Christian Thread

[kingedward]

Well...Sin is technically only knowingly being intent on doing something bad, so wouldnt that mean that good is only truly good if you are knowingly intent to do good?

3,000th reply!!

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Being as it is that there's a lot of evil, violence, greed, cruelty, etc. going around, I take good any way it comes. There are both types of good people you describe (I'm not sure what the third option means). But, should your intention matter when you do good? If I feel I need to do good to save my soul, or be part of a social group, etc. (as opposed to doing good because it is the natural thing), should that matter to the recipient of my goodness? Isn't it also natural to one to be saved, or accepted, or to want to belong?
It is natural, for some. However, it's also natural for some to merely do good, regardless of any consequence other than a small pang of satisfaction in their heart. Imagine it like this. There's the poor man who works picking up trash in parks for hours on end with no pay, just the will that the park be healthier.

Then there's the greedy businessman, who, should he have it his way, would not do anything that doesn't please him. However, to save face and buy some karma, he donates to charity. But he doesn't actually care about that charity, just the fact that it looks like he did good.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think people shouldn't do good even if their intentions are misplaced. I think the world needs as much right as it can get. But still... you have to wonder whether some of these religious nuts (not you guys necessarily, but others I've met) are preaching because they really love God, or if they just don't want to burn forever.

[TheSilverRider]

I can't help but notice how you avoided my question yet again. The bible claims that shrimp are an unclean abomination. You claim the bible is infallible, meaning this previous statement must therefore always be true. 1) If it's true now, you shouldn't eat shrimp. 2) If it's not true now, then either a) it was never true, meaning the bible was wrong, or b) shrimp magically stopped being an unclean abomination. Even if Jesus' death changed law, it wouldn't change the cleanliness or abomination status of animals. Let me know which of these 3 options (1, 2a, or 2b) you believe.

Ok, i will do my best not to go around your question. I assure you it was not on purpose. Your question is why is it now ok to eat shrimp? When i think of that, i don't specifically think of shrimp as being unclean, i think that it was a law he placed for the people to follow to see if they were truly followers of him and willing to give things up for him. So choose #3 i guess. It is not that shrimp are "unclean" now, its that God no longer requires us to follow the old law and that was part of the old law.


Ah let the education begin! This "it" that you speak of: we know where it came from, and we can reproduce it in the lab. This "it" is specifically organic matter, the building blocks of all life. These building blocks didn't gain energy and explode into every species. No poof. Your use of "mutating and molecularing and stuff" shows your ignorance, and I'm surprised and ashamed that you would so easily pass judgment on and condemn something without knowing anything about it (didn't your savior teach you any better?). It is true that humans have no evolved in 2000 years. It can also be predicted that we *won't* evolve any further in the next 2000 years. Why? Because there's this thing called "natural selection". It basically means that NATURE selects for traits that are good and strong. It's similar to selecting for characteristics in dog breeds, but on a much longer time scale.

Since humans no longer are in NATURE, natural selection doesn't apply. But, there's a TON of proof showing that we have evolved previously. Go grab a mirror. Look in the corner of your eye. See that pink corner near your nose? It very closely resembles the third eyelid that so many other mammals have. We don't need it anymore, and so it disappeared over time (but left behind evidence that it was there). Now, put a hand on your but. Feel that big tail bone? Same thing. We don't have tails, so why is it there? What about the appendix? The only time you hear about it is when it explodes and needs to be removed. Other mammals have a larger version of this which helps digest plants. Goose bumps are useless in humans, but for similar animals, it puffs up body hair, helps them keep warm, or show a warning. wisdom teeth are similarly useless. Why do ostrich's have wings? Why do blind species have eyes? These are all macroscopic (big) instances of change.

But evolution shows itself on the microscopic scale as well. Inside every cell in your body is something called a mitochondria. It gives power to your cells. Funny thing tho: the mitochondria is a very old type of bacteria that is a symbiote to our cells. It can't survive on its own, and we can't survive without it. It has its own genes which are different from human genetic code. As for our genome itself, it very closely matches other animals. In fact, there's a perfect correlation between how closely related we are to an animal, and how much of our genomes are in common.

Look at the text in red. You know where it came from right? um......WHERE? I did not read you state a origin of this "bacteria". You base this ENTIRE theory off of something you don't know where came from. You must have faith that it was just there in the beginning right? Or can you "scientifically" prove where it came from? Other than that i truly enjoyed reading your presentation of evolution. It was one of the best i have read and well put together.

Now, one last thing for you to consider: did god create the mule? Was it an original beast, or one that was on Noah's ark? Let me know what you think about that one.

I believe God created the horse and the donkey and then one horse and one donkey got to like each other and.....well ya know....ha ha

If Adam was perfect and could sin, then so can god.

Wrong, God does not have the SAME free will as us. It was never in God's nature to sin and never will be. God created Adam perfect but with a free will and Satan took advantage of that.

But god could remove hell altogether. god could remove devilish temptations. but he doesn't. what kind of forgiveness is that? he doesn't care to help?

Ugh, he cares more than you will ever know. It is not like he is asking you to learn to fly to get to heaven, or do 1,000 good deeds a day to get to heaven. All you have to do is accept the gift by praying and asking the lord to come into your heart! Why should he remove hell? Why should he save people that aren't even willing to say a simple prayer? Your right, he could save us all, but why should he save people who aren't even willing to repent in the first place?

why don't you try finding something you can prove RIGHT, instead of lack of disproof? I mean, with that logic, you might as well believe in Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, since you can't prove it wrong.

I love to prove the bible right. The flood, evidence of that ALL OVER. Fossils, the grand canyon and so on all prove that there was a massive amount of water all over the earth for a period of time. Scientists have dated the earth to try and figure out how many days there were and they came up 2 days short. In the Bible, God holds the sun still twice adding up to about 48 hours. Many people have spotted the ark on Mt. Arrorat. I could go on and on, but i can easily prove the Bible right, its just up to you to prove it wrong.

Just as the way a mob boss gives his victims a choice to pay protection money or be savagely beaten.

No, God is forgiving and wants all men to be with him in heaven. You are making it sound like i said above, like you have to do 1,000 good deeds a day to get to heaven when in reality, all you have to do is accept the free gift. It has nothing to do with us being good or getting to heaven on our own. All we must do is accept his free gift.

We don't want to disprove it. We're defending ourselves from idiots like TSR who feel so obligated to smash us in the face with a brick with "God" written on the side.

That is not at all my purpose Jehutyv. I am simply presenting my beliefs and listening to yours. Of course there is going to be some name calling and what not but that is to be expected when people who have believed something their entire life and encountered with someone else who has been taught something else their entire life. I honestly am not in any way trying to put you down or "smack you in the face with a brick", if you have felt that way i do truly apologize.

[uniquinous]

Ok, i will do my best not to go around your question. I assure you it was not on purpose. Your question is why is it now ok to eat shrimp? When i think of that, i don't specifically think of shrimp as being unclean, i think that it was a law he placed for the people to follow to see if they were truly followers of him and willing to give things up for him. So choose #3 i guess. It is not that shrimp are "unclean" now, its that God no longer requires us to follow the old law and that was part of the old law. Ah, but the bible doesn't say "don't eat shrimp" (which is a LAW). It says "shrimp ARE an abomination" and "shrimp ARE unclean". These are statements of fact. If you feel the bible only says that to see if people truly follow, then those statements are actually FALSE. They have a purpose, but they are not true. The bible states shrimp ARE an abomination. Jesus believed shrimp ARE an abomination. Yet Paul didn't. So, who is right? Jesus/old-testament, or Paul/new? It can only be one or the other. Either shrimp ARE an abomination, or they are not.


Look at the text in red. You know where it came from right? um......WHERE? I did not read you state a origin of this "bacteria". You base this ENTIRE theory off of something you don't know where came from. You must have faith that it was just there in the beginning right? Or can you "scientifically" prove where it came from? Other than that i truly enjoyed reading your presentation of evolution. It was one of the best i have read and well put together.The origin wasn't bacteria. The very first "it" was actually raw material. If you want to ask where the "it" came from, you're heading into the big bang, which isn't the topic of conversation right now. The topic is evolution. I'm bringing you from the first life on Earth up to now, of which you've refuted nothing. You can't refute anything of evolution I've told you thusfar. Everything I said so far about evolution is 100% proven. Now I'm waiting for you to ask me a specific question...

I believe God created the horse and the donkey and then one horse and one donkey got to like each other and.....well ya know....ha haCept, evolutionarily, these two animals are close on the family tree. They share enough genes to reproduce. It's not just that they liked each other. If you implant a female cougar with bird sperm, nothing happens as they are too far apart on the evolutionary tree. You can mate different animals together, but only the genetically close ones are similar enough for viable offspring. From the religious standpoint, god didn't make all the animals, as he couldn't have made the mule.

I love to prove the bible right. The flood, evidence of that ALL OVER. Fossils, the grand canyon and so on all prove that there was a massive amount of water all over the earth for a period of time. Scientists have dated the earth to try and figure out how many days there were and they came up 2 days short. In the Bible, God holds the sun still twice adding up to about 48 hours. Many people have spotted the ark on Mt. Arrorat. I could go on and on, but i can easily prove the Bible right, its just up to you to prove it wrong.Yes there's evidence of a flood on this earth. The question is: when? Not whilst humans were around. Take a look at the red above. Now find me a source. Scientists are very good at dating things (such as dinosaur bones), but they aren't good enough to have to-the-day precision. There's no way scientists could have figured things were "2 days short". We don't have that ability. At best, we can come within a few years of how old something is. Think of it this way as well: if god held the sun still, it wouldn't stop the days, as the EARTH revolves around a STILL sun (this was a huge misconception back in the old day, much like evolution is now). Even *IF* you claim it was symbolic for the earth not spinning, then 1) it would still be daytime on one part of the earth, and 2) the earth would still age even if the sun doesn't go around it.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

No, God is forgiving and wants all men to be with him in heaven. You are making it sound like i said above, like you have to do 1,000 good deeds a day to get to heaven when in reality, all you have to do is accept the free gift. It has nothing to do with us being good or getting to heaven on our own. All we must do is accept his free gift.
Yeah, but if you make one simple mistake or have a small lapse of judgment you're worth jack squat in God's book.


That is not at all my purpose Jehutyv. I am simply presenting my beliefs and listening to yours. Of course there is going to be some name calling and what not but that is to be expected when people who have believed something their entire life and encountered with someone else who has been taught something else their entire life. I honestly am not in any way trying to put you down or "smack you in the face with a brick", if you have felt that way i do truly apologize.

You insult our beliefs, calling them ridiculous and implausible without even considering them while Uniquin and I have taken the time to understand your point of view.

[TheSilverRider]

Ah, but the bible doesn't say "don't eat shrimp" (which is a LAW). It says "shrimp ARE an abomination" and "shrimp ARE unclean". These are statements of fact. If you feel the bible only says that to see if people truly follow, then those statements are actually FALSE. They have a purpose, but they are not true. The bible states shrimp ARE an abomination. Jesus believed shrimp ARE an abomination. Yet Paul didn't. So, who is right? Jesus/old-testament, or Paul/new? It can only be one or the other. Either shrimp ARE an abomination, or they are not.

Can you please provide a verse? I am not knowledgeable on this specific subject to say. I would appreciate it if you would provide a verse though.


The origin wasn't bacteria. The very first "it" was actually raw material. If you want to ask where the "it" came from, you're heading into the big bang, which isn't the topic of conversation right now. The topic is evolution. I'm bringing you from the first life on Earth up to now, of which you've refuted nothing. You can't refute anything of evolution I've told you thusfar. Everything I said so far about evolution is 100% proven. Now I'm waiting for you to ask me a specific question...

There apparently is no evolution without the big bang. So i guess my specific question is where did the materials for the big bang come from?

Cept, evolutionarily, these two animals are close on the family tree. They share enough genes to reproduce. It's not just that they liked each other. If you implant a female cougar with bird sperm, nothing happens as they are too far apart on the evolutionary tree. You can mate different animals together, but only the genetically close ones are similar enough for viable offspring. From the religious standpoint, god didn't make all the animals, as he couldn't have made the mule.

Um, i said that before. God did not create all of the animals we have today. That is "micro-evolution" meaning that certain animals that God did create reproduced and then came different animals.

Yes there's evidence of a flood on this earth. The question is: when? Not whilst humans were around. Take a look at the red above. Now find me a source. Scientists are very good at dating things (such as dinosaur bones), but they aren't good enough to have to-the-day precision. There's no way scientists could have figured things were "2 days short". We don't have that ability. At best, we can come within a few years of how old something is. Think of it this way as well: if god held the sun still, it wouldn't stop the days, as the EARTH revolves around a STILL sun (this was a huge misconception back in the old day, much like evolution is now). Even *IF* you claim it was symbolic for the earth not spinning, then 1) it would still be daytime on one part of the earth, and 2) the earth would still age even if the sun doesn't go around it.

Why do you say that? If the ark was truly spotted, would that not prove that humas were around the the Bible is true? Im talking to you personally here, uniq, if the ark is found and they could prove it was the ark, would you believe in the Bible? As far as a source, that was a teacher that told me he read an article on it, i will see him later this week and will ask him for the article and will post it. I will def give you a source on that.

[TheSilverRider]

Yeah, but if you make one simple mistake or have a small lapse of judgment you're worth jack squat in God's book.

You could say that, but he is still willing to forgive you for it. Once you are saved, you CANNOT loose your salvation. You are on your way to heaven no matter what.


You insult our beliefs, calling them ridiculous and implausible without even considering them while Uniquin and I have taken the time to understand your point of view.

I do not insult you and i do consider them and then i present mine.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

There apparently is no evolution without the big bang. So i guess my specific question is where did the materials for the big bang come from?Oh Christ, you're using the old "well where did this come from?" argument. You're like a small child who asks "whyyyy?" after every explanation. Here, I'm not sure of the name, but there's this phenomenon where, out of nothing, literally, nothing atoms are created, but ultimately destroyed by antimatter. So why can't this universe be something like that, ultimately to be destroyed by antimatter? We don't know how long it will take.

Um, i said that before. God did not create all of the animals we have today. That is "micro-evolution" meaning that certain animals that God did create reproduced and then came different animals.I don't know how many times we say this, but microevolution leads to macroevolution. Things microevolve until they become different animals entirely from the ones they were.



Why do you say that? If the ark was truly spotted, would that not prove that humas were around the the Bible is true? Im talking to you personally here, uniq, if the ark is found and they could prove it was the ark, would you believe in the Bible? As far as a source, that was a teacher that told me he read an article on it, i will see him later this week and will ask him for the article and will post it. I will def give you a source on that.Yeah, and a piece on the Loch Ness Monster would totally be believable too. Don't you think if it were truly seen, there would be more of a fuss? That would be big news. It's not credible, trust me.

You could say that, but he is still willing to forgive you for it. Once you are saved, you CANNOT loose your salvation. You are on your way to heaven no matter what. What about comitting a sin? God'll take murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and generally evil people who are saved, but he won't take a nice guy who does nice things for the reason that he's nice?



I do not insult you and i do consider them and then i present mine.
Funny way of showing it.

[drakonfire]

I also have no reason to reconsider anything in the bible. It is the INFALLIBLE word of God. There are NO contradictions in it and it cannot and will not be proven wrong.

Okay, a couple of things, first, to TSR. I have a few Bible verses for you to look up for me and read.

Genesis Ch. 1 verses 20-28
Genesis Ch. 2 Verses 5-19
Then,
Matthew Ch. 5 Vereses 17-20

Please please please, understand, I do not wish to attack your faith in God, for I share it. I merely wish to provide some calm points that I wish I had known when I was arguing the exact things you are today.


now then, SKOF - AMEN! God cannot be bound to human understanding, thank you for stating it so eloquently.


and a small note about hell: One of my profs was fond of quoting a friend of his, "Hell is the terrible compliment God pays human beings to let us know that God takes us seriously." why hell? I don't know.

One definition I've heard of hell is simply eternal separation from God. Now that doesn't sound so bad right now, but I wonder how it will feel after we have had a taste of His presence (AKA Judgement time)? I do not pretend to know, just some food for thought about hell and the question of it.

[Kyir]

I love to prove the bible right. The flood, evidence of that ALL OVER. Fossils, the grand canyon and so on all prove that there was a massive amount of water all over the earth for a period of time.


A large amount of the earth was underwater while Pangea was still the only major landmass. Feel like proving that Techtonic Plates don't move?

[uniquinous]

Can you please provide a verse? I am not knowledgeable on this specific subject to say. I would appreciate it if you would provide a verse though.I've provided them multiple times now:
Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10. This isn't law. This is statement of fact: shrimp are an abomination. It's like saying "cows eat grass". 100 years from now, cows will still eat grass. This statement is either true for all cows, or false for all cows. It doesn't change cuz Jesus died. Now, are shrimp an abomination, or aren't they?

There apparently is no evolution without the big bang. So i guess my specific question is where did the materials for the big bang come from?No, we're not getting into the big bang until we get through evolution first. Baby steps. If you really want a good example to tied you over, I'll elaborate on Jehuty. In our universe today, out in space, matter and antimatter will be spontaneously formed. They then collide back together, canceling each other out, and leaving nothing. This phenomenon of matter coming from nothing, happens all the time, even today. Think about that for a bit, but we're putting the big bang on the back burner for now.

For the purposes of our talk on evolution, assume god created all non-living matter on the planet. My purpose isn't to get you to disbelieve god. It's to get you to see the proof of evolution. So assume god created everything BUT living creatures for now. Given that setup, we can reproduce how life began. The "it" can be repeatedly demonstrated in a lab.

Um, i said that before. God did not create all of the animals we have today. That is "micro-evolution" meaning that certain animals that God did create reproduced and then came different animals.Macroevolution comes from microevolution. The difference between a donkey and horse is somewhere in between micro and macro evolution. It's why I use them as an example. So if you agree that new animals can arise from old animals, you already see that evolution is possible. Besides, who's to say that god didn't just setup the world and create evolution to make all the animals? Evolution has been proven time and time again from a number of different angles.

Why do you say that? If the ark was truly spotted, would that not prove that humas were around the the Bible is true? Im talking to you personally here, uniq, if the ark is found and they could prove it was the ark, would you believe in the Bible? As far as a source, that was a teacher that told me he read an article on it, i will see him later this week and will ask him for the article and will post it. I will def give you a source on that.
And if the one ring to rule them all was truly found, would that not prove that Lord of the Rings is true? I remember the story you're talking about. Somewhere back in the early 1990s a large ark was found up in a mountain. It turned out to be a big hoax. The fact is, you'd need a boat the size of Texas to fit every single species on the planet. There are billions of beetles alone. The ark would be infested with 7000 cockroaches from the 3500 different species (and that's not counting any eggs that were laid and hatched). Oh by the way, the millions of plants that would have been covered in water would have all died. Their seeds would perish in the salt water.

Evidence has shown that there actually was a flood in the early life of the planet. There was also a massive Mesopotamian flood which was around for humans. It didn't cover the world, just a large area.

But really, lets not get into the flood too. One topic at a time, and this time, it's evolution.

[TheSilverRider]

Okay, a couple of things, first, to TSR. I have a few Bible verses for you to look up for me and read.

Genesis Ch. 1 verses 20-28
Genesis Ch. 2 Verses 5-19
Then,
Matthew Ch. 5 Vereses 17-20

Please please please, understand, I do not wish to attack your faith in God, for I share it. I merely wish to provide some calm points that I wish I had known when I was arguing the exact things you are today.

You are taking that out of context or just simply not realizing the entire story. Here is a good comentary that will put that verse in better perspective:

20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees--The superiority to the Pharisaic righteousness here required is plainly in kind, not degree; for all Scripture teaches that entrance into God's kingdom, whether in its present or future stage, depends, not on the degree of our excellence in anything, but solely on our having the character itself which God demands. Our righteousness, then--if it is to contrast with the outward and formal righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees--must be inward, vital, spiritual. Some, indeed, of the scribes and Pharisees themselves might have the very righteousness here demanded; but our Lord is speaking, not of persons, but of the system they represented and taught.

~Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary

I hope that better helps you understand the meaning of that verse.


Oh Christ, you're using the old "well where did this come from?" argument. You're like a small child who asks "whyyyy?" after every explanation. Here, I'm not sure of the name, but there's this phenomenon where, out of nothing, literally, nothing atoms are created, but ultimately destroyed by antimatter. So why can't this universe be something like that, ultimately to be destroyed by antimatter? We don't know how long it will take.

Um, you can call me a child all you want but you never answered the question (ironically).

I don't know how many times we say this, but microevolution leads to macroevolution. Things microevolve until they become different animals entirely from the ones they were.

Prove it. Why does microevolution ALWAYS lead to macroevolution. You cannot prove that it does so why say that?



Yeah, and a piece on the Loch Ness Monster would totally be believable too. Don't you think if it were truly seen, there would be more of a fuss? That would be big news. It's not credible, trust me.

I dont understand your point here. Your saying if they found it...they would not have found it? Im sorry i kinda missed y our point there.

What about comitting a sin? God'll take murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and generally evil people who are saved, but he won't take a nice guy who does nice things for the reason that he's nice?

He will take the muderers, rapists, drug dealers as long as they repent from their sins and ask forgiveness and ask Jesus to come into their heart and save them. Will he accept a nice guy for just being nice? no. He wont. "Except a man be born again he shall not see the kingdom of God."


I've provided them multiple times now:
Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10. This isn't law. This is statement of fact: shrimp are an abomination. It's like saying "cows eat grass". 100 years from now, cows will still eat grass. This statement is either true for all cows, or false for all cows. It doesn't change cuz Jesus died. Now, are shrimp an abomination, or aren't they?

Here is another commentary for you uniq. He is very good scholar of the bible and can state it MUCH better than i can:

Unto you-This clause is added to shew that they were neither abominable in their own nature, nor for the food of other nations; and consequently when the partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles was taken away, these distinctions of meat were to cease.

~John Wesley's Notes

No, we're not getting into the big bang until we get through evolution first. Baby steps. If you really want a good example to tied you over, I'll elaborate on Jehuty. In our universe today, out in space, matter and antimatter will be spontaneously formed. They then collide back together, canceling each other out, and leaving nothing. This phenomenon of matter coming from nothing, happens all the time, even today. Think about that for a bit, but we're putting the big bang on the back burner for now.

Um, something cannot come from nothing unless it is created by something. Here is my evolution question, why have scientists still been unable to find a direct link between humans and monkeys without creating a fake one?

For the purposes of our talk on evolution, assume god created all non-living matter on the planet. My purpose isn't to get you to disbelieve god. It's to get you to see the proof of evolution. So assume god created everything BUT living creatures for now. Given that setup, we can reproduce how life began. The "it" can be repeatedly demonstrated in a lab.

Yes, thats fine, but it cannot be made into anything else on its own. If you left that thing you created in a lab for billions of years it would not turn into anything, especially not humans. I dont think you truly realize how truly intricate the human body is OR how incredibly precise the placement of the planets in our solar system are. If you would like i can explain those further.

Macroevolution comes from microevolution. The difference between a donkey and horse is somewhere in between micro and macro evolution. It's why I use them as an example. So if you agree that new animals can arise from old animals, you already see that evolution is possible. Besides, who's to say that god didn't just setup the world and create evolution to make all the animals? Evolution has been proven time and time again from a number of different angles.

Then give me ONE. Please dont suggest God "set the world up for evolution" again because it clearly states in the bible otherwise.


And if the one ring to rule them all was truly found, would that not prove that Lord of the Rings is true? I remember the story you're talking about. Somewhere back in the early 1990s a large ark was found up in a mountain. It turned out to be a big hoax. The fact is, you'd need a boat the size of Texas to fit every single species on the planet. There are billions of beetles alone. The ark would be infested with 7000 cockroaches from the 3500 different species (and that's not counting any eggs that were laid and hatched). Oh by the way, the millions of plants that would have been covered in water would have all died. Their seeds would perish in the salt water.

Only two of every kind of species were on the ark. Billions of beetles huh? Only two beetles were on the ark, then "micro evolution" occurs and out come all kinds of beetles. But no matter how much they change, they will still be beetles.

Evidence has shown that there actually was a flood in the early life of the planet. There was also a massive Mesopotamian flood which was around for humans. It didn't cover the world, just a large area.

There is also tons of evidence showing that there was a worldwide flood. Take the grand canyon. Evolutionists state that it was that tiny river at the bottom over millions of years. They also say that it is much more likely that it was a large amount of water in a short period of time (judging by the rock decay and all). Ironic isnt it?

[uniquinous]

Um, you can call me a child all you want but you never answered the question (ironically).You missed his point. It would be the equivalent of him asking "well what made god and what we before god?" What was before genesis? The fact is, whether we have proven what came before evolution or not, we have proven evolution.

Prove it. Why does microevolution ALWAYS lead to macroevolution. You cannot prove that it does so why say that?Microevolution DOESNT always lead to macroevolution. In fact, most (99+%) microevolution leads nowhere. However, ALL macroevolution is a result of microevolution. This has been proven.

He will take the muderers, rapists, drug dealers as long as they repent from their sins and ask forgiveness and ask Jesus to come into their heart and save them. Will he accept a nice guy for just being nice? no. He wont. "Except a man be born again he shall not see the kingdom of God."so the moral of the story is to be a horrible person your entire life, but then take jesus into your heart right before you die. Yeah that must be the point of your religion...

[uniquinous]

Unto you-This clause is added to shew that they were neither abominable in their own nature, nor for the food of other nations; and consequently when the partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles was taken away, these distinctions of meat were to cease.
That's all well and good, cept the original hebrew doesn't exactly translate that way. Furthermore, you're returning to your old poor idea which is "cuz I said so when jesus died". Either shrimp ARE an abomination onto you, or they ARENT. Either the bible lied, or it didn't. Cows are black and white "onto you". This statement is true now, 2000 years ago, and tomorrow.

Um, something cannot come from nothing unless it is created by something. That's actually very false. You clearly don't know physics. As I said, it happens every second in space. Two equal but opposite masses are created, and a split second later, obliterate one another.

Here is my evolution question, why have scientists still been unable to find a direct link between humans and monkeys without creating a fake one?you were so quick to claim i didn't reference my bible quotes (even tho my paraphrasing was spot on accurate), and yet you not only provide NO reference, but are completely incorrect. I don't know what radical religion fanatic told you that, but it's time someone educated you properly. Altho, out of curiosity, I'd like to know where you got the idea of a "fake link".

Yes, thats fine, but it cannot be made into anything else on its own. If you left that thing you created in a lab for billions of years it would not turn into anything, especially not humans. I dont think you truly realize how truly intricate the human body is OR how incredibly precise the placement of the planets in our solar system are. If you would like i can explain those further.*I* don't realize things about the body or cosmos? *I* have an advanced degree in that very topic, concentrating in genetics. You have things found in 3rd grade health. You can debate with me on bible interpretation, but when it comes to the human body, there is only fact, and you are not in my league as far as knowledge goes in that area. So put whatever unfounded condescended notions you may have aside, cuz you're in my classroom now. Have a seat little boy.

So, where were we? That "it" can't be made into anything else on its own. This is false, as demonstrated repeatedly in the lab. We can take basic materials, put them under the harsh conditions of the early world, add in a bit of electricity to simulate lightning, and voila! Organic matter. Not only that, but organic matter that "sticks" to other organic matter, and divides if it gets too big. Sound like, I dunno, what bacteria do?

Then give me ONE. Please dont suggest God "set the world up for evolution" again because it clearly states in the bible otherwise.Yeah the bible also claims the sun revolves around the earth and that the moon produces light. Then when those things were found wrong, the church just interpretted it differently and claimed the bible was perfect again. Oops. I've given you a number of examples already. You tend to ignore them. Let me know if you'd like me to restate or explain any.

Only two of every kind of species were on the ark. Billions of beetles huh? Only two beetles were on the ark, then "micro evolution" occurs and out come all kinds of beetles. But no matter how much they change, they will still be beetles. Ah here's again where you're incorrect. You see, the different beetles on this planet (literally billions of them), are independant species. They can't mate across the species. If there were only 2 beetles on the ark, they would need to undergo MACROevolution to get to where they are now. They're too different from each other now to be only from microevolution. If you don't know the difference between the two, ask, or look it up.



There is also tons of evidence showing that there was a worldwide flood. Take the grand canyon. Evolutionists state that it was that tiny river at the bottom over millions of years. They also say that it is much more likely that it was a large amount of water in a short period of time (judging by the rock decay and all). Ironic isnt it?Here's an idea skippy: if the grand canyon flooded, it would be completely submerged, meaning no water would be flowing through the canyon, but rather just sitting atop it. Even if a TREMENDOUS amount of water were to flow for 40 days and nights straight, it wouldn't make the grand canyon. When scientists say "short period of time" in reference to the billions of years it took to create this gallaxy, they mean "a few hundred years", not "40 days". ;)

[AlabamaBoy]

Just to emphasize the point made...

Here are some beetles.

________________________

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2558/beetlescy3.png

[dirka dirka]

Then give me ONE. Please dont suggest God "set the world up for evolution" again because it clearly states in the bible otherwise.

You do realize that the bible is no less than a guide passed down through the ages and truly can't be relied on. I'm not a Christian and I even know that. There is a difference between faith and stupidity. You can have faith all you want, God exists, cool. Come on though, to believe that a book from two thousand years ago that is thousands of pages long can be one hundred percent factual, that's stupidity. Times change. Books have opinions and dated facts.

[Mithrandir]

I came here to request prayer for guidance if any serious Christians haven't given up on this thread (like I did long ago) and reads this. I'm facing an unbelievably difficult situation with my girlfriend, who I love dearly. I'm having serious questions about whether or not this is a person I can be compatible with in the long term and I may have to break up with her because of them. Please say a word of prayer for me that I will do what's best for us both and what is God's will. Thank you.

[emerald slasher]

I got you Mith :wink2:

[uniquinous]

I won't pray for you, Mith, but my door is always open if you want to talk about it. I offer no spiritual help, but rather my empathy, and someone willing to listen to anything you have to say.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

u want but you never answered the question (ironically).First, misuse of the term irony. Second, I did answer the question. I gave you an explanation as to how matter is created, not by a spiritual being, but from nothingness.



Prove it. Why does microevolution ALWAYS lead to macroevolution. You cannot prove that it does so why say that?As Uniquin said, it doesn't, most of the time. However, when you span that out over several billion years with a lot of free-radicals spanning throughout the globe, changing genetics and whatnot, you get a pretty large amount of changes.

And yes, it's been proven.


I dont understand your point here. Your saying if they found it...they would not have found it? Im sorry i kinda missed y our point there.I'm saying it would be a hoax. Wouldn't an arc made of wet wood, animal feces, and fly hatchlings have... deteriorated by now?

By the way, Noah had better have brought along a good amount of flies. Those things die in a day.

He will take the muderers, rapists, drug dealers as long as they repent from their sins and ask forgiveness and ask Jesus to come into their heart and save them. Will he accept a nice guy for just being nice? no. He wont. "Except a man be born again he shall not see the kingdom of God."Allow me to give you a little skit that I entitle, "the absolute bullcrap that is this aspect of Christianity."

Note our cast: Jesuslover777 as the man who gets into heaven. Greatguy001 as the guy who doesn't. God as himself. Satan as himself.

Jesuslover777: Yo, GG1.
Greatguy001: What's up?
Jesuslover777: I sold a man some drugs, watched him OD, slit his throat, drank the juices from the throat, raped the hole while he was still dying, and then ate his corpse after a bit more lovin'.
Greatguy001: That's... hideous.
Jesuslover777: Yeah, but boy, I think Jesus is cool.
God: (everyone claps) DING! You're coming upstairs, nigga.
Jesuslover777: YEAAAAH, BOIIII!
Greatguy001: Well, I just slaved for hours helping out malnourished youths while walking for AIDS research and figuring out a cure for cancer on my PDA. Then, I donated all the money I don't need to charity for those who really need it. But I don't care about the fact that I get by on little nutrition myself, because doing good just feels so damned good.
Jesuslover777: Wow... that's really, really amazing.
Greatguy001: What can I say? I'm Jewish, we like to do mitzvah.
Satan: (everyone boos) Oh, shut your whining. You're goin' downtown, ya freakin' Jew.
Greatguy001: Wh...what? But I'm a much better person than that other guy! Why should I be punished?!
Satan: Hey, I don't make the rules, kid. God's the one who said you're gonna burn for no good reason.

The end.



Um, something cannot come from nothing unless it is created by something. Here is my evolution question, why have scientists still been unable to find a direct link between humans and monkeys without creating a fake one?... Are you kidding me? We just explained that you totally can.



Yes, thats fine, but it cannot be made into anything else on its own. If you left that thing you created in a lab for billions of years it would not turn into anything, especially not humans. I dont think you truly realize how truly intricate the human body is OR how incredibly precise the placement of the planets in our solar system are. If you would like i can explain those further.You went into the planets thing waaaay back when. You said the earth was perfectly positioned, not too hot, not too cold. A, that's due to random chance, and B, turns out we have several million miles before we're in the danger zone. Looks like God ol' boy has a bit of a hook on his swing.

Only two of every kind of species were on the ark. Billions of beetles huh? Only two beetles were on the ark, then "micro evolution" occurs and out come all kinds of beetles. But no matter how much they change, they will still be beetles. Flies die after a day. Carnivores only eat meat. No grass for the herbivores to eat. That thing must've smelled like death after fourty days of rotting carcasses.



There is also tons of evidence showing that there was a worldwide flood. Take the grand canyon. Evolutionists state that it was that tiny river at the bottom over millions of years. They also say that it is much more likely that it was a large amount of water in a short period of time (judging by the rock decay and all). Ironic isnt it?Again, misusing irony. That's a pet peeve of mine.

Also, so now you believe evolutionists? Pick a side, man. Stick to your extremely old and flawed guns while we stick to our new, high-tech sniper rifles. And as Uniquin said, a short period of time is not 40 days. It's a relative measure. There is no way that much of the earth could have eroded in that time.

[uniquinous]

it's funny cuz i actually am an HIV researcher who leads a community outreach organization (not joking, that story is actually pretty close for Jehuty not actually knowing me)...

Good thing I don't believe in zombie gods :)

[TheSilverRider]

You missed his point. It would be the equivalent of him asking "well what made god and what we before god?" What was before genesis? The fact is, whether we have proven what came before evolution or not, we have proven evolution.

You can ask that all you want. I have faith that God always has been and always will be. You either need to admit that you have FAITH that that bacteria was just randomly there or prove it.

Microevolution DOESNT always lead to macroevolution. In fact, most (99+%) microevolution leads nowhere. However, ALL macroevolution is a result of microevolution. This has been proven.

Macroevolution does not lead anywhere beings as it does not happen anyway. For instance, if fish really did evolve into birds and there really was survival of the fittest then there would be no birds BECAUSE for those animals to go through such a transformation there is no way they could have GRADUALLY over billions of years changed and still been able to live.

so the moral of the story is to be a horrible person your entire life, but then take Jesus into your heart right before you die. Yeah that must be the point of your religion...

Ugh, please dont make radical assumptions like that. If you are truly saved then you will not have a desire to do those bad things. Here are some verses that show that it does not matter how hard you try but you cannot get to heaven on your own merit.

"For by GRACE are ye saved through faith in that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast." - Eph. 2:8,9

"Not by works of righteousness which I have dont but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" - Titus 3:5

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." - Galatians 2:16

That's all well and good, cept the original hebrew doesn't exactly translate that way. Furthermore, you're returning to your old poor idea which is "cuz I said so when jesus died". Either shrimp ARE an abomination onto you, or they ARENT. Either the bible lied, or it didn't. Cows are black and white "onto you". This statement is true now, 2000 years ago, and tomorrow.

Here is another verse that COMPLETELY destroys your point here:

1 Timothy 4:3-5 (King James Version)

"3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

This is an EXACT verse that shows that no matter what we eat now, is ok as long as we give thanks for it.

That's actually very false. You clearly don't know physics. As I said, it happens every second in space. Two equal but opposite masses are created, and a split second later, obliterate one another.

And you have proof of this? Please, do share.

you were so quick to claim i didn't reference my bible quotes (even tho my paraphrasing was spot on accurate), and yet you not only provide NO reference, but are completely incorrect. I don't know what radical religion fanatic told you that, but it's time someone educated you properly. Altho, out of curiosity, I'd like to know where you got the idea of a "fake link".[/quote}

Click (http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html)

[quote]*I* don't realize things about the body or cosmos? *I* have an advanced degree in that very topic, concentrating in genetics. You have things found in 3rd grade health. You can debate with me on bible interpretation, but when it comes to the human body, there is only fact, and you are not in my league as far as knowledge goes in that area. So put whatever unfounded condescended notions you may have aside, cuz you're in my classroom now. Have a seat little boy.

If you are so incredibly studied on the subject then you of all people will know how incredibly intricate the human body is and how in the world can you possibly think that could happen by chance? I have said this before, but it is just like saying that i can take a watch appart into the thousands of pieces, throw them in a brown paper bag, shake it up and dump the bag on a desk and it will come out as a ticking working watch. Understand that the human body is at least 1,000 times more intricate than a watch and everything about it points to a intelligent designer. It is very unlogical to believe it could happen by pure chance.

So, where were we? That "it" can't be made into anything else on its own. This is false, as demonstrated repeatedly in the lab. We can take basic materials, put them under the harsh conditions of the early world, add in a bit of electricity to simulate lightning, and voila! Organic matter. Not only that, but organic matter that "sticks" to other organic matter, and divides if it gets too big. Sound like, I dunno, what bacteria do?

Yet again I ask, where did "it" come from and where did the "harsh conditions" come from and where did the "lightning" come from? Please dont go around this question.

Yeah the bible also claims the sun revolves around the earth and that the moon produces light. Then when those things were found wrong, the church just interpretted it differently and claimed the bible was perfect again. Oops. I've given you a number of examples already. You tend to ignore them. Let me know if you'd like me to restate or explain any.

Please, please dont just state things about the bible without producing a verse to support it. ESPECIALLY if you are going to attempt to prove it wrong.

Ah here's again where you're incorrect. You see, the different beetles on this planet (literally billions of them), are independant species. They can't mate across the species. If there were only 2 beetles on the ark, they would need to undergo MACROevolution to get to where they are now. They're too different from each other now to be only from microevolution. If you don't know the difference between the two, ask, or look it up.

I dont put it past God to have two beetles on the ark that could reproduce into all the ones we have today. I cannot comprehend how God works but i dont put that past him.

Here's an idea skippy: if the grand canyon flooded, it would be completely submerged, meaning no water would be flowing through the canyon, but rather just sitting atop it. Even if a TREMENDOUS amount of water were to flow for 40 days and nights straight, it wouldn't make the grand canyon. When scientists say "short period of time" in reference to the billions of years it took to create this gallaxy, they mean "a few hundred years", not "40 days". ;)

You forget that the earth opened up and spewed out water, that water was most likely moving. That would cause a massive amount of erosion.


First, misuse of the term irony. Second, I did answer the question. I gave you an explanation as to how matter is created, not by a spiritual being, but from nothingness.

You said that with the correct conditions it can be recreated in a lab. Where did the correct conditions come from?

I'm saying it would be a hoax. Wouldn't an arc made of wet wood, animal feces, and fly hatchlings have... deteriorated by now?

Maybe, maybe not. You never know unless you find it.

By the way, Noah had better have brought along a good amount of flies. Those things die in a day.

Flies may not have been on the ark, they can fly, they may have just used the ark as a place to land.

Allow me to give you a little skit that I entitle, "the absolute bullcrap that is this aspect of Christianity."

*removed for irrelevance*

Please dont discredit and disrespect my beliefs like that. I have in no way said that. Please see the verses that i have put above that clearly state what i believe and how clear it is that we cannot work our way to heaven by good works.


You went into the planets thing waaaay back when. You said the earth was perfectly positioned, not too hot, not too cold. A, that's due to random chance, and B, turns out we have several million miles before we're in the danger zone. Looks like God ol' boy has a bit of a hook on his swing.

Once again, please dont disrespect my God. Second, how about Jupiter? It protects us from meteors all the time. Or the tilt of the earth is EXACT. Explain those please.

Flies die after a day. Carnivores only eat meat. No grass for the herbivores to eat. That thing must've smelled like death after forty days of rotting carcasses.

Im sure they were not stupid enough not to bring food. And like i said above, i dont know exactly how God works. He could have preserved the animals in a miracle for all i know. It is not specific in the Bible here on how, it just says that it happened and i believe it.


Again, misusing irony. That's a pet peeve of mine.

Also, so now you believe evolutionists? Pick a side, man. Stick to your extremely old and flawed guns while we stick to our new, high-tech sniper rifles. And as Uniquin said, a short period of time is not 40 days. It's a relative measure. There is no way that much of the earth could have eroded in that time.

Please dont state things as fact without proving them. God could make that happen as he has showed in miracles in the past. Also, i am on a side.

[TheSilverRider]

Lastly, uniq i somewhat appreciate your debating and how you present it to me, Jeh not so much. If we are going to debate this lets do it like civilized people and not act like 3 year olds calling eachother names and what not. I will do my best to appreciate your theory if you do the same for me and we can have a reasonable debate here.

I came here to request prayer for guidance if any serious Christians haven't given up on this thread (like I did long ago) and reads this. I'm facing an unbelievably difficult situation with my girlfriend, who I love dearly. I'm having serious questions about whether or not this is a person I can be compatible with in the long term and I may have to break up with her because of them. Please say a word of prayer for me that I will do what's best for us both and what is God's will. Thank you.

Absolutely Mirthrandir. That is what i created this thread for in the first place. I created it for Christians to get together and fellowship and it has turned into a debate thread. You are more than willing to post your prayer requests here. I will most definitely be praying for you. Relationships can be tough and it is very important that you are sure that the one you are planning to marry is the one that God has for your life. I will pray that God makes that clear to you. I hope everything goes well and God Bless.

[uniquinous]

SilverRider, while I appreciate the sentiment, *you* are not debating like a civilized person. You are condescending and hypocritical; constantly demanding citation and never providing any of your own; speaking of things and topics you know nothing about but trying to pass them off as fact even when you are completely incorrect; stating things you don't know instead of ASKING QUESTIONS. You avoid/ignore the points you don't like, and simply repeat the points you do in a manner fitting for a child with his hands over his ears screaming loudly. It's clear your ignorance is debilitating, but I feel compelled to show you what FACT is, seeing as it's morons like yourself who do so much indirect damage to society.

You can ask that all you want. I have faith that God always has been and always will be. You either need to admit that you have FAITH that that bacteria was just randomly there or prove it. It has been proven. It's the "it" we've been talking about. Have you been following any part of this conversation at all? OK, let's just assume, to make things easy, that God made bacteria, and bacteria ONLY. Does that help you?

Macroevolution does not lead anywhere beings as it does not happen anyway. For instance, if fish really did evolve into birds and there really was survival of the fittest then there would be no birds BECAUSE for those animals to go through such a transformation there is no way they could have GRADUALLY over billions of years changed and still been able to live. Keep that red part in mind - i'll return to it later. Now, onto your misconceptions of evolution: Fish did not evolve into birds. This is a classic example of where you cluelessly babble pure crap with no source and no decent understanding. A closer relative to birds are lizards. Aside from both laying eggs, let's take a look at this:
http://www.themodernapprentice.com/bell_attached.jpg
Note the SCALES. Coincidence? Not at all. If you look at the DNA (you do believe in DNA, right?) of the two, you'll see they perfectly match in those reptilian areas. It's like overwriting an essay on paper. You can scratch out something and scribble over them, but you can see what was scrapped and what is new. So when we look at bird DNA, we see that some things from the old lizard draft were saved, while new verses were added.

Ugh, please dont make radical assumptions like that. If you are truly saved then you will not have a desire to do those bad things. Here are some verses that show that it does not matter how hard you try but you cannot get to heaven on your own merit. Then who is truly saved? Everyone sins. If saved people never desire to do bad things, and every human on the planet does, then no one is really saved... just trying to be.

Here is another verse that COMPLETELY destroys your point here:
4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

This is an EXACT verse that shows that no matter what we eat now, is ok as long as we give thanks for it. I'm not talking about eating shrimp. I'm saying god cursed them as an abomination. Either they ARE an abomination, or they ARENT. It can't be both, and it can't change. Cows ARE black and white. Your savior believed this. You don't.

And you have proof of this? Please, do share.Ugh I tell you we're sticking to evolution first and you can't seem to concentrate enough for it. What type would you like? The fact that we can reproduce it in a lab with a particle accelerator? The fact that Einstein was right? The physics is way over your head, and we're sticking to evolution. For the purposes of this discussion, imagine god created matter, and energy.

Click (http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html)Yes, scientists are people, and some will lie to further their career. They did produce a fake. There was actually a guy in Korea recently who claimed to have discovered a way to make stem cells. It would have been a tremendous advancement. But he lied, for the fame. The thing about SCIENCE is that you need to PROVE it. Meaning, dumbasses who lie, get found out. One fake doesn't mean it's all fake, just as one (hundred) bishops sexually assaulting little boys doesn't mean they are all bad along with Christianity. It means those individuals are bad. All the other bones have been verified real. Why? Because competing scientists love to prove each other wrong.

If you are so incredibly studied on the subject then you of all people will know how incredibly intricate the human body is and how in the world can you possibly think that could happen by chance? I have said this before, but it is just like saying that i can take a watch appart into the thousands of pieces, throw them in a brown paper bag, shake it up and dump the bag on a desk and it will come out as a ticking working watch. Understand that the human body is at least 1,000 times more intricate than a watch and everything about it points to a intelligent designer. It is very unlogical to believe it could happen by pure chance.And like I told you last time, which you didn't listen to, your example is crap. The human body wasn't jumbled up in a bag like your watch. Advancement in evolution is NOT chance. (figured the emphasis would help since you seem to have forgotten it since the last time I said it) You don't seem to internalize this, and you sound like a moron for it. I'll tweak your poor example (AGAIN) to show you something a bit closer to evolution. Imagine you threw all those watch parts in a bag, and shook it up for millions of years. Now imagine that everytime two pieces touched in a way they were supposed to STUCK to one another. At first you'd get a few small areas of some cogs together. Then those would hit another group of cogs and stick. The hands would hit the face-pin and stick to that. The face pin would hit the whole in the face and stick. If things line up in the wrong method, they don't stick. After a bit of shaking, you'd have a watch.

[uniquinous]

Yet again I ask, where did "it" come from and where did the "harsh conditions" come from and where did the "lightning" come from? Please dont go around this question.I don't know how many times I can tell you we're only gonna discuss evolution for now. I'm not getting into the big bang with you, as the physics (even moreso then this biology) is way above your head. For now we're sticking to evolution. Believe that god made lightning and harsh conditions - it doesn't much matter.

Please, please dont just state things about the bible without producing a verse to support it. ESPECIALLY if you are going to attempt to prove it wrong.Once again, my paraphrasing of the bible is accurate. You making things up about science is not. Here's youre quote: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also". Now, what two lights were made? And why would it say "he made the stars also" if the sun is a star? Think about it.

I dont put it past God to have two beetles on the ark that could reproduce into all the ones we have today. I cannot comprehend how God works but i dont put that past him.That's called macroevolution. 2 beetles becoming lots of different beetles is macroevolution. remember that red part from above? Go read it again, cuz you just contradicted yourself. A ladybug and a firefly are two completely different species, macroevolved from the same ancestor to create diversity of beetles.
http://www.kidzcraftz.ca/pics/Ladybug6.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/december2003/img/firefly.jpg
If the billions of beetle species on the planet today came from 2, it could ONLY have been through macroevolution. These are as different as the elephant and giraffe

You forget that the earth opened up and spewed out water, that water was most likely moving. That would cause a massive amount of erosion.The earth could have spewed massive amounts of hydrochloric acid, it wouldn't produce that much erosion in 40 days. Look at the harshest, most brutal river you know. The rocks are still there. Water is good at removing rock over time, not in 40 days, no matter how hard the water was. You can't find a single accurate source that will ever tell you that 40 days is enough to create the grand canyon.

Let's do the math: The volume eroded out of the canyon is ~1000 cubic miles. That would require 25 cubic MILES of rock to dissolve into water each day if the flood did it. At it's absolute harshest, parts can now erode at 300cm per year. That's an equivalent of 0.0000005 (5, ten-billionths) of a mile a day. That would mean, at flood, you would need the waters to flow about 5 MILLION times faster then it is currently. The current flow is 5 miles per hour, meaning the flood waters would need to be going 25 MILLION MILES PER HOUR to erode that much in just 40 days. Apparently Noah had a warp drive on the ark! As the circumference of the EARTH is 25000 miles, he would have been able to circle the globe once every 6 minutes. Talk about sea sick!

But, as I said previously. If there was a flood, then the canyon would be completely covered in water, after the first day of the earth "spewing" water up. If you put a rock at the bottom of a glass of water, does it erode? Nope.

Maybe, maybe not. You never know unless you find it.You have yet to provide a source (btw, here's mine (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html), and this isn't a "maybe" answer. Rotting wood doesn't exist for thousands of years.

Once again, please dont disrespect my God. Second, how about Jupiter? It protects us from meteors all the time. Or the tilt of the earth is EXACT. Explain those please.Seriously, who feeds you all this garbage. Jupiter doesn't protect us from anything. 99% of the time, jupiter is'nt even in line with earth, and at it's closest, it's 390 MILLION miles (4.2 AU) away. So by "all the time" do you mean the 1/400 days it lines up with the earth? or the 399 it doesn't?

[TheSilverRider]

SilverRider, while I appreciate the sentiment, *you* are not debating like a civilized person. You are condescending and hypocritical; constantly demanding citation and never providing any of your own; speaking of things and topics you know nothing about but trying to pass them off as fact even when you are completely incorrect; stating things you don't know instead of ASKING QUESTIONS. You avoid/ignore the points you don't like, and simply repeat the points you do in a manner fitting for a child with his hands over his ears screaming loudly. It's clear your ignorance is debilitating, but I feel compelled to show you what FACT is, seeing as it's morons like yourself who do so much indirect damage to society.

I have taken into account your areas of concern and i will make a concerted effort to fix those in the future debate. Thank you for your comments. Please once again, dont name call, its not getting the debate anywhere.

It has been proven. It's the "it" we've been talking about. Have you been following any part of this conversation at all? OK, let's just assume, to make things easy, that God made bacteria, and bacteria ONLY. Does that help you?[/quote

The bible says God created more than that. Read Genesis 1-4 and you will see everything her created.

[quote]Keep that red part in mind - i'll return to it later. Now, onto your misconceptions of evolution: Fish did not evolve into birds. This is a classic example of where you cluelessly babble pure crap with no source and no decent understanding. A closer relative to birds are lizards. Aside from both laying eggs, let's take a look at this:
http://www.themodernapprentice.com/bell_attached.jpg
Note the SCALES. Coincidence? Not at all. If you look at the DNA (you do believe in DNA, right?) of the two, you'll see they perfectly match in those reptilian areas. It's like overwriting an essay on paper. You can scratch out something and scribble over them, but you can see what was scrapped and what is new. So when we look at bird DNA, we see that some things from the old lizard draft were saved, while new verses were added.

Ok, lizards. Now, for a lizard to evolve into a bird it would take some alterations. (hardening of bones, different lungs, and so on). Now, if these mutations happened GRADUALLY over BILLIONS of years we would have fossils of half bird half lizards right? I dont see any. I believe this could not have happened because for there to be a half bird half lizard it would be very hard for it to survive, especially in a survival of the fittest atmosphere.

Then who is truly saved? Everyone sins. If saved people never desire to do bad things, and every human on the planet does, then no one is really saved... just trying to be.

Yes everyone sins, and saved people have desires to sin, its called the flesh. They do not have the same desires as unsaved people do. A saved person will not have the desire to kill someone or rape someone if they are truly saved. They may have the temptation to cheat, or lie, or look at things they shouldnt and thats normal, that is Satan tempting us.

I'm not talking about eating shrimp. I'm saying god cursed them as an abomination. Either they ARE an abomination, or they ARENT. It can't be both, and it can't change. Cows ARE black and white. Your savior believed this. You don't.

It WAS a abomination and NOW it is not. That verse clearly states it is no longer bad to eat shrimp. It cannot be put any clearer than that.

Ugh I tell you we're sticking to evolution first and you can't seem to concentrate enough for it. What type would you like? The fact that we can reproduce it in a lab with a particle accelerator? The fact that Einstein was right? The physics is way over your head, and we're sticking to evolution. For the purposes of this discussion, imagine god created matter, and energy.

You keep talking about how you can reproduce it in a lab. I dont see why that is relevant. You keep saying that if you add this and this and electrocute it here and stuff that it is the same thing. Now, where did all of those conditions and electricity come from if there was NOTHING?

Yes, scientists are people, and some will lie to further their career. They did produce a fake. There was actually a guy in Korea recently who claimed to have discovered a way to make stem cells. It would have been a tremendous advancement. But he lied, for the fame. The thing about SCIENCE is that you need to PROVE it. Meaning, dumbasses who lie, get found out. One fake doesn't mean it's all fake, just as one (hundred) bishops sexually assaulting little boys doesn't mean they are all bad along with Christianity. It means those individuals are bad. All the other bones have been verified real. Why? Because competing scientists love to prove each other wrong.

That link was simply to show you that i was not making it up. You asked for a link and i gave it to you. I am trying to be as thorough as i can. Still, scientists have yet to find a "half-bird half-lizard" fossil.

And like I told you last time, which you didn't listen to, your example is crap. The human body wasn't jumbled up in a bag like your watch. Advancement in evolution is NOT chance. (figured the emphasis would help since you seem to have forgotten it since the last time I said it) You don't seem to internalize this, and you sound like a moron for it. I'll tweak your poor example (AGAIN) to show you something a bit closer to evolution. Imagine you threw all those watch parts in a bag, and shook it up for millions of years. Now imagine that everytime two pieces touched in a way they were supposed to STUCK to one another. At first you'd get a few small areas of some cogs together. Then those would hit another group of cogs and stick. The hands would hit the face-pin and stick to that. The face pin would hit the whole in the face and stick. If things line up in the wrong method, they don't stick. After a bit of shaking, you'd have a watch.

We dont even know how the brain works and your going to tell me it happened by random events over billions of years that we have the human body that man still today cant even come close to imitating? Everything about the human body points to a designer. If you LOGICALLY look at the aspects of the human body you see that it could not have been random events but rather a designer that took time and effort and care into his creation.

[S_K_O_F]

I would just like to point out right now, the reason that I normally stay away from this thread is the direct generalizations that non-Christian, evolution pushers seem to give Christians, for example. If you believe in Christianity, you are uneducated and could not possibly understand the science that "proves" evolution.

I will not have a debate over which is correct, Creation or Evolution, for the simple reason that regardless of any scientific fact laid down by either side, the other side believes it to be false science.

As long as that debate is going on in the absolutely insulting and condescending manor which both sides exhibit, it will be at a complete dead end.

Neither side seems to want to accept that the other's scientific evidence IS in fact factual. To secular scientists, Bible believing scientists are less intelligent. To Bible believing scientists, secular scientists are blind and stubborn.

It doesn't matter which scientific facts are given, the opposing side believes the evidence to be misinterpreted by the other.

[TheSilverRider]

I don't know how many times I can tell you we're only gonna discuss evolution for now. I'm not getting into the big bang with you, as the physics (even moreso then this biology) is way above your head. For now we're sticking to evolution. Believe that god made lightning and harsh conditions - it doesn't much matter.

I take this to mean you dont have an answer. I dont see that there is any evolution to speak of when you cant even tell me where it came from. There would be no evolution without some kind of something to start with so where is that and where did it come from?

Once again, my paraphrasing of the bible is accurate. You making things up about science is not. Here's youre quote: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also". Now, what two lights were made? And why would it say "he made the stars also" if the sun is a star? Think about it.

I see now that your paraphrasing is correct but just to be thorough i would appreciate it if you would use a specific verse when referring to the bible from now on. Lights here is referring to something that illuminates not something that produces light. God made the sun to provide light during the day and the moon to provide light during the night. "he made the stars also" is referring to the rest of the stars so that we know that he created those as well.

That's called macroevolution. 2 beetles becoming lots of different beetles is macroevolution. remember that red part from above? Go read it again, cuz you just contradicted yourself. A ladybug and a firefly are two completely different species, macroevolved from the same ancestor to create diversity of beetles.
http://www.kidzcraftz.ca/pics/Ladybug6.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/december2003/img/firefly.jpg
If the billions of beetle species on the planet today came from 2, it could ONLY have been through macroevolution. These are as different as the elephant and giraffe

I am not qualified in this aspect of the debate to say anything here. What I will say is this: I am not putting it past God to miraculously intervene and protect and preserve these beetles just as you cannot find a half lady bug half beetle and must have FAITH that it happened.

The earth could have spewed massive amounts of hydrochloric acid, it wouldn't produce that much erosion in 40 days. Look at the harshest, most brutal river you know. The rocks are still there. Water is good at removing rock over time, not in 40 days, no matter how hard the water was. You can't find a single accurate source that will ever tell you that 40 days is enough to create the grand canyon.

Let's do the math: The volume eroded out of the canyon is ~1000 cubic miles. That would require 25 cubic MILES of rock to dissolve into water each day if the flood did it. At it's absolute harshest, parts can now erode at 300cm per year. That's an equivalent of 0.0000005 (5, ten-billionths) of a mile a day. That would mean, at flood, you would need the waters to flow about 5 MILLION times faster then it is currently. The current flow is 5 miles per hour, meaning the flood waters would need to be going 25 MILLION MILES PER HOUR to erode that much in just 40 days. Apparently Noah had a warp drive on the ark! As the circumference of the EARTH is 25000 miles, he would have been able to circle the globe once every 6 minutes. Talk about sea sick!

But, as I said previously. If there was a flood, then the canyon would be completely covered in water, after the first day of the earth "spewing" water up. If you put a rock at the bottom of a glass of water, does it erode? Nope.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." - Gen. 7:11

This verse shows that fountains of the great deep were broken up. I take this to mean that the earth was rattled and broken (as water cannot break). This makes it quite possible that the earth was broken and makes a great possibility for the flood to have formed the great canyon. I am also just curious. Does the math add up for that little river to have created that HUGE canyon in millions of years? (honest question i do not know the answer)

You have yet to provide a source (btw, here's mine (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html), and this isn't a "maybe" answer. Rotting wood doesn't exist for thousands of years.

I am not saying that they will absolutely find the ark. I am saying it is a possiblity (depending on the ground it is buried in).

Seriously, who feeds you all this garbage. Jupiter doesn't protect us from anything. 99% of the time, jupiter is'nt even in line with earth, and at it's closest, it's 390 MILLION miles (4.2 AU) away. So by "all the time" do you mean the 1/400 days it lines up with the earth? or the 399 it doesn't?

I did not say all the time and who says it has to be in direct line of us? A meteor could be headed toward us and we never know it and the gravitational pull of Jupiter could send it away. I also cant help but notice that you skipped my second example. The earth is tilted EXACTLY at the correct degree (forgive me for not knowing the exact number off of the top of my head) for our atmosphere. Is that coincidence or a random event?

[Excaliber]

I would just like to point out right now, the reason that I normally stay away from this thread is the direct generalizations that non-Christian, evolution pushers seem to give Christians, for example. If you believe in Christianity, you are uneducated and could not possibly understand the science that "proves" evolution.

I will not have a debate over which is correct, Creation or Evolution, for the simple reason that regardless of any scientific fact laid down by either side, the other side believes it to be false science.

As long as that debate is going on in the absolutely insulting and condescending manor which both sides exhibit, it will be at a complete dead end.

Neither side seems to want to accept that the other's scientific evidence IS in fact factual. To secular scientists, Bible believing scientists are less intelligent. To Bible believing scientists, secular scientists are blind and stubborn.

It doesn't matter which scientific facts are given, the opposing side believes the evidence to be misinterpreted by the other.

Exactly.

[AlabamaBoy]

Have you ever played the game telephone?

It was one of my favorites in the second grade.

A simple sentance in said from one person to another in a circle, in the course of two minutes. On average there are about 15-20 people in this circle.

The sentance never ends up how it started.

Now.

We have a text of hundreds of pages, with a span of existance well over nineteen hundred years.

The people copying it are not children though, they are adults, what do they have to gain from manipulating the original text?

Power. They can change it in ways that benifit themselves.

Not to mention all of the changes that must have occured due to mistakes.

[TheSilverRider]

Have you ever played the game telephone?

It was one of my favorites in the second grade.

A simple sentance in said from one person to another in a circle, in the course of two minutes. On average there are about 15-20 people in this circle.

The sentance never ends up how it started.

Now.

We have a text of hundreds of pages, with a span of existance well over nineteen hundred years.

The people copying it are not children though, they are adults, what do they have to gain from manipulating the original text?

Power. They can change it in ways that benifit themselves.

Not to mention all of the changes that must have occured due to mistakes.


So you are accusing the authors of the bible for changing it to benefit themselves? How so? What proof do you have that they did. They were under the inspiration of God when they wrote it. There are no mistakes.

[pils]

Matthew 10:27 "...with GOD all things are possible."
Is it possible to fly?
Or see through sexy ladies clothing?

[AlabamaBoy]

So you are accusing the authors of the bible for changing it to benefit themselves? How so? What proof do you have that they did. They were under the inspiration of God when they wrote it. There are no mistakes.

Yes.

Have you ever read The Prince?

Do you want specific verses that look tampered with?

I doubt it.

[TheSilverRider]

Is it possible to fly?
Or see through sexy ladies clothing?

First, get your verse correct. This is what matt. 10:27 says:

Matthew 10:27 (King James Version)

"27What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops."

I believe you are looking for MARK 10:27 which says:

Mark 10:27 (King James Version)

"7And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."


And to answer your question yes those things are possible WITH GOD. Note the entire verse. It says "with men it is impossible" meaning we cant do the impossible without God. If God wanted us to fly, he could make us fly.


Yes.

Have you ever read The Prince?

Do you want specific verses that look tampered with?

I doubt it.


No i have not, and yes i would like to see some specific verses.

[Anarchy_United]

I'm telling you, if god exists, he wears a pirate hat.

[AlabamaBoy]

Read it.

[TheSilverRider]

I'm telling you, if god exists, he wears a pirate hat.

Im sure even uniq agrees with me when i say please keep this useless nonsense out of here.

Read it.

Care to tell me what it is about?

[AlabamaBoy]

It is about the aquisition and maintaining of power.

It was written by Niccolo Machiavelli.

I'm sure you would enjoy it.

[TheSilverRider]

It is about the aquisition and maintaining of power.

It was written by Niccolo Machiavelli.

I'm sure you would enjoy it.

Ok i will read it, but what does that have to do with the current topic?:huh:

[AlabamaBoy]

It is an example of why I do not trust people to change a holy text for their own means.

[TheSilverRider]

It is an example of why I do not trust people to change a holy text for their own means.

What proof do you have? I am still waiting for you to show me some verses that illustrate this topic.

[AlabamaBoy]

I'm looking for a specific one.

I know it's in Romans...

[uniquinous]

SKOFF, you wanna debate with me, I'm happy to talk. But, this claim of yours falls apart when Sally here says things like "I am not qualified in this aspect of the debate to say anything here" and then goes on to say a lot. I've had great discussions with Christian scientists. He's not one of them. Let me just ask: Do you feel he's educated in science at all? Or does it more closely sound like he's spurting random soundbytes he heard in a game of Christian telephone? Let me know.

The bible says God created more than that. Read Genesis 1-4 and you will see everything her created.I don't care what the bible says. I care what reproducible FACTs say. :)

Ok, lizards. Now, for a lizard to evolve into a bird it would take some alterations. (hardening of bones, different lungs, and so on). Now, if these mutations happened GRADUALLY over BILLIONS of years we would have fossils of half bird half lizards right? I dont see any. Wow, you really don't read anything I type, eh? First, let's start with the fact that birds didn't evolve FROM lizards, just as we didn't evolve FROM monkeys today. In both scenarios, there was a common ancestor that gave rise to both. You didn't give birth to your siblings, yet you look alike and share a ton of genes.

They may have the temptation to cheat, or lie, or look at things they shouldnt and thats normal, that is Satan tempting us. Ah ok so someone who has lots of temptation to sin but loves jesus is better then someone who has no temptation to sin, and does a lot of good in the world... Gotcha!

You keep talking about how you can reproduce it in a lab. I dont see why that is relevant. You keep saying that if you add this and this and electrocute it here and stuff that it is the same thing. Now, where did all of those conditions and electricity come from if there was NOTHING?In an effort to talk about one topic at a time, I am isolating it from the rest. Therefore, for the purposes of this talk on evolution, everything BEFORE life doesn't matter. I don't care whether you believe god made it, the big bang made it, or snow white made it. It doesn't matter for the purposes of evolution. Evolution can take place whether it brought life into being from nothingess, or whether god made a single bacteria, and evolution did everything else. Either way, regardless of how it starts, we're talking about evolution. Once you are better educated in evolution, we can move onto the advanced physics topics. But seeing as you can't even pick up simple ideas in biology, I'm not going to try and explain both at once. One, then the other.

That link was simply to show you that i was not making it up. You asked for a link and i gave it to you. I am trying to be as thorough as i can. Still, scientists have yet to find a "half-bird half-lizard" fossil.Congrats, you didn't make it up. You just used one useless story to base your entire misleading decision on science. That's like me saying all of Christianity is devil-worship because a priest touched a little boy in the no-no zone. As for the half bird half lizard fossil we "haven't" found, I direct you to Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/berlin2.jpg
First known dinosaur with wings (you do believe in dinosaurs, right?) It wasn't that great at flying, but, flight was young.



We dont even know how the brain works and your going to tell me it happened by random eventsDid the large red letters not sink in? OK, I'ma try to show you this one more time. Try and stay with me now, ok?
Advancement in evolution is NOT chance.
Now, I'd be happy to answer QUESTIONS, but must ask once again you refrain from making up moronic and otherwise ficticious beliefs. Thanks.

I take this to mean you dont have an answer. No it means, you don't have the capacity to understand it. You yourself admit this later in the exact same post. So, let's stop being coy. So here's what we're gonna do, since you can't seem to follow really simple phrases and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Whenever you bring up anything outside of evolution starting from a single bacteria up to today, I'm going to tell you "that's beyond the scope". I won't re-explain it again, I'll just reference this explanation, the same one I've made about 5 times previously. It'll be color coded in green for you. Now when you bring up the idea that evolution is by chance or random, I'll use the colorcoded "evolution is not chance" sign. If you can't figure out these really simple phrases, please stop talking.

I see now that your paraphrasing is correct but just to be thorough i would appreciate it if you would use a specific verse when referring to the bible from now on. Lights here is referring to something that illuminates not something that produces light. God made the sun to provide light during the day and the moon to provide light during the night. "he made the stars also" is referring to the rest of the stars so that we know that he created those as well.Referring to? The original hebrew specifies a light SOURCE. Notice how your precious bible is only accurate if you can interpret it however you want? Delicious.

I am not qualified in this aspect of the debate to say anything here. What I will say is this: I am not putting it past God to miraculously intervene and protect and preserve these beetles just as you cannot find a half lady bug half beetle and must have FAITH that it happened.You're not qualified yet you keep talking as if you know what you're saying. There's a reason you can't find a half lady bug half beetle. Lady bugs ARE beetles. Fireflies are also beetles. They are as different as elephants and giraffs, much like the hundreds of thousands of other beetle species in the world today. So either a ton of beetles were on the ark, with 7000 cockroaches, OR two beetles were on the ark, and they magically transformed (AKA "evolved") into all the different types today. Which one do you think it is?


This verse shows that fountains of the great deep were broken up. I take this to mean that the earth was rattled and broken (as water cannot break). This makes it quite possible that the earth was broken and makes a great possibility for the flood to have formed the great canyon. I am also just curious. Does the math add up for that little river to have created that HUGE canyon in millions of years? (honest question i do not know the answer)If you say it's due to breaking, then don't claim it's due to erosion (as so many creationists will have you believe). Then again, if you want to claim "breaking" then you could attribute any rock formation or mountain in the WORLD to the flood. :dry: As for your question (thank you for asking one instead of making a false statement): It's a tricky question for a number of reasons: 1) the river didn't always flow there, 2) when it started flowing, it didn't erode as much as it does today, 3) once it was established, it may have eroded faster or slower then today. Let's do the math now, assuming it's original erosion power was just as great as today (which we know isn't the case). 1000 miles of erosion divided by 0.001864 miles of erosion each year is about 600,000 years (certainly greater then the 6000 years the bible says is the earth's age!). Here are some other clues we know about the canyon: The oldest rock in the canyon (at the very bottom) is 2 billion years old. However, we know that the rocks near the top have been exposed for only 6 million years (supporting the fact that the river wasn't there "in the beginning").

I am not saying that they will absolutely find the ark. I am saying it is a possiblity (depending on the ground it is buried in). Unless it got preserved as a limestone fossil, if it's thousands of years old and burried in dirt, it'd be completely dissolved by now.

I did not say all the time and who says it has to be in direct line of us? A meteor could be headed toward us and we never know it and the gravitational pull of Jupiter could send it away. I also cant help but notice that you skipped my second example. The earth is tilted EXACTLY at the correct degree (forgive me for not knowing the exact number off of the top of my head) for our atmosphere. Is that coincidence or a random event?If jupiter isn't in direct line with us, it's more then 500 million miles away. If it's anywhere on the other side of the sun, then the sun, not jupiter, would get in the way. If a meteor comes at us from a right angle to the plane of the solar system (from the top or the bottom), jupiter couldn't do *anything* about it. Again, where is your source for this? Here's another idea: if god didn't want us smashed by meteors, instead of putting jupiter in the way to "protect" us, how bout he/she/it not hurl them at us in the first place? Or build us a wall.

You're right you, I forgot to address your wonderful point about the earth's tilt being at exactly the correct degree... Correct degree for WHAT?! Here's another one of those times where you spit out something you heard in a game of Christian telephone without having ANY knowledge on the topic whatsoever. The tilt of the earth can't possibly be exactly correct because it changes!

Are you going to stop saying baseless beliefs of yours and trying to pass them off as fact? Moreover: why is it that you believe such a large group of people who go out to discover these things would all be lying to you about what they find? You think it's all some big scam to fool you? Did satan put the dinosaur bones there?

[Enjoi]

You're right you, I forgot to address your wonderful point about the earth's tilt being at exactly the correct degree... Correct degree for WHAT?! Here's another one of those times where you spit out something you heard in a game of Christian telephone without having ANY knowledge on the topic whatsoever. The tilt of the earth can't possibly be exactly correct because it changes!


The reason why the Earth is at the perfect angle is so we can have seasons. Without this exact 23.5 degree inclination the seasons would not be right or we would not have them at all

The earth maintains the same angle of inclination throughout its orbit.

[uniquinous]

this isn't exactly true, but thinking ahead a bit more. The angle of tilt actually changes over time. Furthermore, if there were no seasons, and the earth didn't rotate around that tilt, we'd still be fine. Instead of the hemispheres switching back and forth between winter and summer, one hemisphere would always be summer, one would be winter, and everything near the equator would be *exactly* the same. Meaning, if we didn't have that tilt, humans would still be fine.

[S_K_O_F]

SKOFF, you wanna debate with me, I'm happy to talk. But, this claim of yours falls apart when Sally here says things like "I am not qualified in this aspect of the debate to say anything here" and then goes on to say a lot. I've had great discussions with Christian scientists. He's not one of them. Let me just ask: Do you feel he's educated in science at all? Or does it more closely sound like he's spurting random soundbytes he heard in a game of Christian telephone? Let me know.



I said that I have absolutely no desire to debate this topic for the reason that I posted. "Sally" shouldn't be attempting to debate things without having done good solid research, either way.

Do I feel he is educated in Science? Perhaps, without the fine tuning that you have.
But even the normal believer in evolution believes it only because they were told it was the right way. Any Joe on the street has been given the basics of Evolution and The Big Bang.

I could take the knowledge that I have of Creationism and pick out a non bible-believing evolutionist off the street and make them feel as stupid as you are attempting to make TSR feel.

Basically what I am saying is that you are debating a topic with someone who knows far less about his stance than you know about your own. Each time you make the claim that he needs to educate himself more, you need to look at all of the idiots on your side of the wall and make the same claim to them.

Like I said, I won't debate evolution and creation. I have done it before and gotten no-where. But I really don't see the point of you continuing a debate with someone who is obviously less educated than you are.


Skof, SKOF, Skoffer:D ----SKOFF :(

[uniquinous]

Heck no! First time someone told me evolution was the right way, I didn't believe it. I was taught things from an old book too once (doesn't matter which one). I think you get any logical person off the street who somehow doesn't know anything about creation or evolution, and one side shows them an old book that says so, and the other side shows reproducible proof, they'd side with the latter.

I have to say I am incredibly curious as to what you know on the subject :)

[Anarchy_United]

Im sure even uniq agrees with me when i say please keep this useless nonsense out of here.



Care to tell me what it is about?

As opposed to your useless nonsense? I mean, how does any of what you say have a use. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE TO CONVERT OVeR THE INTERNET!! How is talking about god wearing a pirate hat have any less of a purpose than talking about the validity of Christianity? You are not going to convince anyone of anything, but it makes excellant entertainment, as I said before. The level of stupidy and senseless arguments in this thread rival none other. Very little in this thread has a purpose. If anything, my seeming senseless banter provides a common enemy for those for/against Christianity.



I mean, accessing the validity of THIS portrayel of god has got to be a new an interesting twist on years of religous wars.

http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/5739/godax1.png (http://imageshack.us)

[AlabamaBoy]

I agree with him. Keep the pointless spam out.

[Hatchet Warrior]

I agree to say no, keep the pointless spam. It happens in every thread and everyone does it. Just because this one it's about religion doesn't make it a "holier than you" type of thing.

[Anarchy_United]

Right, how do you decide what is spam or not? I seriously care about whether god is wearing a pirate hat or not a lot more than any of the other useless crap in this thread.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Ok, lizards. Now, for a lizard to evolve into a bird it would take some alterations. (hardening of bones, different lungs, and so on). Now, if these mutations happened GRADUALLY over BILLIONS of years we would have fossils of half bird half lizards right? I dont see any. I believe this could not have happened because for there to be a half bird half lizard it would be very hard for it to survive, especially in a survival of the fittest atmosphere. Two words: Fishapod. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1180415,00.html) Archaeopteryx. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

It's over.



Yes everyone sins, and saved people have desires to sin, its called the flesh. They do not have the same desires as unsaved people do. A saved person will not have the desire to kill someone or rape someone if they are truly saved. They may have the temptation to cheat, or lie, or look at things they shouldnt and thats normal, that is Satan tempting us. Bwahaha. Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't laughing at you, just something funny I remembered. It's that priests were molesting children a while back. Those were truly saved. Sorry, you're done.



It WAS a abomination and NOW it is not. That verse clearly states it is no longer bad to eat shrimp. It cannot be put any clearer than that.So the bible contradicted itself and is therefore not infallable.

Also, what changed about the shrimp to make it so nice to eat?

You keep talking about how you can reproduce it in a lab. I dont see why that is relevant. You keep saying that if you add this and this and electrocute it here and stuff that it is the same thing. Now, where did all of those conditions and electricity come from if there was NOTHING?Hey. Pay attention. Remember matter and antimatter being created on a collision course sometime in the future? That's a relative measure, so it could easily have manifested itself as those conditions.



That link was simply to show you that i was not making it up. You asked for a link and i gave it to you. I am trying to be as thorough as i can. Still, scientists have yet to find a "half-bird half-lizard" fossil.The hell they do. In case you missed it, Check it out again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx).



We dont even know how the brain works and your going to tell me it happened by random events over billions of years that we have the human body that man still today cant even come close to imitating? Everything about the human body points to a designer. If you LOGICALLY look at the aspects of the human body you see that it could not have been random events but rather a designer that took time and effort and care into his creation.How do you derive logic, exactly?

The human body didn't just poof into this magically awesome thing. It started out as a really small thing which became slightly more complex. If I told you I had a rock and then natural events eroded the rock to become a little more refined, that would be understandable. So do that thousands and thousands of times until you have a pretty cool looking rock.

The human changed each time ever so slightly. It's not how much it changed per instance that matters, but how many times it changed, which is a whole lot. Look at the australopithecus africanus, the homo erectus, and homo habilus. They're not that different from us, just in a few places. Somewhere, we just happened to make a small change that mattered.

Also, how do you explain those three little guys? Did God make man in his own image and then three retarded cousins to laugh at? Sounds pretty sadistic to me.

[Anarchy_United]

Gee, I think you would all be a little more worried about whether or not god has a sense of humor than petty little things like denomination. If god is all knowing/forgiving, he probably cares a lot more about whether you live a good life, rather than who you pray to. Christianity and almost no religion talk about what god is like. Does he like fart jokes? Do you think he finds youtube videos of penguins in tophats? I believe, and in my vast ignorance(Dead Serious Here), that this is more important than petty issues such as how the dead should be buried.

[S_K_O_F]

Heck no! First time someone told me evolution was the right way, I didn't believe it. I was taught things from an old book too once (doesn't matter which one). I think you get any logical person off the street who somehow doesn't know anything about creation or evolution, and one side shows them an old book that says so, and the other side shows reproducible proof, they'd side with the latter.

I have to say I am incredibly curious as to what you know on the subject :)

Creation science shows plenty of reproducible proof. A case can be made, using a scientific basis without using the bible, that supports the bibles account of the beginning. I have a degree in software engineering and not physics, chemistry, or biology and I will never claim to understand all of any of those subjects. I do understand enough, though, to have made up my mind about the subjects of creation and evolution.

I am a creationist. Not a gap theorist or evolutionist. I believe that God created the world in a literal 6 days.
I believe that Genesis 1 gives an accurate account of how the Universe was created. I believe God spoke the world in to existence. I believe that in Genesis 1:6 the bible mentions something that many people don't quite get, but it is extremely important to making the creation account "scientific."


6Then God said, "Let there be an (M)expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7God made the [c]expanse, and separated (N)the waters which were below the expanse from the waters (O)which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
As confusing as this passage may sound, I believe it describes a very clear depiction. It is describing a single body of water that was split into two bodies of water seperated by, what God refers to as heavens. Other translations of the bible call the expanse "sky".
Well, if the sky is seperating two bodies of water, and Genesis 1:9-10 tells us that the lower waters becomes the seas, then what the heck is the water above the firmament? There is obviously not water above our sky. Or I should say, there is obviously not water above our sky, anymore.

Let me assume something real quick so we can form a hypothesis. Let's assume for 1 second that the bibles account of creation is true. Using this assumption, then we have to acknowledge that their was, at the time of this creation, a body of water above what we know of as the sky. The sky was put in place as a barrier between this body of water and the waters on the surface of the planet. So, our atmosphere must have been surrounded by a body of water. In space, this water would actually have been ice. More than likely, an ice so clear, that at the distance it was from the surface of the planet, it wouldn't be noticable.

Alright, so the planet and it's atmosphere is surrounded by a big hollow ball of ice. What are the implications of this? It can almost assuradly be assumed that the air pressure of the atmosphere would be higher than we see now. This ice layer would also provide perfect protection from Ultraviolet light from the sun while still allowing all necessary light to reach the surface so that vegetation could grow.

Anyway, lets get back to what the increased air pressure does to the planet. I am sure that you know what a hyperbaric chamber is. If not, I will let you familiar yourself with it's uses and what they are capable of. The ice layer would in effect, have turned the entire planet into 1 huge hyperbaric chamber. While all of the affects on an animal body are not entirely certain, there are a few that are. With increased oxygen entering the blood from birth, a person would 1. grow larger and 2. age more slowly.

The bible gives a tree of the direct descendants of Adam all the way to Abram. Giving the age of each person and the exact age that they gave birth to the next in line. Before the flood (Genesis 7), each man was living to be over 900 years old. After the flood, lifespans were cut nearly in half every 3rd generation until Abrams children.
Why is this?
Before the flood, it did not rain. According to Genesis 2:6 the vegetation got it's water from some kind of mist that came from the ground. There were seas with water in them, but where did the excess water come from that could flood the earth to the point that all mountains were covered? I wonder how long it would take an ice barrier, that surrounded the earth, to crumble and fall? No really, I do wonder.
So, if we combine the water that was underground and sprung out (Genesis 6:11) and the water raining down from the heavens (Genesis 6:12) it was apparently enough.

The only problem that is left, is where the water receded to. I can only speculate: underground springs, Polar ice caps, the seas were left larger than before...Not really sure and no basis to guess on really.

But, if the ice barrier was gone, then we would end up with our atmosphere in the shape that it is now. No more hyperbaric chamber. Less oxygen in the bloodstream. Human life adapts over the course of 10 or 11 generations to what we have now.

This entire post, a hypothesis for the creation of the universe, can easily be backed with scientific fact. Everything that I have posted, given the assumption that the bible is true, wouldn't be a supernatural occurence. It would be God's plan being enacted through science.

Is it believable? that is for you to decide. I would think that it is much easier to believe this account, than say, in reincarnation, scientologies beginning account, etc...

But, this is what I believe happened, because I take the bible for what it says. That doesn't mean that I take the bible literally word for word, but I believe that if there is a clear meaning in a passage, then there is nothing to be hidden from the reader.

That's it. I have given my view.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Macroevolution does not lead anywhere beings as it does not happen anyway. For instance, if fish really did evolve into birds and there really was survival of the fittest then there would be no birds BECAUSE for those animals to go through such a transformation there is no way they could have GRADUALLY over billions of years changed and still been able to live. Thank you for completely misunderstanding the term "survival of the fittest." Survival of the fittest only applies to one ecological niche. One animal lives in each BECAUSE of evolution, and therefore other animals can exist outside of them. Animals aren't human, they don't have gangs and try to conquer everything they see.

Ugh, please dont make radical assumptions like that. If you are truly saved then you will not have a desire to do those bad things. Here are
some verses that show that it does not matter how hard you try but you cannot get to heaven on your own merit.
"For by GRACE are ye saved through faith in that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast." - Eph. 2:8,9

"Not by works of righteousness which I have dont but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" - Titus 3:5

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." - Galatians 2:16Radical assumptions? You said he'd take murderers/rapists/drugdealers if they were saved! Guess what, to have been those things, they must have already done some bad things and had those desires.

Yet again I ask, where did "it" come from and where did the "harsh conditions" come from and where did the "lightning" come from? Please dont go around this question.... God, are you listening? I'd like to file a bug report.

This has already been explained maybe a thousand times. Look back. You should find it o'er and o'er.

You said that with the correct conditions it can be recreated in a lab. Where did the correct conditions come from?Nothingness. Already explained. Moving on.



Maybe, maybe not. You never know unless you find it.Yeah, that's what they said about Elvis. Keep moving.



Flies may not have been on the ark, they can fly, they may have just used the ark as a place to land.... where they would have been mauled by the several hundred species of birds flying around there looking for something to eat.

Also, how do you explain freshwater fish? Salt water would have killed hem off. Turns out water mixes with itself very well. Water + Salt Water = MORE SALT WATER.



Im sure they were not stupid enough not to bring food. And like i said above, i dont know exactly how God works. He could have preserved the animals in a miracle for all i know. It is not specific in the Bible here on how, it just says that it happened and i believe it. Okay, so here we have this.

Thousands of species of animals
Food for those animals to last 40 days.
Food for the people to last 40 days.
Enough space to put the animals far enough apart so that they don't kill each other or eat their food. Consider birds and cheetah and other fast creatures here
Further space so that the toxins produced by the animals don't kill the humans or other animals.

In the end, you have an ark big enough to fit at least most of the United States. There is no way that if it exists, we would not have found it by now.

Please dont state things as fact without proving them. God could make that happen as he has showed in miracles in the past. Also, i am on a side.Alright. Here's the deal about God that makes it so damed special.

I have a dragon. It is infinitely large, but it can shrink, so it fits in my garage. Also, it's invisible and immune to infrared sensors. It can do anything, but you can't see any of those things. Show me a way to wrangle it and I'll give you a million dollars.

[russian]

The Bible contains mythology, allegory, symbols, fables, stories and many other devices to serve as pointers to a higher meaning in life.

These pointers are not the higher meaning. They are guideposts to a destination.

This subtle point is lost on those who treat the Bible as historical fact.

It is also lost on those who are intent on debasing Christianity by pointing to the falacy of these devices.

In other words, the last several pages should be filed under STFU.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The Bible contains mythology, allegory, symbols, fables, stories and many other devices to serve as pointers to a higher meaning in life.

These pointers are not the higher meaning. They are guideposts to a destination.

This subtle point is lost on those who treat the Bible as historical fact.

It is also lost on those who are intent on debasing Christianity by pointing to the falacy of these devices.

In other words, the last several pages should be filed under STFU.

How many times do I have to say this? We're not trying to disprove Christianity. We're defending ourselves from TSR. We have that right. We're trying to debase his debasing of our beliefs.

[russian]

How many times do I have to say this? We're not trying to disprove Christianity. We're defending ourselves from TSR. We have that right. We're trying to debase his debasing of our beliefs.

Rational argument with a truly delusional subject is a waste of time. You are not being attacked.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Rational argument with a truly delusional subject is a waste of time. You are not being attacked.
By him? Yes we most certainly are.

[TheSilverRider]

I don't care what the bible says. I care what reproducible FACTs say. :)

That is a problem. EVERYTHING i am saying here will be based on the Word of God. If you dont care what the bible says then we have absolutely no argument here at all.

Wow, you really don't read anything I type, eh? First, let's start with the fact that birds didn't evolve FROM lizards, just as we didn't evolve FROM monkeys today. In both scenarios, there was a common ancestor that gave rise to both. You didn't give birth to your siblings, yet you look alike and share a ton of genes.

Who is the "common ancestor"? And where is the fossil/proof? (honest question)

Ah ok so someone who has lots of temptation to sin but loves jesus is better then someone who has no temptation to sin, and does a lot of good in the world... Gotcha!

You are puposefully missing the point. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." All of us are born sinners and headed to hell. God gives offers us the free gift of salvation, it is whether or not we accept it is the question. God does not want anyone to go to hell as it says in this verse: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." -2 Peter 3:9 Here we see that God wants everyone to go to heaven, but we must accept his free gift first and ask Christ to come into our hearts.

In an effort to talk about one topic at a time, I am isolating it from the rest. Therefore, for the purposes of this talk on evolution, everything BEFORE life doesn't matter. I don't care whether you believe god made it, the big bang made it, or snow white made it. It doesn't matter for the purposes of evolution. Evolution can take place whether it brought life into being from nothingess, or whether god made a single bacteria, and evolution did everything else. Either way, regardless of how it starts, we're talking about evolution. Once you are better educated in evolution, we can move onto the advanced physics topics. But seeing as you can't even pick up simple ideas in biology, I'm not going to try and explain both at once. One, then the other.

Very well. We have this bacteria. Now, what happens after we have the bacteia that is in nothingness? (honest question)

Congrats, you didn't make it up. You just used one useless story to base your entire misleading decision on science. That's like me saying all of Christianity is devil-worship because a priest touched a little boy in the no-no zone. As for the half bird half lizard fossil we "haven't" found, I direct you to Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/berlin2.jpg
First known dinosaur with wings (you do believe in dinosaurs, right?) It wasn't that great at flying, but, flight was young.

Yes i believe in dinosaurs but that fossil is not hardly a half bird half lizard. It is a dinosaur. I dont see the connection.


Did the large red letters not sink in? OK, I'ma try to show you this one more time. Try and stay with me now, ok?

Ok, then if it is not by chance, who designed it to happen or who gave it an order? (honest question)

No it means, you don't have the capacity to understand it. You yourself admit this later in the exact same post. So, let's stop being coy. So here's what we're gonna do, since you can't seem to follow really simple phrases and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Whenever you bring up anything outside of evolution starting from a single bacteria up to today, I'm going to tell you "that's beyond the scope". I won't re-explain it again, I'll just reference this explanation, the same one I've made about 5 times previously. It'll be color coded in green for you. Now when you bring up the idea that evolution is by chance or random, I'll use the colorcoded "evolution is not chance" sign. If you can't figure out these really simple phrases, please stop talking.

Do w/e you want but i will ask questions that i have.

Referring to? The original hebrew specifies a light SOURCE. Notice how your precious bible is only accurate if you can interpret it however you want? Delicious.

You say its a source, please provide the correct hebrew definition to back it up. I am not doubting you, i just want to be thorough. Please understand.

You're not qualified yet you keep talking as if you know what you're saying. There's a reason you can't find a half lady bug half beetle. Lady bugs ARE beetles. Fireflies are also beetles. They are as different as elephants and giraffs, much like the hundreds of thousands of other beetle species in the world today. So either a ton of beetles were on the ark, with 7000 cockroaches, OR two beetles were on the ark, and they magically transformed (AKA "evolved") into all the different types today. Which one do you think it is?

The reason i said what i said was to show you that the following that i added was simply my opinion rather than proved fact. That is all i meant by that, im sorry that did not come out correctly. Also, i am not going to choose either of your scenarios. How about God through a miraculous work preserved exactly the species that he needed to to have what we have today?


If you say it's due to breaking, then don't claim it's due to erosion (as so many creationists will have you believe). Then again, if you want to claim "breaking" then you could attribute any rock formation or mountain in the WORLD to the flood. :dry: As for your question (thank you for asking one instead of making a false statement): It's a tricky question for a number of reasons: 1) the river didn't always flow there, 2) when it started flowing, it didn't erode as much as it does today, 3) once it was established, it may have eroded faster or slower then today. Let's do the math now, assuming it's original erosion power was just as great as today (which we know isn't the case). 1000 miles of erosion divided by 0.001864 miles of erosion each year is about 600,000 years (certainly greater then the 6000 years the bible says is the earth's age!). Here are some other clues we know about the canyon: The oldest rock in the canyon (at the very bottom) is 2 billion years old. However, we know that the rocks near the top have been exposed for only 6 million years (supporting the fact that the river wasn't there "in the beginning").

Notice what is in red. How do you know this? Is it carbon dating? Carbon dating has been proven false. I can find a link about that if you would like.

Unless it got preserved as a limestone fossil, if it's thousands of years old and burried in dirt, it'd be completely dissolved by now.

That is true, i was simply throwing a possibility out there.

If jupiter isn't in direct line with us, it's more then 500 million miles away. If it's anywhere on the other side of the sun, then the sun, not jupiter, would get in the way. If a meteor comes at us from a right angle to the plane of the solar system (from the top or the bottom), jupiter couldn't do *anything* about it. Again, where is your source for this? Here's another idea: if god didn't want us smashed by meteors, instead of putting jupiter in the way to "protect" us, how bout he/she/it not hurl them at us in the first place? Or build us a wall.

I am not God therefore i have no idea what his mindset is in certain matters so please stop asking me "Why didnt God just...." i cannot answer that. God is his own person and being and makes his own decisions.

You're right you, I forgot to address your wonderful point about the earth's tilt being at exactly the correct degree... Correct degree for WHAT?! Here's another one of those times where you spit out something you heard in a game of Christian telephone without having ANY knowledge on the topic whatsoever. The tilt of the earth can't possibly be exactly correct because it changes!

This point has already been proven and your response simply stated that man could still live in those conditions if it werent tilted. How do you know this if you have never seen what the environment would be without the tilt of the earth?

Are you going to stop saying baseless beliefs of yours and trying to pass them off as fact? Moreover: why is it that you believe such a large group of people who go out to discover these things would all be lying to you about what they find? You think it's all some big scam to fool you? Did satan put the dinosaur bones there?

I do not assume them to be wrong, i look into what they say and see if it lines up with what the Bible says is right. Everything is based off the Bible.

[TheSilverRider]

Two words: Fishapod. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1180415,00.html) Archaeopteryx. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

It's over.

How do we know that this is not man made? I dont see any pics of fossils and i dont buy into any of this "find one tooth make the entire animal" either all or nothing.



Bwahaha. Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't laughing at you, just something funny I remembered. It's that priests were molesting children a while back. Those were truly saved. Sorry, you're done.

I am not Catholic. Priests are nothing to me but normal men. They are no more fit to pray to God than you or me. They sin just like you and me.

So the bible contradicted itself and is therefore not infallable.

Incorrect. The bible has NO contradictions, things change, get used to it.

Also, what changed about the shrimp to make it so nice to eat?

Like i have said at least 3 times already, it is not the fact that shrimp itself was unclean but that God was testing them to see if they could follow his law no matter what that entailed.

Hey. Pay attention. Remember matter and antimatter being created on a collision course sometime in the future? That's a relative measure, so it could easily have manifested itself as those conditions.

So the conditions came out of nothing as well?

The hell they do. In case you missed it, Check it out again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx).

See above reply.



How do you derive logic, exactly?

The human body didn't just poof into this magically awesome thing. It started out as a really small thing which became slightly more complex. If I told you I had a rock and then natural events eroded the rock to become a little more refined, that would be understandable. So do that thousands and thousands of times until you have a pretty cool looking rock.

Correct. The real question here is not about a rock but rather a living being. The problem is whether or not that animal could sustain life AND SURVIVE while still going through all of these transformations.

The human changed each time ever so slightly. It's not how much it changed per instance that matters, but how many times it changed, which is a whole lot. Look at the australopithecus africanus, the homo erectus, and homo habilus. They're not that different from us, just in a few places. Somewhere, we just happened to make a small change that mattered.

Forgive me for being so unversed but could you explain those three things?

[russian]

Everything is based off the Bible.

That statement shows complete disrespect to all other religions of the world.

[TheSilverRider]

That statement shows complete disrespect to all other religions of the world.

Take it as you may, but everything must be based off of God's infallible word of God.

[russian]

Take it as you may, but everything must be based off of God's infallible word of God.

OK, I'll go tell Vishnu that he is wrong and get right back to you, oh infallible interpretor of Christian kool aid.

[Hey1001]

The Bible is a book that contains many teachings that are useful to guide one's life. Many of them are based on life experiences others had and that repeat themselves over generations. It is an inspirational book, and it's got some good stories. I don't have a problem with the Bible and its teachings. I take what I like and leave the rest behind. I choose what to believe or not to believe in the same way that I make those decisions in other scenarios. The problem I have is with those who take it literally and who believe it is the word of God any more than Shakespeare is the word of God. It is the word of some men, many enlightened (so were the men that drafted the U.S. Constitution) and a few wackos. That's representative of our species. It's part history, part tall tale. Those who purport to speak in God's name and use the Bible as an intimidation tool and as a way to exact money from others are precisely the kinds of people the Bible teaches to be very wary of, because there have always been scammers of that sort, whether they sell snake oil or salvation.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

How do we know that this is not man made? I dont see any pics of fossils and i dont buy into any of this "find one tooth make the entire animal" either all or nothing.You can ask Time Magazine. But that's a pretty credible source right there.

Though I guess I can't convince you that we landed on the moon, either.

But okay, you want all or nothing? Fine, we don't find an ark, there was no ark.




I am not Catholic. Priests are nothing to me but normal men. They are no more fit to pray to God than you or me. They sin just like you and me.
But if they're not "saved," who is? Sorry, your criteria for getting into heaven are a little much.


Incorrect. The bible has NO contradictions, things change, get used to it.It said something, then said something else that was the opposite. That's a contradiction. Either it wasn't infallable then, or it was now. God is all-knowing and would've told people whether it was really okay or not to eat shrimp at that one time. Otherwise, we can't take any of the Bible seriously because it might change completely.



Like i have said at least 3 times already, it is not the fact that shrimp itself was unclean but that God was testing them to see if they could follow his law no matter what that entailed. So God was lying for a good cause. Doesn't change the fact that he was lying.



So the conditions came out of nothing as well?No, they came from something else that came out of nothing, most likely.

Correct. The real question here is not about a rock but rather a living being. The problem is whether or not that animal could sustain life AND SURVIVE while still going through all of these transformations.The living being doesn't go through transformations. Its predecessors and its children are born with those transformations already made. No actual change occurs after the genetic change before birth.

Hell, some people, I believe, are being born without appendices. That's a big help.

Forgive me for being so unversed but could you explain those three things?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Can't find the habilus... maybe I'm mistaken in my nomenclature, but basically, these things are the ancestors of humans.

[TheSilverRider]

The Bible is a book that contains many teachings that are useful to guide one's life. Many of them are based on life experiences others had and that repeat themselves over generations. It is an inspirational book, and it's got some good stories. I don't have a problem with the Bible and its teachings. I take what I like and leave the rest behind. I choose what to believe or not to believe in the same way that I make those decisions in other scenarios. The problem I have is with those who take it literally and who believe it is the word of God any more than Shakespeare is the word of God. It is the word of some men, many enlightened (so were the men that drafted the U.S. Constitution) and a few wackos. That's representative of our species. It's part history, part tall tale. Those who purport to speak in God's name and use the Bible as an intimidation tool and as a way to exact money from others are precisely the kinds of people the Bible teaches to be very wary of, because there have always been scammers of that sort, whether they sell snake oil or salvation.

This theory is even more dangerous than not believing the bible at all. You cannot choose what you believe in the bible. It is all or nothing. That is basically saying "God, i dont really like all of what you have to say so i am only going to obey the stuff i like".

[uniquinous]

SKOF - I find your interpretation well formed and thought provoking. I was always drawn by the mythos of old religions, and this is no exception. Unfortunately, there are a few *scientific* points that are a bit off (bare with me). Water wouldn't be in the form of a solid at the border of earth and space. First and formost, the suns radiation would strike it, warming it. It's the same reason you can feel the warmth of sunlight if you're in a cool room sitting next to a window. HOWEVER, a point in your favor is that what makes summer hot isn't just the radiation of the sun, but the conduction of that warmth in the air (it's why air feels hot in the summer). This means the water wouldn't "feel" the heat of surrounding air in space. But there's one much larger scientific fact which just doesn't jive with your beliefs: water boils in a vaccuum (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1185551115503810832&q=water+vacuum+boil&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1). It would be gas, if it doesn't float off into space altogether. Water's also more dense then other atmospheric gasses, meaning it couldn't remain above the rest of the atmosphere.

But moreso, a hyperbaric chamber wouldn't increase lifespan. Normally, oxygen is taken up very well by hemoglobin in the blood. We can "fill" the hemoglobin now (at about 21% oxygen). Now pressurized oxygen *will* increase the dissolved oxygen in the blood, but it pails in comparison to the amount on the hemoglobin. But 100% oxygen in lab rats will cause them to die. Food for thought. this is about breathing oxygen (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm)

Who is the "common ancestor"? And where is the fossil/proof? (honest question)Dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx was the first dinosaur with feathers (which helped it a bit, but it wasn't as good at flight as today's birds). Other dinosaurs were ancestors to today's lizards. Many similarities can be seen between birds and lizards today, including scales, reproduction through eggs, and their DNA.

Very well. We have this bacteria. Now, what happens after we have the bacteia that is in nothingness? (honest question)It divides. And again, and again and again. Eventually, one doesn't divide right. Whether it's cuz it didn't replicate it's DNA correctly, or because the sun directly caused the DNA to change (which is how people get skincancer from sunburns), it produces one bacteria with something very slightly different then what it was before. Now *this* part is random chance, that is, which part of DNA changes. However, chances are, it changes the DNA in a way that was VERY harmful to that bacteria, and so that bacteria dies. Now this happens over and over again, until one such random mutation is beneficial. Let's say it helps that bacteria move faster, and get food faster. Well, now that bacteria can grow faster, and gets big enough to reproduce before one of its sisters. It gives that trait to both of the cells it creates, and they can then repeat that process. Now we have 2 different types of bacteria (this is microevolution). The process repeats itself, over and over again, creating change, having the good random mutations stick around, and the bad ones to kill the bacteria (this is called natural selection). Now some mutations don't really do anything, but the bacteria can live with it.

At some point, a mutation arises where one bacteria sticks to another, and forms a colony. At some point, one of them discovers photosynthesis. Take a look at this guy:
http://www.biologie.uni-regensburg.de/Biochemie/Sumper/bilder/Volvox-Titel-end.jpg
Now we're at macroevolution. One branch goes onto phytoplankton, the others are still the "seek out organic matter" bacteria. I'll stop there for now, let you ask questions, and continue when you're satisfied.

Yes i believe in dinosaurs but that fossil is not hardly a half bird half lizard. It is a dinosaur. I dont see the connection. It had feathers. Take a close look right under the arms/wings of that fossil. You can see the primitive feather outline.

Ok, then if it is not by chance, who designed it to happen or who gave it an order? (honest question)If you look at the DNA changes that happen as species advance, you get to noticing something: there's a TON of junk. As I said before, it's like writing an essay. Some parts get crossed off, overwritten, some pages are completely lost. If you follow the DNA trail, evolution isn't some grand designer, it's closer to a tinkerer. What I mean to say is, it's not some skilled engineer that though through what it wanted and built it at once. It's like someone who takes one piece of something, sticks it to another, sees it's good, sticks another piece on, and tinkers around with the contraption after each addition until things work. Evolution is actually pretty bad at things, which is why it takes so long.

Also, i am not going to choose either of your scenarios. How about God through a miraculous work preserved exactly the species that he needed to to have what we have today? Wait a minute. THe bible says two of EVERY animal were on the ark. So either fireflies, ladybugs, and hundreds of thousands of other beetles were on the ark as the bible says, or they weren't and the bible is wrong. If you don't like either scenario, tell me what you think happened.

Notice what is in red. How do you know this? Is it carbon dating? Carbon dating has been proven false. I can find a link about that if you would like.Carbon dating is accurate, but just for up to about 60,000 years (then it doesn't work as well), cuz it has a short lifespan. For things that are billions of years old, scientists use other longer lived molecules, uranium lead, potassium argon (1.3 billion year half life), or rubidium-strontium (50 million year half life).

This point has already been proven and your response simply stated that man could still live in those conditions if it werent tilted. How do you know this if you have never seen what the environment would be without the tilt of the earth?Because the people at the equator aren't really affected by the tilt, and they live just fine. Whether the norther hemisphere is tilted towards or away from the sun, the equator stays about the same temperature.

Forgive me for being so unversed but could you explain those three things?You're asking questions now, I'm glad. :)
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7909/4401100ai204lz.jpg
Think of it this way, if god made man, what are all those other man-like things in between? ;)

[russian]

This theory is even more dangerous than not believing the bible at all. You cannot choose what you believe in the bible. It is all or nothing. That is basically saying "God, i dont really like all of what you have to say so i am only going to obey the stuff i like".

Your faith is rock solid, good for you. I trust it is a solid foundation for daily living.

However, telling people what they are allowed to believe is Fascism. You need to chill about other peoples beliefs. The stories in the Bible are powerful enough on their own. If you want to be a preacher, encourage others to look at the Bible and investigate. The spiritual journey is long, winding and deeply personel. This business about you MUST do this and you MUST believe that, only creates backlash.

[TheSilverRider]

You can ask Time Magazine. But that's a pretty credible source right there.

Though I guess I can't convince you that we landed on the moon, either.

But okay, you want all or nothing? Fine, we don't find an ark, there was no ark.

I never said all or nothing. I just said that i dont see very credible sources.



But if they're not "saved," who is? Sorry, your criteria for getting into heaven are a little much.

I have provided verses on this over and over again. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" It is not "much" at all. God only asks of us very little when you consider the sacrifice he made for us.


It said something, then said something else that was the opposite. That's a contradiction. Either it wasn't infallable then, or it was now. God is all-knowing and would've told people whether it was really okay or not to eat shrimp at that one time. Otherwise, we can't take any of the Bible seriously because it might change completely.

It said something and then changed it. It does not have to be contradictory. W/e God says goes. If God says dont eat shrimp, then im not eating shrimp. If God says that it is now ok to eat shrimp if we say thanks for it, then ill eat it. I dont need to know God's reasons.



So God was lying for a good cause. Doesn't change the fact that he was lying.

God does not lie.

No, they came from something else that came out of nothing, most likely.

You just made my point more in this statement.

The living being doesn't go through transformations. Its predecessors and its children are born with those transformations already made. No actual change occurs after the genetic change before birth.

So, why have we not seen any human transformations yet?

Hell, some people, I believe, are being born without appendices. That's a big help.

Help to what? Im sorry, i miss your point here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Can't find the habilus... maybe I'm mistaken in my nomenclature, but basically, these things are the ancestors of humans.

How do you know that these are the ancestors? How can you prove that? Do you have a written document? Do you have a account of someone who saw them? How can you prove that these are truly our ancestors?

[Anarchy_United]

Think of it this way, if god made man, what are all those other man-like things in between? ;)


Thats what happened when he got drunk.

[NeverKnowsBest.]

I am an unpracting Catholic and im confused. I don't see the point in debating Evolution/Existance of God. It's an unatanable goal. People who believe are going to continue to believe and their is nothing a person who doesnt believe can say to change that. That works both ways. It will never stop because people think there better or wiser then others. I havn't gone to church in a very long time and my faith sways. I guess everyones does. I guess I believe in God when it benefits me. I guess thats because im a selfish confused person. Well if anyone wants to they can send me a pm about either opinion and why you think your right.

[NeverKnowsBest.]

I guess.

[Hey1001]

This theory is even more dangerous than not believing the bible at all. You cannot choose what you believe in the bible. It is all or nothing. That is basically saying "God, i dont really like all of what you have to say so i am only going to obey the stuff i like".

What's really dangerous is assuming that I should have to obey what some crack pot wrote a few thousand years ago on the theory that it is the word of God. What's really dangerous is blindly believing, without using our God-given talents of common sense and plain logic, things that some other mortal wrote and claimed was the word of God. It is this blind obedience that has led to religious wars were millions have been butchered, to holocausts, and to suicide bombers.

Believe in God all you want, that's the beauty of our country, that there is religious freedom. But the moment someone harms another in the name of God and the Bible, there you have an ignorant bigot. And that is not very Godly.

[drakonfire]

TSR: okay, so you accounted for verse 20, but what about 17-19? if our rightiousness is to esceed the pharisees, shouldn't we be practicing outward signs AND inward (which they were not cultivating?) I'm just curious what you think of that. That is how I interpret the commentators meaning. I could be totally wrong.

and what about the 2 genesis passages?


Uniq and Jehu: This whole matter/anti-matter spontaneously appearing and then negating each other thing... :confused: How does that work? I'm honestly curious as I've never heard of it before though it would help to explain a few things. If you don't want to go in depth i'd understand, but anything would help, a small side-note or PM, anything.


to SKOF: I've heard that theory before, I like it. I guess I wasn't clear enough about my beliefs earlier, because you brought up a good point. I believe the 6 literal days. I guess where ID comes in for me is the ability to change and adapt as circumstances and time warranted. -- See I'm still not entirely sure WHAT I believe about the beginnings of the world, but I know what I believe about God, and how God would like me to live. thats enough for me :)

[S_K_O_F]

SKOF - I find your interpretation well formed and thought provoking. I was always drawn by the mythos of old religions, and this is no exception. Unfortunately, there are a few *scientific* points that are a bit off (bare with me). Water wouldn't be in the form of a solid at the border of earth and space. First and formost, the suns radiation would strike it, warming it. It's the same reason you can feel the warmth of sunlight if you're in a cool room sitting next to a window. HOWEVER, a point in your favor is that what makes summer hot isn't just the radiation of the sun, but the conduction of that warmth in the air (it's why air feels hot in the summer). This means the water wouldn't "feel" the heat of surrounding air in space. But there's one much larger scientific fact which just doesn't jive with your beliefs:

Like I said, I won't claim to be an expert in physics, chemistry, or biology. What I posted is part of the Creation Theory that I can recall without looking it all up. I probably should have since I am sure I got part of it wrong or mixed up. My major point to it all was making an assumption and then making the science fit the assumption.

Darwin did this exact thing when forming his evolution theory. Then scientific evidence has arisen that helps support it. Sure, I'm not saying that he had no scientific evidence to support his theory, but what I am saying is the scientific community has found more evidence to support that theory closer to now than when the theory was formed.

Given the general assumption to any good theory, scientific evidence can be found to support it. This is my point. This is exactly why I won't debate this subject. To take in any one theory, you must first buy in to an assumption and then find the support for it. If you do not buy the assumption of the theory, you won't buy the theory.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I never said all or nothing. I just said that i dont see very credible sources.Then you're an idiot because that's Time freakin' Magazine. What, do you think they're all lying to you? Do you think the entire credible scientific community is just ganging up and lying to you?


I have provided verses on this over and over again. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" It is not "much" at all. God only asks of us very little when you consider the sacrifice he made for us.Priests called upon God to be saved. Then they molested children. Your logic does not add up.


It said something and then changed it. It does not have to be contradictory. W/e God says goes. If God says dont eat shrimp, then im not eating shrimp. If God says that it is now ok to eat shrimp if we say thanks for it, then ill eat it. I dont need to know God's reasons.The shrimp don't change. God's just fickle, and therefore not infallable.


God does not lie.If he did something as a test, then it wasn't his true intentions, yes?


You just made my point more in this statement.So, what, your point is that it can be scientifically explained how conditions came about for the creation and evolution of life from nothingness? Because that's what I just explained.

So, why have we not seen any human transformations yet?Because evolution applies to animals in nature. There are not factors to weed out the weak and dying in civilization because we provide for those who would be killed in the wild.



Help to what? Im sorry, i miss your point here.Avoid the catastrophe that is an apendix exploding.



How do you know that these are the ancestors? How can you prove that? Do you have a written document? Do you have a account of someone who saw them? How can you prove that these are truly our ancestors?We have much, much more evidence for our stuff than you have for the factuality of your book. Find some evidence for yours before you start discrediting ours, because right now, we're winning.

[dirka dirka]

http://www.tinpot.net/minibytes/blog/archives/img/lil_bush_100.jpg


http://blog.myarchive.us/wp-content/bushstateofunion117x140.jpg


Isn't Evolution OBVIOUS?!

[OFFLINE]

sorry to sound retarted, but is there a differnece between catholic and christian

[uniquinous]

How do we know that this is not man made? I dont see any pics of fossils and i dont buy into any of this "find one tooth make the entire animal" either all or nothing.http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2006/0604/fishapod0410.jpg
Let me know if you want more. ;)

I never said all or nothing. I just said that i dont see very credible sources.Actually, you did...

It said something and then changed it. It does not have to be contradictory. W/e God says goes. If God says dont eat shrimp, then im not eating shrimp.Except, the bible never says "don't eat shrimp". The bible says "they are an ABOMINATION". This is a condition, much like "cows are black and white" or "jaguars are fast". Either these statements are true for that species forever, or they are false. If "god was testing" people to see if they'd follow a cosmic game of simon says, then the statement of the bible is FALSE. For example, if I brought you to a stove and said "this electric burner is very hot, don't touch it" even if it was cold, just to see if you would listen, I'm still providing a FALSE statement. So either shrimp ARE an abomination, or they ARE NOT. Jesus thought they were. Apparently he was wrong, eh?

So, why have we not seen any human transformations yet?Again, misconception. As cool as it would be, we simply aren't transformers. Think of the sibling example again: two people from the same common ancestor with similar genes. During either person's entire lifetime, neither transforms. However, they can pass on their differing genes to their offspring. So as for "have we found ancestors", the answer is a resounding YES.

Check the image at the end of this post (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1211287&postcount=3068).

Neanderthals, for example, were not our species. They were pretty smart, could use tools, but they simply weren't what humans are today (and we have a TON of evidence on them). That fact right there shows that there was some being on this planet which could think, but wasn't human. But they weren't exactly ape-like either.

How do you know that these are the ancestors? How can you prove that? Do you have a written document? Do you have a account of someone who saw them? How can you prove that these are truly our ancestors?It's all in the DNA! Let's go back to neanderthals, as they are the most recent extinct human-like species. We suck out a bit of DNA from their bones, and found that in fact we *didn't* descend from them, but rather had a common ancestor. We know at some point humans and neanderthals were on the planet at the same time: two different species, one not human (but pretty close), both of which could use logic and reasoning.

[Northwind]

Jehuty and Uniq,

Just a question. If a three year-old were to throw some rocks at you, would you "defend yourselves" by throwing rocks back at the three year-old? Clearly, TSR is unable to understand your arguments or even how to make rational arguments. It is entirely unnecessary (and non-enlightening) to "defend" yourselves against his toddler-like "attacks."

Why not focus on the people capable of making interesting points (e.g., SKOF and drak, etc.). This would be more interesting and useful and feel less like throwing rocks back at an three year-old. TSR will, no doubt, soon wander off to messily eat a popsicle or go puddle-stomping in his big rubber boots.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Jehuty and Uniq,

Just a question. If a three year-old were to throw some rocks at you, would you "defend yourselves" by throwing rocks back at the three year-old? Clearly, TSR is unable to understand your arguments or even how to make rational arguments. It is entirely unnecessary (and non-enlightening) to "defend" yourselves against his toddler-like "attacks."

Why not focus on the people capable of making interesting points (e.g., SKOF and drak, etc.). This would be more interesting and useful and feel less like throwing rocks back at an three year-old. TSR will, no doubt, soon wander off to messily eat a popsicle or go puddle-stomping in his big rubber boots.

Northy,

If a three year-old were throwing knives crazily at you, you'd do everything in your power to disarm the three year-old, wouldn't you?

[Northwind]

Northy,

If a three year-old were throwing knives crazily at you, you'd do everything in your power to disarm the three year-old, wouldn't you?
C'mon Jehut, :rolleyes:

Have you seen the "knives" he's been throwing? :huh: It's like when a toddler holds up his fingers like a gun and says "pow! I shot you." (HINT: you haven't really been shot.) You could just refuse to play along by not pretending that his attacks are real. When dealing with three year-olds, I like to use the approach of saying "Nuh-uh. I'm made of metal and bullets just bounce off of me!" and then I bounce my finger off of my chest like a bullet being deflected. (That drives 'em nuts.) I mean, seriously, could there be anything less "dangerous" than the empty ramblings of a 12 year-old on the TAO forum? Treating his comments seriously just makes everyone look ridiculous. I also find "I'm rubber, you're glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" to be pretty effective in such situations.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

C'mon Jehut, :rolleyes:

Have you seen the "knives" he's been throwing? :huh: It's like when a toddler holds up his fingers like a gun and says "pow! I shot you." (HINT: you haven't really been shot.) You could just refuse to play along by not pretending that his attacks are real. When dealing with three year-olds, I like to use the approach of saying "Nuh-uh. I'm made of metal and bullets just bounce off of me!" and then I bounce my finger off of my chest like a bullet being deflected. (That drives 'em nuts.) I mean, seriously, could there be anything less "dangerous" than the empty ramblings of a 12 year-old on the TAO forum? Treating his comments seriously just makes everyone look ridiculous. I also find "I'm rubber, you're glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" to be pretty effective in such situations.
Point taken. I will consider your words and find a solution.

But keep in mind that I have a younger cousin who drives me batty. I do my best to ignore him, but he just keeps coming at me until I'm at the end of my rope. I'm a very calm person, normally, so nothing really pushes me to that limit very often.

[Northwind]

Point taken. I will consider your words and find a solution.

But keep in mind that I have a younger cousin who drives me batty. I do my best to ignore him, but he just keeps coming at me until I'm at the end of my rope. I'm a very calm person, normally, so nothing really pushes me to that limit very often.

Sure, we all get annoyed.

I also like to make a "KWA-PING" noise when I bounce my finger off my chest. It makes it seem more realistic that way. :)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Sure, we all get annoyed.

I also like to make a "KWA-PING" noise when I bounce my finger off my chest. It makes it seem more realistic that way. :)
Ahahaha. Well done.

But here's the thing. It's kind of fun to defend what you believe is right, isn't it? Makes you feel good inside. What's wrong with harmless fun?

[TheSilverRider]

It divides. And again, and again and again. Eventually, one doesn't divide right. Whether it's cuz it didn't replicate it's DNA correctly, or because the sun directly caused the DNA to change (which is how people get skincancer from sunburns), it produces one bacteria with something very slightly different then what it was before. Now *this* part is random chance, that is, which part of DNA changes. However, chances are, it changes the DNA in a way that was VERY harmful to that bacteria, and so that bacteria dies. Now this happens over and over again, until one such random mutation is beneficial. Let's say it helps that bacteria move faster, and get food faster. Well, now that bacteria can grow faster, and gets big enough to reproduce before one of its sisters. It gives that trait to both of the cells it creates, and they can then repeat that process. Now we have 2 different types of bacteria (this is microevolution). The process repeats itself, over and over again, creating change, having the good random mutations stick around, and the bad ones to kill the bacteria (this is called natural selection). Now some mutations don't really do anything, but the bacteria can live with it.

At some point, a mutation arises where one bacteria sticks to another, and forms a colony. At some point, one of them discovers photosynthesis. Take a look at this guy:
http://www.biologie.uni-regensburg.de/Biochemie/Sumper/bilder/Volvox-Titel-end.jpg
Now we're at macroevolution. One branch goes onto phytoplankton, the others are still the "seek out organic matter" bacteria. I'll stop there for now, let you ask questions, and continue when you're satisfied.

It had feathers. Take a close look right under the arms/wings of that fossil. You can see the primitive feather outline.

If you look at the DNA changes that happen as species advance, you get to noticing something: there's a TON of junk. As I said before, it's like writing an essay. Some parts get crossed off, overwritten, some pages are completely lost. If you follow the DNA trail, evolution isn't some grand designer, it's closer to a tinkerer. What I mean to say is, it's not some skilled engineer that though through what it wanted and built it at once. It's like someone who takes one piece of something, sticks it to another, sees it's good, sticks another piece on, and tinkers around with the contraption after each addition until things work. Evolution is actually pretty bad at things, which is why it takes so long.

Here is something you should look at. Since over and over again i have been referred to as a child or three year old or stupid or moronic, here is a more scientific view of why evolution is not based on natural laws. If you are going to comment on it, please have read the entire thing. Click (http://www.icr.org/article/2822/8/)

Wait a minute. THe bible says two of EVERY animal were on the ark. So either fireflies, ladybugs, and hundreds of thousands of other beetles were on the ark as the bible says, or they weren't and the bible is wrong. If you don't like either scenario, tell me what you think happened.

Lets see, if it was impossible for all those animals to be on the ark then it was God's provision over them to make it happen. Mark 10:27 states "..with men it is impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible". This means if God wanted lady bugs then through a miracle he preserved them. Take it or lleave it.

Carbon dating is accurate, but just for up to about 60,000 years (then it doesn't work as well), cuz it has a short lifespan. For things that are billions of years old, scientists use other longer lived molecules, uranium lead, potassium argon (1.3 billion year half life), or rubidium-strontium (50 million year half life).

And how can they prove that these methods are correct? Do they have proof?

Because the people at the equator aren't really affected by the tilt, and they live just fine. Whether the norther hemisphere is tilted towards or away from the sun, the equator stays about the same temperature.

Could the animals live in that kind of climate? Plant life? We will never know unless we were to actually experience it.

You're asking questions now, I'm glad. :)
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7909/4401100ai204lz.jpg
Think of it this way, if god made man, what are all those other man-like things in between? ;)


God made man the way he is. The Bible clearly states in Genesis that God made Adam on the sixth day. I do not know this for sure so tell me if im wrong, but do they actually find these exact things or do they SUPPOSE what happened and add to them? For instance, i do not see how a scientist can find a tooth and make a dinosaur out of it. That is guessing and assuming what it was without basing it on fact.

[TheSilverRider]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2006/0604/fishapod0410.jpg
Let me know if you want more. ;)

Where was it found? What did it look like when it was found? How old is it? More importantly, how do you know how old it is?

Except, the bible never says "don't eat shrimp". The bible says "they are an ABOMINATION". This is a condition, much like "cows are black and white" or "jaguars are fast". Either these statements are true for that species forever, or they are false. If "god was testing" people to see if they'd follow a cosmic game of simon says, then the statement of the bible is FALSE. For example, if I brought you to a stove and said "this electric burner is very hot, don't touch it" even if it was cold, just to see if you would listen, I'm still providing a FALSE statement. So either shrimp ARE an abomination, or they ARE NOT. Jesus thought they were. Apparently he was wrong, eh?

Is it impossible for something to change? Maybe they were an abomination to the people back then and then decided that they are no longer bad. God is able to change his mind or do whatever needs to be done to accomplish his will.

Again, misconception. As cool as it would be, we simply aren't transformers. Think of the sibling example again: two people from the same common ancestor with similar genes. During either person's entire lifetime, neither transforms. However, they can pass on their differing genes to their offspring. So as for "have we found ancestors", the answer is a resounding YES.

That would still leave us with children or offspring dying because of the intense transformations they would have to go through before birth.


Neanderthals, for example, were not our species. They were pretty smart, could use tools, but they simply weren't what humans are today (and we have a TON of evidence on them). That fact right there shows that there was some being on this planet which could think, but wasn't human. But they weren't exactly ape-like either.

You say you have TONS of proof, i would like to see it if you dont mind.

It's all in the DNA! Let's go back to neanderthals, as they are the most recent extinct human-like species. We suck out a bit of DNA from their bones, and found that in fact we *didn't* descend from them, but rather had a common ancestor. We know at some point humans and neanderthals were on the planet at the same time: two different species, one not human (but pretty close), both of which could use logic and reasoning.

Suck it out of their bones? How do we know they are "neanderthal" bones and not ape or monkey or gorilla bones?

[Northwind]

KWA-PING!

[uniquinous]

Jehuty and Uniq,

Just a question. If a three year-old were to throw some rocks at you, would you "defend yourselves" by throwing rocks back at the three year-old? Hey, I made no mention of defending myself whatsoever. But if a three year old came up to me and told me babies come from storks, that the moon was made of cheese, that santa claus isn't real, that communism is a good idea (precocious, eh?), or that the holocaust didn't happen, I'd sit that kid down and set her straight.

I have no tolerance for ignorance. You're right in saying SKOFF presents much better ideas (which I *really* enjoyed), but as those types of ideas aren't presenting themselves, I'll explain some basic science in the meantime. :)

here is a more scientific view of why evolution is not based on natural laws. If you are going to comment on it, please have read the entire thing. Click (http://www.icr.org/article/2822/8/)OUTSIDE THE SCOPE - it's an interesting read, but has quite a few misleadind and otherwise WRONG ideas, which I'll go over when we get to the big bang (as that's all the article focuses on).

Lets see, if it was impossible for all those animals to be on the ark then it was God's provision over them to make it happen. Mark 10:27 states "..with men it is impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible". This means if God wanted lady bugs then through a miracle he preserved them. Take it or lleave it.I leave it. Here's the quote: "19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Now, back in those days, where people had limited knowledge of land, there weren't that many known animals, so making up this story would seam feasible. But, today, we realize a few things: 1) placing two of every species in one place with food to feed them all for 40 days (meaning god didn't preserve them without food magically) would take up half of texas and taken a rainforest of lumber, and 2) not all animals are male and female. It also clearly says "you... keep them alive". Noah had to do it, it wasn't done for him according to that passage. By the way, you never mentioned what you think happened to all the plants on the earth... That would take another texas-sized ark on its own.

And how can they prove that these methods are correct? Do they have proof?Yes. Atoms naturally decay over time, and we can distinguish between them. We talk about how fast they decay by their half life: the time it takes for half of that material to break down. The half-life of carbon is 5700 years. Meaning if you had a ball of Carbon-14, only half of it would still be Carbon-14 after 5700 years. One quarter will be left after 11400 years (twice that) and so on. Now you can see why carbon dating doesn't work for really long time periods like millions of years: the fraction remaining after that time is *really* small and prone to error. It's much easier to say "ah, half the original carbon is still there" then "I think 1/10000 of it is still there. So for longer time periods, we use atoms that have much longer half-lives to drastically improve accuracy. Conversely, these really slowly decaying atoms aren't use for shorter time periods (that's where carbon is best used).

Could the animals live in that kind of climate? Plant life? We will never know unless we were to actually experience it.I think you're missing something here. "That kind of climate" is the equator, today. Plants and animals already live there now. Regardless of how the seasons change in the northern and southern hemisphere due to the earth's tilt, the equator stays pretty much the same and isn't affected by the changing tilt.

God made man the way he is. The Bible clearly states in Genesis that God made Adam on the sixth day. I do not know this for sure so tell me if im wrong, but do they actually find these exact things or do they SUPPOSE what happened and add to them? For instance, i do not see how a scientist can find a tooth and make a dinosaur out of it. That is guessing and assuming what it was without basing it on fact.I agree with you that conclusions drawn based on finding dental evidence alone is always questionable. Neanderthals however are pretty readily found. We have uncovered the remains of a few hundred neanderthals. We have their full bone structure, and DNA. The biggest stipulations are generally more social ones: use of language, customs, etc.

[mantis33]

I am an unpracting Catholic and im confused. I don't see the point in debating Evolution/Existance of God. It's an unatanable goal. People who believe are going to continue to believe and their is nothing a person who doesnt believe can say to change that. That works both ways. It will never stop because people think there better or wiser then others. I havn't gone to church in a very long time and my faith sways. I guess everyones does. I guess I believe in God when it benefits me. I guess thats because im a selfish confused person. Well if anyone wants to they can send me a pm about either opinion and why you think your right.

How do you think religion originated? You say that people who don't believe will never believe. That obviously isn't true. You're not born believing in God. Religion is something that is taught.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

KWA-PING!
The timing on this could not be more perfect.

[Lex]

But if a three year old came up to me and told me babies come from storks, that the moon was made of cheese, that santa claus isn't real, that communism is a good idea (precocious, eh?), or that the holocaust didn't happen, I'd sit that kid down and set her straight.

You mean he is real?!!? Woot!!!

[Northwind]

Hey, I made no mention of defending myself whatsoever. But if a three year old came up to me and told me babies come from storks, that the moon was made of cheese, that santa claus isn't real, that communism is a good idea (precocious, eh?), or that the holocaust didn't happen, I'd sit that kid down and set her straight.

I have no tolerance for ignorance. You're right in saying SKOFF presents much better ideas (which I *really* enjoyed), but as those types of ideas aren't presenting themselves, I'll explain some basic science in the meantime. :)
Well, I certainly don't want to spoil anyone's fun. However, TSR has been pretty clear that he is (willfully?) unable to comprehend "basic science." He either demands "proof" ad infinitem even after you give him it, or - when discrepencies in his reasoning are shown - claims that it must have been a "miracle." Pretty air-tight, in its way. :rolleyes:

I guess calling him a "three year-old" was unfair. Three year-olds are capable of learning. TSR is convinced that he already understands everything he needs to in life and so must vigorously defend his limited world-view at all costs. Thus, any education will not penetrate this tiny belief system. (He even told drakonfire that he had an "EXTREMELY weak faith in God because drak didn't step in line with TSR's absurd logic.)

Anyway, have your fun, but just realize that there is no "educating" going on as TSR is proud of his ignorance.

[russian]

Here is something you should look at. Since over and over again i have been referred to as a child or three year old or stupid or moronic, here is a more scientific view of why evolution is not based on natural laws. If you are going to comment on it, please have read the entire thing. Click (http://www.icr.org/article/2822/8/)

TSR, I am writing this post with the hope that you gain some self-awareness as to what you sound like and why you are being mocked. I am not trying to change your beliefs.

I think you are being mocked because you are trying to reconcile two differing beliefs - one summarized in the Bible and one summarized by much of what Uniq is talking about - mainly science - and conductiong this reconciliation in a very inconsistent and obviously wrong manner.

You have an "all or nothing" approach to the Bible treating it both as historical, and spiritual truth. But, when it comes science, you pick and choose, selecting those bits that work in your favor and rather naively stating over and over again "but why" when Uniq presents you with what has consistently been very well thought out and scientificly true aruguments. Then you turn around and try to use science to advance your point, but you only want to accept the science that lines up with your beliefs - so when you talk about science its a total joke because in doing so you are talking about a topic that you clearing don't believe in. You may think you do, you may think you believe in science and that by doing so you sound rational, but you do not.

Specifically - By cherry picking science ala Dr. Duane Gish in the article you referenced above, you are not only trying to reconcile two vast topics but also doing it in an inconsistent manner by selecting only those scientific parts that fit with your world view and ignoring the rest. So when you refer to a "more scienfic view of evolution" you should really be saying, here are my beliefs wrapped in scientifc clothing. You fail to realize that by cherry picking science for only the bits that reconcile with your faith, you are also debasing science. So by attempting to using topic which you yourself are corrupting by ignoring those parts that you don't agree with, you are weakening your primary position.

Further - Dr. Gish is not accepted by the scientific community. Read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

So don't even quote him, he is a quack, he is half baked. He is very smart, but he is not accepted by any credible non-creationist scientists.

You are better off trying to advance your argument by focusing on the spiritual truths that science is lacking in when people worship science as a totality. But, you are not even close to that. Rather you want the square peg to go into the round hole by telling science that it is incorrect unless it reconciles with a legend in an old book. Because that is how science views the bible. If you want to talk in scientific terms ala Uniq and present the Bible to him and the Scienfic communitiy as science then you are not allowed to dismiss the parts that you don't agree with or that you were not there to see in person. If you do so, then you are not talking about science so there again you fail. For example, imagine what a scientist would sound like if he said, "i can't prove that fogiveness is grace in my lab so it must not be." Well, you and I and would be all over that scientist for applying science in a laughable manner. You are doing the equivalent but in reverse. By shoving faith into the laboratory you make an equally profound and laughable error as the scientist who tries to use the lab to prove grace.


Further, your faith is strong, but does not seem very deep. If you were to approach the bible as a tool that points to a higher meaning, then you could go deeper in to your faith. But by treating it as historical fact, you lessen it to a comic book, especially when you try to reconcile it with science via your cherry picking Dr. Gish strategy.

[russian]

KWA-PING!

Sorry for the double - But I think this forum needs to recognize how abosultely perfect NW's above post is.

The approach was relaxed, it was the club of his liking, he had the range and the wind, he allowed the club to do the work for him and he hit the ball clean - the result was a hole-in-one

[OpixMK]

Credibility of Christianity

The primary historical source of information about Jesus Christ is the New Testament.
- If this document is credible, then statements by and about Jesus Christ are true.
- If this document is not credible, then the claims of Christianity are brought into question.

11 of 12 of Christ's apostles were killed because they proclaimed that they believed in Christ - from ways ranging from crucifixtion, stoned, and being crucified upside down (Peter). They had witnessed Christ's life, death, and resurrection. No one would die for something they knew to be a lie. So obviously, the apostle's claims about Christ are true.
These testimonies are recorded in the New Testament.

1. Do we have a sufficient number of manuscripts to verify the truth of what they contain?
The New Testament has over 20,000 manuscripts - the most ever recorded.
(#2 is the Iliad with only 643 copies).
2. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that the books of the New Testament were written within 20 - 45 years after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

Quote from Dr. William Albright, Director - American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and Professor of Ancient Near Eastern History at Johns Hopkins University - "We can already say empatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80.... In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first centyury A.D"

- Other historical documents
The History of Thucydides : 8 manuscripts dated A.D. 900 (1,300 years after Thucydides wrote his book)
Poems of Aristotle 5 manuscripts with earliest dated A.D. 1100 (1400 years after Aristotle wrote)
Caesar's Gallic Wars 10 manuscripts dated A.D. 1150 (1050 years after he wrote the book)

There is also external evidence which confirms the New Testament.

1. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis and friend of the Apostle John: The Elder (i.e. the Apostle John) used to say this also: 'Mark having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order, For he was nneither a hearer or companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachnigs as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to lnclude any false statements among them.'"

2. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (who was himself a friend and disciple of John):
"Matthes published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departue (i.e. death, roughly A.D. 64) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord... himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

[Cuathon]

Credibility of Christianity

The primary historical source of information about Jesus Christ is the New Testament.
- If this document is credible, then statements by and about Jesus Christ are true.
- If this document is not credible, then the claims of Christianity are brought into question.

11 of 12 of Christ's apostles were killed because they proclaimed that they believed in Christ - from ways ranging from crucifixtion, stoned, and being crucified upside down (Peter). They had witnessed Christ's life, death, and resurrection. No one would die for something they knew to be a lie. So obviously, the apostle's claims about Christ are true.
These testimonies are recorded in the New Testament.


they wouldnt die for something they didnt BELIEVE was true. just becuase they thought it was true, doesnt mean it was.

[uniquinous]

russian - accurate assessment.
northy - i think i'm slow, but what's this kwaping? sounds asian. And I will have my fun! Keep in mind that I've tutored bio/physiology quite a bit- I like talking about it, a lot :)

Where was it found? What did it look like when it was found? How old is it? More importantly, how do you know how old it is?It looked like that picture of it I just gave you... It was found in the Candian Arctic. It's dated from 375 million years ago, by the methods I just described in my last post. Here's a recreation of what we believe it looked like, from the full set of bones that were found:
http://www.boingboing.net/images/fish0405.jpg

Is it impossible for something to change? Maybe they were an abomination to the people back then and then decided that they are no longer bad. God is able to change his mind or do whatever needs to be done to accomplish his will. Did cows change their color? Did zebras have spots? Did cheetahs waddle instead of run fast? Also, why would you say *people* decided it was or wasn't an abomination if the bible is alledgedly the word of god? Honestly, when jesus died did all the animals change characteristics? Or just the delicious ones?

That would still leave us with children or offspring dying because of the intense transformations they would have to go through before birth.Erm, no. I dunno where you're getting this idea of "intense transofmration", but get it out of your head. We're not transformers. However, one sibling may pass on tall genes to her kids, and the other sibling may pass on short genes. If isolated by height, the two branches of the family tree would be split. This is called divergence. Now in today's society, people don't *only* mate with someone of a particular trait - our genes get pretty mixed up, which is why *humans* probably aren't undergoing any further evolution.

Think of the fishapod again. Imagine if it's children had slightly larger fron and back hand-flippers. Then the next generations were slightly bigger then that. It wouldn't be hard to gradually change over time. Nothing is intense.

You say you have TONS of proof, i would like to see it if you dont mind.

Suck it out of their bones? How do we know they are "neanderthal" bones and not ape or monkey or gorilla bones?A few hundreds remains have been uncovered - what kinda of proof would you like? A few reasons. First and formost, the bones don't look or grow exactly the same. To the untrained eye they may blur, but to an expert, bones can say a lot about the animal. You yourself mentioned that bird bones are much different then lizard bones in size, shape, hallowness, etc. But another way we know it's not a monkey or ape of some sort, is that the DNA tells us so. You see, 99.9% of your DNA is exactly the same as mine and every other human on this planet. Dna encodes 3 billion pieces of information inside every single cell in your body, in duplicate. It's 98% similar to our closest living relative today. We can easily map the differences in DNA between species.

Here's an example: hemoglobin is the protein in your blood that carries oxygen all over your body. It's what makes your blood red. Here's part of the DNA sequence of it:
human sequence: A-G-G-C-A-T-A-A-A-C-C-A-A-C-C-G-A-T-T-A
compare | | | | X X X X X | | | | | | | | | | |
chimp sequence: A-G-G-C-C-C-C-T-T-C-C-A-A-C-C-G-A-T-T-AThe parts of those sequences will *always* differ in those X's. We can identify exactly what animal it came from, and have billions of sequences in databases, which anyone can access if they want to search.

That's how we know it's not a present-day monkey. We can compare directly to the monkey genome. we can furthermore follow trends in DNA. Birds and lizards share a good amount of DNA. So do humans and monkeys. Humans and fish don't share as much. In fact, the more distant you get evolutionarily, the more different the DNA is. It's a map from where we came.

[Enjoi]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958, p. 171.

How about that one for you?

[VAMP7]

Uniq how about these?
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/08/hairy_lobster_wideweb__470x324,2.jpg


all proof that strange things are found everyday.

[drakonfire]

TSR: okay, so you accounted for verse 20, but what about 17-19? and if our righteousness is to exceed the pharisees, shouldn't we be practicing outward signs AND inward (which they were not cultivating?) I'm just curious what you think of that. That is how I interpret the commentators meaning. I could be totally wrong.

and what about the 2 genesis passages?


Uniq and Jehu: This whole matter/anti-matter spontaneously appearing and then negating each other thing... :confused: How does that work? I'm honestly curious as I've never heard of it before though it would help to explain a few things. If you don't want to go in depth i'd understand, but anything would help, a small side-note or PM, anything.


to SKOF: I've heard that theory before, I like it. I guess I wasn't clear enough about my beliefs earlier, because you brought up a good point. I believe the 6 literal days. I guess where ID comes in for me is the ability to change and adapt as circumstances and time warranted. -- See I'm still not entirely sure WHAT I believe about the beginnings of the world, but I know what I believe about God, and how God would like me to live. thats enough for me :)

*small whining noises* *smacks self* I'm being ignored!:mad: :dry: :huh: -- okay really, I'm just curious mostly about any and all answers to my above questions

[Hey1001]

My virtual screen has become so much wider that I need to scroll horizontally to see the postings. Wonder if God had anything to do with that.

Anyway, I've been thinking for some time that it used to be more fun when we had several gods floating around: mother Earth, Father Lighting, the hurricane God, the God of Love . . . Who can even present one scintilla of evidence that there is just one God, and not multiple Gods like the ancient people believed in? I'm seriously considering going poly.

[Stormdriven]

Spinoza's God gets my vote!

Storm.

[uniquinous]

ugh Vamp - remove the ridiculously large picture! and then make a point.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958, p. 171.

How about that one for you?
How about it? He was right. Can you demonstrate any organ that wasn't formed by numerous successive slight modifications? Didn't think so. ;)

[Mithrandir]

Thanks to those of you that prayed. Last night, after ten and a half months, my girlfriend and I broke up. God blessed us with a very amicable breakup. I couldn't dream of it going any smoother. It is still absolutely heartbreaking though so please continue to pray for us. Thanks.

[uniquinous]

blessed you with.. ...

wait wait, you're in excrutiating mental anguish... and consider it a blessing cuz it could have been worse...

i'd call that a lack of (what's the opposite of blessing?) cursing?

either way, my door's still open if you need to talk (sarcasm and joking aside)

[Enjoi]

ugh Vamp - remove the ridiculously large picture! and then make a point.


How about it? He was right. Can you demonstrate any organ that wasn't formed by numerous successive slight modifications? Didn't think so. ;)

Ok, you missed what it said. There are plenty of complex organs and systems in the body. The quote says that if there are any complex organs, those organs could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, thus dismantling the theory all together.

[iceman2001]

:dry:blessed you with.. ...

wait wait, you're in excrutiating mental anguish... and consider it a blessing cuz it could have been worse...

i'd call that a lack of (what's the opposite of blessing?) cursing?

either way, my door's still open if you need to talk (sarcasm and joking aside)

Yeah...whatever happened to that one PM I sent you when I actually open up about my life? No response FTL?

I've been trying to read into your lack of response for months now...You really know how to drive a crazy person nuts. ;)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Ok, you missed what it said. There are plenty of complex organs and systems in the body. The quote says that if there are any complex organs, those organs could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, thus dismantling the theory all together.
No, he says that if those complex organs couldn't have been formed by slight alterations, his theory would fall apart. But since those organs could, the theory remains intact. Feel free to try again.

[uniquinous]

Ok, you missed what it said. There are plenty of complex organs and systems in the body.yes, there are.

The quote says that if there are any complex organs, those organs could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, thus dismantling the theory all together.No, it in fact says the exact opposite. Notice the use of the word "IF". It's a conditional statement. IF this is true, THEN that happens.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

IF there exists organs which weren't made in successive modicifactions, THEN the theory breaks down. Or to rephrase: IF organs ARE made in successive steps (which is true), THEN the theory isn't broken.

So, for the theory to break down, you need to find an organ which wasn't made in successive modifications. Unfortunately, you can't do that.

Nice try though. ;)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

yes, there are.

No, it in fact says the exact opposite. Notice the use of the word "IF". It's a conditional statement. IF this is true, THEN that happens.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

IF there exists organs which weren't made in successive modicifactions, THEN the theory breaks down. Or to rephrase: IF organs ARE made in successive steps (which is true), THEN the theory isn't broken.

So, for the theory to break down, you need to find an organ which wasn't made in successive modifications. Unfortunately, you can't do that.

Nice try though. ;)
Uniquin.

Logical five.

*high-five*

*snap* Oh yeah!

[Enjoi]

He is saying that if a complex organ existed it could not have been formed by successive slight modifications.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

He is saying that if a complex organ existed it could not have been formed by successive slight modifications.
Note the clause that begins with "which." Denied.

[bloodreign]

Heh i remember in science class our teacher expounded " EVOLUTION " as fact not a theory, he went as far as to send non evolutuionists out of his classroom.



How about it? He was right. Can you demonstrate any organ that wasn't formed by numerous successive slight modifications? Didn't think so.

Can you demonstrate one organ that was? (a non functioning liver, lungs( i do know of an eel that has a dormant set of lungs but that is more of a pre existing adaptation than an incomplete complex organ.),incomplete eyeballs?...or how about a false heart? a partial digestive tract? or a superfluous anus?
mismatched genitalia?

Explain the reasoning behind seperate male and female evolution! it is IMPLAUSABLE that 2 members of one species (male and female) would develop so radicaly different reproductive organs separatly from one another and then magicaly they all of the sudden can use these organs in syncronicity to produce offspring. There is a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent chance of this and i'm sure thats older than earth.

All complex organs serve a purpose.

I do however agree with genetic diversity to sometimes startling degrees, (great dane, chiwawa) (lion, housecat) (vulture, ruffled titmouse)(nigerian,cambodian) list goes on.

I love nigerians they are a strong ,tall, and beautiful race of human.

[uniquinous]

He is saying that if a complex organ existed it could not have been formed by successive slight modifications.You're... still missing this. Here, lemme color code the phrases for you:

IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by slight modifications, THEN my theory would absolutely break down.

or again to rephrase (in case ye olde englishe is throwing you off):
IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ which was not formed by slight modifications existed, THEN my theory would absolutely break down.

His entire philosophy of evolution was that complex things arose from many little modifications. That's the definition of evolution. Why would he say the exact opposite? Better yet, why would he claim "it breaks down if complex organs exist" when he already knew that complex organs exist? That would make no sense. No, he was speaking to HOW they came into existance, which is why he says "complex organ existed which wasn't formed by evolution". Think of it as if he said "If it could be demonstrated that any small fuzzy ball existed which wasn't bright yellow, then it's not a tennis ball."


Explain the reasoning behind seperate male and female evolution! it is IMPLAUSABLE that 2 members of one species (male and female) would develop so radicaly different reproductive organs separatly from one another and then magicaly they all of the sudden can use these organs in syncronicity to produce offspring. There is a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent chance of this and i'm sure thats older than earth.Separate male and female evolution = genetic diversity. Mixing up the gene pool leads to a better chance of survival for future generations. Fungi, for example, will asexually reproduce in good conditions, as a good environment for the parent would be good for the identical offspring as well. But when times get bad, they switch over to sexual reproduction to mix up their genes, in hopes that the next generation is better off.

And no, it's not implausable that different genders would produce different organs. The sex of a bacteria, for example, is determined by a single gene. It's quite easy to trace up sexual reproduction from that small differentiation to humans. But if you look at human "radically different reproductive organs" (as you say), you'll notice they aren't all that different at all. Sure they look different, but so does the breast tissue of males and females. In gestation (development in the womb) humans start with both the male and the female tracts. Different gene expression eventually turns one off and one on. The histology of the sex organs is rather similar in many ways...

[TatcticmanMega]

my favorite is John 2:4 or close to it. I foget the bible =O
But i know its in John 2: section.

[Stormdriven]

I believe in UFO's and people say I'm crazy. I believe in God and people say I'm Catholic.

[drakonfire]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958, p. 171.


Enjoi, even I will agree you are misreading the quote. Let me symbolize this.

A = It could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed
B = A complex organ Could have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications
C = Darwin's theory breaks down

in logic we would write the statement like this

(A * ~B) > C

which means this, A and B (or NOT B as the tilde implies) must be taken together. The result if both are true (>) is C. Darwin's statement was a conditional.

anyway, to my recollection Darwin's original theory has already broke down and what we know today is really Neo-Darwinianism and works much better as a theory. (still not one I ascribe to ENTIRELY, but it looks better than Darwin's original)

PS: if you want the logic broken down anymore, let me know

[Lonely Tylenol]

Thanks to those of you that prayed. Last night, after ten and a half months, my girlfriend and I broke up. God blessed us with a very amicable breakup. I couldn't dream of it going any smoother. It is still absolutely heartbreaking though so please continue to pray for us. Thanks.

I think it's actually a little humorous that after more than 3,000 posts of arduous and intense exchange of feces... Er, I mean, discussion... Someone actually uses this thread for its intended purpose and gets blown off (barring Uni's response, of course).

Sorry to hear about your break-up, man, but I'm glad to hear it didn't go tremendously bad or what have you.

I cleared some of my PMs after nearly a month of inactivity and subsequent PM-spamming. If you need anything, just drop a line.

[sub the hendrix]

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/god_hates_fags.jpg

[Realist]

I believe in UFO's and people say I'm crazy. I believe in God and people say I'm Catholic.

Maybe you're a crazy Catholic?

[Dresicos]

Damn Nuns.

[Stormdriven]

Damn Nuns.

Dresicos, stop that nunsense, it's nun too appropriate - and leaves us nun the wiser in relation to this issue.

Storm.

[bloodreign]

And no, it's not implausable that different genders would produce different organs. The sex of a bacteria, for example, is determined by a single gene. It's quite easy to trace up sexual reproduction from that small differentiation to humans. But if you look at human "radically different reproductive organs" (as you say), you'll notice they aren't all that different at all. Sure they look different, but so does the breast tissue of males and females. In gestation (development in the womb) humans start with both the male and the female tracts. Different gene expression eventually turns one off and one on. The histology of the sex organs is rather similar in many ways...


What i am saying is that is impossible for evolution to explain how one species of human became female, and the other male, one "species decided to grow external genitalia and then deposit it's dna packets into the other then the other races body knew EXACTLY what to do with this foreign dna , creating life???? wierd....seamlessly...bacteria, fish, humans very different.

And what I AM ASKING is prove that a complex organ was formed by small miniscule changes over a long period of time..... as i stated before, incomplete eyeballs, a false heart, a non conjoined anus to esophagus link...none was is or ever will be found...

Darwins "THEORY" is exactly that...a theory.

[uniquinous]

You don't understand what "numerous, successive, slight modifications" means then. It doesn't say there will be an organism with a half-heart thing. That's silly. But look at our heart. It has 4 chambers. If you want to see "half a heart", look towards lower animals that have 2 chamber hearts, or the in-between animals (i believe crochodiles) have 3 chambered hearts. Every time a chamber is added, the efficiency of the heart gets better and better.

Wanna see slight modification over time? Human fetusus (babies in the mother's womb) have gills! And they're not used to breath, at all. They're just remnants of our evolution. Yes, gills. Think about that one. ;)

[Dresicos]

Dresicos, stop that nunsense, it's nun too appropriate - and leaves us nun the wiser in relation to this issue.

Storm.

What? Heh

[TheSilverRider]

Wanna see slight modification over time? Human fetusus (babies in the mother's womb) have gills! And they're not used to breath, at all. They're just remnants of our evolution. Yes, gills. Think about that one. ;)

Proof proof proof please. Dont just spout off that babies have gills without giving even a simple link. Your analogy of a baby being an example of a "slight modification" is also way off. A baby has a constant sourse of food and drink and protection. If your theory is correct, that same baby would have to survive on its own while still going through all those transformations.

[Cuathon]

you need a link to know babies have gills? stop being a dumbass.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

What i am saying is that is impossible for evolution to explain how one species of human became female, and the other male, one "species decided to grow external genitalia and then deposit it's dna packets into the other then the other races body knew EXACTLY what to do with this foreign dna , creating life???? wierd....seamlessly...bacteria, fish, humans very different.

And what I AM ASKING is prove that a complex organ was formed by small miniscule changes over a long period of time..... as i stated before, incomplete eyeballs, a false heart, a non conjoined anus to esophagus link...none was is or ever will be found...

Darwins "THEORY" is exactly that...a theory.
You know why it's a theory? It's because we haven't proved it 100%. We've only proven it 99.99%, maybe more. But don't be an idiot and dance around waving the word "theory" in our faces just because you don't understand what it means.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Proof proof proof please. Dont just spout off that babies have gills without giving even a simple link. Your analogy of a baby being an example of a "slight modification" is also way off. A baby has a constant sourse of food and drink and protection. If your theory is correct, that same baby would have to survive on its own while still going through all those transformations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchial_arch

"In the development of vertebrate animals, the pharyngeal arches (also called branchial arches or gill arches in fish) develop during the fourth and fifth week in utero as a series of mesodermal outpouchings on the left and right sides of the developing pharynx. In fish, the branchial arches give rise to gills."

We are vertebrates, just in case you didn't catch, so the same thing that develops gills for fish devlops for humans in utero. Hmm... didn't see that one coming, did we? Once more, in case you didn't catch it,

"Pharyngeal or branchial pouches form on the endodermal side between the arches, and pharyngeal grooves (or clefts) form from the lateral ectodermal surface of the neck region to separate the arches.
The pouches line up with the clefts, and these thin segments become gills in fish.
In mammals the endoderm and ectoderm not only remain intact, but continue to be separated by a mesoderm layer."

[uniquinous]

Proof proof proof please. Dont just spout off that babies have gills without giving even a simple link. Your analogy of a baby being an example of a "slight modification" is also way off. A baby has a constant sourse of food and drink and protection. If your theory is correct, that same baby would have to survive on its own while still going through all those transformations.

You don't believe the proof anyway. :rolleyes: Here's a nice mouse model with the slits (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v27/n3/images/ng0301_286_F3.gif) (known as pharyngeal arches). You can see them much more clearly in the bottom picture, highlighted by the black arrows (Figure b). The left mouse embryo is normal. The right one was given a mutation that removed 2 of the arches.

I didn't say a BABY is slight modification. I said evidence during development of a fetus shows the evolutionary modification. For example, removal of gill slits. When the limbs first develop, they look like fins. Then the cells between the bones undergo programmed suicide to create fingers. It all perfectly resembles our evolutionary ancestry.

But going back to the "I don't see half an eye" example: You don't see half a car either. Automobiles, much like evolution, developed from slow modifications over time. You'll never see a car running with half an engine, just a less-efficient one. Same thing with computers: half a hard drive doesn't work too well. But comparing a hard drive from 1980 to today would show many improvements.

[AlabamaBoy]

I am going to have to side with northwind on this one.

You are having a debate with someone who doesn't know their material.

If you would like I will play the other side for the sake of argument.

[TheSilverRider]

You guys accuse me of "not knowing my material" over and over again. Maybe that is because i dont believe it? You say something and then expect the ENTIRE WORLD to come to your knees and say "oh yes, you were right, i was wrong. Thanks for enlightening me". That is not how it works. There are many different aspects to this debate. If you do not believe the Bible, do not believe that God can do miracles, and actually believe that the world came out of an explosion, we have no debate here.....

[Cuathon]

your an idiot... i know i spelled you're wrong n00bs.

[Northwind]

TSR, I am writing this post with the hope that you gain some self-awareness as to what you sound like and why you are being mocked. I am not trying to change your beliefs.

I think you are being mocked because you are trying to reconcile two differing beliefs - one summarized in the Bible and one summarized by much of what Uniq is talking about - mainly science - and conductiong this reconciliation in a very inconsistent and obviously wrong manner.

You have an "all or nothing" approach to the Bible treating it both as historical, and spiritual truth. But, when it comes science, you pick and choose, selecting those bits that work in your favor and rather naively stating over and over again "but why" when Uniq presents you with what has consistently been very well thought out and scientificly true aruguments. Then you turn around and try to use science to advance your point, but you only want to accept the science that lines up with your beliefs - so when you talk about science its a total joke because in doing so you are talking about a topic that you clearing don't believe in. You may think you do, you may think you believe in science and that by doing so you sound rational, but you do not.

Specifically - By cherry picking science ala Dr. Duane Gish in the article you referenced above, you are not only trying to reconcile two vast topics but also doing it in an inconsistent manner by selecting only those scientific parts that fit with your world view and ignoring the rest. So when you refer to a "more scienfic view of evolution" you should really be saying, here are my beliefs wrapped in scientifc clothing. You fail to realize that by cherry picking science for only the bits that reconcile with your faith, you are also debasing science. So by attempting to using topic which you yourself are corrupting by ignoring those parts that you don't agree with, you are weakening your primary position.

Further - Dr. Gish is not accepted by the scientific community. Read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

So don't even quote him, he is a quack, he is half baked. He is very smart, but he is not accepted by any credible non-creationist scientists.

You are better off trying to advance your argument by focusing on the spiritual truths that science is lacking in when people worship science as a totality. But, you are not even close to that. Rather you want the square peg to go into the round hole by telling science that it is incorrect unless it reconciles with a legend in an old book. Because that is how science views the bible. If you want to talk in scientific terms ala Uniq and present the Bible to him and the Scienfic communitiy as science then you are not allowed to dismiss the parts that you don't agree with or that you were not there to see in person. If you do so, then you are not talking about science so there again you fail. For example, imagine what a scientist would sound like if he said, "i can't prove that fogiveness is grace in my lab so it must not be." Well, you and I and would be all over that scientist for applying science in a laughable manner. You are doing the equivalent but in reverse. By shoving faith into the laboratory you make an equally profound and laughable error as the scientist who tries to use the lab to prove grace.


Further, your faith is strong, but does not seem very deep. If you were to approach the bible as a tool that points to a higher meaning, then you could go deeper in to your faith. But by treating it as historical fact, you lessen it to a comic book, especially when you try to reconcile it with science via your cherry picking Dr. Gish strategy.

In case you missed it, TSR, the above post explains just about everything about why people are reacting to you the way they are.

er . . . I mean . . . KWA-PING! :rolleyes:

[AlabamaBoy]

That artical on Gish was most interesting.

[mushroom_girl]

What i am saying is that is impossible for evolution to explain how one species of human became female, and the other male, one "species decided to grow external genitalia and then deposit it's dna packets into the other then the other races body knew EXACTLY what to do with this foreign dna , creating life???? wierd....seamlessly...bacteria, fish, humans very different.
All living things have DNA. There is a chromosome (X or Y) in the DNA that states whether you're going to be male or female, one from each parent. XX = female, XY = Male. (There cannot be a YY since two men cannot mate, and all males have an X-chromosome from their mother.) I'm guessing it works the same way in animals, so I don't see why DNA couldn't be made to give them different characteristics as well, like arms and legs.

Darwins "THEORY" is exactly that...a theory.
Religion is a theory. You cannot prove religion. You can believe in it all you want, but there is no PROOF. The Bible was not written by God Himself, it was written by a bunch of men, so don't even try to use the Bible as evidence.

I didn't say a BABY is slight modification. I said evidence during development of a fetus shows the evolutionary modification. For example, removal of gill slits. When the limbs first develop, they look like fins. Then the cells between the bones undergo programmed suicide to create fingers. It all perfectly resembles our evolutionary ancestry.
Damn you for saying what I wanted to!

You guys accuse me of "not knowing my material" over and over again. Maybe that is because i dont believe it? You say something and then expect the ENTIRE WORLD to come to your knees and say "oh yes, you were right, i was wrong. Thanks for enlightening me". That is not how it works. There are many different aspects to this debate. If you do not believe the Bible, do not believe that God can do miracles, and actually believe that the world came out of an explosion, we have no debate here.....
Actually, we don't expect people to just say we're right, at least I don't. I expect to have a conversation with someone with an open mind. If you don't want to think that MAYBE there is something else in the world than what you were raised to believe, then there's no point in even having a discussion with you.

You say that if we don't believe in God there is no debate. That makes no sense. If we believed in God then we'd have something to AGREE on. I am trying to get you to think. Is God possible? Yes. Is he a proven being? No.

Also, did anyone here stop to think that maybe God brought about other species to develop so we could think about where we came from and develop science? I'm just saying, that's also a possibillity. They can co-exist. :)

[TheSilverRider]

In case you missed it, i will quote myself from the last page. This is truly what it comes down to North and russ.

You guys accuse me of "not knowing my material" over and over again. Maybe that is because i dont believe it? You say something and then expect the ENTIRE WORLD to come to your knees and say "oh yes, you were right, i was wrong. Thanks for enlightening me". That is not how it works. There are many different aspects to this debate. If you do not believe the Bible, do not believe that God can do miracles, and actually believe that the world came out of an explosion, we have no debate here.....

[Cuathon]

you just got refuted above. tard.

rofl, in reference to your neg, i negged you for everything. basically all your posts are idiotic.

[mushroom_girl]

In case you missed it, I will quote myself from the post before yours.

Actually, we don't expect people to just say we're right, at least I don't. I expect to have a conversation with someone with an open mind. If you don't want to think that MAYBE there is something else in the world than what you were raised to believe, then there's no point in even having a discussion with you.

You say that if we don't believe in God there is no debate. That makes no sense. If we believed in God then we'd have something to AGREE on. I am trying to get you to think. Is God possible? Yes. Is he a proven being? No.

Also, did anyone here stop to think that maybe God brought about other species to develop so we could think about where we came from and develop science? I'm just saying, that's also a possibillity. They can co-exist. :)

Feel free to actually read it this time.

[TheSilverRider]

Actually, we don't expect people to just say we're right, at least I don't. I expect to have a conversation with someone with an open mind. If you don't want to think that MAYBE there is something else in the world than what you were raised to believe, then there's no point in even having a discussion with you.

You say that if we don't believe in God there is no debate. That makes no sense. If we believed in God then we'd have something to AGREE on. I am trying to get you to think. Is God possible? Yes. Is he a proven being? No.

Also, did anyone here stop to think that maybe God brought about other species to develop so we could think about where we came from and develop science? I'm just saying, that's also a possibillity. They can co-exist. :)


Im sorry mushroom we posted at the same time, when i was replying your post was not posted yet that is why that happened. Anyway, In reference to what is in red. You will never be able to scientifically prove something that create things out of nothing. Thats foolish to think so. Can we prove the things that he has done? Yes. Also, i do not see how God and evolution could co-exist. Feel free to enlighten me, but i know the bible says in Genesis that God created the world as it is today and created it old. He did not create all the horses as babies, he created adult horses just like he created the earth older as well. Now, if evolution is true then the Bible would be wrong and God would be lying. Im sorry , but God would not be God if he lied.

you just got refuted above. tard.

rofl, in reference to your neg, i negged you for everything. basically all your posts are idiotic.

Yet again, idiotic blabber. Do you never have ANYTHING beneficial to add?

[russian]

Im sorry mushroom we posted at the same time, when i was replying your post was not posted yet that is why that happened. Anyway, In reference to what is in red. You will never be able to scientifically prove something that create things out of nothing. Thats foolish to think so. Can we prove the things that he has done? Yes. Also, i do not see how God and evolution could co-exist. Feel free to enlighten me, but i know the bible says in Genesis that God created the world as it is today and created it old. He did not create all the horses as babies, he created adult horses just like he created the earth older as well. Now, if evolution is true then the Bible would be wrong and God would be lying. Im sorry , but God would not be God if he lied.
Yet again, idiotic blabber. Do you never have ANYTHING beneficial to add?

God also gave some of us brains that allow us the ability to communicate and think.

By your logic, those thoughts are a derivative of God's creation. If the derivative of God's creation is able to diagree with an older and codified version of a derivative of God's creation (namely the thoughts of the Biblical writers) in the form of the Bible, then is God a liar?

The answer is no and the solution is to pull your head out of your rectum and escape the nice logic trap that you have established that allows you to ignore all reason.

God did not create us to be unquestioning sheep. The Bible is a beautiful and deeply true book - on a spiritual level. If is is reduced to a science book, then it loses it's sprititual truth by engaging in the type of banter you specialize in.

If God exsists and is real in our lives today, then inspiration (scientific, or spiritual) does not begin and end within the pages of the Book. It is here and now and for all time. You are attached to the form of His message and you ignore all substance of His message because you allow only truth that reconciles with the form. Your spirituality is limited thus.

[TheSilverRider]

God also gave some of us brains that allow us the ability to communicate and think.

By your logic, those thoughts are a derivative of God's creation. If the derivative of God's creation is able to diagree with an older and codified version of a derivative of God's creation (namely the thoughts of the Biblical writers) in the form of the Bible, then is God a liar?

The answer is no and the solution is to pull your head out of your rectum and escape the nice logic trap that you have established that allows you to ignore all reason.

God did not create us to be unquestioning sheep. The Bible is a beautiful and deeply true book - on a spiritual level. If is is reduced to a science book, then it loses it's sprititual truth by engaging in the type of banter you specialize in.

If God exsists and is real in our lives today, then inspiration (scientific, or spiritual) does not begin and end within the pages of the Book. It is here and now and for all time. You are attached to the form of His message and you ignore all substance of His message because you allow only truth that reconciles with the form. Your spirituality is limited thus.

So basically you are calling God's Word a "good spiritual book" but not scientific? I dont understand that. If it is a good spiritual book then it cant lie. And if it cant lie then it must be proved by science. You either believe it or not, there is no inbetween.

[Cuathon]

i have nothing beneficial to add that you can understand or have a chance of doing anything but lamely attacking as you constantly do to uni.

[russian]

So basically you are calling God's Word a "good spiritual book" but not scientific? I dont understand that. If it is a good spiritual book then it cant lie. And if it cant lie then it must be proved by science. You either believe it or not, there is no inbetween.

Is spiritual truth predicated on scientific proof? - clearly no. Can you prove God's grace in a lab? No. Can you prove it in your every day life - yes, forgive an enemy that you hate and there you will find God's grace.

How old are you? Are you going to college?

[TheSilverRider]

I will be attending college this year why?

[russian]

I will be attending college this year why?


Good for you . . .which one?

[TheSilverRider]

Clearwater Christian College in Florida. My major will be Business Administration and i have a voice scholarship. I am also trying out for the soccer team.

[russian]

Clearwater Christian College in Florida. My major will be Business Administration and i have a voice scholarship. I am also trying out for the soccer team.

I'm guessing you will take some theology and some science - in separate courses.

You will most likely take some literary classes as well. If you do, then you should ask your teacher about how fictional works can speak to deaper truths about the human condition than actual historic works.

[TheSilverRider]

Um, ok. I will try and remember to do that.

[russian]

Um, ok. I will try and remember to do that.

You sound confused. What I am referring to is your reduction of the bible to classroom text and therefore limiting it's power.

You need to recognize that your approach to the Bible is limited and does not allow for much depth of practice. If you need science to back up your faith then, you have reduced your faith by making it conditional. If you do not need science, then there is no argument, but you risk sounding like a quack when you debate evelolution, etc. Of course, you can find like minded individuals and band together to label the rest of the world wrong and yourselves right. But that approach divides people and Christ was not a divider so you need to reflect on your approach. Of course, when surrounded by like minded individuals, there will not be much reflection going on - just kool aid drinking. So I hope you get some perspective on how limited your approach has been thus far.

You need to also recognize that the human language is a limited tool. Although God can speak through it, it does not encompass God, God is not limited by grammar. Nor is God limited by concepts from any person or book or group. God has been, God is, and God will be. And he is here and now. Your approach defines God only to those words in the Bible. The Bible is God's greatest work - but it does not encompass the totality of God. Nor does science. God is beyond thoughts and books. Perhaps you will learn to pray in a way that will help you realize this. Most likely not, most likely you will continue to demand that the entire world line up with your beliefs in order satisfy your religious practice. That is the way of the fanatic and that is the limitation of the fanatic.

[uniquinous]

You will never be able to scientifically prove something that create things out of nothing. Thats foolish to think so.Actually, as several people have mentioned already, we can prove this today. You just don't listen, and refuse to believe the numerous examples of proof (http://zms.desy.de/press/background_information/linear_collider_ilcnbsp/ilc_and_lhcnbsp/index_eng.html) provided. While I'll be the first to admit that I'm skeptical of this process creating all the matter in the universe, as not enough evidence has been found to support it, such a foundation has no bearing on evolution, which *is* strongly supported. (Note, that doesn't mean I reject the idea, it just means we don't know what happened before the big bang).

Can we prove the things that he has done? Yes.
No. This is where you don't understand the meaning of the word "prove". Let's say I wanted to prove to you that hydrogen gas is explosive. I could invite you over to my lab any day of the week, run a current through water to break it down into O2 and H2, and then put a match to the H2. I can PROVE this at any time, repeatedly, without fail. You can't "prove" things god has done. You have faith that what the book tells you is true.

So basically you are calling God's Word a "good spiritual book" but not scientific? I dont understand that. If it is a good spiritual book then it cant lie. And if it cant lie then it must be proved by science. You either believe it or not, there is no inbetween.Go to your local library and open up a real science book. You'll notice they are filled with things called facts. There is no interpretation, no literary devices, no vague references. Now open up your good book. Things could be interpretted hundreds of different ways. Genesis claims god made two lights, when the moon is not a light at all. Galileo was convicted for believing the earth revolved around the sun because it contradicted the "scientific truth" of the bible. When he was PROVEN (note the proper use of the word) correct, how did Christianity reacte? It was stated that they "interpretted it wrong".

Now, if evolution is true then the Bible would be wrong and God would be lying. Im sorry , but God would not be God if he lied.And humans wouldn't be human if they didn't. The book was written by humans. It's read by humans. It's interpretted by humans. If evolution is true then the Bible is just misinterpretted, yet again, as it's been shown multiple times with previous scientific advancements. Even you yourself have claimed that things in the bible have changed over time so that things said in it are no longer true today.

[mushroom_girl]

Im sorry mushroom we posted at the same time, when i was replying your post was not posted yet that is why that happened. Anyway, In reference to what is in red. You will never be able to scientifically prove something that create things out of nothing. Thats foolish to think so. Can we prove the things that he has done? Yes. Also, i do not see how God and evolution could co-exist. Feel free to enlighten me, but i know the bible says in Genesis that God created the world as it is today and created it old. He did not create all the horses as babies, he created adult horses just like he created the earth older as well. Now, if evolution is true then the Bible would be wrong and God would be lying. Im sorry , but God would not be God if he lied.
Its foolish to follow a faith and never question it. If God exists, he gave us the ability to think, to question, to argue. He gave us the gift of speech and thought.

How can you prove the things he's done? YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE! It was written by MEN, not God Himself. God did not right the bible documenting what happened, people wrote it. The book itself teaches good morals and good lessons, but you cannot take it on such a literal level. Ever read "Inherit the Wind"?

Since God didn't write the Bible, he's not lying if it's false.

Evolution and Creationism can co-exist. I see it as unlikely, but it's possible that God created creatures that could evolve. He created creatures who could change over time. I'm just saying, that's possible also. Who says both can't be right?

So basically you are calling God's Word a "good spiritual book" but not scientific? I dont understand that. If it is a good spiritual book then it cant lie. And if it cant lie then it must be proved by science. You either believe it or not, there is no inbetween.
There is an in between. You can believe in the teachings of the Bible and not take the stories on a literal level.

I'm not saying that your belief is false (or true) and I'm not personally attacking you. I'm just trying to get you to think. I think it's great that you have a strong faith in something, it's probably helped you through a lot. But if God is real and he wanted us to follow him blindly, he wouldn't have given us the ability to think. :)

[AlabamaBoy]

The only constant is change.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Its foolish to follow a faith and never question it. If God exists, he gave us the ability to think, to question, to argue. He gave us the gift of speech and thought.

How can you prove the things he's done? YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE! It was written by MEN, not God Himself. God did not right the bible documenting what happened, people wrote it. The book itself teaches good morals and good lessons, but you cannot take it on such a literal level. Ever read "Inherit the Wind"?

Since God didn't write the Bible, he's not lying if it's false.

Evolution and Creationism can co-exist. I see it as unlikely, but it's possible that God created creatures that could evolve. He created creatures who could change over time. I'm just saying, that's possible also. Who says both can't be right?


There is an in between. You can believe in the teachings of the Bible and not take the stories on a literal level.

I'm not saying that your belief is false (or true) and I'm not personally attacking you. I'm just trying to get you to think. I think it's great that you have a strong faith in something, it's probably helped you through a lot. But if God is real and he wanted us to follow him blindly, he wouldn't have given us the ability to think. :)
Liz, he believes that God created all animals as they are today, not that they evolved from anything else.

And for the record, TSR, we have proved that you can create something out of nothing. We must have explained it like a thousand times. Defied.

[AlabamaBoy]

Why do you argue this with someone who will never actualy consider your point of view?

[mushroom_girl]

Liz, he believes that God created all animals as they are today, not that they evolved from anything else.

And for the record, TSR, we have proved that you can create something out of nothing. We must have explained it like a thousand times. Defied.

I understand what he believes. I was just saying that I think the two theories can co-exist.

[Cuathon]

Why do you argue this with someone who will never actualy consider your point of view?

cause there is this thing called boredom? its something to do. and maybe through a miracle :) he will see the light.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I understand what he believes. I was just saying that I think the two theories can co-exist.
I think so too, my dear... unfortunately, this one will never consider it.

[TheSilverRider]

(Note, that doesn't mean I reject the idea, it just means we don't know what happened before the big bang).

Exactly. You have no written proof. How can you believe in something where there is no proof of it written or people talking who have seen it. You are a man/woman based deeply in FACTS right? Its all about the FACTS right? Well how can you believe in the big bang if you dont even know the FACTS of where it came from?


And humans wouldn't be human if they didn't. The book was written by humans. It's read by humans. It's interpretted by humans. If evolution is true then the Bible is just misinterpretted, yet again, as it's been shown multiple times with previous scientific advancements. Even you yourself have claimed that things in the bible have changed over time so that things said in it are no longer true today.

How can you prove the things he's done? YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE! It was written by MEN, not God Himself. God did not right the bible documenting what happened, people wrote it. The book itself teaches good morals and good lessons, but you cannot take it on such a literal level. Ever read "Inherit the Wind"?

Since God didn't write the Bible, he's not lying if it's false.

There are plenty of verses that deal with both of these comments:

II Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correctinon, for instruction in righteousness."

II Peter 1:21
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

I Thessalonians 2:13
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"

These verses CLEARLY state that the bible was written by men UNDER INSPIRATION from God and is His word alone.

[OFFLINE]

Now do you guys think adom and eve where real? or a fable?

[uniquinous]

Exactly. You have no written proof. How can you believe in something where there is no proof of it written or people talking who have seen it. You are a man/woman based deeply in FACTS right? Its all about the FACTS right? Well how can you believe in the big bang if you dont even know the FACTS of where it came from?Just because we don't know what happened before it doesn't mean the facts that show it's existance aren't real. You don't know what happened before you were born, but you believe that your parents got married due to the ample proof. It doesn't mean I don't believe in the big bang happened, there's SO much proof of that. What we don't know is what came before it.

Now, are you going to continue ignoring all my great points about human gills and fins in development? Or will you address them?


These verses CLEARLY state that the bible was written by men UNDER INSPIRATION from God and is His word alone.Answer this question: Is the bible perfectly literal and factual, or is it a literary work which requires some interpretation of vague areas? Literal, or figurative? Answer.

[mushroom_girl]

II Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correctinon, for instruction in righteousness."
Inspiration. They were not written by God himself. I could go around saying that God spoke to me too, but I'd probably be given some sort of medication.

Also, why do you take the Bible so literally? You don't think there's some deeper or metaphorical meaning to it?

[TheSilverRider]

Just because we don't know what happened before it doesn't mean the facts that show it's existance aren't real. You don't know what happened before you were born, but you believe that your parents got married due to the ample proof. It doesn't mean I don't believe in the big bang happened, there's SO much proof of that. What we don't know is what came before it.

Ok, maybe i missed it. But what was your proof on things coming out of nothing? I still do not see, how if there is absolutely nothing, no air, no atmosphere, no rocks, no life, no being, no nothing, how can something come to be?

Now, are you going to continue ignoring all my great points about human gills and fins in development? Or will you address them?

I am currently doing some research on the subject and will reply when i am prepared.


Answer this question: Is the bible perfectly literal and factual, or is it a literary work which requires some interpretation of vague areas? Literal, or figurative? Answer.

I believe the Bible is God's spoken word to his disciples. I believe every word in it is true and that we are to follow it every day. I take the bible literally and apply it to my life as best as i can.

[TheSilverRider]

Inspiration. They were not written by God himself. I could go around saying that God spoke to me too, but I'd probably be given some sort of medication.

Not quite sure what you mean by inspiration there. God INSPIRED them to write it, meaning he was writing it through them, therefore it is his word.

Also, why do you take the Bible so literally? You don't think there's some deeper or metaphorical meaning to it?

Um, no. I believe God knows how incredibly stupid humankind is and how stupid i am and made it very easy for us to understand on purpose.

[mushroom_girl]

Not quite sure what you mean by inspiration there. God INSPIRED them to write it, meaning he was writing it through them, therefore it is his word.
Right. Because everyone who claims that they are writing things for God is sane.

Um, no. I believe God knows how incredibly stupid humankind is and how stupid i am and made it very easy for us to understand on purpose.
So then he made us stupid....:confused:

Anyway, it's obvious that you only take the literal meaning of the Bible. Do you still take the lessons from all of the stories?

[TheSilverRider]

Right. Because everyone who claims that they are writing things for God is sane.

I have no reason to doubt it. Scripture has been proven many times and nothing in the Bible is wrong so why should i assume that they were insane?

So then he made us stupid....:confused:

Hmm. Compared to him? Yes. We are now stupid. Did he make us stupid? No. He made us perfect, sin has made mankind "stupid".

Anyway, it's obvious that you only take the literal meaning of the Bible. Do you still take the lessons from all of the stories?

Yes i do. Parables i assume you mean?

[russian]

Not quite sure what you mean by inspiration there. God INSPIRED them to write it, meaning he was writing it through them, therefore it is his word.



Um, no. I believe God knows how incredibly stupid humankind is and how stupid i am and made it very easy for us to understand on purpose.

I agree . . .but seriously,

TSR - WAKE UP!

Jesus taught in parables that used imagery, aphorisms, symbols and allegory. They were MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED BY AN INTELLIGENT AUDIENCE.

The Bible is not a book for stupid people . . .it is incredibly complex.

You just claimed you were stupid, so I am going to end conversing with you in this thread based on your statement since it requires a great deal of intelligence to understand the Bible.

You also know nothing about science, so I recommend all those frustrated by this guy just ignore him.

[uniquinous]

Ok, maybe i missed it. But what was your proof on things coming out of nothing? I still do not see, how if there is absolutely nothing, no air, no atmosphere, no rocks, no life, no being, no nothing, how can something come to be?I've explained it several times, as has Jehuty. In fact, I provided a link to a good explanation in my last post, which you also seemed to have ignored. I'm happy to try again but, honestly I'd rather just move past it as... it doesn't seem like you're making much effort or really care. Regardless, what came before the big bang, or what made the stuff of the big bang, doesn't have any effect on the proof of evolution or the big bang itself. Again, think of your birth: I know you were born, and are a person, even though I know nothing about your parents or the circumstances with which you were born.

I believe the Bible is God's spoken word to his disciples. I believe every word in it is true and that we are to follow it every day. I take the bible literally and apply it to my life as best as i can.
It's funny, cuz you contradict yourself here:
Lights here is referring to something that illuminates not something that produces light. God made the sun to provide light during the day and the moon to provide light during the night.Now, if the bible is literal, god made two LIGHTS around the earth, not one light and one mirror. For you to claim that it *really* means what it says, there's no room for interpretation. Except you interpret it to fit your needs all the time.

This is what russion described about how you deal with science, except you do it with the bible too: you pick and choose what things you want to use when it's in your favor, and ignore everything else. With science, you claim there's not enough proof. With the bible, you claim "it's interpretted differently". Either way it presents an overall inconsistency and immaturity in your ideas.

[Cuathon]

uni, you are so late.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Not quite sure what you mean by inspiration there. God INSPIRED them to write it, meaning he was writing it through them, therefore it is his word.No. If someone inspires me to do something, I am not listening to their every word. I am producing something because of my respect and like for that thing.

Jack Black inspired me to play better guitar in School of Rock. Does that mean I'm going to play Tenacious D and/or write Tenacious D songs from Black himself? No.


Um, no. I believe God knows how incredibly stupid humankind is and how stupid i am and made it very easy for us to understand on purpose.Some Christian you are. God has great faith in his creation, so it says, and so from that he wouldn't spoon feed it to us as though we are eternal infants.

Check it out. God tells Abraham to kill Isaac. He follows, not because he's blindly going after what God says, but because he knows there is great meaning to God's words and actions and must respect them, even at a severe personal cost. Then God comes outta nowhere and says, "Caughtcha slippin'!" and good ol' Abe is thoroughly relieved, right?

Now, if Abe had the logical capacity of a toddler, as you are implying people do here, he would have been extremely confused and unable to understand the purpose. But he does, because he seeks the greater meaning behind things, not what is given to him outright. If he did the latter, he would have never tried to kill Isaac.

[FadeInFlames]

Heh, I always thought Abraham killed Isaac because he wouldn't pay his protection money.

[drakonfire]

TSR: Do you remember a few pages back, I asked you to look up some verses for me? did you look all of them up? and actually read them? becuase Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different creation accounts. Genesis one has man and woman created at the same time, last. Genesis 2 has man created first, then animals, and then woman. Clearly someone is confused here. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get dude.

I used to argue the same things you do with the same fervor and conviction. But you know what, you're right. God is so much bigger than our small minds can comprehend. So what if the Bible isn't scientifically accurate. It was written by human, fallible beings. They see something they don't understand and they will use language they do know to express the idea and sensation of whatever it was they saw. I really like the way the Nazarene Denomination words their stance on the Bible. (I paraphrase here.) "We believe that the Bible is true and accurate in all matters of faith relating to the salvation of human souls." That is a rough paraphrase, but you see what I'm saying don't you?

I really hope you don't think I'm attacking you. I'm not. If your college is anything like the Christian university I attend you will be in for some rude shocks, many straight from your professors. All I am trying to do is help open up your mind a little (only a little, you maintain too open of a mind and your brains will fall out) so that you are prepared to learn and grow in your faith in God even as what you thought was your knowledge shrinks.

You can believe me or not, the choice is yours.

your bro in Christ,

-Drak

[TheSilverRider]

I've explained it several times, as has Jehuty. In fact, I provided a link to a good explanation in my last post, which you also seemed to have ignored. I'm happy to try again but, honestly I'd rather just move past it as... it doesn't seem like you're making much effort or really care. Regardless, what came before the big bang, or what made the stuff of the big bang, doesn't have any effect on the proof of evolution or the big bang itself. Again, think of your birth: I know you were born, and are a person, even though I know nothing about your parents or the circumstances with which you were born.

Link please.


It's funny, cuz you contradict yourself here:
Now, if the bible is literal, god made two LIGHTS around the earth, not one light and one mirror. For you to claim that it *really* means what it says, there's no room for interpretation. Except you interpret it to fit your needs all the time.

You misinterpret the work Light. Here is the hebrew meaning:

properly a luminous body or luminary, that is, (abstractly) light (as an element); figuratively brightness, that is, cheerfulness; specifically a chandelier: - bright, light.

Now either you can say that is what it means or you can say that you know more than God does. Its your choice.

This is what russion described about how you deal with science, except you do it with the bible too: you pick and choose what things you want to use when it's in your favor, and ignore everything else. With science, you claim there's not enough proof. With the bible, you claim "it's interpretted differently". Either way it presents an overall inconsistency and immaturity in your ideas.

Im sorry i cant present the entire bible to you at one time. Ill try to do better with that. Of course i am going to pick and choose from the bible. Different sections deal with different areas. Therefore i choose those different areas to deal with different situations.

[TheSilverRider]

No. If someone inspires me to do something, I am not listening to their every word. I am producing something because of my respect and like for that thing.

Again, not knowing the hebrew. Here is the hebrew of inspired:

G2315
θεόπνευστος
theopneustos
theh-op'-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.

Now, here we see that "inspired" means "God breathed". Dont tell me that God did not tell them what to write. It is obvious here God told them what to write and breathed through them onto paper. It is just up to you to believe it or not.


Some Christian you are. God has great faith in his creation, so it says, and so from that he wouldn't spoon feed it to us as though we are eternal infants.

He did not create us the way we are today. You keep referring to God creating us like we are today, he DIDNT. He created us PERFECT, we sinned so now we are no longer perfect, God did not create us the way we are today, we brought it upon ourselves.

Check it out. God tells Abraham to kill Isaac. He follows, not because he's blindly going after what God says, but because he knows there is great meaning to God's words and actions and must respect them, even at a severe personal cost. Then God comes outta nowhere and says, "Caughtcha slippin'!" and good ol' Abe is thoroughly relieved, right?

Now, if Abe had the logical capacity of a toddler, as you are implying people do here, he would have been extremely confused and unable to understand the purpose. But he does, because he seeks the greater meaning behind things, not what is given to him outright. If he did the latter, he would have never tried to kill Isaac.

I have no idea where you were trying to go with that biblical story. That story simply shows that Abraham was told by God to do something and he was going to do it, no matter what the personal cost was (even the loss of a son). He did not question for one second what God said. If anything this proves my point more than yours. He took God at his word and did exactly what he said without questioning him.

[TheSilverRider]

I agree . . .but seriously,

TSR - WAKE UP!

Jesus taught in parables that used imagery, aphorisms, symbols and allegory. They were MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED BY AN INTELLIGENT AUDIENCE.

The Bible is not a book for stupid people . . .it is incredibly complex.

You just claimed you were stupid, so I am going to end conversing with you in this thread based on your statement since it requires a great deal of intelligence to understand the Bible.

You also know nothing about science, so I recommend all those frustrated by this guy just ignore him.



By saying that we are stupid, i mean that if God wrote it so only he could understand it NONE of us could get it. He wrote it so that we can understand it. I have no idea where all of this "toddler" stuff came from. I never said toddler. Are we stupider than God? Absolutely. Therefore, God wrote it so we can understand it.

[russian]

By saying that we are stupid, i mean that if God wrote it so only he could understand it NONE of us could get it. He wrote it so that we can understand it. I have no idea where all of this "toddler" stuff came from. I never said toddler. Are we stupider than God? Absolutely. Therefore, God wrote it so we can understand it.

TSR – Your literal approach to the Bible is not only limited and lacking depth, but also it sets you up to be a hypocrite on many different levels . . .

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother." He said to him, "Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth." Jesus looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." They were greatly astounded and said to one another, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible." Mark (10:17-27)

. . .If you’d like I can forward you and your parents the link to the United Way so you can get on with your poverty now . . .
It is not surprising that you are going to Clearwater – that type of college is perfect for some one who does not want to think about their faith, perfect for sheep like you.

The problem is, you are not only stupid (your words) but also verbose. Please either admit that you have limited knowledge about your own faith or just STFU.

[Dresicos]

Heh, I always thought Abraham killed Isaac because he wouldn't pay his protection money.

Heh, funny.

[TheSilverRider]

TSR – Your literal approach to the Bible is not only limited and lacking depth, but also it sets you up to be a hypocrite on many different levels . . .

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother." He said to him, "Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth." Jesus looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." They were greatly astounded and said to one another, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible." Mark (10:17-27)

. . .If you’d like I can forward you and your parents the link to the United Way so you can get on with your poverty now . . .
It is not surprising that you are going to Clearwater – that type of college is perfect for some one who does not want to think about their faith, perfect for sheep like you.

The problem is, you are not only stupid (your words) but also verbose. Please either admit that you have limited knowledge about your own faith or just STFU.


Russian russian russian. Please, let me show you a commentary on these verses that will clear this up:

Matthew 19:23 A rich man will with difficulty enter. Christ warns them, not only how dangerous and how deadly a plague avarice is, but also how great an obstacle is presented by riches. In Mark, indeed, he mitigates the harshness of his expression, by restricting it to those only who place confidence in riches But these words are, I think, intended to confirm, rather than correct, the former statement, as if he had affirmed that they ought not to think it strange, that he made the entrance into the kingdom of heaven so difficult for the rich, because it is an evil almost common to all to trust in their riches Yet this doctrine is highly useful to all; to the rich, that, being warned of their danger, they may be on their guard; to the poor, that, satisfied with their lot, they may not so eagerly desire what would bring more damage than gain. It is true indeed, that riches do not, in their own nature, hinder us from following God; but, in consequence of the depravity of the human mind, it is scarcely possible for those who have a great abundance to avoid being intoxicated by them. So they who are exceedingly rich are held by Satan bound, as it were, in chains, that they may not raise their thoughts to heaven; nay more, they bury and entangle themselves, and became utter slaves to the earth. The comparison of the camel., which is soon after added, is intended to amplify the difficulty; for it means that the rich are so swelled with pride and presumption, that they cannot endure to be reduced to the straits through which God makes his people to pass. The word camel denotes, I think, a rope used by sailors, rather than the animal so named.

~ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lxxi.html

I hope that helps you understand what your speaking about. It is not saying you must be poor to get to heaven. Read the commentary then respond. Please dont respond without reading the commentary.

[russian]

Russian russian russian. Please, let me show you a commentary on these verses that will clear this up:

Matthew 19:23 A rich man will with difficulty enter. Christ warns them, not only how dangerous and how deadly a plague avarice is, but also how great an obstacle is presented by riches. In Mark, indeed, he mitigates the harshness of his expression, by restricting it to those only who place confidence in riches But these words are, I think, intended to confirm, rather than correct, the former statement, as if he had affirmed that they ought not to think it strange, that he made the entrance into the kingdom of heaven so difficult for the rich, because it is an evil almost common to all to trust in their riches Yet this doctrine is highly useful to all; to the rich, that, being warned of their danger, they may be on their guard; to the poor, that, satisfied with their lot, they may not so eagerly desire what would bring more damage than gain. It is true indeed, that riches do not, in their own nature, hinder us from following God; but, in consequence of the depravity of the human mind, it is scarcely possible for those who have a great abundance to avoid being intoxicated by them. So they who are exceedingly rich are held by Satan bound, as it were, in chains, that they may not raise their thoughts to heaven; nay more, they bury and entangle themselves, and became utter slaves to the earth. The comparison of the camel., which is soon after added, is intended to amplify the difficulty; for it means that the rich are so swelled with pride and presumption, that they cannot endure to be reduced to the straits through which God makes his people to pass. The word camel denotes, I think, a rope used by sailors, rather than the animal so named.


~ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lxxi.html

I hope that helps you understand what your speaking about. It is not saying you must be poor to get to heaven. Read the commentary then respond. Please dont respond without reading the commentary.

ROFL, Amazing . . .

You are too busy being smug to even think for one f-ing second . . .

A commentary? WTF is this? Did it come from God? Is it from the Bible?? If not, then by your standards it does not count! Yet you use it! See, it does help to actually think about your faith and not just be a sheep like you typically espouse.

YOU CAN'T EVEN KEEP TRACK OF YOUR OWN BS. One moment you are a literalist and the next you quote a commentary. But only when it works for you!!! And that is another problem with your approach to your faith, its all about what works for you, not about finding truth, typical ego based BS . . .good luck with that.

[Anarchy_United]

Silver Rider is why I love this thread. Nothing ever gets accomplished. All that happens is everyone gets angry at eachother, because everyone is convinced they are right, and the other side is wrong. When its debators like Silver rider in control, then it is funny how stupid they are. WEhn it is intelligent people on both sides, it is interesting to read.

[TheSilverRider]

ROFL, Amazing . . .

You are too busy being smug to even think for one f-ing second . . .

A commentary? WTF is this? Did it come from God? Is it from the Bible?? If not, then by your standards it does not count! Yet you use it! See, it does help to actually think about your faith and not just be a sheep like you typically espouse.

YOU CAN'T EVEN KEEP TRACK OF YOUR OWN BS. One moment you are a literalist and the next you quote a commentary. But only when it works for you!!! And that is another problem with your approach to your faith, its all about what works for you, not about finding truth, typical ego based BS . . .good luck with that.

Did i say that the commentary was God's Word? Did i say it was inspired? Did i claim it to be truth? I dont see your point. I am simply stating what a more studied person than myself has said on the verses you so bluntly supplied out of context. I do think about my faith all the time. I can be a "literalist" and quote a commentary at the same time if i want. A commentary is simply a more studied person commenting on the bible. Is it God's Word? No. Is it valuable? Yes. I do not only use whats good for me, i use whatever applies to the situation. What are you saying that i am leaving out? You say i am only using things that are "good for me". Ok, what am i leaving out that you so sternly encourage me to use? Please, fill me in....

[russian]

Did i say that the commentary was God's Word? Did i say it was inspired? Did i claim it to be truth? I dont see your point. I am simply stating what a more studied person than myself has said on the verses you so bluntly supplied out of context. I do think about my faith all the time. I can be a "literalist" and quote a commentary at the same time if i want. A commentary is simply a more studied person commenting on the bible. Is it God's Word? No. Is it valuable? Yes. I do not only use whats good for me, i use whatever applies to the situation. What are you saying that i am leaving out? You say i am only using things that are "good for me". Ok, what am i leaving out that you so sternly encourage me to use? Please, fill me in....

I supplied that verse to try to show you that the Bible is open to many many different interpretations. And guess what you did, you supplied one of those interpretations as a response!!!!!!!!!! Just like a I thought you or any other person who does not want to tak a vow of poverty would!!!!!!

Guess what, nevermind . . . .

KWA-PING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheSilverRider]

I supplied that verse to try to show you that the Bible is open to many many different interpretations. And guess what you did, you supplied one of those interpretations as a response!!!!!!!!!! Just like a I thought you or any other person who does not want to tak a vow of poverty would!!!!!!

Guess what, nevermind . . .

KWA-PING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um, i responded with what i believe. Whether you think that is "one of those interpretations" or not is not up to me. You provided a verse our of context, i gave you a commentary by a well versed person on the subject to help you put in in perspective. You ignored it and said it was not literal therefore it doesnt matter. Obviously, you dont care what i say so i have no debate with you. Either you believe what God says in his word or you dont. There is no inbetween.

[russian]

Um, i responded with what i believe. Whether you think that is "one of those interpretations" or not is not up to me. You provided a verse our of context, i gave you a commentary by a well versed person on the subject to help you put in in perspective. You ignored it and said it was not literal therefore it doesnt matter. Obviously, you dont care what i say so i have no debate with you. Either you believe what God says in his word or you dont. There is no inbetween.


OMG, dude, the reason why I quoted that verse was to try and WAKE YOU UP!!!!! That was the context of my post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are the one who needs perspective.

I was trying to provoke you into interpreting the Bible, and GUESS WHAT??? YOU DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I pegged your commentary as not literal and therefore invalid because I was using YOUR CONVOLUDED LOGIC. AND I WAS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW YOU HOW WRONG YOUR LOGIC IS.

I ignored the context of your post because the words in the post were NOT THE POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY. MY GOAL WAS TO BAIT YOU INTO INTERPETING THE BIBLE AND YOU DID IT. YOU ACTUALY THOUGHT!!!!!

And then you close your statement by stating either I believe God's word or I do not????? Then WTF did you provide an interpretation of God's word????? If its all black and white, then why did you say "grey" by quoting a source other than the Bible when you provided the commentary?????

[TheSilverRider]

OMG, dude, the reason why I quoted that verse was to try and WAKE YOU UP!!!!! That was the context of my post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are the one who needs perspective.

I was trying to provoke you into interpreting the Bible, and GUESS WHAT??? YOU DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I pegged your commentary as not literal and therefore invalid because I was using YOUR CONVOLUDED LOGIC. AND I WAS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW YOU HOW WRONG YOUR LOGIC IS.

I ignored the context of your post because the words in the post were NOT THE POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY. MY GOAL WAS TO BAIT YOU INTO INTERPETING THE BIBLE AND YOU DID IT. YOU ACTUALY THOUGHT!!!!!

And then you close your statement by stating either I believe God's word or I do not????? Then WTF did you provide an interpretation of God's word????? If its all black and white, then why did you say "grey" by quoting a source other than the Bible when you provided the commentary?????

Please from now on, please, do not type "OMG". You are speaking in referrence to someone much more powerful than you or I and you obviously do not claim him so please, dont ask claim him as "yours".

Second, If you read the Bible, you know that it obviously states that riches do not deny you heaven. You cannot just read one verse and DO IT without reading the other verses. Thats called "out of context" like i have told you at least 10 times. Stop taking things out of context, actually read the Bible and learn what God says and asks you to do, and apply it to your life.

[russian]

Please from now on, please, do not type "OMG". You are speaking in referrence to someone much more powerful than you or I and you obviously do not claim him so please, dont ask claim him as "yours".

Second, If you read the Bible, you know that it obviously states that riches do not deny you heaven. You cannot just read one verse and DO IT without reading the other verses. Thats called "out of context" like i have told you at least 10 times. Stop taking things out of context, actually read the Bible and learn what God says and asks you to do, and apply it to your life.

Dear idiot,
Jesus preached about the evils of greed and the corruption of wealth more than most any other topic, even adultery.

If you have a verse from Jesus in the Bible that directly counters his instruction to the rich young man, then provide it. Your only other choice is to take the a vow of poverty yourself or be considered a hypocrite. That is the conundrum that being a literalist presents.

If you quote a source other than the Bible, then you have the problem of other "studied" people doing the same in a manner that will not reconcile with your literal view. And, not just on the topic of wealth, but also evolution, adam and eve, etc.

[uniquinous]

Silver Rider is why I love this thread. Nothing ever gets accomplished. All that happens is everyone gets angry at eachother, because everyone is convinced they are right, and the other side is wrong. When its debators like Silver rider in control, then it is funny how stupid they are. WEhn it is intelligent people on both sides, it is interesting to read.Speak for yourself! I'm well entertained. :) My responses in this thread to me are like you talking about pirates eating gigantic donuts with lazer beams to you. :)

Link please. You actually gonna click it this time? Cuz the last few times I've provided it, you just completely ignored it.
here's an explanation (http://zms.desy.de/press/background_information/linear_collider_ilcnbsp/ilc_and_lhcnbsp/index_eng.html) of some interesting research that's going on now around this phenomenon. Don't ask for the url a fourth time, it won't be provided.

You misinterpret the work Light. Here is the hebrew meaning:

properly a luminous body or luminary, that is, (abstractly) light (as an element); figuratively brightness, that is, cheerfulness; specifically a chandelier: - bright, light.Actually, *you* misinterpret what a noun is. The bible says "made two lights". These are nouns, even in hebrew (root אור). What you defined, among other things, is an *adjective*. An example of an adjective is "this room is very light". It means that there is a "figurative brightness / cheerfulness / brightness" in the room, and that this is an adjective modifying the room. When you say "I'm turning on the LIGHT", it indicates a noun - an actual object. Furthermore, the language shows he made two of the same thing. "two lights". Not "one source and one bright reflection", but two of the same things: "two lights". When you say "I'm going to install two lights into this room", you don't put in one light and a mirror.

Here's something else to think about regarding light. The sun and planets of this solar system are just one of 200 billion making up the milky way galaxy. The universe has many galaxies, but I'ma just stick to ours. It's 90,000 light years across (it takes light 90,000 years to cross it). The bible claims the universe is... what? 6000 years old? If that were true, we'd be able to see the stars that were made within 6000 light years of earth, and the rest of the sky would be dark as the light hadn't gotten here yet. In other words, we wouldn't be able to see across the milky way galaxy if the stars in it are only 6000 years old, let alone to other gallaxies. ;)


Russian russian russian. Please, let me show you a commentary on these verses that will clear this up
Commentary = interpretation, and yet another one that proves my point: you disregard anything that is inconvenient to you, regardless of what your savior told you. Jesus tells his followers to not eat shrimp or pork, and you eat both. Jesus tells his followers to give up their riches, and you horde them away. I realize there isn't much documentation of what Jesus actually said directly while he was alive, but of what I've seen, you tend to ignore all of it.

[WaCk-HeAd]

So what price does TSR win for being the first person to actually get to russian?

At the risk of sounding like an asshole, it's pretty entertaining to see russian's frustration because I can relate so well to it.

I mean, I've hardly ever seen someone as stupid and stubborn as TSR, and when someone like him continues to spread around clear ignorance on a subject as close to your heart as christianity to russian...

Man! I can just feel his frustration.

That and of course counting the bazillion exclamation marks!

[TheSilverRider]

You actually gonna click it this time? Cuz the last few times I've provided it, you just completely ignored it.
here's an explanation (http://zms.desy.de/press/background_information/linear_collider_ilcnbsp/ilc_and_lhcnbsp/index_eng.html) of some interesting research that's going on now around this phenomenon. Don't ask for the url a fourth time, it won't be provided.

Here is a part of this URL i would like to highlight:

In the linear collider ILC, electrons – which are point-like particles – collide with their similarly point-like antiparticles, the positrons. The two kinds of particles annihilate each other and become pure energy, from which new particles can be created.

Now, you are saying this is proof that something can come out of nothing and nothing can produce something correct? I believe this states that when they "annihilate" eachother they become energy. Is energy nothing? NO. Energy is something. This is no proof that shows how something comes out of nothing.

Actually, *you* misinterpret what a noun is. The bible says "made two lights". These are nouns, even in hebrew (root אור). What you defined, among other things, is an *adjective*. An example of an adjective is "this room is very light". It means that there is a "figurative brightness / cheerfulness / brightness" in the room, and that this is an adjective modifying the room. When you say "I'm turning on the LIGHT", it indicates a noun - an actual object. Furthermore, the language shows he made two of the same thing. "two lights". Not "one source and one bright reflection", but two of the same things: "two lights". When you say "I'm going to install two lights into this room", you don't put in one light and a mirror.

Let me give you a clear scenario here. Lets say your sittin in a chair. Lets also say there is someone standing behind you with a flashlight. Now i am standing in front of you holding a mirror. Now, if if he shines the flashlight at my mirror and i direct it into your eyes and you did not like it and wanted it turned off, what would you say? You would say "Turn off that LIGHT." There is no way you would say "Turn off that mirror". Is there light in the night? Yes. Where does it originate from? The sun. Where do we see it from? The moon. There is a light there, it does not have to PRODUCE light to be a light.

Here's something else to think about regarding light. The sun and planets of this solar system are just one of 200 billion making up the milky way galaxy. The universe has many galaxies, but I'ma just stick to ours. It's 90,000 light years across (it takes light 90,000 years to cross it). The bible claims the universe is... what? 6000 years old? If that were true, we'd be able to see the stars that were made within 6000 light years of earth, and the rest of the sky would be dark as the light hadn't gotten here yet. In other words, we wouldn't be able to see across the milky way galaxy if the stars in it are only 6000 years old, let alone to other gallaxies. ;)

Honesly, i have no idea how you can come up with all of that and prove it, but lets say you can. How about God created the world with light. He did not create the world to begin producing light, he created the world with light. Therefore everything is already lit.


Commentary = interpretation, and yet another one that proves my point: you disregard anything that is inconvenient to you, regardless of what your savior told you. Jesus tells his followers to not eat shrimp or pork, and you eat both. Jesus tells his followers to give up their riches, and you horde them away. I realize there isn't much documentation of what Jesus actually said directly while he was alive, but of what I've seen, you tend to ignore all of it.

Ok, here is another example. Lets say you told me to not play soccer except on saturdays. Now, saturday comes around and i go outside to play soccer. A guy comes up to me and says "Hey , you cant play soccer, uniq told you you cant." I respond "That rule is no longer in effect because it is saturday" to which the person responds "Yea but he said 'Dont play soccer' so you cant play". Do you see where im going with this. You focus on what God said in the past and even when i SHOW you that the old law is no longer in effect you refer back to it again. This is the last time im going to tell you. Jesus' death on the cross made it so that we no longer need to follow the old law because he paid the price. You either accept that or not. I will not tell that again. Take it or leave it.

[Cuathon]

omg... yes i said it.

when you say turn off the light you mean the flashlight. not the mirror. the mirror is not a light. a light is something which makes light. lrn2thnk.

[Jeffery]

I believe the Bible is God's spoken word to his disciples. I believe every word in it is true and that we are to follow it every day. I take the bible literally and apply it to my life as best as i can.


So when was the last time you stoned someone to death? Bible requires you to do that for a lot of things.

Also, which version of the Bible do you believe every word of? Because different versions interpret the Word in different ways. Take the commandments for example. The priginal interpretation was Though Shalt Not Murder. Many contemporary Bibles now list it as Thou Shall Not Kill.

There is a HUGE difference between killing someone and murdering someone.


I can 100% guarantee you are full of shit if you say you take every word in the bible literally. There are too many inherent contradictions between the Old Testament and New Testament for you to follow it all.

Not to mention that the Bible as it stands todays restricts writings that were put into it based upon not religious understandings, but political infighting during the time the contemporary bible was being reassembled. There are other Books and chapters that were not admitted.

[Anarchy_United]

You either accept that or not.

Or, you can dance around humming the Oh Canada.

Oh Canada... err thats all I know.

I find that faith alone would seem to be a very inefficient way to run the universe, so I'm still looking for a religion that gives proof. Most religions have good values, which I try to abide by, but the actual religous aspect, I have yet to see a good proof from ANY religion it came from god.

So SilverRider, I am asking you, why is Christianity any different from a number of religions that declare themselves the one true religion.

[TheSilverRider]

Dear idiot,
Jesus preached about the evils of greed and the corruption of wealth more than most any other topic, even adultery.

True.

If you have a verse from Jesus in the Bible that directly counters his instruction to the rich young man, then provide it. Your only other choice is to take the a vow of poverty yourself or be considered a hypocrite. That is the conundrum that being a literalist presents.

Here are plenty of verses that show how God came to save ALL even the rich:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." -John 1:29

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." -1 Timothy 2:3,4

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." -Isaiah 45:22

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." -2 Peter 3:9 (emphasis added)

If he says he came for ALL, to save the WORLD, that would include rich people.

If you quote a source other than the Bible, then you have the problem of other "studied" people doing the same in a manner that will not reconcile with your literal view. And, not just on the topic of wealth, but also evolution, adam and eve, etc.

I never said to take their word as FINAL or their word was equal to God's word. He is simply putting the bible into terms that i could not because he is more studied than i am. He shows us how to understand certain verses.

[TheSilverRider]

So when was the last time you stoned someone to death? Bible requires you to do that for a lot of things.

Please, if you going to comment read back a bit. I have dealt with this issue many many many times. Anybody that doesnt believe the bible LOVES to go pick a verse and say "Why havent you stoned any kids lately for disobeying their parents?" READ THE BIBLE BEFORE QUOTING IT. As i have said a THOUSAND times before, that is the OLD LAW. Jesus dying on the cross makes that law no longer needed because HE PAID THE PRICE.

Also, which version of the Bible do you believe every word of? Because different versions interpret the Word in different ways. Take the commandments for example. The priginal interpretation was Though Shalt Not Murder. Many contemporary Bibles now list it as Thou Shall Not Kill.

There is a HUGE difference between killing someone and murdering someone.

Absolutely there is a difference. If you look at the hebrew it can be best interpreted in todays vernacular as "Murder".


I can 100% guarantee you are full of **** if you say you take every word in the bible literally. There are too many inherent contradictions between the Old Testament and New Testament for you to follow it all.

Not to mention that the Bible as it stands todays restricts writings that were put into it based upon not religious understandings, but political infighting during the time the contemporary bible was being reassembled. There are other Books and chapters that were not admitted.

*Above quote edited


Please, enlighten me on the contradictions. I believe that the Bible is the complete cannon and God has not left anything out. Everything God intended for us to have is in the Bible.

Or, you can dance around humming the Oh Canada.

Oh Canada... err thats all I know.

I find that faith alone would seem to be a very inefficient way to run the universe, so I'm still looking for a religion that gives proof. Most religions have good values, which I try to abide by, but the actual religous aspect, I have yet to see a good proof from ANY religion it came from god.

So SilverRider, I am asking you, why is Christianity any different from a number of religions that declare themselves the one true religion?

AU, you dont know how excited i am to finally hear a question. I would be more than happy to express my beliefs as best i can. I dont even know if i wanna call myself a "Christian" anymore because its so overused. Although, "Christian" does mean follower of Christ and thats what i do so i believe thats what i am. Anyway, i believe my belief is different because i have a written record of what happened and that written record has never been proven wrong. All of the future events that it says are going to come true have come true, and everything that it says has happened cannot be proven that it didnt happen. I have no reason to believe that it is lying or false. The intricacy of the world, the human body, everything all points to a designer. I also believe what i believe and know that it is the only true one because i have seen God at work in my life, answering prayers and working in peoples lives. Overall, i have no reason NOT to believe what i do, therefore i will continue to believe it.

[russian]

True.



Here are plenty of verses that show how God came to save ALL even the rich:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." -John 1:29

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." -1 Timothy 2:3,4

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." -Isaiah 45:22

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." -2 Peter 3:9 (emphasis added)

If he says he came for ALL, to save the WORLD, that would include rich people.



I never said to take their word as FINAL or their word was equal to God's word. He is simply putting the bible into terms that i could not because he is more studied than i am. He shows us how to understand certain verses.


This is like talking to Moose. Moose is also too stupid to realize how dumb he is.

Also, this is great - Now I get to play the role of literalist and you can feel tone deaf it is . . . .

None of your quotes are a direct rebuttal of the message to the rich young man. They are just the general message of Christ. When Christ gets more specific, then he brings up sins such as greed that will keep one from the Kingdom of Heaven.

Please show me the actual text from the Bible that actaully quotes Jesus as saying that he did not mean what he said to the rich young man. Please include the link. Please do not site anyone else for only Christ is the Lord. You are not smart enough to interperet the Bible so God made it very simple for us. So please provide a simple quote from Jesus that directly contradicts his teaching to the rich young man. If you cannot, then you best take a vow of poverty right now or you are not getting into Heaven . . .for that is what Jesus is LITERALLY saying. So please either provide me a LITERAL rebuke from Jesus on this very teaching or just STFU.

[Anarchy_United]

If I was a rich man, I would be building a needle with a really big head, and launching camels at it.

[TheSilverRider]

This is like talking to Moose. Moose is also too stupid to realize how dumb he is.

Also, this is great - Now I get to play the role of literalist and you can feel tone deaf it is . . . .

None of your quotes are a direct rebuttal of the message to the rich young man. They are just the general message of Christ. When Christ gets more specific, then he brings up sins such as greed that will keep one from the Kingdom of Heaven.

Please show me the actual text from the Bible that actaully quotes Jesus as saying that he did not mean what he said to the rich young man. Please include the link. Please do not site anyone else for only Christ is the Lord. You are not smart enough to interperet the Bible so God made it very simple for us. So please provide a simple quote from Jesus that directly contradicts his teaching to the rich young man. If you cannot, then you best take a vow of poverty right now or you are not getting into Heaven . . .for that is what Jesus is LITERALLY saying. So please either provide me a LITERAL rebuke from Jesus on this very teaching or just STFU.

I have provided the verses that CLEARLY show that ANYONE can get to heaven, even the rich. So as far as im concerned, im done with you.

[russian]

I have provided the verses that CLEARLY show that ANYONE can get to heaven, even the rich. So as far as im concerned, im done with you.

No you have not. Please provide the link quoting Jesus that DIRECTLY contradicts his teaching to the rich young man.

You fail.

[TheSilverRider]

No you have not. Please provide the link quoting Jesus that DIRECTLY contradicts his teaching to the rich young man.

I have provided them, you just refuse to accept them. The bible does not contradict itself. Those verses show that anyone can to go heaven because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. End of story. Dont ask for a link with Jesus directly contradicting his teaching to the rich young man. Those verses show that anyone can get to heaven including the rich. If you dont post something different, you wont get a response from me.

[Enjoi]

Jesus tells his followers to not eat shrimp or pork, and you eat both.

That was part of the old covenant which does not apply today. He made a new covenant with us all of the foods you listed are acceptable and are no longer considered "unclean".

[TheSilverRider]

That was part of the old covenant which does not apply today. He made a new covenant with us all of the foods you listed are acceptable and are no longer considered "unclean".

Enjoi, i have told him that many a time here, including above. ;):bigsmile:

[russian]

I have provided them, you just refuse to accept them. The bible does not contradict itself. Those verses show that anyone can to go heaven because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. End of story. Dont ask for a link with Jesus directly contradicting his teaching to the rich young man. Those verses show that anyone can get to heaven including the rich. If you dont post something different, you wont get a response from me.

I have provided them, you just refuse to accept them - No you have not. You have provided no direct rebuttal of the teaching to the rich young man. You are not allowed to interperet the Bible. It is perfect and God made it simple for man for he is dumb. So please provide the simple direct quote.

The bible does not contradict itself. - Corret and Jesus does not provide a contradiction to his teaching to the rich young man, meaning that you better get poor quickly.

Those verses show that anyone can to go heaven because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. End of story - And Jesus goes onto clarify that the rich need not apply. I have told you this 10 times, you just refuse to accept it. Please read the teachings of Jesus before you just quote the "Bible." Please do not take it out of context for man is stupid and the Bible is perfect. Please provide a direct link with a quote from Jesus.

Dont ask for a link with Jesus directly contradicting his teaching to the rich young man. Those verses show that anyone can get to heaven including the rich. - OK, then provide a quote and tell me the chapter and verse and I will look it up myself. Maybe you have poor reading ability because the LITERAL interpretation of Jesus' teaching to the rich young man say he is not going to heaven unless he take a vow of poverty. That is the LITERAL view, please don't even respond unless you can LITERALY contradict Jesus' teaching. That is pride and you are dumb and the Bible is perfect. Please read the Bible before you respond. You are talking select quotes out of context.

If you dont post something different, you wont get a response from me. - You are not answering the question so you are giving up. I have shown a LITERAL quote from Jesus and you denied him in three posts and the Cock is Crowing for you.

You are not a true Christian. Only true Christians accept the LITERAL word of the Lord. You are too full of pride. Again you fail.

[TheSilverRider]

I have provided them, you just refuse to accept them - No you have not. You have provided no direct rebuttal of the teaching to the rich young man. You are not allowed to interperet the Bible. It is perfect and God made it simple for man for he is dumb. So please provide the simple direct quote.

The bible does not contradict itself. - Corret and Jesus does not provide a contradiction to his teaching to the rich young man, meaning that you better get poor quickly.

Those verses show that anyone can to go heaven because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. End of story - And Jesus goes onto clarify that the rich need not apply. I have told you this 10 times, you just refuse to accept it. Please read the teachings of Jesus before you just quote the "Bible." Please do not take it out of context for man is stupid and the Bible is perfect. Please provide a direct link with a quote from Jesus.

Dont ask for a link with Jesus directly contradicting his teaching to the rich young man. Those verses show that anyone can get to heaven including the rich. - OK, then provide a quote and tell me the chapter and verse and I will look it up myself. Maybe you have poor reading ability because the LITERAL interpretation of Jesus' teaching to the rich young man say he is not going to heaven unless he take a vow of poverty. That is the LITERAL view, please don't even respond unless you can LITERALY contradict Jesus' teaching. That is pride and you are dumb and the Bible is perfect. Please read the Bible before you respond. You are talking select quotes out of context.

If you dont post something different, you wont get a response from me. - You are not answering the question so you are giving up. I have shown a LITERAL quote from Jesus and you denied him in three posts and the Cock is Crowing for you.

You are not a true Christian. Only true Christians accept the LITERAL word of the Lord. You are too full of pride. Again you fail.

You are to narrow minded to care about anything I say so this is my final attempt. Does God say that rich people cannot get to heaven? No, he does not. Does Jesus say it will be incredibly hard for rich people to get to heaven? Yes. Lets see why. Rich people, the majority of the time are very focused on earth and here and now. The bible over and over tells us not to gather up treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, but to gather our treasures in heaven. Jesus here is saying that it will be hard for a rich person who has been so focused on getting money and getting stuff on earth to realize that all of that doesnt matter, its all about Jesus and God and his sacrifice. Can rich people get to heaven? Yes. Is it easy for them? No. Take the NASB. Here is what it says which is much closer to today's english:

And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" (NASB ©1995)

I hope you will at least consider my words this time.

[russian]

You are to narrow minded to care about anything I say so this is my final attempt. Does God say that rich people cannot get to heaven? No, he does not. Does Jesus say it will be incredibly hard for rich people to get to heaven? Yes. Lets see why. Rich people, the majority of the time are very focused on earth and here and now. The bible over and over tells us not to gather up treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, but to gather our treasures in heaven. Jesus here is saying that it will be hard for a rich person who has been so focused on getting money and getting stuff on earth to realize that all of that doesnt matter, its all about Jesus and God and his sacrifice. Can rich people get to heaven? Yes. Is it easy for them? No. Take the NASB. Here is what it says which is much closer to today's english:

And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" (NASB ©1995)

I hope you will at least consider my words this time.

You are to narrow minded to care about anything I say so this is my final attempt. - Not true, I care deeply for you and I pray for you. I pray that you accept the Lord's WORD as it is literaly written. All else is pride. For man is too dumb and the Bible is perfect.

Does God say that rich people cannot get to heaven? No, he does not. - Please provide the link or quote that directly contradicts the teaching to the rich young man. God made the Bible simple so that we could undertand it w/o having to think for man is stupid. Please provide the simple quote from Jesus or do not bring it up again.

Does Jesus say it will be incredibly hard for rich people to get to heaven? Yes. Lets see why. Rich people, the majority of the time are very focused on earth and here and now. The bible over and over tells us not to gather up treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, but to gather our treasures in heaven. Jesus here is saying that it will be hard for a rich person who has been so focused on getting money and getting stuff on earth to realize that all of that doesnt matter, its all about Jesus and God and his sacrifice. Can rich people get to heaven? Yes. Is it easy for them? No.
- Jesus does not talk about getting into Heaven as being "easy" or "hard" he simply says that the rich young man must give up his wealth to enter his Kingdom. I have told you this 10 times. You are just too narrow minded to understand what I am saying. Jesus says all things are possible through God. You need to accept the Word LITERALY or you will not be able to accept God for man is dumb and He and HIS Word are perfect. Please do not talk about the Bible unless you have read it. Please do not talk about what Jesus meant or what one can "see" based on his teachings or other teachings in the Bible. Pleae only directly quote the Bible. For it is perfect and man is dumb.

Take the NASB. Here is what it says which is much closer to today's english:

And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" (NASB ©1995)
- Please do not site a modern day interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is perfect and it is not open to being changed just because we talk differently today. Please provide a quote in the oringal Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin for we owe to God to understand HIS word LITERALY.

I hope you will at least consider my words this time. - And I hope stop denying the LITERAL word of the Lord.


TSR - I know you are dim, you said so yourself. But are you even slightly aware that I am just parroting your old arugments back at you? I told you that I was going to do this up front, but I get the feeling you are again missing the point (not surprising)

[TheSilverRider]

You are to narrow minded to care about anything I say so this is my final attempt. - Not true, I care deeply for you and I pray for you. I pray that you accept the Lord's WORD as it is literaly written. All else is pride. For man is too dumb and the Bible is perfect.

Does God say that rich people cannot get to heaven? No, he does not. - Please provide the link or quote that directly contradicts the teaching to the rich young man. God made the Bible simple so that we could undertand it w/o having to think for man is stupid. Please provide the simple quote from Jesus or do not bring it up again.

Does Jesus say it will be incredibly hard for rich people to get to heaven? Yes. Lets see why. Rich people, the majority of the time are very focused on earth and here and now. The bible over and over tells us not to gather up treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, but to gather our treasures in heaven. Jesus here is saying that it will be hard for a rich person who has been so focused on getting money and getting stuff on earth to realize that all of that doesnt matter, its all about Jesus and God and his sacrifice. Can rich people get to heaven? Yes. Is it easy for them? No. - Jesus does not talk about getting into Heaven as being "easy" or "hard" he simply says that the rich young man must give up his wealth to enter his Kingdom. I have told you this 10 times. You are just too narrow minded to understand what I am saying. Jesus says all things are possible through God. You need to accept the Word LITERALY or you will not be able to accept God for man is dumb and He and HIS Word are perfect. Please do not talk about the Bible unless you have read it. Please do not talk about what Jesus meant or what one can "see" based on his teachings or other teachings in the Bible. Pleae only directly quote the Bible. For it is perfect and man is dumb.

Take the NASB. Here is what it says which is much closer to today's english:

And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" (NASB ©1995)
- Please do not site a modern day interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is perfect and it is not open to being changed just because we talk differently today. Please provide a quote in the oringal Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin for we owe to God to understand HIS word LITERALY.

I hope you will at least consider my words this time. - And I hope stop denying the LITERAL word of the Lord.


TSR - I know you are dim, you said so yourself. But are you even slightly aware that I am just paroting your old arugments back at you? I told you that I was going to do this up front, but I get the feeling you are again missing the point (not surprising)

This is obviously a game to you and you dont intend to take my words seriously no matter what i give you. The NASB is a correct TRANSLATION of the bible, it is not an INTERPRETATION. You refuse that. Honestly, unless you seriously change the way your talking with me and actually care. This is my last post addressed to you. You can say all you want about me not being able to answer your questions but it will all be false. I HAVE provided the verses you are just to thick headed to accept them. Good luck.

[Cuathon]

irony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[russian]

This is obviously a game to you and you dont intend to take my words seriously no matter what i give you. The NASB is a correct TRANSLATION of the bible, it is not an INTERPRETATION. You refuse that. Honestly, unless you seriously change the way your talking with me and actually care. This is my last post addressed to you. You can say all you want about me not being able to answer your questions but it will all be false. I HAVE provided the verses you are just to thick headed to accept them. Good luck.

No you have not. You are too thick headed and narrow minded to realize that God is perfect and so is his Word and that man is dumb and must not TRANSLATE the Bible. That is only Pride. The Bible is perfect and simple and Man is dumb, so please provide the direct and literal quote from the Bible that contradicts the teaching to the rich young man.

If you cannot, then you fail as a Christian for only true Christian accept his Word Literally. I will pray for you and the failure that you have become in life.

TSR - you are right, this is a game to me and I am playing it for keeps. You win it when you realize the inherant contradictions that arise when one takes the LITERAL view.

PS - you fail again, and you fail at the hand of your own crappy arguments.

I win, you lose.

[uniquinous]

double teaming from both ends... *grabs some popcorn* ok now it's getting really interesting...

Now, you are saying this is proof that something can come out of nothing and nothing can produce something correct? I believe this states that when they "annihilate" eachother they become energy. Is energy nothing? NO. Energy is something. This is no proof that shows how something comes out of nothing. And once again you jump to poor conclusions instead of trying to understand what's going on. You want to claim energy isn't nothing. Prove it. You complained evolution wasn't real, and I showed you ample proof that it was (which you ignored). Then you complained that it couldn't be real because the matter had to come from somewhere. Despite the fact that evolution can exist even if god made the Earth without animals, I proved to you that matter can come from where there was once no matter. Now it seems you're still discontent. Regardless of what happens with energy, the big bang still happened. Regardless of the big bang, evolution still happened. You keep backtracking trying to find the end-all argument, but the ultimate difference is that you say you dont know what came before god, and I say I don't know what came before energy. If you claim god was always here, I'll claim energy was. Heck, I'll claim energy = god. Would explain why people think god is everywhere (cuz energy is ;)).

Let me give you a clear scenario here. Lets say your sittin in a chair. Lets also say there is someone standing behind you with a flashlight. Now i am standing in front of you holding a mirror. Now, if if he shines the flashlight at my mirror and i direct it into your eyes and you did not like it and wanted it turned off, what would you say? You would say "Turn off that LIGHT." There is no way you would say "Turn off that mirror". Is there light in the night? Yes. Where does it originate from? The sun. Where do we see it from? The moon. There is a light there, it does not have to PRODUCE light to be a light. Yeah as several people pointed out, there's still only one light in that scenario. When I say "turn off that light" I'm referring to the one behind me (the sun equivalent). Here, let's have simple math help this surprisingly complex problem: If god made 2 lights, and we take one light away (the sun), how many lights are left. Think really hard about this one: 2 - 1 = ???

Honesly, i have no idea how you can come up with all of that and prove it, but lets say you can. How about God created the world with light. He did not create the world to begin producing light, he created the world with light. Therefore everything is already lit. How to prove it? Well, the speed of light is 3*10^8 meters per second. We know this, and can calculate it any day in the lab. There's no secret there. We also know how far away things are. It's called trigonometry. If I am facing a distant object on the road, I can walk 10 paces sideways. Now I can measure the angle I made between my current position, the object, and my starting position. I can also measure the distance I traveled. Thus we divide our distance traveled by the tangent of the angle to find the original distance we were from the object. It's how people used to navigate and judge distances in ye olde dayye. Google "sextant" for some extra reading.

Now, you're claiming that god made the stars really far away... and then... sped up their electromagnet radiation to create the ILLUSION that they've been there longer then the bible really says. And the earth is just made to *look* older then it really is. And fossils were really placed there to test people's faith? Here's a simpler idea: things are older then you think.

Jesus' death on the cross made it so that we no longer need to follow the old law because he paid the price. You either accept that or not.So why did he preach all those things if he knew you wouldn't need to follow them anyway? Why did he tell people to not be greedy? And if so much changed after his death, couldn't things have been negated that you or even his disciples didn't realize? It seems to me that you in fact completely disregard everything Jesus says, and instead rely on what other people say. Let's face it, you just tried to claim Jesus's words were meaningless because of quotes from John, Timothy, Peter, and Isaiah. Remind me again, which one's your savior?

Anyway, i believe my belief is different because i have a written record of what happened and that written record has never been proven wrong. All of the future events that it says are going to come true have come true, and everything that it says has happened cannot be proven that it didnt happen. I have no reason to believe that it is lying or false. The intricacy of the world, the human body, everything all points to a designer. I also believe what i believe and know that it is the only true one because i have seen God at work in my life, answering prayers and working in peoples lives. Overall, i have no reason NOT to believe what i do, therefore i will continue to believe it.He asked you why it was *different* from every other religion claiming to be the one true way. What you described is exactly like every single other religion claiming to be the one true one. See Judaism or Islam. They each claim to have a "written record of what happened" which was "never been proven wrong". It's all the same. You can't prove your book is any more or less right then any of their books.

p.s. - nothing of the human body points to a designer. stop talking on the subject if you're still ignorantly ignoring all the points i've made about it.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Again, not knowing the hebrew. Here is the hebrew of inspired:

G2315
???????????
theopneustos
theh-op'-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.

Now, here we see that "inspired" means "God breathed". Dont tell me that God did not tell them what to write. It is obvious here God told them what to write and breathed through them onto paper. It is just up to you to believe it or not. No, we see that "divinely breathed in" translates to "inspired." "Divinely breathed in" is what has its meaning changed, not "inspired."




He did not create us the way we are today. You keep referring to God creating us like we are today, he DIDNT. He created us PERFECT, we sinned so now we are no longer perfect, God did not create us the way we are today, we brought it upon ourselves. So our perfect form is so incredibly infantile in thought, much like yourself, that they have to be spoon-fed every little thing? Wow, God sure had a terrible idea of "perfect."



I have no idea where you were trying to go with that biblical story. That story simply shows that Abraham was told by God to do something and he was going to do it, no matter what the personal cost was (even the loss of a son). He did not question for one second what God said. If anything this proves my point more than yours. He took God at his word and did exactly what he said without questioning him.You know why he didn't question? Because he knew there was greater meaning behind it. He didn't think that it was just a random whim from God.

[Northwind]

First, this is not meant as an attack on TSR. I’ve done that a bit and, frankly, that’s not my best self. But I would like to present some thinking about why it is so frustrating to have a discussion with TSR – not to run TSR down, but so that the rest of us might understand him better.


So here’s the problem with arguing with TSR. TSR is of the belief that to question the Bible means that he is being disloyal to God in some way. That God wouldn’t want us to question Him and any attempt to do so is heresy.

Therefore, TSR CANNOT question ANY of his beliefs as it would feel like heresy to him. Therefore, being ignorant about the contradictions of the Bible is actually TSR’s way of proving to himself that he has faith – because he refuses to question the greatness of God.

As a result, examining the contradictions in the Bible would be the equivalent to TSR of denying God’s existence. Which is why, no matter how much he has to twist logic to do so, he will NOT be able to acknowledge the literal contradictions in the Bible that are so apparent to the rest of us. This is his way of convincing himself that he is close to God.

Where this comes into play in this thread is that, to TSR, asking him to acknowledge the limits of his arguments or the contradictions of the Bible is just like asking him to deny that God exists. He clearly is unwilling to do this and, honestly, it doesn’t seem reasonable to ask this of anyone.

Now most people can reconcile the idea of questioning with the idea of faith. Which is, to me, a fine and reasonable thing. But TSR doesn’t operate that way. So anyone attempting to have a discussion that assumes that logic leads to insight will be disappointed as this is the opposite of TSR’s basic belief system. It’s sort of like we speak two different languages. No matter how convincingly I argue in English, someone who only speaks Chinese will not understand me. TSR doesn’t “speak” logic so it can never be used to help him understand.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t post whatever they want, but you will sooner get TSR to deny God’s existence than you will to get him to acknowledge the many and varied contradictions in the Bible based on anything so heretical as “logic.”

[uniquinous]

While I've known that, it's still so foreign to me. From my point of view, questioning something (be it science, faith, etc) and letting it stand up to the trials you may throw at it, is the best way to prove it right. Russian said it best: TSR has blind faith, not deep faith. I could only see the open questioning of god to be the one path to stregthening a relationship with that idea. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself and following what other people tell you to believe....

meh, oh well. entertainment nonetheless

[Realist]

meh, oh well. entertainment nonetheless

Fun to kick the handicapped, no?

[uniquinous]

better then only posting to make misleading jabs at people :)

besides, my entertainment doesn't inherently mean anyone else is getting "kicked". In fact, TSR just sent me a PM thanking me for these posts. I dunno, never thought I'd say this, but it seems like russian is the only one doing the kicking around here, and it's to himself...

[russian]

I don't think he's retarded or handicapped.

He is just lacks awareness.

NW - he does question the Bible. I got him to do just that with the whole Jesus was a socialist thing. Nobody likes that one. He questioned the Bible by quoting an outside source because he did not like the implications of the actual text. Yet he lacks any awareness to even realize this.

Uni - I was entertaining myself just like you were. Don't go throwing stones.

[uniquinous]

don't worry, for any stone i throw at you, you can throw 2 right back. it's buy one get one on stone casting :p

i'll share my popcorn too :)

[russian]

And for the record - I never wanted TSR to admit that God does not exsist. I think God does exsist myself. Although my definition of God does not reconcile with most people's. Especially those who have not done some very heavy thinking and some serious alone time to contemplate what God is.

[drakonfire]

TSR: Do you remember a few pages back, I asked you to look up some verses for me? did you look all of them up? and actually read them? becuase Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different creation accounts. Genesis one has man and woman created at the same time, last. Genesis 2 has man created first, then animals, and then woman. Clearly someone is confused here. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get dude.

I used to argue the same things you do with the same fervor and conviction. But you know what, you're right. God is so much bigger than our small minds can comprehend. So what if the Bible isn't scientifically accurate. It was written by human, fallible beings. They see something they don't understand and they will use language they do know to express the idea and sensation of whatever it was they saw. I really like the way the Nazarene Denomination words their stance on the Bible. (I paraphrase here.) "We believe that the Bible is true and accurate in all matters of faith relating to the salvation of human souls." That is a rough paraphrase, but you see what I'm saying don't you?

I really hope you don't think I'm attacking you. I'm not. If your college is anything like the Christian university I attend you will be in for some rude shocks, many straight from your professors. All I am trying to do is help open up your mind a little (only a little, you maintain too open of a mind and your brains will fall out) so that you are prepared to learn and grow in your faith in God even as what you thought was your knowledge shrinks.

You can believe me or not, the choice is yours.

your bro in Christ,

-Drak

I have never been so studiously ignored in my life.

[TheSilverRider]

And once again you jump to poor conclusions instead of trying to understand what's going on. You want to claim energy isn't nothing. Prove it. You complained evolution wasn't real, and I showed you ample proof that it was (which you ignored). Then you complained that it couldn't be real because the matter had to come from somewhere. Despite the fact that evolution can exist even if god made the Earth without animals, I proved to you that matter can come from where there was once no matter. Now it seems you're still discontent. Regardless of what happens with energy, the big bang still happened. Regardless of the big bang, evolution still happened. You keep backtracking trying to find the end-all argument, but the ultimate difference is that you say you dont know what came before god, and I say I don't know what came before energy. If you claim god was always here, I'll claim energy was. Heck, I'll claim energy = god. Would explain why people think god is everywhere (cuz energy is ;)).

That is exactly where i wanted to get you to. I dont know what came before God. The Bible says that God always has been and always will be (will provide verse if needed). I have FAITH that that is true because i wasnt there. Now, you must admit that you have FAITH that something was before energy, (even though you have no written reacord of it). You must have FAITH because you werent there to see it for yourself.

Yeah as several people pointed out, there's still only one light in that scenario. When I say "turn off that light" I'm referring to the one behind me (the sun equivalent). Here, let's have simple math help this surprisingly complex problem: If god made 2 lights, and we take one light away (the sun), how many lights are left. Think really hard about this one: 2 - 1 = ???

Ok, this will be as simple as i can state it. I believe you are reading to much into this to try and prove it wrong. Is there light during the night? Yes. Looking up at the sky, would you say it came from the moon? Yes. Therefore, the moon rules the night as a light. Why does God need to say "A light to rule the day and a mirror to reflect that light to rule the night." Why does he need to clerify, what he says is perfectly clear. The moon allows us to have light during the night.

How to prove it? Well, the speed of light is 3*10^8 meters per second. We know this, and can calculate it any day in the lab. There's no secret there. We also know how far away things are. It's called trigonometry. If I am facing a distant object on the road, I can walk 10 paces sideways. Now I can measure the angle I made between my current position, the object, and my starting position. I can also measure the distance I traveled. Thus we divide our distance traveled by the tangent of the angle to find the original distance we were from the object. It's how people used to navigate and judge distances in ye olde dayye. Google "sextant" for some extra reading.

Now, you're claiming that god made the stars really far away... and then... sped up their electromagnet radiation to create the ILLUSION that they've been there longer then the bible really says. And the earth is just made to *look* older then it really is. And fossils were really placed there to test people's faith? Here's a simpler idea: things are older then you think.

No, it is not an illusion. God created light. He created the light to already be everywhere. He did not create the star and then let it start producing light and let it travel on its own. God created light, that is why everything is lit and we can see so far.

So why did he preach all those things if he knew you wouldn't need to follow them anyway? Why did he tell people to not be greedy? And if so much changed after his death, couldn't things have been negated that you or even his disciples didn't realize? It seems to me that you in fact completely disregard everything Jesus says, and instead rely on what other people say. Let's face it, you just tried to claim Jesus's words were meaningless because of quotes from John, Timothy, Peter, and Isaiah. Remind me again, which one's your savior?

God knew what needed to be done and did it. I am not even going to try and say that i know what God's mindset was and try to explain it because it would be futile at best. The reason it would be futile is because God is way out of our league. We can even begin to comprehend Him and what he does. Do i need a reason as to why he did what he did? No. God told me to do something and im going to do it.

He asked you why it was *different* from every other religion claiming to be the one true way. What you described is exactly like every single other religion claiming to be the one true one. See Judaism or Islam. They each claim to have a "written record of what happened" which was "never been proven wrong". It's all the same. You can't prove your book is any more or less right then any of their books.

Im not sure what books you are talking about. I have seen God work in my life, that is enough for me. (as if the Bible werent enough).

p.s. - nothing of the human body points to a designer. stop talking on the subject if you're still ignorantly ignoring all the points i've made about it.

...I realize you are studied on the subject more than i, but, look at the human body logically, just look at it logically for ONE SECOND. How can you start to even think, that the human body that is so perfectly made, happened through a series of evolution starting with bacteria? There is a designer behind the design.

[TheSilverRider]

First, this is not meant as an attack on TSR. I’ve done that a bit and, frankly, that’s not my best self. But I would like to present some thinking about why it is so frustrating to have a discussion with TSR – not to run TSR down, but so that the rest of us might understand him better.


So here’s the problem with arguing with TSR. TSR is of the belief that to question the Bible means that he is being disloyal to God in some way. That God wouldn’t want us to question Him and any attempt to do so is heresy.

Therefore, TSR CANNOT question ANY of his beliefs as it would feel like heresy to him. Therefore, being ignorant about the contradictions of the Bible is actually TSR’s way of proving to himself that he has faith – because he refuses to question the greatness of God.

As a result, examining the contradictions in the Bible would be the equivalent to TSR of denying God’s existence. Which is why, no matter how much he has to twist logic to do so, he will NOT be able to acknowledge the literal contradictions in the Bible that are so apparent to the rest of us. This is his way of convincing himself that he is close to God.

Where this comes into play in this thread is that, to TSR, asking him to acknowledge the limits of his arguments or the contradictions of the Bible is just like asking him to deny that God exists. He clearly is unwilling to do this and, honestly, it doesn’t seem reasonable to ask this of anyone.

Now most people can reconcile the idea of questioning with the idea of faith. Which is, to me, a fine and reasonable thing. But TSR doesn’t operate that way. So anyone attempting to have a discussion that assumes that logic leads to insight will be disappointed as this is the opposite of TSR’s basic belief system. It’s sort of like we speak two different languages. No matter how convincingly I argue in English, someone who only speaks Chinese will not understand me. TSR doesn’t “speak” logic so it can never be used to help him understand.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t post whatever they want, but you will sooner get TSR to deny God’s existence than you will to get him to acknowledge the many and varied contradictions in the Bible based on anything so heretical as “logic.”

Northy, im not quite sure how to respond to that. Look at the section in red. I honestly, have not been shown a clear contradiction in the Bible that i have not given a Biblical rebuttal to. I am trying my best to read what you guys say and respond in the best manner possible while considering your ideas and producing mine. Please dont think it is a lost cause to debate with me, i am trying to read into your theory and give them credit and merit, i just hope you will return the favor.

[TheSilverRider]

TSR: Do you remember a few pages back, I asked you to look up some verses for me? did you look all of them up? and actually read them? becuase Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different creation accounts. Genesis one has man and woman created at the same time, last. Genesis 2 has man created first, then animals, and then woman. Clearly someone is confused here. I'm not sure how much more simple this can get dude.

I used to argue the same things you do with the same fervor and conviction. But you know what, you're right. God is so much bigger than our small minds can comprehend. So what if the Bible isn't scientifically accurate. It was written by human, fallible beings. They see something they don't understand and they will use language they do know to express the idea and sensation of whatever it was they saw. I really like the way the Nazarene Denomination words their stance on the Bible. (I paraphrase here.) "We believe that the Bible is true and accurate in all matters of faith relating to the salvation of human souls." That is a rough paraphrase, but you see what I'm saying don't you?

I really hope you don't think I'm attacking you. I'm not. If your college is anything like the Christian university I attend you will be in for some rude shocks, many straight from your professors. All I am trying to do is help open up your mind a little (only a little, you maintain too open of a mind and your brains will fall out) so that you are prepared to learn and grow in your faith in God even as what you thought was your knowledge shrinks.

You can believe me or not, the choice is yours.

your bro in Christ,

-Drak


Drak, im so sorry, i missed this post for some reason. I would not purposefully ignore you or anyone. I will color code this for you. I dont see how you can say that. If God wrote it, why would it not be scientifically acurate? How can we take principles and apply them to our life that cannot even be proved as true?Was it written by humans? Yes. Were they fallible? Yes. Were they INSPIRED? YES. God inspired these men to write what they did and it is God's Word directly through them. Remember above? "God breathed"? It was not their own words, it was GODS WORDS.No i dont think your attacking me in any way. The only person i have felt that has not represented a non-childish debate is russian. I appreciate your points and will do my best to read into them and think about them before responding. Thank you for your time and again i am sorry i missed this post.

~TSR

[russian]

Northy, im not quite sure how to respond to that. Look at the section in red. I honestly, have not been shown a clear contradiction in the Bible that i have not given a Biblical rebuttal to. I am trying my best to read what you guys say and respond in the best manner possible while considering your ideas and producing mine. Please dont think it is a lost cause to debate with me, i am trying to read into your theory and give them credit and merit, i just hope you will return the favor.


Wrong. Incorrect. Link please.

And again you are being "Stupid." For Jesus himself often spoke in contradictions in order to point at a higher truth. If you want to deny that, than you may. The only one who sufers from that stupidity is you. For the result is a one diminsional faith that has little chance of finding higher meaning in the Word. You have again reduced the Bible to a bad comic book.

For example, in the same troublesome (and often glossed over) passage from Mark Jesus says:

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

So if you take that LITERALY then Jesus is saying he is not good. BUT, if you wake up and realize that Jesus is a teacher who used many many different conventions, then you realize that he is using a CONTRADICTION to get the peoples attention. You deny this convention is even in the Bible, but yet here Jesus is USING IT HIMSELF!

Jesus realized the same thing that great Zen Masters have realized - that some times to get some one to realize God in the here and now, you need them to stop thinking. A great way to do this is through contradicitons such as the one above. Zen contradictions such as, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" are designed to do the same. To stop thinking and to open the soul to God.

This will certainly be lost on you because of your limited view. But Jesus is not limited to your view, THANK GOD. He is universal and he used universal concepts in his teachings. Just because you don't understand them and therefore deny them does not make his methods untrue nor does it validate your own admitedly "stupid" approach.

So please shut up and don't say that there are no contradictions in the Book. For if there are not, then you are calling Jesus "not good."

You fail again.

[TheSilverRider]

Wrong. Incorrect. Link please.

And again you are being "Stupid." For Jesus himself often spoke in contradictions in order to point at a higher truth. If you want to deny that, than you may. The only one who sufers from that stupidity is you. For the result is a one diminsional faith that has little chance of finding higher meaning in the Word. You have again reduced the Bible to a bad comic book.

For example, in the same troublesome (and often glossed over) passage from Mark Jesus says:

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

So if you take that LITERALY then Jesus is saying he is not good. BUT, if you wake up and realize that Jesus is a teacher who used many many different conventions, then you realize that he is using a CONTRADICTION to get the peoples attention. You deny this convention is even in the Bible, but yet here Jesus is USING IT HIMSELF!

Jesus realized the same thing that great Zen Masters have realized - that some times to get some one to realize God in the here and now, you need them to stop thinking. A great way to do this is through contradicitons such as the one above. Zen contradictions such as, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" are designed to do the same. To stop thinking and to open the soul to God.

This will certainly be lost on you because of your limited view. But Jesus is not limited to your view, THANK GOD. He is universal and he used universal concepts in his teachings. Just because you don't understand them and therefore deny them does not make his methods untrue nor does it validate your own admitedly "stupid" approach.

So please shut up and don't say that there are no contradictions in the Book. For if there are not, then you are calling Jesus "not good."

You fail again.

There are no direct contradictions in the bible. For instance, one person does not say something, and then another say something else and both are told to be as fact and held up today. I know that was alot but let me explain. Do i agree that you cannot take that verse blatantly literally? Yes. Jesus many times used stories or parables to express his meaning. For instance, when he told the story of the prodigal son, taken literally that story is true. Is it true? No, it was a STORY. God uses metaphors or analogies to get his point across yes he does, but he never contradicts himself. I hope this helps.

One more thing, russian, what do you believe. Like answer these questions:

#1 - Where did we come from? (i.e. creation, evolution, big bang, etc.)

#2 - Who was Jesus?

#3 - Is the Bible truly God's Word or just a "good book"?

#4 - What happens when you die?

#5 - Is there a heaven and a hell?

I hope you will take the time to read those and answer them. I truly am curious to hear your response. Thanks for your time.

~TSR

[TheSilverRider]

No, we see that "divinely breathed in" translates to "inspired." "Divinely breathed in" is what has its meaning changed, not "inspired."

I have no idea what you mean. When God said the men were "inspired" he means that it was Him breathing through them and then writting what he said to them.


So our perfect form is so incredibly infantile in thought, much like yourself, that they have to be spoon-fed every little thing? Wow, God sure had a terrible idea of "perfect."

How many times do i have to repeat things to you before you actually read them and give them a chance? WE ARE NOT PERFECT. Were we created perfect? Yes. Are we perfect now? NO. Man has fallen to sin and is no longer perfect.

You know why he didn't question? Because he knew there was greater meaning behind it. He didn't think that it was just a random whim from God.

How can you say that? Where does it say that in the bible? The Bible says God told Abraham to do something and he did it. No questioning, no doubting, no wondering. Just God giving a command and Abraham following it.

[WaCk-HeAd]

How many times do i have to repeat things to you before you actually read them and give them a chance? WE ARE NOT PERFECT. Were we created perfect? Yes. Are we perfect now? NO. Man has fallen to sin and is no longer perfect.
.

Not to be an ass or anything, but if you were created perfect by a perfect being (God), I'd kinda expect his creation to remain perfect, as in... it's pretty much the definition of perfect?

[Cuathon]

shh. wack you have already passed his level of intelligence. you shouldnt talk above people's heads like that.

[TheSilverRider]

Not to be an ass or anything, but if you were created perfect by a perfect being (God), I'd kinda expect his creation to remain perfect, as in... it's pretty much the definition of perfect?

Ugh, im really getting sick of repeating myself. Wack, if your gunna ask something, please at least give me the courtesy of going back and looking a little to see if it was talked about. Anyway, God created us perfect. The defenition of perfect is WITHOUT SIN. Let me make this plain and clear:

perfect = without sin

perfect does NOT = unable to sin

Was Adam and Eve created without sin? Yes. Were they created unable to sin? No. There is a distinct difference.

shh. wack you have already passed his level of intelligence. you shouldnt talk above people's heads like that.

Cuathon, please, i will ask one more time, PLEASE. If you have nothing beneficial to add to the debate DONT POST. All of your posts in this thread have been USELESS and are of NO BENEFIT to the debate. I will respect your opinions if you offer them in a reasonable manner and post them, but your posts are in no way helping the conversation/debate. Either post like your not a 4 year old spouting off or dont post at all here.

[russian]

whoops

[russian]

God uses metaphors or analogies to get his point across yes he does, but he never contradicts himself. I hope this helps.
- I am speachless . . . .wow . . . . .I thought you were a literalist. I guess you have no problem with Darwin now that you realize that the Good Book contains metaphors!!!! Oh and BTW, Jesus does contradict himself in that passage from Mark, so you are wrong again. And furter, YOU contradict yourself all the time and you are unaware of it. One momment you are a bible worshipping literalist and the next you claim that the Bible contains metaphors . . .get a grip please.

Oh, great, lets spin the wheel and play the categorization game, if I say the wrong thing then the reply will be "Zap, you are not a good Christian." This has nothing to do with true religious practice, its all just belief and thoughts, but hey that is where your practice begins and ends, so lets talk on your comic book level and see if you like what I have to say . . .

#1 - Where did we come from? (i.e. creation, evolution, big bang, etc.) - We came from the elements and energy of the universe. The Universe is governed by the universal laws of energy and matter. Those laws contain universal truths that both religion and science help us to understand. That truth points to the presence of a divine power. For example science shows us how long ago the balance of matter and anti matter tipped in the favor of matter. The reason for the tipping is not known but it hints at the presence of an intelligence. Without science we would not know where to see it all happening.

#2 - Who was Jesus? - The awakened presence of God.

#3 - The Bible, along with the Bagavadgita, The Quran, and the Tipitaka is a divine book inspired by God. The power of the Bible is evident if one is willing to interpret it in a reasonable manner. If you do, then it becomes an incredibly powerful book on par or even greater than the theory of relativity, if not it is a comic book.

#4 - When you die? You body is dead and rotten in the ground. Your soul may go somewhere or it may not. It could go to: Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Pure Land, the Bardo, reincarnated as a worm in intestines of a pig, Valhala. The point is we doin't know. And I don't think that Religion is here to coddle us and make us feel all better about not knowing. I know that His Kingdom is here and now as the risen Christ or as an awakened Buddha. So I focus on the reality of the here and now. We are told to live for today . . .see the lilies in the field . . .etc, so why all the fixation on what type of concept you apply to a moment in the future tht is unreachable right now and that you cannot know? For if you know what is going to happen tomorrow, then go bet the lottery. But you don't know.

#5 - Is there a Heaven or Hell? Both are man made concepts and creations and both exsist under the right conditions.


What I find funny is that your questions are all the wrong questions. Your questions are all about belief in the guidebook, but none of your questions deal with the desitination. If you want to explore your faith, ask yourself the following questions:

What does it mean to forgive?
When was the last time I experienced God's grace?
What is God's grace?
Why are we here?
What happens when things are not alright, or when they go very very badly. Where is God then?
What does it mean to give love instead of seek it?
What is life like here and now? What is anger, fear, love, attachment, aversion and how do you relate to them?


Explore those questions and don't get back to me. They are there for you to understand. And use your Bible to help you explore those questions and your life. See the Bible is a tool, it is a road map to a destination, but it is not the Destination.

[Cuathon]

Ugh, im really getting sick of repeating myself. Wack, if your gunna ask something, please at least give me the courtesy of going back and looking a little to see if it was talked about. Anyway, God created us perfect. The defenition of perfect is WITHOUT SIN. Let me make this plain and clear:

perfect = without sin

perfect does NOT = unable to sin

Was Adam and Eve created without sin? Yes. Were they created unable to sin? No. There is a distinct difference.



Cuathon, please, i will ask one more time, PLEASE. If you have nothing beneficial to add to the debate DONT POST. All of your posts in this thread have been USELESS and are of NO BENEFIT to the debate. I will respect your opinions if you offer them in a reasonable manner and post them, but your posts are in no way helping the conversation/debate. Either post like your not a 4 year old spouting off or dont post at all here.

its not my fault you are unable to use words in the correct respect. if you mean without sin, say without sin. how is this so difficult?

[TheSilverRider]

its not my fault you are unable to use words in the correct respect. if you mean without sin, say without sin. how is this so difficult?

Because perfect means without sin! You are so dense! That is like me saying "That plane is grey" and you responding "Why didnt you say that plane was black and white mixed together?" Do you understand? If a word means something, you use it. You dont describe the word.

[Cuathon]

thats not what the word means. ever see a dictionary? that may be how you define perfection but that is not in a single one of the 5 or six definitions in the dictionary.

[TheSilverRider]

thats not what the word means. ever see a dictionary? that may be how you define perfection but that is not in a single one of the 5 or six definitions in the dictionary.

Um, wrong word. You cant use an ENGLISH dictionary for a GREEK/HEWBREW word:


H8549
תּמים
tâmîym
taw-meem'
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.

[Cuathon]

you said perfect. that is not what perfect means. if you do not mean perfect, use a different word.

[TheSilverRider]

you said perfect. that is not what perfect means. if you do not mean perfect, use a different word.

Um, yes it is:

perfect8549

That is the defenition for perfect in the bible. That particular greek word means exactly what i put there. Now, you can blantantly stand there like a 2 year old and point your finger at me and say "Nu uh, no its not" or you can act like a normal person and provide me with proof that "its not".

[Cuathon]

shh. no one uses perfect for that and its not in the dictionary. you know perfectly well that absolutely no one uses perfect for that. your the one who whines and bitches when people say thats not what it means. yet you continue to use it knowing people will keep saying thats not what it means.

btw, what the hell is perfect8549 supposed to mean?

[TheSilverRider]

shh. no one uses perfect for that and its not in the dictionary. you know perfectly well that absolutely no one uses perfect for that. your the one who whines and bitches when people say thats not what it means. yet you continue to use it knowing people will keep saying thats not what it means.

btw, what the hell is perfect8549 supposed to mean?

Ok, how old are you? You are making NO SENSE. That was all a bunch of blah. I go by what the DEFINITION tells me and what God truly meant when he divinely used the exact word he needed to. That definition is correct and so is the word.

btw, thats the Strongs definition number proving to you that is the definition.

[mushroom_girl]

Oh and BTW, Jesus does contradict himself in that passage from Mark, so you are wrong again. And furter, YOU contradict yourself all the time and you are unaware of it.
Maybe he's Jesus!

In the stories in the Bible, man was created without sin ("perfect"), but they had the ability to sin. Adam and Eve sinned, and therefore were no longer perfect. God gave them a choice. Ever think that that could be a metaphor too?

I'm sorry, but I just find evolution a WHOLE lot believable than some all-perfect being saying "Oh, I think I'll make the universe today." What created God? Where did God come from? Ever think of that?

[TheSilverRider]

I'm sorry, but I just find evolution a WHOLE lot believable than some all-perfect being saying "Oh, I think I'll make the universe today." What created God? Where did God come from? Ever think of that?

The Bible says God always has been and always will be, he is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. I have a written record of what happened and what was there. You have.....um.....yea.....What created the energy that you speak of? Where did the energy come from? "Ever think of that"?

[Stormdriven]

*Looks in his Encyclopaedia of Answers to Everything and Anything*

God came from... A Cabbage Patch. Somewhere in Texas.

[mushroom_girl]

The Bible says God always has been and always will be, he is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. I have a written record of what happened and what was there. You have.....um.....yea.....What created the energy that you speak of? Where did the energy come from? "Ever think of that"?

No need to be nasty, I'm just asking you questions! I really have no idea how God came to be, and I want to know. Apparently, you have no idea either.

But God had to come from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. He couldn't have been around from the beginning of time, because TIME started somewhere. Where did he come from?

Energy...that's like questioning gravity.

[TheSilverRider]

No need to be nasty, I'm just asking you questions! I really have no idea how God came to be, and I want to know. Apparently, you have no idea either.

But God had to come from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. He couldn't have been around from the beginning of time, because TIME started somewhere. Where did he come from?

Energy...that's like questioning gravity.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
*reference slips my mind*

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God...."

Both of these verses state that in the beginning was God. God says he was there in the beginning in the Bible and i choose to accept the Bible and believe it. Whether you do or not is up to you. It all comes down to whether or not you believe the Bible is true or not.

[mushroom_girl]

I'm just saying logic has to take over at some point too. It still doesn't explain WHERE God came from.

I just Googled it, and it said that time only exists when matter exists, and since God created matter he existed before time. That still doesn't make sense logically...but I guess the Bible doesn't have to follow logic to be true. :\

[gigolojlo gl]

I'm just saying logic has to take over at some point too. It still doesn't explain WHERE God came from.

I just Googled it, and it said that time only exists when matter exists, and since God created matter he existed before time. That still doesn't make sense logically...but I guess the Bible doesn't have to follow logic to be true. :\

Obviously, Christianity is not for everybody. At a certain point, the belief in God and everything he has accomplished/created becomes a personal choice. You MUST have faith. In today's society, everyone has their own individual views on how the world came to be, if there is a higher power, and their choice in exercising a religious following. There is no positive answer on where God came from, if he had any brothers and sisters, or what his favorite food was. It is simply something one comes to trust and think. Personally, I have been a Catholic my entire life. From time to time, I have doubted whether or not God really exists and if the Bible is just a load of bologna but when this wave of uncertainty comes over me, something simple yet amazing usually happens and restores my faith. We can't just give you a basic definition of God or how he functions. There is just God. You accept or deny his existence. If you are sincerely interested in this area, read the Bible. It can explain everything much better than we are able to and answer most of your questions.

[WaCk-HeAd]

Wow... almost got myself into this one.

Nuh-uh! Not going there! I already feel the frustration building up!

Ha! At least I got out of it on time.

Good luck, russian!

[Stormdriven]

On the Sixth day - God created man. On the Seventh day - Man returned the favour. :p


Storm.

[russian]

On the Sixth day - God created man. On the Seventh day - Man returned the favour. :p


Storm.

HAHA !!!:):D

[Northwind]

Northy, im not quite sure how to respond to that. Look at the section in red. I honestly, have not been shown a clear contradiction in the Bible that i have not given a Biblical rebuttal to. I am trying my best to read what you guys say and respond in the best manner possible while considering your ideas and producing mine. Please dont think it is a lost cause to debate with me, i am trying to read into your theory and give them credit and merit, i just hope you will return the favor.
I believe that you think that you're "trying [your] best to read what you guys say and respond in the best manner possible while considering your ideas and producing mine." And this is the point I was making previously. "Trying your best" still means that you CAN'T ALLOW yourself to actually examine these ideas as this would feel to you like you're betraying God. And I'm not interested in trying to get you to do something that feels like heresy to you.

Numerous contradictions have been clearly pointed out. You can't allow yourself to acknowledge them. That's fine. But please don't ask me (or anyone else) to "debate" you when we come from such radically different perspectives that it makes us unable to communicate.

I am unable to accept that the Bible is literally true as it contradicts logic and my own reading. You are unable to consider the possiblity that the Bible might not be literally true (and even when you do, you don't realize that you're doing this). There is thus NO WAY to reconcile the two worldviews.The Bible says God always has been and always will be, he is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. I have a written record of what happened and what was there. You have.....um.....yea.....What created the energy that you speak of? Where did the energy come from? "Ever think of that"?
And this exactly proves my point above. You assume that it has a literal meaning that God "always has been and will always be." This doesn't mean anything to me other than this is how an early civilization conceptualized the universe. Your quoting the Bible does nothing to affect my thoughts about this, just like presenting scientific explanations about the origins of the universe or evolution does nothing to affect your thoughts.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
*reference slips my mind*

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God...."

Both of these verses state that in the beginning was God. God says he was there in the beginning in the Bible and i choose to accept the Bible and believe it. Whether you do or not is up to you. It all comes down to whether or not you believe the Bible is true or not.

Exactly. So why not just come out and say "it doesn't matter what arguments anyone presents, if they contradict my limited reading of the Bible, I cannot consider them."? And for those of us who don't believe that the Bible is literally true, citing Bible verses is an unproductive way to make your case (just like my citing logic or scientific evidence is an unproductive way to make my case to you).

Thus, there is no way to debate as we speak different languages.

My only hope is that you will someday realize that your "literal" (when convenient) reading of the Bible actually limits your conception of what the power of God might be and limits your ability to engage in a real and meaningful spiritual practice. Good luck.

[russian]

Amen NW.