Oh, and i forgot to mention about genesis, other religious books (not only from the bible, the Qur''an, the Vegas, the Tripica, etc). Interpretation of this cause. Reasoning behind physical and mental existance as a human on this planet. People are free to choose to follow the influence, or to disobey it. ANOTHER thing, the idea that any of these text''s could be considered a historically accurate document is a joke. I am not implying that they are all false, and am aware of references, information etc supporting the existance of key figures.
But if they are not all false, it does not mean that they are all true.
Anyway, there is no wrong or right, your ideas can essentially be explained away to chemical processes, which can then be put back to the primary cause. This does not mean you have no will. It simply means your actions are known outside of space-time.
Interpretation of the universe is not a hopeless endevour. Interpretation of other people''s ideas and forcing them to accept your own however is.
20 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
religion in the forums?!?!
122
May 19, 2001 07:16 AM
>LOL. Sorry it''s just that some of your responses are funny,
>somebody said this about one of my points, but it applies to
>your whole post, "Grasping at straws".
Half my point. Both our sides grasp at straws in that regard.
>>My point was it is not important to you.
>It''s not for you to decide what is important to me.
Your statement is true in isolation. However I was working on assumptions that you had indicated...that you do not believe in Christianity because of evolution ''facts'', and there being no proof of Christianity. Therefore which of the sects is correct is only used by you as an argument designed to make Christianity look garbled and confused. This is not important because it is something that Christians deal with and can be understood by those willing to investigate. Therefore it is not important unless you have some deeper feelings towards this debate than cold hard fact.
>>You certainly haven''t experienced much of the world.
>>Maybe you should check your facts? Start with the claim of
>>Jesus'' resurrection...again check the
>>historical facts.
>What historical facts? Show your sources... My point is the
>ONLY example anyone has EVER heard of ANYBODY ANYWHERE coming
>back to life is in fairy tales. If you see people coming back
>to life, you are probably like that little kid in "The 6th
>Sense" or something. Go see a psychiatrist.
You see, you are not even willing to consider that there might be evidence and go out and find it? I have told you that there are historical records, and I could probably find out the places where you can read about it if you like. But if you immediately discard it because it doesnt fit with your evolutionary perspective and therefore must be a fairy tale you are being unfair. That is not good science, but is instead predjudice. I have considered evolution, and I will continue to consider it to the point where I know enough. You however don''t seem to have heard the proper flaws in evolution, as I will display later (some of them, anyway).
>Carl Sagon? Oh you mean Carl Sagan the famous astronomer, who
>wrote "contact" among other things. Yes I am very familiar
>with his work. In my math I used only known facts, I didn''t
>"estimate" anything. Use a calculator, unless you don''t
>believe in mathematics.
and
>The book you are referring to, "contact" is a work of "science
>FICTION", something you xians commonly confuse with "science"
The reference where mine came from:
Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick, L.M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pg 45-46
>>Would really depend on the type of wood used, which I
>>don''t think is detailed.
>The hardest wood in the world would not be able to handle 40
>days in a huge storm with a tiny crew and millions of animals.
>Or even without animals for that matter.
How did you calculate that. Also, given the creation model for pre-flood, all those countless plants that are now extinct would have been alive then, perhaps providing woods we have never seen (if it is necessary). Besides that, I described before that ancient cultures can sometimes have knowledge of things that surpass even us today. It is possible that they had a seal capable of holding out all the waters. In the Christian/Biblical framework we are talking about humans living in much better environmental conditions who had longer to live and were presumably much smarter and more capable than we are (since creation believes humanity and creation are becoming less complex due to genetic mutations, etc).
>>Remembering of course, that at some stage all humans
>>and animals ate was plants. And for meat-eaters it is
>>possible for them to live on a purely vegetable diet (there
>>is a lion alive today with such a lifestyle).
>Obviously that lion is an exception. At no point in history
>were there no carnivores, or else all plant life on Earth
>would be quickly consumed, and everything would starve... use
>common sense, please. There is a reason lions have sharp claws
>and teeth designed for tearing, they are carnivores. (that
>means they eat meat, in case you didn''t know) It doesn''t work,
>it''s like a horse trying to eat meat, or a human trying to eat
>grass. Their body can''t handle it.
Obviously yes. It did not matter if it was an exception or not. The point was to show that carnivores don''t have to be carnivores, but that is how they are now. Christianity assumes that in the beginning all creatures were herbivores, and this exception shows it is possible. And as for all things starving...well, I have heard vegetarians quote stats about if we stopped eating beef we would easily have enough food to feed the world from the food the cows normally eat. Humans at least would survive. However, again given the perfect world that it could have been, where creatures were herbivores instead, then we would still live in the lush pre-flood world, that presumably would have provided adequate food in a rich landscape.
>You seem to like using unique examples to try to prove points,
>"The Bible says somebody rose from the dead, therefore people
>rise from the dead on a regular basis."
>and
>"I think I heard of a lion once that eats only vegetables,
>therefore all lions can eat only vegetables."
If I said "I think I heard" about this lion then that was wrong. I have heard of it. I can find references if you like. As for raising from the dead, I make another presumption that you have never looked to see if this has happened (Jesus resurrection) or today (which I neither affirm nor deny, because I don''t know).
>>Yes of course. A male dog with a female dog. It does not >>inply sexual maturity but just that there will be
>>sexual capability.
>His point is that they need adults to survive, e.g. many birds
>need thier food regurgitated into them by adults... (where do
>they get their food?) Most birds cannot fly indefinitely, they
>would have to land before 40 days were up, and some can''t even
>fly.
Ah, ok. Birds come on as adults then. Problem solved, what does it matter? His point was not this however, yours is a new one.
>>No, the Bible states that "you shall take with you seven
>>each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two
>>each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female"
>>(Gen 7:2)
>So the animals should take baths? What? God supposedly made
>all animals right... so what''s this about clean and unclean?
This is probably a joke, but I''ll answer it in case it''s not. Clean and unclean is a way of describing creatures that can be eaten and those that can''t. For spiritual or physiological reasons.
>How did insects survive? Did Noah find two mosquitos? Two
>flies? How about scorpions? How would he know the difference
>between a male and female scorpion? etc.
It was not necessary for Noah to find creatures. Given the nature of the task, just like it was beyond Noah''s control to create the flood, so was it beyond his control to find all those animals.
>>One such possible explanation is the very little
>>understood ability to hibernate.
>>It is entirely possible that all creatures have the innate
>>latent ability to hibernate, and that this may have
>>been induced for whatever reason during the voyage.
>This is not possible, and hibernation is quite well
>understood. It is not possible that all creatures have the
>innate ability to hibernate, have you ever seen a hibernating
>hummingbird? Ever heard of a hibernating housecat? Didn''t
>think so. Your explanations are just "It is possible because
>God made it possible." Sorry but that is a very feeble point.
Evolution can occur because it has an infinate number of chances. Feeble point.
You don''t need to have seen or observed these creatures do something to make a suggestion at the possibility of such a _latent_ innate ability.
>>In the rough 1632 years (our time) that the earth was
>>around, the water would be forced to the surface? I
>>thought the underlying idea behind uniformatism was that
>>processes took a long time, not short and rapid. Besides,
>>the geology as stated before was vastly different. It is
>>acknowledged that rocks cannot float (nor is the earth
>>round). In describing the water that came from the
>>heavens, this is not referring to clouds that we see today.
>>The Genesis account describes a mist that covered the
>>earth and watered it, presumably much different to behold
>>than clouds. Since the Genesis account was recorded by
>>Moses he would have been well aware of the weather in
>>his present day, and so would have seen a reason to
>>describe this mist. This would account for why rainfall
>>could have such a large effect (because todays clouds
>>are not capable of any such feet.
>Lol you think the Earth was only around for 1632 years?
>hahahaha!
Sorry, did not make this clear. 1632 was roughly the number of years from the creation of Adam and Eve to the flood
>And, um, what happened to all this water that came from this
>"mist"? How would that system work? The water is either on the
>ground, in the air, or slightly down in the ground. If there
>was enough mist in the air to raise the sea level by a few
>kilometers, it can''t just disappear. It would take a REALLY
>long time for that to evaporate, or go anywhere for that
>matter.
I''m not sure how it worked. It does not matter. It is not possible to affirm or deny. It is just merely stated as a possibility. We need to steer this conversation back to things which are able to be affirmed or denied adequately, rather than just blind guesswork as to possibilities.
>>huge underground caverns is one that springs to mind.
>hahaha that''s a kind of funny pun that you probably didn''t
>notice.
Yes, I didn''t notice it
>Anyways, where did these huge underground caverns go? Why
>would the water come out from there?
_If_ it was underground caverns, which I stated as another "grasping at straws" possibility, then some may be still here, some collapsed, etc.
>>I''m not aware of the difference between these
>You don''t know the difference between the Sierra-Nevada
>mountain range and the Appalachians? I presume you also don''t
>know the difference between Mt. Everest and Mt. Whitney, and
>the Alps and the Pyranees. The difference is that the
>Sierra-Nevada mountains are a million or so years older.
I''m not very good with locations.
>>Pour a bucket of water over a pile of rocks and different
>>rocks will have different quantities of water pass over
>>them.
>Not if you pour several kilometers of water onto them.
Correct if you pour several kilometers of water onto a pile of rocks. But I was trying to represent it to scale. And the fact that some places might be deeper than others in the turmoil that begun the flood just says more to why some places in the world eroded more than others.
>>In 56 years two airplanes were buried to a depth of at
>>least 75 metres of ice. This was contrary to everyone''s
>>expectations.
>What does this have to do with anything?
That despite the tests made on the age of the ice, this rapid burial of the planes showed a different story as to how old x number of layers down is.
>>It is guessed that immediately following the flood there
>>was a virtual ice-age. This seems to make sense of
>>that.
>It might seem to, but it doesn''t. Is there any evidence for
>this very recent "Ice Age"? Why would there be an ice age?
Earth was cold. brr. I did tell you what I witnessed in New Zealand, another rapid change rather than slow.
>>What about decay? Not sure what terrestrial detritus is,
>>but if that is just foreign stuff that should be seen
>>dumped on the bottom of the ocean, I think that around
>>4000 years is adequate to leave no more traces.
>If every living thing on Earth is killed, and their dead
>bodies go down to the bottom of the ocean and decay, there
>would be a huge layer of broken down organic matter at the
>bottom. Where would it go in 4000 years? Time doesn''t make
>things disappear..
Washed around, decomposed, settled, used as compost to grow undersea plants, food, covered by rocks, etc. I see no reason why it should still be visible. If I left a valley full of corpses then I would presume that in 4000 years they would be gone. How much more undersea where the erosion would have to be greater?
>>>>(4) a massive extinction, and
>>Extinction of what?
>Extinction of what? LOL The death of every living thing on
>earth except two (or seven, whatever) of some species.
Exactly, except for 2/7. So nothing goes extinct. That''s why I said extinction of what?
>>Beliefs always play a part in this. Some people, even
>>those who believe in God, find it necessary to defend
>>evolution.
>>Darwin''s idea was not new.
>This is irrelevant, the point is that as you dig deeper you
>find creatures that are progressively older, according to
>evolution. E.g. you find more modern creatures first and then
>dinosaurs and then really ancient creatures at the bottom.
I would like to comment on fossils another time. Please don''t let me forget.
>>How do you explain the fact that some fossils are found in
>>their wrong periods, often making it an impossibly short
>>time for them to have evolved.
>How do you explain how 99% of fossils are found in the right
>periods? The 1% is mostly either human error or the fossil of
>the creature in question was moved, by an earthquake etc.
Same as above.
Hmm, less than 5 hours sleep is not good. I''ll finish replying another time
>somebody said this about one of my points, but it applies to
>your whole post, "Grasping at straws".
Half my point. Both our sides grasp at straws in that regard.
>>My point was it is not important to you.
>It''s not for you to decide what is important to me.
Your statement is true in isolation. However I was working on assumptions that you had indicated...that you do not believe in Christianity because of evolution ''facts'', and there being no proof of Christianity. Therefore which of the sects is correct is only used by you as an argument designed to make Christianity look garbled and confused. This is not important because it is something that Christians deal with and can be understood by those willing to investigate. Therefore it is not important unless you have some deeper feelings towards this debate than cold hard fact.
>>You certainly haven''t experienced much of the world.
>>Maybe you should check your facts? Start with the claim of
>>Jesus'' resurrection...again check the
>>historical facts.
>What historical facts? Show your sources... My point is the
>ONLY example anyone has EVER heard of ANYBODY ANYWHERE coming
>back to life is in fairy tales. If you see people coming back
>to life, you are probably like that little kid in "The 6th
>Sense" or something. Go see a psychiatrist.
You see, you are not even willing to consider that there might be evidence and go out and find it? I have told you that there are historical records, and I could probably find out the places where you can read about it if you like. But if you immediately discard it because it doesnt fit with your evolutionary perspective and therefore must be a fairy tale you are being unfair. That is not good science, but is instead predjudice. I have considered evolution, and I will continue to consider it to the point where I know enough. You however don''t seem to have heard the proper flaws in evolution, as I will display later (some of them, anyway).
>Carl Sagon? Oh you mean Carl Sagan the famous astronomer, who
>wrote "contact" among other things. Yes I am very familiar
>with his work. In my math I used only known facts, I didn''t
>"estimate" anything. Use a calculator, unless you don''t
>believe in mathematics.
and
>The book you are referring to, "contact" is a work of "science
>FICTION", something you xians commonly confuse with "science"
The reference where mine came from:
Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick, L.M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pg 45-46
>>Would really depend on the type of wood used, which I
>>don''t think is detailed.
>The hardest wood in the world would not be able to handle 40
>days in a huge storm with a tiny crew and millions of animals.
>Or even without animals for that matter.
How did you calculate that. Also, given the creation model for pre-flood, all those countless plants that are now extinct would have been alive then, perhaps providing woods we have never seen (if it is necessary). Besides that, I described before that ancient cultures can sometimes have knowledge of things that surpass even us today. It is possible that they had a seal capable of holding out all the waters. In the Christian/Biblical framework we are talking about humans living in much better environmental conditions who had longer to live and were presumably much smarter and more capable than we are (since creation believes humanity and creation are becoming less complex due to genetic mutations, etc).
>>Remembering of course, that at some stage all humans
>>and animals ate was plants. And for meat-eaters it is
>>possible for them to live on a purely vegetable diet (there
>>is a lion alive today with such a lifestyle).
>Obviously that lion is an exception. At no point in history
>were there no carnivores, or else all plant life on Earth
>would be quickly consumed, and everything would starve... use
>common sense, please. There is a reason lions have sharp claws
>and teeth designed for tearing, they are carnivores. (that
>means they eat meat, in case you didn''t know) It doesn''t work,
>it''s like a horse trying to eat meat, or a human trying to eat
>grass. Their body can''t handle it.
Obviously yes. It did not matter if it was an exception or not. The point was to show that carnivores don''t have to be carnivores, but that is how they are now. Christianity assumes that in the beginning all creatures were herbivores, and this exception shows it is possible. And as for all things starving...well, I have heard vegetarians quote stats about if we stopped eating beef we would easily have enough food to feed the world from the food the cows normally eat. Humans at least would survive. However, again given the perfect world that it could have been, where creatures were herbivores instead, then we would still live in the lush pre-flood world, that presumably would have provided adequate food in a rich landscape.
>You seem to like using unique examples to try to prove points,
>"The Bible says somebody rose from the dead, therefore people
>rise from the dead on a regular basis."
>and
>"I think I heard of a lion once that eats only vegetables,
>therefore all lions can eat only vegetables."
If I said "I think I heard" about this lion then that was wrong. I have heard of it. I can find references if you like. As for raising from the dead, I make another presumption that you have never looked to see if this has happened (Jesus resurrection) or today (which I neither affirm nor deny, because I don''t know).
>>Yes of course. A male dog with a female dog. It does not >>inply sexual maturity but just that there will be
>>sexual capability.
>His point is that they need adults to survive, e.g. many birds
>need thier food regurgitated into them by adults... (where do
>they get their food?) Most birds cannot fly indefinitely, they
>would have to land before 40 days were up, and some can''t even
>fly.
Ah, ok. Birds come on as adults then. Problem solved, what does it matter? His point was not this however, yours is a new one.
>>No, the Bible states that "you shall take with you seven
>>each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two
>>each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female"
>>(Gen 7:2)
>So the animals should take baths? What? God supposedly made
>all animals right... so what''s this about clean and unclean?
This is probably a joke, but I''ll answer it in case it''s not. Clean and unclean is a way of describing creatures that can be eaten and those that can''t. For spiritual or physiological reasons.
>How did insects survive? Did Noah find two mosquitos? Two
>flies? How about scorpions? How would he know the difference
>between a male and female scorpion? etc.
It was not necessary for Noah to find creatures. Given the nature of the task, just like it was beyond Noah''s control to create the flood, so was it beyond his control to find all those animals.
>>One such possible explanation is the very little
>>understood ability to hibernate.
>>It is entirely possible that all creatures have the innate
>>latent ability to hibernate, and that this may have
>>been induced for whatever reason during the voyage.
>This is not possible, and hibernation is quite well
>understood. It is not possible that all creatures have the
>innate ability to hibernate, have you ever seen a hibernating
>hummingbird? Ever heard of a hibernating housecat? Didn''t
>think so. Your explanations are just "It is possible because
>God made it possible." Sorry but that is a very feeble point.
Evolution can occur because it has an infinate number of chances. Feeble point.
You don''t need to have seen or observed these creatures do something to make a suggestion at the possibility of such a _latent_ innate ability.
>>In the rough 1632 years (our time) that the earth was
>>around, the water would be forced to the surface? I
>>thought the underlying idea behind uniformatism was that
>>processes took a long time, not short and rapid. Besides,
>>the geology as stated before was vastly different. It is
>>acknowledged that rocks cannot float (nor is the earth
>>round). In describing the water that came from the
>>heavens, this is not referring to clouds that we see today.
>>The Genesis account describes a mist that covered the
>>earth and watered it, presumably much different to behold
>>than clouds. Since the Genesis account was recorded by
>>Moses he would have been well aware of the weather in
>>his present day, and so would have seen a reason to
>>describe this mist. This would account for why rainfall
>>could have such a large effect (because todays clouds
>>are not capable of any such feet.
>Lol you think the Earth was only around for 1632 years?
>hahahaha!
Sorry, did not make this clear. 1632 was roughly the number of years from the creation of Adam and Eve to the flood
>And, um, what happened to all this water that came from this
>"mist"? How would that system work? The water is either on the
>ground, in the air, or slightly down in the ground. If there
>was enough mist in the air to raise the sea level by a few
>kilometers, it can''t just disappear. It would take a REALLY
>long time for that to evaporate, or go anywhere for that
>matter.
I''m not sure how it worked. It does not matter. It is not possible to affirm or deny. It is just merely stated as a possibility. We need to steer this conversation back to things which are able to be affirmed or denied adequately, rather than just blind guesswork as to possibilities.
>>huge underground caverns is one that springs to mind.
>hahaha that''s a kind of funny pun that you probably didn''t
>notice.
Yes, I didn''t notice it
>Anyways, where did these huge underground caverns go? Why
>would the water come out from there?
_If_ it was underground caverns, which I stated as another "grasping at straws" possibility, then some may be still here, some collapsed, etc.
>>I''m not aware of the difference between these
>You don''t know the difference between the Sierra-Nevada
>mountain range and the Appalachians? I presume you also don''t
>know the difference between Mt. Everest and Mt. Whitney, and
>the Alps and the Pyranees. The difference is that the
>Sierra-Nevada mountains are a million or so years older.
I''m not very good with locations.
>>Pour a bucket of water over a pile of rocks and different
>>rocks will have different quantities of water pass over
>>them.
>Not if you pour several kilometers of water onto them.
Correct if you pour several kilometers of water onto a pile of rocks. But I was trying to represent it to scale. And the fact that some places might be deeper than others in the turmoil that begun the flood just says more to why some places in the world eroded more than others.
>>In 56 years two airplanes were buried to a depth of at
>>least 75 metres of ice. This was contrary to everyone''s
>>expectations.
>What does this have to do with anything?
That despite the tests made on the age of the ice, this rapid burial of the planes showed a different story as to how old x number of layers down is.
>>It is guessed that immediately following the flood there
>>was a virtual ice-age. This seems to make sense of
>>that.
>It might seem to, but it doesn''t. Is there any evidence for
>this very recent "Ice Age"? Why would there be an ice age?
Earth was cold. brr. I did tell you what I witnessed in New Zealand, another rapid change rather than slow.
>>What about decay? Not sure what terrestrial detritus is,
>>but if that is just foreign stuff that should be seen
>>dumped on the bottom of the ocean, I think that around
>>4000 years is adequate to leave no more traces.
>If every living thing on Earth is killed, and their dead
>bodies go down to the bottom of the ocean and decay, there
>would be a huge layer of broken down organic matter at the
>bottom. Where would it go in 4000 years? Time doesn''t make
>things disappear..
Washed around, decomposed, settled, used as compost to grow undersea plants, food, covered by rocks, etc. I see no reason why it should still be visible. If I left a valley full of corpses then I would presume that in 4000 years they would be gone. How much more undersea where the erosion would have to be greater?
>>>>(4) a massive extinction, and
>>Extinction of what?
>Extinction of what? LOL The death of every living thing on
>earth except two (or seven, whatever) of some species.
Exactly, except for 2/7. So nothing goes extinct. That''s why I said extinction of what?
>>Beliefs always play a part in this. Some people, even
>>those who believe in God, find it necessary to defend
>>evolution.
>>Darwin''s idea was not new.
>This is irrelevant, the point is that as you dig deeper you
>find creatures that are progressively older, according to
>evolution. E.g. you find more modern creatures first and then
>dinosaurs and then really ancient creatures at the bottom.
I would like to comment on fossils another time. Please don''t let me forget.
>>How do you explain the fact that some fossils are found in
>>their wrong periods, often making it an impossibly short
>>time for them to have evolved.
>How do you explain how 99% of fossils are found in the right
>periods? The 1% is mostly either human error or the fossil of
>the creature in question was moved, by an earthquake etc.
Same as above.
Hmm, less than 5 hours sleep is not good. I''ll finish replying another time
140
May 19, 2001 10:00 AM
Hello, tyreth. Your arguments might sound reasonable to someone, who doesn''t know very much about science - excactly the way they once made sense to you.
Everyone of you xians arguing for different "versions" of your religion is what makes it look more garbled and confused than anything we, the atheists have said. We have here some people arguing for a global flood, someone else is pro local flood... Others belive in theistic evolution, others say evolution is all a big hoax. Some say the earth is but a few thousand years old, someone else says that''s just a stupid way of seeing it. Some say the bible must be interpreted in a literal way, while someone else is arguing that you should just follow your heart and see the bible as basically a series of metaphors. Others are just patronizing everyone, saying man is too stupid to understand the ways of god.
And of course, each of these people with contradicting views would probably say, that the rest are more or less not true xians / are wrong about a lot of things.
In what way is it prejudice to not accept the evidence that you have not presented? You''re gonna have to do better than that.
I am looking forward to your post about the "flaws of evolution" it is always the same story.
Why do you seem to think it''s all right to spew out lots of things that don''t have even as much as a horse''s behind supporting it? Those claims are truly extraordinary, and would demand extraordinary evidence. Are you making it up yourself? Wishful thinking?
I''m sorry, but your in over your head in a sea of speculations.
Don''t worry. It will be rebuted to a point where you once again will have to resort to speculations and wishful thinking.
Ladies and gentlemen - We have here a bible-trumping programmer that knows more about science than the scientists of which many happen to be among the most intelligent people on this planet, and have spent most of their life studying their subject.
quote:
Original post by tyreth
Therefore which of the sects is correct is only used by you as an argument designed to make Christianity look garbled and confused. This is not important because it is something that Christians deal with and can be understood by those willing to investigate. Therefore it is not important unless you have some deeper feelings towards this debate than cold hard fact.
Everyone of you xians arguing for different "versions" of your religion is what makes it look more garbled and confused than anything we, the atheists have said. We have here some people arguing for a global flood, someone else is pro local flood... Others belive in theistic evolution, others say evolution is all a big hoax. Some say the earth is but a few thousand years old, someone else says that''s just a stupid way of seeing it. Some say the bible must be interpreted in a literal way, while someone else is arguing that you should just follow your heart and see the bible as basically a series of metaphors. Others are just patronizing everyone, saying man is too stupid to understand the ways of god.
And of course, each of these people with contradicting views would probably say, that the rest are more or less not true xians / are wrong about a lot of things.
quote:
You see, you are not even willing to consider that there might be evidence and go out and find it? I have told you that there are historical records, and I could probably find out the places where you can read about it if you like. But if you immediately discard it because it doesnt fit with your evolutionary perspective and therefore must be a fairy tale you are being unfair. That is not good science, but is instead predjudice. I have considered evolution, and I will continue to consider it to the point where I know enough. You however don''t seem to have heard the proper flaws in evolution, as I will display later (some of them, anyway).
In what way is it prejudice to not accept the evidence that you have not presented? You''re gonna have to do better than that.
I am looking forward to your post about the "flaws of evolution" it is always the same story.
quote:
How did you calculate that. Also, given the creation model for pre-flood, all those countless plants that are now extinct would have been alive then, perhaps providing woods we have never seen (if it is necessary). Besides that, I described before that ancient cultures can sometimes have knowledge of things that surpass even us today. It is possible that they had a seal capable of holding out all the waters. In the Christian/Biblical framework we are talking about humans living in much better environmental conditions who had longer to live and were presumably much smarter and more capable than we are (since creation believes humanity and creation are becoming less complex due to genetic mutations, etc).
>>Remembering of course, that at some stage all humans
>>and animals ate was plants. And for meat-eaters it is
>>possible for them to live on a purely vegetable diet (there
>>is a lion alive today with such a lifestyle).
>Obviously that lion is an exception. At no point in history
>were there no carnivores, or else all plant life on Earth
>would be quickly consumed, and everything would starve... use
>common sense, please. There is a reason lions have sharp claws
>and teeth designed for tearing, they are carnivores. (that
>means they eat meat, in case you didn''t know) It doesn''t work,
>it''s like a horse trying to eat meat, or a human trying to eat
>grass. Their body can''t handle it.
Obviously yes. It did not matter if it was an exception or not. The point was to show that carnivores don''t have to be carnivores, but that is how they are now. Christianity assumes that in the beginning all creatures were herbivores, and this exception shows it is possible. And as for all things starving...well, I have heard vegetarians quote stats about if we stopped eating beef we would easily have enough food to feed the world from the food the cows normally eat. Humans at least would survive. However, again given the perfect world that it could have been, where creatures were herbivores instead, then we would still live in the lush pre-flood world, that presumably would have provided adequate food in a rich landscape.
It was not necessary for Noah to find creatures. Given the nature of the task, just like it was beyond Noah''s control to create the flood, so was it beyond his control to find all those animals.
Why do you seem to think it''s all right to spew out lots of things that don''t have even as much as a horse''s behind supporting it? Those claims are truly extraordinary, and would demand extraordinary evidence. Are you making it up yourself? Wishful thinking?
I''m sorry, but your in over your head in a sea of speculations.
quote:
I would like to comment on fossils another time. Please don''t let me forget.
Don''t worry. It will be rebuted to a point where you once again will have to resort to speculations and wishful thinking.
quote:
>>How do you explain the fact that some fossils are found in
>>their wrong periods, often making it an impossibly short
>>time for them to have evolved.
>How do you explain how 99% of fossils are found in the right
>periods? The 1% is mostly either human error or the fossil of
>the creature in question was moved, by an earthquake etc.
Same as above.
Ladies and gentlemen - We have here a bible-trumping programmer that knows more about science than the scientists of which many happen to be among the most intelligent people on this planet, and have spent most of their life studying their subject.
122
May 19, 2001 11:31 AM
This is one of the links of common arguemtns, but not the one I had in mind.
Comman Anti-Atheist arguments
The one in mind had common Christian arguments/see you in hell/I feel sorry for you kind of thing, and numbered to.
Here is a link, thats a must read for anyone arguing against atheism, or just for atheists themsevles. It puts to rest 7 common misconceptions, including that we are evil and that life must be absurd to us.
7 Common Misconceptions about Atheism
Here is another site that basically describes how to argue and be politically correct when arguing with an atheist. This may help you that have no idea what atheism is(the ones calling it a religion in itself for example).
Atheism, scroll down to after the rant on attacks against atheism for Mistakes people make when arguing with atheists
I did find an article on why hell is exothermic, but I wont post it as it may be to offensive, along with why beer is better than jesus.
-----------------------------
A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."
The Micro$haft BSOD T-Shirt
Comman Anti-Atheist arguments
The one in mind had common Christian arguments/see you in hell/I feel sorry for you kind of thing, and numbered to.
Here is a link, thats a must read for anyone arguing against atheism, or just for atheists themsevles. It puts to rest 7 common misconceptions, including that we are evil and that life must be absurd to us.
7 Common Misconceptions about Atheism
Here is another site that basically describes how to argue and be politically correct when arguing with an atheist. This may help you that have no idea what atheism is(the ones calling it a religion in itself for example).
Atheism, scroll down to after the rant on attacks against atheism for Mistakes people make when arguing with atheists
I did find an article on why hell is exothermic, but I wont post it as it may be to offensive, along with why beer is better than jesus.
-----------------------------
A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."
The Micro$haft BSOD T-Shirt
-----------------------------A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."The Micro$haft BSOD T-Shirt
122
May 19, 2001 01:07 PM
>>Your statement is true in isolation. However I was working on
>>assumptions that you had indicated...that you do not believe in
>>Christianity because of evolution ''facts'', and there being no
>>proof of Christianity. Therefore which of the sects is correct
>>is only used by you as an argument designed to make Christianity
>>look garbled and confused.
If I am just using it as an argument that does not make it any less true. I do not believe in Christianity because of evolution AMONG OTHER THINGS such as the flood, saying the Earth is less than 6000 years old, etc. One of the important points is that since there are so many mutually exclusive sects of Christianity, to prove that one is true, you have to disprove all the rest. To show that Christianity is true, you have to disprove all other religions.
It is impossible for a xian to disprove any other religion, because they can not use any real evidence, if they do it would be used against them to disprove Christianity. This is VERY relevent. I already stated several times without response that with infinite possible religions, all with an equal chance, the chance of any one being true is 1/infinity which equals zero. If you think Christianity has more than a 0% chance of being true, you have to prove that it is more likely than the other ones.
>>You see, you are not even willing to consider that there might
>>be evidence and go out and find it?
Please show your sources, if you know where it is. All "dead" people coming "back to life" that I have heard of were never dead in the first place, there were errors by incompetent doctors, or a complete lack of inspection by doctors. Often people used to assume that if somebody was still and did not react to being poked, they were dead.
If the only evidence you have is Jesus, and that is only in the Bible, that is not a valid piece of evidence. It is common knowledge in mathematics that when proving a theorem you cannot use that theorem in your proof. If you have "historical documents" please do show me the sources. I keep looking but I can never seem to find any of this "evidence" you speak of.
>> The reference where mine came from: Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick,
>>L.M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with
>>Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
>>pg 45-46
Yes I know who Carl Sagan is too, this is irrelevant.
>>all those countless plants that are now extinct would have been
>>alive then, perhaps providing woods we have never seen (if it is
>>necessary). Besides that, I described before that ancient
>>cultures can sometimes have knowledge of things that surpass
>>even us today. It is possible that they had a seal capable of
>>holding out all the waters. In the Christian/Biblical framework
>>we are talking about humans living in much better environmental
>>conditions who had longer to live and were presumably much
>>smarter and more capable than we are (since creation believes
>>humanity and creation are becoming less complex due to genetic
>>mutations, etc).
I have not heard of any ancient civilizations that had technology that is not available today. If you are thinking of the Egyptian pyramids, we know how they did that. To get the blocks to the high levels, they built ramps inclined planes of mud brick and rubble. They then dragged the blocks on sledges to the needed height. As the pyramid grew taller, the ramp had to be extended in length, and its base was widened, else it would collapse. Several ramps were probably used for each pyramid. Remains of these ramps have been found.
The fact remains that humans, within 1900 years of being "created" as think, could not have built a boat of that kind. No boat remotely like it has ever been found and it certainly couldn''t have been built within a week or so by a tiny crew.
>>Obviously yes. It did not matter if it was an exception or not.
>>The point was to show that carnivores don''t have to be
>>carnivores, but that is how they are now. Christianity assumes
>>that in the beginning all creatures were herbivores, and this
>>exception shows it is possible. And as for all things
>>starving...well, I have heard vegetarians quote stats about if
>>we stopped eating beef we would easily have enough food to feed
>>the world from the food the cows normally eat. Humans at least
>>would survive. However, again given the perfect world that it
>>could have been, where creatures were herbivores instead, then
>>we would still live in the lush pre-flood world, that presumably
>>would have provided adequate food in a rich landscape.
Where would the lions get their vegetables from on this ark? Carnivores do have to be carnivores, or else they are omnivores. Herbivores can only eat plants, carnivores only eat meat. That lion you are talking about is not a typical example of lions, most lions would die on such a diet. Please show your sources, where did you hear of this?
The vegetarians are simply referring to the fact that it takes a lot of space to grow enough grass to feed a cow, which we then eat. If we use that space to grow vegetables that humans can eat instead, we would get more food. The obvious problem with thinking that there were EVER only herbivores is that they would constantly reproduce, there would be no carnivores to keep them in check. No matter how much food there is to start with, an ecosystem with only herbivores would soon collapse, because the huge amount of population would keep multiplying until there is not enough food left.
>>Ah, ok. Birds come on as adults then. Problem solved, what does
>>it matter?
Uh-huh, and what do these birds eat? (birds don''t hibernate) The only animals that can hibernate are some mammalian endotherms like squirrels and bears, and a small number of ectotherms, such as some small fish and snakes. While hibernating, they live off of their body fat. Many animals have a metabolism that is much too fast to sustain this for more than a few days, for example a hummingbird must consume many times its own weight every day to survive.
>>This is probably a joke, but I''ll answer it in case it''s not.
>>Clean and unclean is a way of describing creatures that can be
>>eaten and those that can''t. For spiritual or physiological
>>reasons.
Please explain... is this why God wanted goat''s blood sprayed on the alter? Or is this why Jewish people can''t eat pork or something...
>>It was not necessary for Noah to find creatures. Given the
>>nature of the task, just like it was beyond Noah''s control to
>>create the flood, so was it beyond his control to find all those
>>animals.
who found them? God? Another case of just saying "The impossible was possible... um... because... GOD MADE IT POSSIBLE!"
>>Evolution can occur because it has an infinate number of
>>chances. Feeble point.
I haven''t heard anyone say evolution can occur because it has an infinite number of chances, but that would be a feeble point. Evolution would obviously occur when the first self-replicating patterns formed.
>>I''m not sure how it worked. It does not matter. It is not
>>possible to affirm or deny. It is just merely stated as a
>>possibility. We need to steer this conversation back to things
>>which are able to be affirmed or denied adequately, rather than
>>just blind guesswork as to possibilities.
It is easy to deny that there was never two kilometers of water in the form of mist in the air. I would like to see your sources for this anyways... but if you have that kind of mist, the humidity would make the atmosphere more water than air, if somebody tried to breathe they would drown. There goes that theory, it has been denied and disproven.
>>That despite the tests made on the age of the ice, this rapid
>>burial of the planes showed a different story as to how old x
>>number of layers down is.
Small holes in ice refreeze quickly. The airplane probably melted its way down 75 meters. The water quickly refroze because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The energy in the water in the hole spread throughout the whole ice structure, and equalized to a temperature slightly above what it used to be but below freezing.
>>Earth was cold. brr. I did tell you what I witnessed in New
>>Zealand, another rapid change rather than slow.
The global temperature of Earth fluctuates, global warming is really not caused by human power pollution, that is a negligible amount, it is just another stage of Earth''s constant fluctuation of temperature.
>>Washed around, decomposed, settled, used as compost to grow
>>undersea plants, food, covered by rocks, etc. I see no reason
>>why it should still be visible. If I left a valley full of
>>corpses then I would presume that in 4000 years they would be
>>gone. How much more undersea where the erosion would have to be
>>greater?
In 4000 years you would have a valley full of bones and rotten organic matter. If it were used as compost to grow undersea plants etc., it would still be there, it would just have less nutrients. Corpses don''t just disappear, they can decompose into component organic matter, but there should be a thick layer of organic matter on the ocean floor from the flood.
>>Exactly, except for 2/7. So nothing goes extinct. That''s why I
>>said extinction of what?
Noah obviously would not have room on a 90 foot ark to fit two/seven members of every species of everything on Earth. There are many species of elephant, of dog, of horse, of cat, of fly, etc. and if he only brought one example of the general type, they would not have spread out and become as diverse as they are today within 4,000 years.
Please comment on fossils and the different religions, they are both relevant and important.
-David
122
May 19, 2001 02:40 PM
When will you all realize that I am god? Not A god, just plain od god. Now I command you all to suck the pointed cock of satan. If you don''t believe in me, good for you. I''ll send you all to hell... in other words, a California freeway in summer at 4:45pm in a 1987 Ford Escort. If you do believe in me, go play in traffic since you must also believe in heaven.
-----------------------------
www.haterade.com
-----------------------------
www.haterade.com
-----------------------------www.haterade.com
122
May 19, 2001 03:03 PM
quote:
Original post by ImmaGNUman
Here is another site that basically describes how to argue and be politically correct when arguing with an atheist. This may help you that have no idea what atheism is(the ones calling it a religion in itself for example).
In America, Atheism is recognized as it''s own religion by the federal government. As to why this was done, I believe it was lobbyed for by Atheists for tax purposes.
Be
SIt''s Da BOMB Baby!!!
. o O ~
A little nonsense now and then,
is relished by the wisest men
~ O o .
-- Willy Wonka
BeSIt's Da BOMB Baby!!!. o O ~ A little nonsense now and then,is relished by the wisest men~ O o .-- Willy Wonka
122
May 19, 2001 03:31 PM
http://www.christiancoders.com
Jeesus SAVESS..
he passes to Moses, what a KICK
Jeesus SAVESS..
he passes to Moses, what a KICK
God saw all that he had made. Shit happens sometimes. --the sixth day.
134
May 20, 2001 07:42 AM
Hello
I''m starting to get a bit (more =) sick of this topic, so I won''t be making many more posts, and like I have already been doing, I will probably skip a few posts if they seem long (hey, I have other things to do, as I''m sure (and hope) you do.... notice how nothing has been achieved, and probably nothing will be achieved... but that''s another story). So I''ll just make a few closing comments:
1) Christianity can be summed up using a creed, for example: Philipians 2:5. To be a Christian does not mean you belive that the Earth was created in 6 days.
2) Saying the bible is a fairy tale is strange, reading it does not sound like a fairy tale, geneologies of people, battle reports, results from cencus''s. Then there are the copies of parts of the new testament which were dated as being from about 200AD (I almost wrote BC =). This may seem like a long time, but people who are said to have existed without doubt (Plato for example) have gaps greater than 500 years easily with fewer copies.
3) There are documents written by Jewish leaders of the time who despised Jesus which stated his existance. I have read one of them, and I can track it down if necessary. ragonstick@whale-mail
4) Darwin, the so called "Father of Evolution" was a Christian. I agree with him, and I also believe that disproving evolution does not prove Christianity nor does proving it disprove Christianity.
5) The Roman guards who''s job it was to kill Jesus were very careful in what they did. They would lose their lives if their subject didn''t. There were also people who would check for the death as such an event was taken very seriously. The spear through the side of the subject was the final step after the person had died. Then the 3 days in the tomb without food and water after being beaten and whatnot would kill you. The historians who originally used this argument later became quite embarrased at it when they learnt a bit more about the Roman culture (if you need more info, mail me).
6) I''m tired and I''m going to bed
Trying is the first step towards failure.
I''m starting to get a bit (more =) sick of this topic, so I won''t be making many more posts, and like I have already been doing, I will probably skip a few posts if they seem long
(hey, I have other things to do, as I''m sure (and hope) you do.... notice how nothing has been achieved, and probably nothing will be achieved... but that''s another story). So I''ll just make a few closing comments:1) Christianity can be summed up using a creed, for example: Philipians 2:5. To be a Christian does not mean you belive that the Earth was created in 6 days.
2) Saying the bible is a fairy tale is strange, reading it does not sound like a fairy tale, geneologies of people, battle reports, results from cencus''s. Then there are the copies of parts of the new testament which were dated as being from about 200AD (I almost wrote BC =). This may seem like a long time, but people who are said to have existed without doubt (Plato for example) have gaps greater than 500 years easily with fewer copies.
3) There are documents written by Jewish leaders of the time who despised Jesus which stated his existance. I have read one of them, and I can track it down if necessary. ragonstick@whale-mail
4) Darwin, the so called "Father of Evolution" was a Christian. I agree with him, and I also believe that disproving evolution does not prove Christianity nor does proving it disprove Christianity.
5) The Roman guards who''s job it was to kill Jesus were very careful in what they did. They would lose their lives if their subject didn''t. There were also people who would check for the death as such an event was taken very seriously. The spear through the side of the subject was the final step after the person had died. Then the 3 days in the tomb without food and water after being beaten and whatnot would kill you. The historians who originally used this argument later became quite embarrased at it when they learnt a bit more about the Roman culture (if you need more info, mail me).
6) I''m tired and I''m going to bed
Trying is the first step towards failure.
Trying is the first step towards failure.
122
May 20, 2001 01:59 PM
>>1) Christianity can be summed up using a creed, for example:
>>Philipians 2:5. To be a Christian does not mean you belive that
>>the Earth was created in 6 days.
In other words you don''t have to believe in the Bible? As I said earlier, according to many Christian groups you are now doomed to hell.
>>2) Saying the bible is a fairy tale is strange, reading it does
>>not sound like a fairy tale, geneologies of people, battle
>>reports, results from cencus''s. Then there are the copies of
>>parts of the new testament which were dated as being from about
>>200AD (I almost wrote BC =). This may seem like a long time, but
>>people who are said to have existed without doubt (Plato for
>>example) have gaps greater than 500 years easily with fewer
>>copies.
Ok I''ll give you this, it''s a very BORING fairy tale. Happy? Plato has gaps greater than 500 years? No idea what you are talking about, and not sure if it''s relevant. Nobody is implying that the Bible doesnt exist, lol.
>> 3) There are documents written by Jewish leaders of the time
>>who despised Jesus which stated his existance. I have read one
>>of them, and I can track it down if necessary. ragonstick@whale-
>>mail
Ok, I don''t think Jews are any more right than Christians, but I also think you don''t understand the problem with Jesus: yes he probably existed, but he is not the son of a god or anything.
>>4) Darwin, the so called "Father of Evolution" was a Christian.
>>I agree with him, and I also believe that disproving evolution
>>does not prove Christianity nor does proving it disprove
>>Christianity.
Who cares if Darwin was a Christian or not? That is absolutely irrelevant. I don''t really give a #$(* about Darwin, evolution wasn''t really his idea in the first place according to some people, (I forget where I heard this, it''s probably irrelevant). If he said that he was probably trying to avoid being executed by angry xians, who have a tendency to kill people with different beliefs.
>>5) The Roman guards who''s job it was to kill Jesus were very
>>careful in what they did. They would lose their lives if their
>>subject didn''t. There were also people who would check for the
>>death as such an event was taken very seriously. The spear
>>through the side of the subject was the final step after the
>>person had died. Then the 3 days in the tomb without food and
>>water after being beaten and whatnot would kill you. The
>>historians who originally used this argument later became quite
>>embarrased at it when they learnt a bit more about the Roman
>>culture (if you need more info, mail me).
If they want to be careful why not spear him in the brain/heart or somewhere vital. I have never heard of the "side" being a vital organ. Obviously most people died from this, obviously Jesus was a tough guy, or else somebody helped him, bringing water, etc. Those roman guards undoubtedly lost their lives then, oh well.
>>6) I''m tired and I''m going to bed
Good night
-David
>>Philipians 2:5. To be a Christian does not mean you belive that
>>the Earth was created in 6 days.
In other words you don''t have to believe in the Bible? As I said earlier, according to many Christian groups you are now doomed to hell.
>>2) Saying the bible is a fairy tale is strange, reading it does
>>not sound like a fairy tale, geneologies of people, battle
>>reports, results from cencus''s. Then there are the copies of
>>parts of the new testament which were dated as being from about
>>200AD (I almost wrote BC =). This may seem like a long time, but
>>people who are said to have existed without doubt (Plato for
>>example) have gaps greater than 500 years easily with fewer
>>copies.
Ok I''ll give you this, it''s a very BORING fairy tale. Happy? Plato has gaps greater than 500 years? No idea what you are talking about, and not sure if it''s relevant. Nobody is implying that the Bible doesnt exist, lol.
>> 3) There are documents written by Jewish leaders of the time
>>who despised Jesus which stated his existance. I have read one
>>of them, and I can track it down if necessary. ragonstick@whale-
Ok, I don''t think Jews are any more right than Christians, but I also think you don''t understand the problem with Jesus: yes he probably existed, but he is not the son of a god or anything.
>>4) Darwin, the so called "Father of Evolution" was a Christian.
>>I agree with him, and I also believe that disproving evolution
>>does not prove Christianity nor does proving it disprove
>>Christianity.
Who cares if Darwin was a Christian or not? That is absolutely irrelevant. I don''t really give a #$(* about Darwin, evolution wasn''t really his idea in the first place according to some people, (I forget where I heard this, it''s probably irrelevant). If he said that he was probably trying to avoid being executed by angry xians, who have a tendency to kill people with different beliefs.
>>5) The Roman guards who''s job it was to kill Jesus were very
>>careful in what they did. They would lose their lives if their
>>subject didn''t. There were also people who would check for the
>>death as such an event was taken very seriously. The spear
>>through the side of the subject was the final step after the
>>person had died. Then the 3 days in the tomb without food and
>>water after being beaten and whatnot would kill you. The
>>historians who originally used this argument later became quite
>>embarrased at it when they learnt a bit more about the Roman
>>culture (if you need more info, mail me).
If they want to be careful why not spear him in the brain/heart or somewhere vital. I have never heard of the "side" being a vital organ. Obviously most people died from this, obviously Jesus was a tough guy, or else somebody helped him, bringing water, etc. Those roman guards undoubtedly lost their lives then, oh well.
>>6) I''m tired and I''m going to bed
Good night
-David
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement