be nothing short of phenomenal. Since this sort of timescale is massive in terms of the time humans have existed, there is little evidence to back up any solid theories as to the exact date that hominids diversified from their previous fellow primates. Previous scientific evidence pointed towards Africa being the origin of this occurrence though more recent research suggests that early hominids may have originated in Europe and migrated South. The most famous example of evidence supporting this era is the skeleton “Lucy”, found in Ethiopia, in the African continent, where evidence dates her life at about 3 million years ago. As the only remains from this period are bones, that have survived the test of time, skeletal features have helped us define the evolutionary process between primates and more modern but previous versions of today’s man. The palaeoanthropologists who discovered such remains like Lucy mapped the subtle evolutionary changes in the skeletal structure of apes and what we define as early hominids, a distant ancestor of our present species. The remarkable evolutionary chain that we follow here involves the australopithecines, Lucy being such a creature. We have little evidence of how these primates actually behaved, but we can distinguish noted differences such as a change in the size of the australopithecines head, pertaining to more like a modern mans. One deduction made from evidence is that the early hominids were the first of the evolutionary line to move away from the jungle and into the open lands. This could have been a result of increased competition in the jungle, and therefore they diversified to the new location, and then returned to the jungle due to their inability to fit in the ecological niche at present. In summary, three distinct species of the genus Australopithecus existed between 5 and 2 million years ago, all of which exhibited bipedal motion during their existence on Earth. Meaning “southern ape from afar”, this species probably roamed the Earth around 4 million years ago. This name was given due to the discovery of remains in Ethiopia in the early 20th century, where its discoveries in East Africa are restricted to this area, the Afar Triangle in Ethiopia. Believed to have derived from Australopithecus africanus, this species would have superceded the afarensis species due to its more aptly suited genome. The species remained roughly the same height, though continued to develop long term into a species more similar to man. It is thought that these two species are in some way indirectly related to the long term ancestry of modern man. Around 2 million years ago, a significant change was occurring in the size of brain of the australopithecines. The change in overall structure of the species meant that taxonomists gave an entirely new genus to the species. The species of homo pertains to the more recent ancestral line of modern man, homo meaning the same as, and sapiens pertaining to ‘man’. This certainly seems relevant when looking in hindsight. The first glimmers of intelligence were beginning to appear in these species that is comparable to modern man. Basic blunt stone tools were beginning to be used, which could be used in a variety of ways in the hominids daily lives. For example, the tools could be used for carving out their prey, or using a stone to smash branches of trees for wood. This in turn gave them the chance once again to survive out in the open land, as perhaps their distinct ancestors tried but were less prepared and evolved. This competitive advantage in early homo species was a result of natural selection itself, and thus a critical stage in the development of man. Over the long term, it looked like homo would supercede any ‘similar model’ of animal due to their unique tool using competitive advantages. At this point in the timeline, Homo habilis was mans link in that time and place, and was typically taller than any of the australopithecines mentioned previously. Homo erectus is the Latin meaning for 'upright man'. At around of the Quaternary Period of Phylogenetic classification, the Homo species was beginning to exhibit the characteristics of modern man. No doubt much of this had to do with their superiority over similar organisms in their ecological niche and the newer environments that early man was beginning to occupy. The brain size of Homo erectus is notably larger than its ancestors, and excavations of the species have been found in parts of China, a long way away from the theoretical ancestral origins of man in Africa (or Europe, see previous). Homo sapiens, meaning wise man was the next movement towards modern man. They existed as early as the Quaternary period (around 1.6 million years ago) and their brains showed increased growth from previous species, and exhibited more intelligence from human records. The tools being used were becoming more sophisticated, as were the learning and habituation over generations that allowed man to easily adapt to its surroundings. The species as a whole was occupying a diverse range of continents, therefore greatly diversifying our gene pool over a long period of time. Archaeological finds have also suggested the first use of wooden tools, like spears, through various finds across the Asian, European and African continents. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is a subspecies of Homo sapiens well known for its hypothesized common ancestry with man. They arrived on the scene around a quarter of a million years ago, and continued to evolve to around 30,000 BC. Due to the more recent nature of this subspecies, more information has been found out about them, although it is debatable whether Neanderthal man and our own species are one of the same or unique. The Neanderthals were widespread across both Europe and Asia during this time. From around the time that the Neanderthals were beginning to disappear, the new modern man was offering the newest competitive advantages and ability to adapt and learn. This species is our own, Homo sapiens sapiens. From 30,000 years ago up until this present day, our own species has exhibited the most advantageous characteristics to adapt and manipulate our environment. The skills accumulated over many generations of our species and continued favoring of advantageous characteristics via natural selection inevitably meant that our species would evolve beyond all recognition in comparison to the other species of the planet. From this point, the species and its component skills managed to colonize all the main continents of today’s world, bar Antarctica, which still presented conditions unbearable to the species and the technology of the time. However, more complex tools were being developed, and that has continued over the period of time where we have successfully monitored historical events in our human race. At this point, human history in the abstract manner truly begins.
if your are more intrested considering this topic, there is alot about this on youtube, if you search on Kent Hovind. Also about the topic, he has a own seminar called "age of the earth". There is also many neutral debates with Kent Hovind vs evolutionists, you can find all this on youtube or on googlevideo or you can download his seminars on http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
I KNOW
you did not fucking tell someone to go to kent hovind
what the fuck, honestly ive tried to stay out of this and even defend religion against people who are really demeaning and degrating to religious folk (and im not even religious but people can be really rude) but this is just retarded. Sorry, Kent Hovind is a crook, hes a joke, watch his "seminars" and see how stupid they are. His stand up routine can be quite amusing.
Also you sound retarded when you are (not specifically the person i quoted, I dont remember who it was in the thread" "all life came from one cell? HAH"
seriously, grow a brain. And to whoever said that atheists have no point in life? Whats your point? Didnt god create you to worship him? Doesnt that sound a bit egocentric? Or maybe it sounds like god has some self esteem problems and needs some reassurance of how cool he/she is.
Seriously, Im all for religion if you keep it to yourself but come on.
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. [/qoute]
i alerady went over that, bees dont breathe though nostrils, noah didn't have to take care of em, even if God didn't respawn them after, many of them could have hitched a ride upon the ark during the flood.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
Good luck storing months worth of food for 58k animals.
GG BIBLE.
Moron, look up the dimensions of the ark before you contest that they couldn't store the food.
in addition, most species would die out because of lack of diversity in the genes of the original population.
So all coming from the same original single life form isn't considered dying out from genetic diversity? We say two similar animals of all the types for our genetic diversity. You say one single animal created all others. How is more genetically diverse? The Bible.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
Good luck storing months worth of food for 58k animals.
GG BIBLE.
Moron, look up the dimensions of the ark before you contest that they couldn't store the food.
Uhhh, yeah, so who's job was it to do the feeding?
Seriously though, I banned one athiest, dont make me even the table by flaming people.
On April 19 2007 18:53 littleboy wrote: Well both evolution and creationism cannot be stated as theories as both of them do not have enough proof at all. The main point is this, Creationism came from the bible, Evolution came from our imagination. Lemme pull together an argument on ur carbon dating and battle of our origins.
Richard Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University
In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
This is not an isolated case, there have been human fossils dated as the same age as our gorilla ancestors. In these cases, either carbon dating or evolution is wrong. So accordingly, if carbon dating is valid it states that some modern animals were already there back then, then evolution is screwed. But at the same time, if carbon dating is wrong, then evolution is also screwed.
And right after that text is : "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative
Summarizing
1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.
2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.
3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.
4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.
Quote mining by creationists is not an isolated case. It actually seems to be their main form of attack.
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.
Hi, nice to meet you. I'm XelNaga, have we met before? I'm not sure, but we're meeting now.
Just to make sure we are on the same page.
Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters).
I don't think lighting is so much a problem, probably had... Windows?
So now that we've gotten the dimensions of the ark out of the way, lets talk about some more of it. I really haven't been following what you and Annor have been saying, because frankly this topic has gone absurdly out of hand. But, I figure the guy started posting because of me, so I'll post in his stead as well.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
First of all feeding. Animals can survive on plant diets, that's no issue. Animals that can hibernate, probably did hibernate, that's not an issue. Cleaning up after them? Not a big issue, once again they are on an ocean, they can toss everything over board. Especially considering that birds, hibernating animals and insects don't really create that much waste.
Moving along, with the hole polar bear, penguin argument, we run into a problem. The basic assumption from everyone here is that the world in Noah's day resembled the world today. Which, it didn't. It's referred to as the "pre-flood" world. Probably meaning that earths temperatures were uniform throughout. Meaning that micro evolution (adaption) took place within species, something that doesn't disagree with the bible.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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?
It explains what Noah took, how many.. Invertebrates, you get the idea? Basically, once again the logical fallacy is that the species we have today all existed in Noahs time. Assuming that the climate of Noah's day was uniform this wouldn't be the case, after the flood there would be a need for adaption, but not so much before. There were less animals; micro evolution. It's a divided topic over what Noah took
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.[/quote]
Over a year..
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
I think this was more an observation, a correct one at that lol.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
Hmm.. I wonder how the sexes evolved.. Anyone explain?
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
Oh yeah? Enjoying the speculation ^^ Bees didn't breathe through their nostrils by the way, God took care of those. You accuse Annor of not reading scripture and you've made the same mistake..
Haha dude you completely fuck around with everything dont you, pm me your msn/aim so i can crush you, if you dare..
ITS A DARE PEOPLEe
How about you explain to me how those particles that caused the big bang got there.
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.
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.
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.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
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?
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.
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.
Your useless. I've answered your ark questions 3 times now, and all you do is tell me to go reread it after you don't quote anything, don't respond with anything new. You just keep saying the same things over and over. I'm done responding to your questions until you think of some new ones.
"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."
This is the only thing worth responding to. If God created all the animals, how is 10,000 years not enough to achieve our diversity... Also I didn't mistake the origin of life for evolution, we are discussing parts of the Evolutionary Theory, and the origins of life are a major part of that.
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 19:39 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.
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.
Six more posts and you'll be a 1337? Nice of you to post your two cents?
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 19:39 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.
Ja it is at that.
I don't really concern myself with religious debates...they won't end...ever.
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?
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 19:44 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
how did god create the universe? thats equally as hard to answer as big bang. 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"....
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 improvement and correction through time.
Might as well party, drink and do whatever because after they're gone, there's nothing.
in christian religion, you get to go to heaven or hell after life :x a bit different in other religions. and without religion, you go nowhere. perhaps to an unknown dimension outside your skull.
p.s. i see lots of logical phallacies in this thread. i probably made some phallacies as well, cant be perfect unless study philosophy fulltime, even then, philosophers often make phallacies.....
On April 19 2007 19:47 Smurg wrote: XelNaga, what are you trying to prove?
I haven't figured it out yet.
I don't know? It was every one else who jumped on my back after my post. If you can't handle my relentless ability to post, then they shouldn't have started with me. I had explained my original comments quite well and then someone decided to branch out into something completely different and it's been going from there.
What am I proving? The same thing the other side is trying to prove: Nothing.
On April 19 2007 19:50 yisun518 wrote: how did god create the universe? thats equally as hard to answer as big bang.
I wouldn't know? Then again, my theory doesn't claim to know, evolution does. Stop avoiding the question and answer it? Or do you not have an answer?
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"....
I'd say it's more inconceivable to believe in a random mistake than it is to believe in intelligent design. As for the spaghetti monster well.. You completely lost yourself after you mentioned it. Didn't you hear? We won't be around in a thousand years.
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.
Still having trouble disproving my bible eh? Amazingly, creationism does look for proof! Aghast!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Oh sorry? You had mentioned you were going to get into "deep shit", I had assumed you were actually going to get into deep topics (like philosophy)... And what, I'm not allowed to state my mind like everyone else? Who would have thought!
On April 19 2007 19:46 XelNaga wrote: 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?
If we don't have free will (as in, it's only an illusion.. A Hobsons choice) then why would God give us the choice in the Garden of Eden?
On April 19 2007 19:50 yisun518 wrote:
in christian religion, you get to go to heaven or hell after life :x a bit different in other religions. and without religion, you go nowhere. perhaps to an unknown dimension outside your skull.
p.s. i see lots of logical phallacies in this thread. i probably made some phallacies as well, cant be perfect unless study philosophy fulltime, even then, philosophers often make phallacies.....
Yeah, but we aren't talking in other religions, nor do I believe any other religion is true (How bigoted of me). Atheism in this sense doesn't leave room for an "after life", once you're dead, you're dead.
@xelnage, regarding intelligent design argued by theologians.
one of the first fundamental problem with argument by design can be easily found through comparison.
we create cellphones, computers, sophisticated things. all intelligent beings are complicated, then they must have been designed. since we are intelligent beings, we must have been designed, by ... god!
well, we design for reasons, to learn, to entertain ourselves, to discover, to help ourselves etc. then by argument of comparison (the very logic used for intelligent design) God created us to learn, entertain himself, to discover, and help himself.
Wait a sec, God is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-being entity.... He does not need to learn, to discover, and he definitely doesnt need help. And to entertain himself? He is all knowing, and all being, he knows and experience everything simultaneously, whats left to entertain him? We play games and sports not knowing the result, when he knows the results of everything, knowing he will create humans and knowing humans will betray him, how is he getting entertained?
And the 2nd fatal comparison is, humans make mistakes in designs. GOD does not, yet created humans, who have flaws. A clear imcompatibility in the comparison argument.
Therefore, the very technique used for argument of design can be used to reveal logical flaws in the reasoning.
And a side note, that sounds like a pretty sadistic GOd to me knowing his creation will betray him.
I would like to keep using philosophical methodologies, and refrain from logical phallacies, i compare apple to apples. If i made any phallacies or illogical arguments, plz do point out. I want to make this an constructive environment.
On April 19 2007 20:05 HumbleZealot wrote: XelNaga you still haven't responded to my last post, how the hell did it have anything to do with philosophy?
When you said you it was going to start getting into "deep shit". By deep I thought you had meant a more heady topic (like philosophy) and not you telling me I was going to get insulted (Which I already am). It was a mis read on my part.
On April 19 2007 20:05 Smurg wrote:
Why don't you just stop then?
It doesn't mean you 'lose' morally or argument wise.
There is nothing to prove, I guess it's smarter to stop.
I had stopped, I only started against recently because I was bored? And yeah, it was probably a better idea to have just stopped when I did.
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote: intelligent design argued by theologens.
one of the first fundamental problem with argument by design can be easily found through comparison.
we create cellphones, computers, sophisticated things. all intelligent beings are complicated, then they must have been designed. since we are intelligent beings, we must have been designed, by ... god!
This isn't a stance taken by theologians* It's a detractive argument poised by evolutionists in argument against the existence of God. Intelligent design, as I understand it, believes in a creator because... Of the Genesis creation account, not because of sophistication as you've postulated. Where sophistication does come in is later where it seems absurd to think that everything randomly evolved instead of being created.
They aren't using sophistication as you have said "It's complicated so it must have been created" It's a dead end argument with too many logical fallacies.
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote: well, we design for reasons, to learn, to entertain ourselves, to discover, to help ourselves etc. then by argument of comparison (the very logic used for intelligent design) God created us to learn, entertain himself, to discover, and help himself.
Really eh? I didn't realize that humankind thought exactly the same way God did! Which, would be the fallacy of this stance. How can a man understand the mind of God? (Don't make me quote the scripture). God created us.. for his pleasure. He didn't have to, he's God, but he did anyway. He didn't need us to discover, he didn't need us to learn and he didn't need us to help him.
Our minds are no where near the mind of God, two completely different things. Assuming our minds are the same as God's just because he created us doesn't really make sense?
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote: Wait a sec, God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-being entity.... He does not need to learn, to discover, and he definitely doesnt need help. And to entertain himself? He is all knowing, and all being, he knows and experience everything simultaneously, whats left to entertain him? We play cards and sports not knowing the result, when he knows the results of everything, knowing he will create humans and knowing humans will betray him, how is he getting entertained?
This entire postulation is based on the fallacy contained within your last point made. As such, this is also wrong in its assumptions.
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote: And a side note, that sounds like a pretty slave-driving sadistic GOd to me knowing his creation will betray him.
Do parents have children knowing their children will disobey them? So do they just avoid it altogether? Or do they have children anyway?
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote: I would like to keep using philosophical methodologies, and refrain from logical phallacies, i compare apple to apples. If i made any phallacies or illogical arguments, plz do point out. I want to make this an constructive environment.
I'd just like to say sorry for the double posting. I'm used to a forum where you can edit/delete posts ;\
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote: And the 2nd fatal comparison is, humans make mistakes in designs. GOD does not, yet created humans, who have flaws. A clear imcompatibility in the comparison argument.
Ok, firstly, this is a really big waste of time and I don't know why I'm doing this. I can't get angry every time someone slanders science by saying that it's a religion, or that it's as dogmatic as religion is, because I'd just spend my life being angry. I guess the only good that come come from this is to convince someone reading it, but I think most people would have given up on that after the first few pages.
On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Sure you are, your first leap of faith is that you don't believe in God. Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming God doesn't exist.
Are we to say that it's a leap of faith to not believe in Zeus or Russell's celestial teapot? Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming Zeus doesn't exist.
On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Can you prove it beyond a doubt? Is it something that's repeatable? Were you there to observe and record it?
Yes, evolution is proved beyond a doubt in the same way that gravity is proved beyond a doubt. Experiments that have been done on evolution are repeatable. You don't have to be there to observe and record it in the same way that a detective doesn't have to be there to observe a crime to eventually find out who did it.
On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Are you telling me that I'm a brainwashed "sheep", but you went and said "Science says it's true, so it must be", does that not sound a bit odd to you? Assumption --> faith that the assumption is correct. Because if the assumption isn't the theory could possibly crumble. You are taking a leap of faith, don't deny it.
It's a lot more reliable when science says something is true because of the intense peer review process of new developments in it. If someone makes a claim in the scientific world, other researchers all around the world will repeat their experiments and often arrive at the same conclusion. The results of subsequent, seemingly unrelated experiments will also often have implications that confirm the claim. Only when such a large consensus has been established will it be taught in science classrooms, and we trust this consensus because they've generally been correct in the past.
The 'assumption' that natural phenomena have natural explanations seems a lot more reasonable than the assumption that God created everything.
On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:
How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha...
Each of us grows from a single cell in 9 months, is that really so much easier to believe?
If a scientist ever comes across as being too angry in a debate like this, it's probably because he's spent his entire life's work doing experiments and collecting data on evolution, analyzing the data, painstaking repeating the experiments over and over again to make sure of their reliability, all the while unrewarded but persisting because of his passion in the pursuit of truth, then having someone say something like this.
well then plz tell me then, whats your version of the argument of intelligent design? what logical reasoning do you use to support intelligent design?
yes, all my arguments were based on theologians's stance that intelligent design being supported by comparative argument. unless you could point me in the right direction, what else is the argument of design.
you commited some phallacies too, God is all knowing, parents are not.
I am not against creationism, but not the God portrait by christianity. Any advanced species with space travel technology can come over and speed up evolution (yes, assuming evolution exists, or you can call it random-chemical-change + natural selection)
I am only trying to show some of the illogical parts about beliefs in OMNIGOD
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: well then plz tell me then, whats your version of the argument of intelligent design? what logical reasoning do you use to support intelligent design?
Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: yes, all my arguments were based on theologians's stance that intelligent design being supported by comparative argument. unless you could point me in the right direction, what else is the argument of design.
Is the creator (in this case anything) really going to create something as intelligent or smarter than itself? No, but that's what you're arguing.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: you commited some phallacies too, God is all knowing, parents are not.
It was a comparison. Parents know 100% their children will in one way or another rebel against them. That was the comparison, good job ignoring it.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: I am not against creationism, but not the God portrait by christianity. Any advanced species with space travel technology can come over and speed up evolution (yes, assuming evolution exists, or you can call it random-chemical-change + natural selection)
Why would they do that? Evolution isn't true. By the way, "aliens" don't disagree with any biblical teaching.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: I am only trying to show some of the illogical parts about beliefs in OMNIGOD
Really eh? Almost as illogical as your points eh?
On April 19 2007 20:20 Wonders wrote: Yes, evolution is proved beyond a doubt in the same way that gravity is proved beyond a doubt. Experiments that have been done on evolution are repeatable. You don't have to be there to observe and record it in the same way that a detective doesn't have to be there to observe a crime to eventually find out who did it.
I was going to reply until I read this, are you serious?
On April 19 2007 20:20 Wonders wrote: Each of us grows from a single cell in 9 months, is that really so much easier to believe?
Yes, because that's a guided process; intelligent design. It isn't a mistake laden venture.
On April 19 2007 20:20 Wonders wrote: Ok, firstly, this is a really waste of time and I don't know why I'm doing this. I can't get angry every time someone slanders science by saying that it's a religion, or that it's as dogmatic as religion is, because I'd just spend my life being angry. I guess the only good that come come from this is to convince someone reading it, but I think most people would have given up on that after the first few pages.
Sure you are, your first leap of faith is that you don't believe in God. Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming God doesn't exist.
Are we to say that it's a leap of faith to not believe in Zeus or Russell's celestial teapot? Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming Zeus doesn't exist.
Can you prove it beyond a doubt? Is it something that's repeatable? Were you there to observe and record it?
Yes, evolution is proved beyond a doubt in the same way that gravity is proved beyond a doubt. Experiments that have been done on evolution are repeatable. You don't have to be there to observe and record it in the same way that a detective doesn't have to be there to observe a crime to eventually find out who did it.
Are you telling me that I'm a brainwashed "sheep", but you went and said "Science says it's true, so it must be", does that not sound a bit odd to you? Assumption --> faith that the assumption is correct. Because if the assumption isn't the theory could possibly crumble. You are taking a leap of faith, don't deny it.
It's a lot more reliable when science says something is true because of the intense peer review process of new developments in it. If someone makes a claim in the scientific world, other researchers all around the world will repeat their experiments and often arrive at the same conclusion. The results of subsequent, seemingly unrelated experiments will also often have implications that confirm the claim. Only when such a large consensus has been established will it be taught in science classrooms, and we trust this consensus because they've generally been correct in the past.
The 'assumption' that natural phenomena have natural explanations seems a lot more reasonable than the assumption that God created everything.
How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha...
Each of us grows from a single cell in 9 months, is that really so much easier to believe?
If a scientist ever comes across as being too angry in a debate like this, it's probably because he's spent his entire life's work doing experiments and collecting data on evolution, analyzing the data, painstaking repeating the experiments over and over again to make sure of their reliability, all the while unrewarded but persisting because of his passion in the pursuit of truth, then having someone say something like this.
Your right, you were better off not posting.
Using phrases like
"It's a lot more reliable"
Its a lot more reliable? Shouldn't you be saying, "Its the most reliable?" Though you didn't because its only more* reliable for you, not the most* reliable. You could always change what you originally said to better aid your cause.
"and often arrive at the same conclusion."
So what about all the scientists that don't come to the same conclusion? You have more faith in the majority than the minority.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: well then plz tell me then, whats your version of the argument of intelligent design? what logical reasoning do you use to support intelligent design?
Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: yes, all my arguments were based on theologians's stance that intelligent design being supported by comparative argument. unless you could point me in the right direction, what else is the argument of design.
Is the creator (in this case anything) really going to create something as intelligent or smarter than itself? No, but that's what you're arguing.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: I am not against creationism, but not the God portrait by christianity. Any advanced species with space travel technology can come over and speed up evolution (yes, assuming evolution exists, or you can call it random-chemical-change + natural selection)
Why would they do that? Evolution isn't true. By the way, "aliens" don't disagree with any biblical teaching.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote: I am only trying to show some of the illogical parts about beliefs in OMNIGOD
Really eh? Almost as illogical as your points eh?
too much phallacies...
there are serious problems with reasoning such as "Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)"
if something else says so, you would just believe it? based on the fact that it just said so? I do not think our judical system works like this.
evolution isnt true? its one story to find supporting details to prove something, its another thing trying to disprove something. There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
If you believe something b/c it just says so, then you can equally believe in Zeus, Aliens speeding up human's evolution by modifying genes, etc. There is not enough evidence to support extraterrastrial aid in our evolution though, and it remains a theory for now, and its certainly within doubts.
It is very illogical to believe in something beyond doubt JUST B/C IT SAYS SO. And that's not how our system work today.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: too much phallacies...
there are serious problems with reasoning such as "Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)"
if something else says so, you would just believe it? based on the fact that it just said so? I do not think our judical system works like this.
You asked for why I believed it, that's why, got a problem with it, start disproving my bible Good luck, they haven't in hundreds of years of trying. The reliability of the bible speaks for itself. Well, that and when I studied evolution and the big bang theorem It just didn't work out for me.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: evolution isnt true? its one story to find supporting details to prove something, its another thing trying to disprove something. There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
Like I said, I have got no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution I have a problem with. I must admit...
2-0 for evolution
Without Piltdown man and Nebraska man.. We'd be screwed. Tampering with your own fossils to create missing links.. Interesting approach!
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: If you believe something b/c it just says so, then you can equally believe in Zeus, Aliens speeding up human's evolution by modifying genes, etc. There is not enough evidence to support extraterrastrial aid in our evolution though, and it remains a theory for now, and its certainly within doubts.
Assuming I believe something just because it says so, a wrong assumption, by the way. As for extraterrestrials? I don't care, like I said, it wouldn't cause a conflict within Christianity.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: It is very illogical to believe in something beyond doubt JUST B/C IT SAYS SO. And that's not how our system work today.
No it's not. Most of you believe in evolution simply because that's what you've been taught, you never questioned it.
Come now bud, prove my book wrong. Prove 1 verse wrong.
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.
Hi, nice to meet you. I'm XelNaga, have we met before? I'm not sure, but we're meeting now.
Just to make sure we are on the same page.
I'm testpat, I'll be your guide through the wonderful fairy tale of the ark. There's more questions than in this post. This is just me stating that they feed, the animals poop is not a sufficient argument.
Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters).
This makes it longer than any wooden boat ever made. Four times as large as any thing built during the age. Wooden boats that even approach 70% of this size require steel support bars (and steel doesn't exist pre bronze age), and require constant pumping due to constant leaking. They cannot sail in deep ocean because of the waves. Since there is no land to stop waves, i wonder if this might cause a problem.
I don't think lighting is so much a problem, probably had... Windows?
Well thought out for 1): there are windows 18 inches from the top of the ark (its listed in the bible - those were freebies) & 2) for the bottom two decks, which are in a boat sailing the seasea and likely, at any minute, to be underwater. Windows are likely not to be an option.
So now that we've gotten the dimensions of the ark out of the way, lets talk about some more of it. I really haven't been following what you and Annor have been saying, because frankly this topic has gone absurdly out of hand. But, I figure the guy started posting because of me, so I'll post in his stead as well.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
First of all feeding. Animals can survive on plant diets, that's no issue. Animals that can hibernate, probably did hibernate, that's not an issue. Cleaning up after them? Not a big issue, once again they are on an ocean, they can toss everything over board. Especially considering that birds, hibernating animals and insects don't really create that much waste.
Not all animals can survive on plants, some animals have to eat multiple times per day. Animals that hibernate need specific requirements (dens) for their hibernation. Two of the decks are underwater - all things need to be carried up. Water vapor (from breath) with 100% humidity (that what happens during rain) means that this must also be carried up. Methane builds up in the lower levels. Food cannot just be scattered about - it has to be sealed - otherwise, certain insect populations would expand dramatically in the time period (you do realize that some of these animals have lifespans less than the time on the ark). Birds have a very high metabolism, eating around 20% of their weight, and drinking 10% of their weight in water per day.
Moving along, with the hole polar bear, penguin argument, we run into a problem. The basic assumption from everyone here is that the world in Noah's day resembled the world today. Which, it didn't. It's referred to as the "pre-flood" world. Probably meaning that earths temperatures were uniform throughout. Meaning that micro evolution (adaption) took place within species, something that doesn't disagree with the bible.
Problem now is simple - you don't get polar bears from your bear species with a genetic diversity of two animals. Two animals create near clones over time. You don't have the time for micro evolution to create these species. If the ark happened, you should find fossils in one part of the earth (after the flood), generally spreading across the rest of the world as its repopulated. Most islands should have populations of zero.
Other than that, all you need to do is tell me what creatures are on the ark.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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?
It explains what Noah took, how many.. Invertebrates, you get the idea? Basically, once again the logical fallacy is that the species we have today all existed in Noahs time. Assuming that the climate of Noah's day was uniform this wouldn't be the case, after the flood there would be a need for adaption, but not so much before. There were less animals; micro evolution. It's a divided topic over what Noah took
Here's a review of the book- pointing out problems. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html. But I am really glad that you actually looked up something. It also discussion problem "less animals" & micro evolution on this to create our current genetic diversity. Btw, there is no detail in the fossil record showing an explosion of life forms 8 to 10k years ago. Go figure. You'd also figure that if the specization occured in the 10,000 years from 2 parents, we'd find that all species have common a common "super species" 10k years ago. And finally, since God made adam name all the animals and give dominion over them, but now we have new animals - does man have dominion over those?
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
Over a year..
[/Quote] That's what I read too, so they store food for 2-3 years (earth will be barren when they land) - crops & trees are dead. During this time, not a single animal dies, other than those with lifespans less than 1 year , these mate, and properly kill themselves to maintain the necessary food.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
I think this was more an observation, a correct one at that lol.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
Hmm.. I wonder how the sexes evolved.. Anyone explain?
Its not a proper observation. Did you read the text? Its right above. Evolution does not occur in population sizes of 0.
Problems with evolution do not prove that populations can expand from 1 male & female. All evidence shows this is not a viable species population. Problems with evolution do not make this go away. Throwing sand in the eyes of your opponent is not a logical argument - its a rhetorical one.
On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote: 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.
Oh yeah? Enjoying the speculation ^^ Bees didn't breathe through their nostrils by the way, God took care of those. You accuse Annor of not reading scripture and you've made the same mistake..
[/Quote]
I would have rather enjoyed you describing how you get the diversity from two animals, how fatal viruses that can only exist in hosts can exist since either 1) they killed the animal on the ark, or 2) they were wiped out. But I think that I'll just file that under the complete lack of explanation for how any of the details of the ark were dealt with. With the exception of the well fleshed out description of microevolution, how it happened, what support for it, and how it explains the host of related problems.
Nostrils? you mean as in 22:All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. You sure that bees don't fall into 21:And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: or 23:And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Because, if it did, i would probably take the fact that you missed the windows in the ark, even though you pull the dimensions, and the "breath of life", for the fact that you read only for what supports you. I would never accuse you of not reading the scripture though .
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: too much phallacies...
there are serious problems with reasoning such as "Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)"
if something else says so, you would just believe it? based on the fact that it just said so? I do not think our judical system works like this.
You asked for why I believed it, that's why, got a problem with it, start disproving my bible Good luck, they haven't in hundreds of years of trying. The reliability of the bible speaks for itself. Well, that and when I studied evolution and the big bang theorem It just didn't work out for me.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: evolution isnt true? its one story to find supporting details to prove something, its another thing trying to disprove something. There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
Like I said, I have got no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution I have a problem with. I must admit...
2-0 for evolution
Without Piltdown man and Nebraska man.. We'd be screwed. Tampering with your own fossils to create missing links.. Interesting approach!
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: If you believe something b/c it just says so, then you can equally believe in Zeus, Aliens speeding up human's evolution by modifying genes, etc. There is not enough evidence to support extraterrastrial aid in our evolution though, and it remains a theory for now, and its certainly within doubts.
Assuming I believe something just because it says so, a wrong assumption, by the way. As for extraterrestrials? I don't care, like I said, it wouldn't cause a conflict within Christianity.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote: It is very illogical to believe in something beyond doubt JUST B/C IT SAYS SO. And that's not how our system work today.
No it's not. Most of you believe in evolution simply because that's what you've been taught, you never questioned it.
Come now bud, prove my book wrong. Prove 1 verse wrong.
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting.
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting.
Oh yeah? What an odd argument... Question it eh? Yeah.. I was one of those people that questioned and didn't get any answers. Still waiting for you to disprove 1 line of the bible thank you.
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting.
Oh yeah? What an odd argument... Question it eh? Yeah.. I was one of those people that questioned and didn't get any answers. Still waiting for you to disprove 1 line of the bible thank you.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt. I tried to avoid attacking you personally, but now i have to say, you need to understand how philosophy and logical reasoning works.
quoting myself
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting.
Oh yeah? What an odd argument... Question it eh? Yeah.. I was one of those people that questioned and didn't get any answers. Still waiting for you to disprove 1 line of the bible thank you.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt. I tried to avoid attacking you personally, but now i have to say, you need to understand how philosophy and logical reasoning works.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
Oh yeah? And still, you must choose which side to believe ^^ I'll believe mine.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt.
The scariest thing is that the comic is it's own parody. The arguments made by creationist posters in this thread are reminiscent of those used in this tract.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
The scariest thing is that the comic is it's own parody. The arguments made by creationist posters in this thread are reminiscent of those used in this tract.
there are some good reasonings back and forth pro and againsts religion. and usually religion is tied to OMNIGOD, and atheists often love to target reasonings that hold beliefs in Omnigod.
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.
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.
You sound incredibly silly. I'm not arguing for any beliefs, and misrepresenting science as being requiring of belief is a thin ploy. You don't have to prove what happened before the big bang, you have to prove that there's a giant white man in the sky who's benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent and yet created evil. Asking what came before the big bang is a meaningless attack on the theory anyway. Just because we don't know what happens before something doesn't mean we can't know that it happened. Besides, can't you just apply that question to God? Who or what created God? How did he get there?
And your question about the two sexes evolving perfectly at the time just demonstrates that you haven't really read anything or thought about evolution very much.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
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.
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.
And your question about the two sexes evolving perfectly at the time just demonstrates that you haven't really read anything or thought about evolution very much.
Actually someone gave me an entire paper on it, here I highlighted some of the key points in the first 3 paragraphs.
Boy did you open a window, let me pull some phrases out of this so that we can see if they know what they are talking about.
Line 1: The evolution of sex is a major puzzle Line2-3: since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test Line 4:several explanations have been suggested by biologists Line 6: It seems Line 8-9: There are three possible reasons why this might happen. Line 13: These classes of hypotheses are further broken down below. Line 13-14: It is important to realise that any number of these hypotheses may be true in any given species Line 14-15: However, a research framework has yet to be found. (lol!)
That was just in the summary, dare I scroll down the page and read one of the many explanations and see if their language is as similar as that. I really like the last sentence of the summary. "research framework has yet to be found." Wouldn't that statement pretty much nullify everything about it?
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT" this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
Well, if anyone who does anything bad isn't really a Christian anymore, it's just fundamentally impossible for anyone who's done anything bad to be a Christian. You have to understand that for other people, your waving of the bible doesn't really seem any more or less justified than the bible waving people of the dark ages or the witch trials or the crusades or whatever.
And don't set yourself up for failure by claiming that nothing in the bible is contradictory.
has a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong:
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
Well, if anyone who does anything bad isn't really a Christian anymore, it's just fundamentally impossible for anyone who's done anything bad to be a Christian. You have to understand that for other people, your waving of the bible doesn't really seem any more or less justified than the bible waving people of the dark ages or the witch trials or the crusades or whatever.
And don't set yourself up for failure by claiming that nothing in the bible is contradictory.
has a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong:
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
There's your one line, I guess.
That site was brought up already on SCD.com.. Don't think we're oblivious to all the contradiction sites.. trust me we got hundreds of them thrown at us there..
Can someone please explain the Big Bang thing to me, I really don't understand it. Like even less that I understand those people who do 9 pools every time I play them.
On April 19 2007 21:29 yisun518 wrote: my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
Deductive thinking? Isn't it Deductive reasoning? Any who, you like to throw around the term 'illogical fallacy'. That is indeed another common sense term that I would hope everyone realizes. Human logic is flawed, since two humans can have different logic so the term 'illogical fallacy' is pretty much a waste. Not to mention that you took my statement far to literal, I was basically adding on to the fact that you butchered the Justice system and you were citing it as an example and as far as I'm concerned the only things you've actually said are COMMON SENSE, which I'd hope to God you couldn't get wrong.
has a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong:
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
There's your one line, I guess.
Did you honestly just quote infidels.org? Omgosh hahaha...
Kings tells us about stalls for horses--horses only, while Chronicles tells us about (presumably different, and perhaps larger) stalls in which both horses and chariots were kept together.
Seriously, infidels.org is based entirely on some idiots inability to read, I wouldn't bring it up.
And there we go, a leg imitate answer to the contradiction.
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
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?
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.
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.
Your useless. I've answered your ark questions 3 times now, and all you do is tell me to go reread it after you don't quote anything, don't respond with anything new. You just keep saying the same things over and over. I'm done responding to your questions until you think of some new ones.
You fail to understand that you haven't answered the questions with any sort of consistent explanation of how it happened. Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid description of the difficulties of the ark. In fact, other than Eat Poop Disperse, you have only said you answered the questions before - that's just one answer repeated. Unlike a multiple choice exam where you choose once, and never look back again if its right or wrong, this is an argument. I have stated that Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid argument in my eyes. If you cannot get any more detailed than that, i have to conclude that you cannot construct a rational argument for the mechanics of the ark. Let's try again: Fill in the details of what is necessary for the ark to sustain life during the voyage. Describe the animals onboard, their care, their maintainence, Describe how the ark was built, given the difficulties I've mentioned. Describe how fish survive in the ocean, describe how the earth is repopulated. Describe how plant life survives. Describe why life isn't found 1) spread across the earth (pre flood) and 2) centered around one point, expanding outward over time (post flood) in the fossil record. Describe how islands are populated. Describe why there is no geological record of the flood. If you cant expand past Eat Poop Disperse, i'm just going to start calling you that.
"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."
This is the only thing worth responding to. If God created all the animals, how is 10,000 years not enough to achieve our diversity... Also I didn't mistake the origin of life for evolution, we are discussing parts of the Evolutionary Theory, and the origins of life are a major part of that.
Actually, we are not discussing Evolution, we are not discussing origin of life - we are discussing why Noah's animals do not survive after landing - and i'm using arguments based on transfer of traits among species. Why isn't origin of life needed?- we have live animals - two of each. Why is transfer of traits important? because animals DNA is combination of their parents - variety comes over time from animals mating with different animals that have different dna than them. This is the problem with the ark. After the ark lands, you do not have a wide enough sample of DNA to mix and match and create the genetic diversity that we see in DNA today.
I get the whole "God created the animals" at Genesis. If he can do that, he can make sure they have variations in their dna. But after that, the flood kills them all off, and we have a bunch of near clones going around. 1) All species show more variation than is possible if they sprung from a common parent 10,000 years ago. 2) For species with population sizes of less than 150, survival is unlikely - you can look up conservation biology for problems that occur in species with smaller numbers.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT" this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
On April 19 2007 21:36 Annor[BbG] wrote: As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is.... + Show Spoiler +
open up the nested quote and look at the underlined piece
and again, you have commited a logical phallacy, by taking only part of a COMPLETE definition out, to support your very own claim.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT" this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
On April 19 2007 21:36 Annor[BbG] wrote: As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is....
Fine, if your going to leave the definition to my interpretation, I'll pick this one.
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one
Gee whiz, will you lack at that, that definition says knowledge is relative to the user. Maybe you should be more clear or concise. Go the extra mile, give a definition to make sure people know what you mean.
has a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong:
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
There's your one line, I guess.
Did you honestly just quote infidels.org? Omgosh hahaha...
Kings tells us about stalls for horses--horses only, while Chronicles tells us about (presumably different, and perhaps larger) stalls in which both horses and chariots were kept together.
Seriously, infidels.org is based entirely on some idiots inability to read, I wouldn't bring it up.
And there we go, a leg imitate answer to the contradiction.
NEXT
Dude you can't next the hot guy when you're the one on the bus.
Wow.. infidels.org is like "Send in your own bible contradictions! Although very educated scholars haven't found one, maybe the intelligence of todays society with find one and I'll make a website about it!"
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT" this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
On April 19 2007 21:36 Annor[BbG] wrote: As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is.... + Show Spoiler +
open up the nested quote and look at the underlined piece
and again, you have commited a logical phallacy, by taking only part of a COMPLETE definition out, to support your very own claim.
On April 19 2007 21:44 Annor[BbG] wrote: Fine, if your going to leave the definition to my interpretation, I'll pick this one.
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one
Gee whiz, will you lack at that, that definition says knowledge is relative to the user. Maybe you should be more clear or concise. Go the extra mile, give a definition to make sure people know what you mean.
the definition of knowledge i presented is within philosophical contexts rather than a dictionary. and philosophically defined knowledge is in fact SHARED but i do not want this to branch off in another way with why is knowledge shared kinda of debate....
you certainly have your expertise in law, but your knowledge of law does not contradict with what im presenting here (knowledge+deductive thinking+avoiding inductive thinking) as part of the fundamental reasoning in knowledge/belief/faith.
P.S> I AM GOING TO SLEEP, no flaming so far against my reasonings, which is good! More constructive arguments are very welcomed!
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote: At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
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?
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.
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.
Your useless. I've answered your ark questions 3 times now, and all you do is tell me to go reread it after you don't quote anything, don't respond with anything new. You just keep saying the same things over and over. I'm done responding to your questions until you think of some new ones.
You fail to understand that you haven't answered the questions with any sort of consistent explanation of how it happened. Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid description of the difficulties of the ark. In fact, other than Eat Poop Disperse, you have only said you answered the questions before - that's just one answer repeated. Unlike a multiple choice exam where you choose once, and never look back again if its right or wrong, this is an argument. I have stated that Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid argument in my eyes. If you cannot get any more detailed than that, i have to conclude that you cannot construct a rational argument for the mechanics of the ark. Let's try again: Fill in the details of what is necessary for the ark to sustain life during the voyage. Describe the animals onboard, their care, their maintainence, Describe how the ark was built, given the difficulties I've mentioned. Describe how fish survive in the ocean, describe how the earth is repopulated. Describe how plant life survives. Describe why life isn't found 1) spread across the earth (pre flood) and 2) centered around one point, expanding outward over time (post flood) in the fossil record. Describe how islands are populated. Describe why there is no geological record of the flood. If you cant expand past Eat Poop Disperse, i'm just going to start calling you that.
"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."
This is the only thing worth responding to. If God created all the animals, how is 10,000 years not enough to achieve our diversity... Also I didn't mistake the origin of life for evolution, we are discussing parts of the Evolutionary Theory, and the origins of life are a major part of that.
Actually, we are not discussing Evolution, we are not discussing origin of life - we are discussing why Noah's animals do not survive after landing - and i'm using arguments based on transfer of traits among species. Why isn't origin of life needed?- we have live animals - two of each. Why is transfer of traits important? because animals DNA is combination of their parents - variety comes over time from animals mating with different animals that have different dna than them. This is the problem with the ark. After the ark lands, you do not have a wide enough sample of DNA to mix and match and create the genetic diversity that we see in DNA today.
I get the whole "God created the animals" at Genesis. If he can do that, he can make sure they have variations in their dna. But after that, the flood kills them all off, and we have a bunch of near clones going around. 1) All species show more variation than is possible if they sprung from a common parent 10,000 years ago. 2) For species with population sizes of less than 150, survival is unlikely - you can look up conservation biology for problems that occur in species with smaller numbers.
I answered everything you asked. Its not my fault you asked about food, pooping, and dispersing 4 times now. I've answered everything else, when I say the sun gives off light, you ignore it and say all I'm saying is about food. I mean seriously, here we go again, answering all your questions.
Describe the animals onboard, 29,000 different species of vertebrates.
their care, As in like do they take their doggies for walks? Everything on board is trying to survive a flood, I don't think they are too concerned about hygiene. Elaborate on what you mean by care, (note: I already answered your poop question 3 other times).
their maintainence, Isn't this the same as care? I'll hold it as the same answer unless you elaborate this one farther.
Describe how the ark was built God gave Noah plans on how to built it, Noah got his family to help, they cut trees for wood, they built a big boat.
Describe how fish survive in the ocean Why would fish need to survive in the ocean? If the world was covered in water, by RAIN water, it would be FRESH water. So all the fresh water fish would be near the top and the salt water fish would be on the bottom (Salt water is more dense than Fresh water).As we have seen with some sharks and salmon, fish can go from salt water to fresh water still today.
describe how the earth is repopulated Its called Bisexual reproduction, 1+1 = 3+ (repeat)
Describe how plant life survives. Seed pods can float, Drop a maple tree's helicopter into water and it floats on the top, along with pine cones and many other seed types. Before you go there, I've already established that the water they are floating in is rain water, therefore fresh water, not salt water.
Describe why life isn't found 1) spread across the earth (pre flood) and 2) centered around one point, expanding outward over time (post flood) in the fossil record. I don't even know how to expound on something like this. They don't find fossils around the world now? I would think the same way the animals got to the Ark (God brought them) they got away from the Ark.
Describe how islands are populated. Well, humans can now build boats, (take the ark for example). Believe it or not birds can fly O.o Oh Oh Oh, and then deer, tigers, and other animals like that can swim! Lets not forget ice and walking across it, or fording through the water.
Describe why there is no geological record of the flood. Says who? Earth is 70% water. And there have been fossils of sea plankton found on mountain tops.
Also the survival of a species with less than 150 is very slim, which I agree with. However, that is based off of having 6 billion people in the world and tons of irreverisble pollution.
On April 19 2007 19:04 TheosEx wrote: Lol @ Logical "Phallacies"
Anyways, all of you are bum-rushing XelNaga saying he's judging everyone but you guys are judging him. From an outsiders point-of-view he's making much more sense than any of you are. You're all just saying the same repeititve bullshit saying "don't judge, you don't know what you're talking about, etc." but not really refuting anything that he is saying. I can see his train-of-thought alot easier than most of you. Atleast he knows what he believes in and has "proof."
I can't say the same for most of you.
They are just going to jump all over you ;(
Lol... Jump all over me. In a real debate, I would rape these chumps... whether I debated for or against whatever the hell you guys are debating about. And that's just it. You're the only one with a solid argument consisting of a real and unified point-of-view. I'm not even going to bring in my thoughts on this subject, but they are just playing the "what-if" game, which is an ignorant way of avoiding answering real questions that would force them to admit or even truly defend their point of view... if they even had one.
Like I said, I'm not going to say what my views are, but one thing I will say... that it's admirable the amount of faith people have in the "big bang theory" or evolution itself. Whether you like it or not, you can't prove it and simply, you need faith to believe it. Evolution or Creation... they both take faith. It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe evolution. Why? Evolution is illogical. You wouldn't expect a Ferrari Enzo to come out of an explosion in a junk yard, would you? How much more infinitely complex is the universe than a car?
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic. evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT" this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
On April 19 2007 21:36 Annor[BbG] wrote: As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is.... + Show Spoiler +
open up the nested quote and look at the underlined piece
and again, you have commited a logical phallacy, by taking only part of a COMPLETE definition out, to support your very own claim.
On April 19 2007 21:44 Annor[BbG] wrote: Fine, if your going to leave the definition to my interpretation, I'll pick this one.
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one
Gee whiz, will you lack at that, that definition says knowledge is relative to the user. Maybe you should be more clear or concise. Go the extra mile, give a definition to make sure people know what you mean.
you certainly have your expertise in law, but your knowledge of law does not contradict with what im presenting here (knowledge+deductive thinking+avoiding inductive thinking) as part of the fundamental reasoning in knowledge/belief/faith.
P.S> I AM GOING TO SLEEP, no flaming so far against my reasonings, which is good! More constructive arguments are very welcomed!
As I've said 3 times now, my point wasn't to attack the meaning of knowledge, my point was that you were misusing the Justice System in your examples.
Well, in 2 Kings 8:26, Ahaziah is apparently said to be 22.. In 2 Chronicles, he is said to be 42.. MY bible however, says differently.
2 Kings 8:26 - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel"
2 Chron 22:2 - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri."
Funny huh? Infidel.org is just a ridiculous site..
On April 19 2007 18:58 Manifesto7 wrote: Annor and XelNaga, are you members here simply to debate the validity of christiany? Just curious.
No that would be pointless, we have better forums to argue over religion. Just so happens we like these kinds of threads.
On April 19 2007 19:04 TheosEx wrote: Lol @ Logical "Phallacies"
Anyways, all of you are bum-rushing XelNaga saying he's judging everyone but you guys are judging him. From an outsiders point-of-view he's making much more sense than any of you are. You're all just saying the same repeititve bullshit saying "don't judge, you don't know what you're talking about, etc." but not really refuting anything that he is saying. I can see his train-of-thought alot easier than most of you. Atleast he knows what he believes in and has "proof."
I can't say the same for most of you.
They are just going to jump all over you ;(
Lol... Jump all over me. In a real debate, I would rape these chumps... whether I debated for or against whatever the hell you guys are debating about. And that's just it. You're the only one with a solid argument consisting of a real and unified point-of-view. I'm not even going to bring in my thoughts on this subject, but they are just playing the "what-if" game, which is an ignorant way of avoiding answering real questions that would force them to admit or even truly defend their point of view... if they even had one.
Like I said, I'm not going to say what my views are, but one thing I will say... that it's admirable the amount of faith people have in the "big bang theory" or evolution itself. Whether you like it or not, you can't prove it and simply, you need faith to believe it. Evolution or Creation... they both take faith. It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe evolution. Why? Evolution is illogical. You wouldn't expect a Ferrari Enzo to come out of an explosion in a junk yard, would you? How much more infinitely complex is the universe than a car?
Haha that's because he's the only one on that point of view and nobody's standing with him T_T THus his voice is most unified.
Bah give evolution some credit! Imagine all the brain juice it takes to come up with such theory... almost as hard as writing the bible don't u think? It merits some applaus at least. :D
Dude you can't next the hot guy when you're the one on the bus.
What?
That's a reference to an MTV show, where people take turns "dating" someone from a bus and get "Next"...ed... if they aren't what the person likes...
But LOL... seriously, this is what I'm talking about. A completely unrelated ridiculously silly statement once faced with a real solid fact. Bine, you got owned.
That's a reference to an MTV show, where people take turns "dating" someone from a bus and get "Next"...ed... if they aren't what the person likes...
But LOL... seriously, this is what I'm talking about. A completely unrelated ridiculously silly statement once faced with a real solid fact. Bine, you got owned.
As to religion or science, well they're both faith. I take it.
However, they are both trying to explain the world arn't they? Why something falls, why people die, ect. In the dark ages the bible probably explains everything ever need to know. I mean, why would you believe in bible if it doesn't do something useful? Why would you believ ein science if it doesn't do something useful?
But alas, there is only 1 Holy bible. Brilliantly constructed, but it meets the same fate as science for it too ages and obsoletes.
Science is growing, it is getting stronger and bigger. Even as fervent religious men types away at their computer they are using the athiest's made computer, bulit with science. It is growing because science accept that it can be wrong. It can change theories much more quickly than religion. If this does not explains the world adaquently, fine, here's a new theory, it might fits better. Let's use that theory instead.
Bible is not growing. Everything on it is sacred text and cannot be changed. Manytimes the bible's proven wrong, just read history. It cannot adapt nearly as well as science. Sure you can interpret bible in a gazillion ways by different interpretors, but they are interpreting the same o' text. Bible is a haughty entity that refuse to be wrong, and it hinders its approvement for it deems itself already perfect.
Science accepts it is not perfect, and by doing so it can perfect itself at an immense rate. Look at how the world changed in the past years, the world of science. Eventually it will be just as practical as explaining the world as the bible, and in time surpass it. It might take a long long time, but it will come, for science is growing and the bible is not.
No, his point of view is most unified because he has a source for his belief. Sure, it's the Bible and I understand you guys don't believe it. But okay, let's take others for example.
"Let's pull up Wikipedia... it says...." BULLSHIT "Infidels.org... omg contradiction!" BULLSHIT "This scholar told me that this other scholar was talking to this other scholar one time and he said..." BULLSHIT "Okay, this isn't working... let's just start asking 1515135135100513908531 questions that we know he doesn't have the answer to and let's make fun of him when he starts quoting verses!"
And yes, evolution deserves merit. The idea of evolution itself is evolution in progress. Darwin was a Christian... and his ideas of evolution is completely different than what it is today. Like I said, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.
On April 19 2007 22:19 TheosEx wrote: No, his point of view is most unified because he has a source for his belief. Sure, it's the Bible and I understand you guys don't believe it. But okay, let's take others for example.
"Let's pull up Wikipedia... it says...." BULLSHIT "Infidels.org... omg contradiction!" BULLSHIT "This scholar told me that this other scholar was talking to this other scholar one time and he said..." BULLSHIT "Okay, this isn't working... let's just start asking 1515135135100513908531 questions that we know he doesn't have the answer to and let's make fun of him when he starts quoting verses!"
And yes, evolution deserves merit. The idea of evolution itself is evolution in progress. Darwin was a Christian... and his ideas of evolution is completely different than what it is today. Like I said, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.
Alrite that's a good point : ) Still my point stands that he's the lone warrior fighting a thousand hordes of athiest orcs. Poor chap T_T
On April 19 2007 22:19 TheosEx wrote: No, his point of view is most unified because he has a source for his belief. Sure, it's the Bible and I understand you guys don't believe it. But okay, let's take others for example.
"Let's pull up Wikipedia... it says...." BULLSHIT "Infidels.org... omg contradiction!" BULLSHIT "This scholar told me that this other scholar was talking to this other scholar one time and he said..." BULLSHIT "Okay, this isn't working... let's just start asking 1515135135100513908531 questions that we know he doesn't have the answer to and let's make fun of him when he starts quoting verses!"
And yes, evolution deserves merit. The idea of evolution itself is evolution in progress. Darwin was a Christian... and his ideas of evolution is completely different than what it is today. Like I said, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.
Hah, there is nothing to argue. Let's take what you say and take it from there, and you will see what I'm saying.
You say that science is more "adaptive" than the Bible is, and yes that's true. But that statement in itself is saying that science has errors, which you cannot deny as a fact itself.
Now, to argue that the Bible has never had errors would involve much more thought than simply the statement itself. Why? There are many prints and versions of the Bible. Some Arabs consider the Qu'ran the Bible. Even within Christian divisions, the "canonized" Bible is debated, which is another arguement that would have to be settled before this discussion. Since that has been debated for what seems like an eternity, I doubt we can settle than in a TL.net discussion quite so simply in order to further our discussion. There are also many translations of the Bible. Errors? Maybe so, but that isn't so much what I am concerned with.
Either way, if I was a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or whatever... it is not the growth or "strength" of a belief that makes it right. As a matter of fact, most religions center around the fact that there will be opposition and persuction. So that point is really irrelevant.
On April 19 2007 22:18 evanthebouncy~ wrote: As to religion or science, well they're both faith. I take it.
However, they are both trying to explain the world arn't they? Why something falls, why people die, ect. In the dark ages the bible probably explains everything ever need to know. I mean, why would you believe in bible if it doesn't do something useful? Why would you believ ein science if it doesn't do something useful?
But alas, there is only 1 Holy bible. Brilliantly constructed, but it meets the same fate as science for it too ages and obsoletes.
Science is growing, it is getting stronger and bigger. Even as fervent religious men types away at their computer they are using the athiest's made computer, bulit with science. It is growing because science accept that it can be wrong. It can change theories much more quickly than religion. If this does not explains the world adaquently, fine, here's a new theory, it might fits better. Let's use that theory instead.
Bible is not growing. Everything on it is sacred text and cannot be changed. Manytimes the bible's proven wrong, just read history. It cannot adapt nearly as well as science. Sure you can interpret bible in a gazillion ways by different interpretors, but they are interpreting the same o' text. Bible is a haughty entity that refuse to be wrong, and it hinders its approvement for it deems itself already perfect.
Science accepts it is not perfect, and by doing so it can perfect itself at an immense rate. Look at how the world changed in the past years, the world of science. Eventually it will be just as practical as explaining the world as the bible, and in time surpass it. It might take a long long time, but it will come, for science is growing and the bible is not.
I don't believe that 'Atheists' invented the computer. Thats like saying Al Gore invented the internet. Science is a HUGE part to Christianity, so science plays on both sides.
"Manytimes the bible's proven wrong, just read history." Give me a for instance of when the Bible is proven wrong. Saying something is wrong and not backing it up is meritless.
Science accepts that its not perfect? Christians accept that they are not perfect. What's the point? The Bible doesn't need to grow, because it is 100% correct.
There are two parts to the Bible, the parts that have been proven true and the parts that are yet to be proven. There are NO unproved parts to the Bible.
Poll: How long more will this thread last??! (Vote): A mod will close this.... soon (Vote): posts <550 (Vote): 551 < posts <600 (Vote): 601 < posts <650 (Vote): 651 < posts < 700 (Vote): posts > 701
First prize is a all expenses paid trip to peace from this crossfire.
EPT
And yes, if I'm going to argue my position then I'm going to argue what I believe to be true, in this case it would be the literal interpretation of scripture. My hermeneutical studies only reinforce my opinion on that. And in fact yes, I do believe there is only one way to interpret scripture. And while yes, you can interpret it however you like, and most people can twist it however they like, that doesn't mean they are right. So no, I won't disagree with you. I am comparing him to scripture based on my belief on how the bible should be interpreted and that a Christian should live according to what the bible teaches.
![[image loading]](http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Kris/sinned.png)
![[image loading]](http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/952/itsatrapfa0.png)
Tool of the devil 
![[image loading]](http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Kris/crucify.png)
![[image loading]](http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t46/Zoast/theoryitsjusta.jpg?t=1177001470)
![[image loading]](http://www.conservativethinking.com/files/dogma-jesus.jpg)
