FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: potluck6 on November 11, 2013, 08:27:50 pm
-
Watching Steven Meyers a creationist and he makes some good points about DNA having to be thought of and not just random chance.I also like some things that Richard Dawkins has said he's a big evolutionist.Got his book the Blind Watch Maker it's confusing have to try reading it harder like with no distractions .
-
Evolutionist = a scientist who explains modern biology through natural means, rigorous testing, and evidences. This term is able to improve it's viewpoint on the subject if it is proven wrong.
Creationist = a fundamental religious person who must tie all modern science through ancient mythology and supernatural unproven claims, w/o rigorous testing or evidences. Though the term is seemingly scientific, it is not actual science. This term ignores the contrary evidences and will crumble if proven wrong (or attempt to jerry-rig itself into the evidence to make it seem true).
I'm an evolutionist because I'm not a delusional fundamentalist.
-
Evolutionist = a scientist who explains modern biology through natural means, rigorous testing, and evidences. This term is able to improve it's viewpoint on the subject if it is proven wrong.
Creationist = a fundamental religious person who must tie all modern science through ancient mythology and supernatural unproven claims, w/o rigorous testing or evidences. Though the term is seemingly scientific, it is not actual science. This term ignores the contrary evidences and will crumble if proven wrong (or attempt to jerry-rig itself into the evidence to make it seem true).
I'm an evolutionist because I'm not a delusional fundamentalist.
-
I believe the bible is Gods word to mankind and explains and answers all of the questions.I do not believe in evolution.
-
I believe the bible is Gods word to mankind and explains and answers all of the questions.I do not believe in evolution.
Does it? The Genesis flood- Where did all that water come from? And where did it go? Water falling that fast and for that period of time would have killed all surface life on earth through carbon monoxide emissions pretty quickly. Can you logically explain how this event happened w/o all the elementary problems in the way?
-
Hi Falconer2....with faith you can move a mountain.
-
I'm certainly a creationist.There can be no doubt that a creation must have a creator.Anything as complex and wondrous as life and eternity and the human soul could not be a function of random chance.Common sense alone dictates that something cannot come from nothing.
It takes less faith to see the Creator behind the creation,than to believe we're all a product of evolution.A process that is neither provable or sensible.
-
I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I guess that makes me a creationist.
To my knowledge the scientist have not been able to create life, not even an omeba.
-
Hi Falconer2....with faith you can move a mountain.
Plate tectonics can move mountains! Faith? Nope.
It takes less faith to see the Creator behind the creation,than to believe we're all a product of evolution.A process that is neither provable or sensible.
Evolution has a vast amount of evidence, and has been proven to happen. Here's some examples-
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
There's a reason they're teaching it at younger ages now. Every day there's something new found in the fossil record! It explains a lot of the education of an individual when one puts mythical stories and mysticism in front of reality and honest research.
-
A vreationist. I love to create things. I also like to solve things. I guess i watch too many cop, er storoes etc.
-
I'm a little bit of both. I believe the stories in the bible are based in truth, if filled with a lot of poetic license. Most of the people who lived at the time of those stories didn't know that there were other continents, or that the world is round for that matter. A major flood of the local area would seem like the world was ending to them.There is a thread of child like innocence in the way the stories and tales are written that speaks towards the lack of knowledge that has come to light since the stories were written. I also believe in the evolution of species. There is tangible proof of how old the earth and extinct animals are. DNA can show the sequencing of species back to the origins. Who's to say God didn't start with dinos millions of years ago, and put in place the process of evolution for species to follow. Modern humans are approaching several ten thousand years old, the people who lived through the time of the bible are just a thousand years old. Where is the time in between the first humans to the biblical humans counted?Where does that put the dinos, ect. that were here millions of years ago? This can not just be dismissed.
-
Alpha Centauri is a visible star 50 light yrs away right?Now a light year is 186000 miles per sec correct?So if we are able to see the light from AC the creative days in Genesis certainly were QUITE LONG!!
-
Evolution has evidence to support it, creationism doesn't. If you have to appeal to faith and not evidence, you've already lost the argument.
If you say "creation must have a creator" and don't immediately see the flaw in that "argument", you're not fit to even be a part of the discussion. It's called begging the question. You're assuming your conclusion in your argument. If I start with the unsubstantiated belief that we're the product of aliens, well, I can say: "Alien offspring must have alien predecessors, therefore aliens must exist".
Stop. Start all over. Get a clue.
-
Nothing can come from nothing.It's a mathematical impossibility.You might want to take your own advice.
-
I don't believe in the bible and I don't really believe we evolved from apes so I guess I'm not sure what to believe.
-
Well said JJ....im being a good boy!!!
-
Nothing can come from nothing.It's a mathematical impossibility.You might want to take your own advice.
I believe you mean something can't come from nothing but regardless, you're the only one claiming this. You're claiming your god came from nothing. So, by your own admission, your god is an impossibility.
So, unfortunately, you leave here with nothing, but thanks for playing! I hope you had a good time. See you next time folks. :wave:
-
I have a problem with faith. I am not capable of believing in something of which there is absolutely no proof. Therefore, I am an evolutionist.
-
Falconer02, I got a nice chuckle from your blatantly biased definitions of an evolutionist and creationist. I believe in the divine creation. I also believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. For me, its not either-or
-
Falconer02, I got a nice chuckle from your blatantly biased definitions of an evolutionist and creationist. I believe in the divine creation. I also believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. For me, its not either-or
I tend to agree in that I feel that believing in evolution does not mutually exclude the belief in a god. I do believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory, and other scientific theories while at the same time I believe in the Christian God. I think these scientific theories are just expressions of the tools that God used to "create" the universe. Math and science has revealed a beauty, simplicity, and power to the underlying mechanics of the universe which I feel is a glimpse at an aspect of God as creator.
-
a little bit of both if that makes sense?
-
By just jumping in, I forgot to point out that creationism and evolution are not opposites. Creationism has to do with origins and evolution simply tackles how life changed once it was already here. Still, one is science, one is not. One has evidence, the other does not.
-
I am going to shoot the sh** here. If Scientists would not scientific things and Humans would not suggest it. What is the need of each? We as humans question and somebody need to have a half a** explanation.
-
I am going to shoot the sh** here. If Scientists would not scientific things and Humans would not suggest it. What is the need of each? We as humans question and somebody need to have a half a** explanation.
I don't understand this comment at all :confused1:
-
I am going to shoot the sh** here. If Scientists would not scientific things and Humans would not suggest it. What is the need of each? We as humans question and somebody need to have a half a** explanation.
I don't understand this comment at all :confused1:
Yeah I hear ya. Exactly what it was intended to do. I don't understand this ?? given. Creationist - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist. Evolutionist - a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution , especially in biology. What is the difference between the 2. I probably should of just asked this question instead of babbling out gibberish just to see who is paying attention. :silly:
-
Well, I actually explained that in a comment just above yours. Maybe we posted around the same time.
Creationism and evolution are not opposites. You can actually be a creationist and an evolutionist because one (creationism) is the belief that a supernatural being created everything and all life, and the other (evolution) explains how life changes over time.
There isn't a conflict between the two, but creationism has no evidence to support it and evolution does.
-
I was just going to refute the idea that the two can co-exist, and was looking at Wikipedia to ensure that how I define "creationism" was indeed what others define it as... And I found out that I was incorrect! In fact, from my searching, I found that there is indeed a field of discipline known as "evolutionary creationism" or "theistic evolution" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)). It essentially is the idea that God created life using evolution as the means for doing so. This idea came around during the tail end of the Age of Reason as a way to describe how humans were created by God without the necessity for miracles or other forms of spontaneous generation. And it sounds like some of the theories were the groundwork for Darwin's Origin of the Species.
It's more or less what I believe, although in some ways, I feel that this area of study may still be too anthropocentric (humans being the central purpose for the universe) for my liking, namely when the article started going into hominization (or the process by which humans are produced) and it said that many versions of theistic evolution incorporate some type of "special creation" where God infuses the corporal human with a soul which truly distinguishes humans from lesser animals.
My beliefs are more along the lines of a less anthropocentric view of the universe. That when God created the universe and instituted evolution as a means to create a being in God's image and likeness, God didn't direct evolution to such a point that it would create Homo Sapiens, but rather that evolution by itself was bound to create some being (not necessarily humans, and not just relegated to only humans) that held characteristics similar to God such as an intellect, eye for beauty, compassion, etc. Thus it allows for aliens to also be created by God via an evolutionary path.
BTW, how I originally defined "creationism" was how BJohnsonPP defined it as "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist".... The problem that I have with that definition is that last clause "substantially as they now exist" meaning that each species was individually created as is (with certain differences like eye color or body size being insubstantial things that don't have a bearing on the development of the species). That there was no ancestral organism that other species emerged from. By this definition of "creationism", it would in fact mean that the differences between a chimp and a human are substantial enough that each would be created by God separately rather than having the two species evolve from some common ancestor. This is the view of "creationism" that I have a hard time accepting.
-
BTW, how I originally defined "creationism" was how BJohnsonPP defined it as "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist"....
That's not my definition. Believers believe a god poofed things into existence. In what form and at what stage of the evolutionary process? I don't know, but I don't really care. They can coexist if believers arbitrarily choose where creationism ends and evolution begins. Basically, where ever they decide god decided for evolution to kick in. There's no evidence for a god and therefore none for creationism, so, whatever they decide the specifics are, is pretty meaningless.
Theistic evolution, which you linked to, is an unnecessary term which just boils down to "God did it". After scientist put their time and effort into actually figuring out evolution, believers come along and say "well, god made it all happen". It's their go to move. Let someone else do the actual research then just say "God did it" at the end of it all.
-
I am a bit confused here.How can 1 believe in evolution and creation together?If a creator started a process for life,creation to begin then obviously thats creation.Evolution <and i am not sure how to explain this>starts from nothing.Even the simplest things have to have a creator.The car u drive,the comp ur on,your fence,your tv,etc etc etc.
The main reason for evolutionists is a strong independence NOT to be accountable to a creator.INDEPENDENCE to decide what is good and bad as Satan deceived Eve into thinking.NO doubt it has always been a thought in mans thinking with the help and influence of the devil.
But the creator doesnt force anyone to want to live by HIS rules either.We arent robots.The shape of this world has seen the results of Satan and man governing this system.As scripture says "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one"Look into Adam Lanzas eyes <killer of the kids last year>and tell me he wasnt under demonic influence.
-
BTW, how I originally defined "creationism" was how BJohnsonPP defined it as "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist"....
That's not my definition.
Oops, you're right. vp44 was the one that supplied that definition. The definition that you gave for creationism -- "the belief that a supernatural being created everything and all life" -- is more in line with what I found on Wikipedia. However vp44's definition was more of how I previously defined creationism, which tacks on that additional clause -- that things are created substantially as they now exist -- meaning that there has been no substantial change from the point when God created them. It is this definition -- which stipulates that the things created are substantially the same then as now -- which cannot coexist with the idea of evolution, since evolution's fundamental argument is that species substantially change over time as natural selection dictates which traits are deemed more valuable for the survivability of the species, and actually leads to divisions in a species to form new ones. So while the definition you and Wikipedia gave for creationism does allow for ideas like theistic evolution, I'd say that the definition provided by vp44 does not allow for the mutual existence of these ideas.
However, I do take exception to your statement that scientists do all the work, and believers just come after the fact and say "God did it". If you actually looked at the history of science, including those in the field of biological evolution, you will find that most of the scientists were devout believers. Many felt that science and mathematics was a way of more closely understanding God, and not as a way to discredit God's existence. If anything, the early scientists (talking about during the Age of Reason, when the scientific method was articulated) were more Protestant than Atheist in that they believed more in advancing human knowledge than in relying on tradition whereas the Catholic Church was more conservative in keeping with the ideals of tradition. However going against church doctrine and tradition is much different than going against the belief in a god altogether. It's much the same as how Martin Luther was against the traditions of the Catholic Church yet was still a very devout believer in a Christian God. It is only a more recent phenomenon that more scientists are becoming atheist, seeing that as science is capable of explaining more about the universe, that the need for belief in a god is unnecessary.
As for what hitch0403 just said, I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that evolution starts from nothing. I know that JediJohnnie has also mentioned this, and I too was baffled by his comment. Evolution states that living things are continually changing with the passage of time; some of those changes being drastic enough that it results in the formation of new species. But it still relies on the fact that there was some common ancestor that the new species came from. The theory of evolution also wouldn't go against other theories and laws of nature, so it'd still have to abide by the law of Conservation of Mass -- that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The only thing that I'd hazard as being the rationale behind the claim that evolution starts from nothing would be if you were to extrapolate evolution backwards, there'd come a point where there was no previous life form from which ancestral life could evolve from. If that is the case, then your argument is more against the modern ideas for the origin of life on the planet and not on the theory of evolution. In other words, you can still postulate that God created that earliest life form, and through evolution all other life forms came into being, which would satisfy both the ideas of creationism (in the broader sense of the term) as well as evolution.
-
I am a bit confused here.How can 1 believe in evolution and creation together?If a creator started a process for life,creation to begin then obviously thats creation.Evolution <and i am not sure how to explain this>starts from nothing.Even the simplest things have to have a creator.The car u drive,the comp ur on,your fence,your tv,etc etc etc.
Evolution is the process of things changing or developing (evolving) over time. In order for something to evolve, it must already exist. It's not a competing ideal with creationism how things started.
-
Pretty simple....."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Rev 4:11.....this scripture explains why we should thank the creator for our existence.
I know for a fact <and im sure God feels this way cos we are created in his image>that when my son tells me he loves me cos I am his father <which means life giver>its pretty special.
-
However, I do take exception to your statement that scientists do all the work, and believers just come after the fact and say "God did it". If you actually looked at the history of science...
I'm well aware of the history of science and know that in its infancy, there's a point where it, philosophy, and religion converge (kind of like the singularity in the Big Bang theory). As time goes/went on however, the scientific method is developed, knowledge is gained, ideas are refined, and science stands out as the path to truth and everything else is just guesses and superstition. So, it's not a coincidence that the majority of scientists today are atheists.
My comments were not about scientists though. They were about believers who accept science as a path to truth but still interject god for no reason. I mean, you did it:
I do believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory, and other scientific theories while at the same time I believe in the Christian God. I think these scientific theories are just expressions of the tools that God used to "create" the universe. Math and science has revealed a beauty, simplicity, and power to the underlying mechanics of the universe which I feel is a glimpse at an aspect of God as creator.
(emphasis mine)
You "think" this, you "feel" this, but you have no evidence for this. So, you are, in fact, just tacking god onto the hard work someone else put into ACTUAL research. As far as scientists who are also believers, they do this to themselves. They put actual time and effort into actually understanding the world around them, then, because of their religious beliefs, just throw god in the mix. It makes no sense and, quite frankly, is disrespectful to the work they put in.
-
I guess what I take exception to is how you made it sound as though there were no scientists that are also believers, which is inaccurate and what I was trying to refute. Also you make it sound as though everything is done after the fact.
After scientist put their time and effort into actually figuring out evolution, believers come along and say "well, god made it all happen".
Those scientists that are also believers always have their beliefs. Their beliefs have an impact in everything that they do, and to ignore their beliefs would be disrespectful to their faith. When they are proposing hypotheses, their faith is also taken into account. For example, if their faith leads them to have an anthropocentric view over the universe, then their fundamental question may be along the lines of "If humans are made in the image and likeness of God, why is their such a variation in the different species on this planet?" which gets refined into more succinct hypotheses that can be tested in a scientific fashion, like looking at the variability of characteristics within one species, and seeing how certain characteristics lend an adaptive advantage over others in their species. The new information is then reflected in their view of the universe, and may indeed require certain beliefs to be changed or modified.
But even non-believers have a particular view of the universe with certain beliefs of how it works, which may too change with additional research. For example, Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics were unified in the modern synthesis of inheritance leading to the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. The Central Dogma was held as the common belief of how inheritance occurred: all information for the coding and structure is passed through some form of nucleic acid, and it is this nucleic acid that gets passed along as the genetic information, whether it be passed to future offspring or passed through infection and disease. So when in 1982 Prusiner reported on a protein-only hypothesis for infection in the form of prions, he was largely criticized as being a maverick scientist or discredited as being flat out being wrong. He was in essence defying a long-held belief that the majority of molecular biologists had for their view of their field in science. However as more evidence came out to substantiate his claim, those beliefs in the Central Dogma were changed as a result.
-
I guess what I take exception to is how you made it sound as though there were no scientists that are also believers, which is inaccurate and what I was trying to refute. Also you make it sound as though everything is done after the fact.
I'm well aware that there are scientists that are believers, but they are few and far between. Again, this is no coincidence. There IS a path to truth and religion has shown itself not to be that path. Ken Miller is a Christian and a biologist. He debunked Irreducible Complexity which is a failure of an attempt to debunk evolution by proponents of Intelligent Design. He kept his integrity by putting science first in matters of science and not relying on his faith.
Also, you're taking the word "After" too literally. I simply mean god is tacked to an end of of actual scientific research and discovery. There are no scientific theories with god as a central part of it. Those in the past that did have gods and monsters in them have had them stripped out. There's a reason why, when we had less knowledge, you could find god in everything and now, with more knowledge, "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on" (Neil Degrasse Tyson).
Those scientists that are also believers always have their beliefs. Their beliefs have an impact in everything that they do, and to ignore their beliefs would be disrespectful to their faith.
If you're in my house, you have to take your hat off. If you think it's disrespectful, don't enter my house.
When they are proposing hypotheses, their faith is also taken into account. For example, if their faith leads them to have an anthropocentric view over the universe, then their fundamental question may be along the lines of "If humans are made in the image and likeness of God, why is their such a variation in the different species on this planet?"...
This only taints their work. There's no reason to start with that premise when you haven't even proven a god exists. You deal with what you know or what you can know. If there is some unknown that is the linchpin of your hypothesis, you better have a path to finding that unknown or else it's just not science and can be dismissed. The Higgs boson (the god particle) comes to mind. With the god particle, it was thought to exist in 1964, and found to exist after only 48 years. God has had thousands of years and is still only at the "thought to exist" stage.
But even non-believers have a particular view of the universe with certain beliefs of how it works, which may too change with additional research...
It's not "non-believers", it's anyone applying science properly. With your example, you're just restating what has already been said: as time goes on, and knowledge is gained, ideas get refined. Of course that's going to happen, that's how science works. It, however, is absolutely NOT a matter of simply believing as is the case with faith. Whatever information we have at the time determines the ideas we have at that time. When new information comes in, we refine or replace those ideas. The difference with science and religion though, is that science changes with new information, religion doesn't. Scientist can admit that they were wrong or just didn't have enough information to go on, this is not the case with religion. So again, instead of accepting that certain beliefs are unsubstantiated and not useful, they are just tacked on to an end of someone elses hard work.
-
Falconer02, I got a nice chuckle from your blatantly biased definitions of an evolutionist and creationist. I believe in the divine creation. I also believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. For me, its not either-or
Allow me to simplify it for you to avoid any biased info-
Evolution- Science.
Creationism- Pseudoscience/mythology.
What you probably don't realize are the huge moral holes such a belief has. You can believe in creation and accept the facts of evolution, but that brings about the obvious problems of an immoral and uncaring deity. Disease is rampant, predators are everywhere, child death rates are horrifyingly large, one is lucky to live beyond 20 years of age, populations actually bottle-neck for a while and we almost go extinct, etc....this happens for 150,000-200,000 years of our current-day homo sapien evolutionary development. To put it bluntly, life is very rough for anyone alive. Then all of the sudden this god appears in the middle east after a barbaric civilization is established only a mere 10,000 years ago. Not in other areas of the world like China-- only this one specific area!
What was he doing for the last 200,000 years? Isn't it peculiar this one god appeared so late into the game? Please explain how you can hold the view of a divine god when you accept the facts of evolution. Because accepting both seems to be an argument for a malevolent or uncaring god.
-
So the answer is that not even scientists know where we come from since nothing can come from nothing and even GOD doesn't exist because he is not real. (SMMFH). That evolutionist and creationist are saying things but even they do not know the answer.
-
I am a bit confused here.How can 1 believe in evolution and creation together?If a creator started a process for life,creation to begin then obviously thats creation.Evolution <and i am not sure how to explain this>starts from nothing.Even the simplest things have to have a creator.The car u drive,the comp ur on,your fence,your tv,etc etc etc.
Evolution is the process of things changing or developing (evolving) over time. In order for something to evolve, it must already exist. It's not a competing ideal with creationism how things started.
So how did it exist?
-
There is enuff evil,wickedness,fascination with the occult,spiritism in this world that backs up the scripture "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one."
The bible is clear that Satan and his hordes of wicked disobedient angels have much control and influence in our world.The weapons of WWII in itself shows that mankind wasnt the only one to have been involved with that massacre.
But the bible holds out a hope and also why God has permitted this.Evolution has NO hope or as the bible also says "let us eat,drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."That is the road broad and spacious off to destruction.
-
Falconer02, I got a nice chuckle from your blatantly biased definitions of an evolutionist and creationist. I believe in the divine creation. I also believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. For me, its not either-or
Allow me to simplify it for you to avoid any biased info-
Evolution- Science.
Creationism- Pseudoscience/mythology.
What you probably don't realize are the huge moral holes such a belief has. You can believe in creation and accept the facts of evolution, but that brings about the obvious problems of an immoral and uncaring deity. Disease is rampant, predators are everywhere, child death rates are horrifyingly large, one is lucky to live beyond 20 years of age, populations actually bottle-neck for a while and we almost go extinct, etc....this happens for 150,000-200,000 years of our current-day homo sapien evolutionary development. To put it bluntly, life is very rough for anyone alive. Then all of the sudden this god appears in the middle east after a barbaric civilization is established only a mere 10,000 years ago. Not in other areas of the world like China-- only this one specific area!
What was he doing for the last 200,000 years? Isn't it peculiar this one god appeared so late into the game? Please explain how you can hold the view of a divine god when you accept the facts of evolution. Because accepting both seems to be an argument for a malevolent or uncaring god.
Maybe he was doing experiments like scientist to see how a world can exist with homo sapiens. I am surprised you didn't give a answer for why was dinosaurs here.
-
There is enuff evil,wickedness,fascination with the occult,spiritism in this world that backs up the scripture "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one."
The bible is clear that Satan and his hordes of wicked disobedient angels have much control and influence in our world.The weapons of WWII in itself shows that mankind wasnt the only one to have been involved with that massacre.
But the bible holds out a hope and also why God has permitted this.Evolution has NO hope or as the bible also says "let us eat,drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."That is the road broad and spacious off to destruction.
Really and the Dinosaurs had witchery and such.
-
Hey VP...did dinosaurs have mistletoe too?
-
So the answer is that not even scientists know where we come from since nothing can come from nothing and even GOD doesn't exist because he is not real. (SMMFH). That evolutionist and creationist are saying things but even they do not know the answer.
This is incorrect- scientists have plausible theories as to where life originated from, however they do not state that these scientific theories are exactly where we came from. In short, they have ideas with some evidences leading to these theories, but claim that they could be incorrect. Creationists say they do have the answer (through mythological beliefs) without stating any convincing evidence at all.
Maybe he was doing experiments like scientist to see how a world can exist with homo sapiens. I am surprised you didn't give a answer for why was dinosaurs here.
I didn't want to bring up dinosaurs because those life forms support evidence of evolution and it's an entirely different subject (just wanted to focus on humans).
Well let's say you're right then and this god was just doing experiments for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm not sure how you can argue that that isn't extremely cruel treatment to the test subjects. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being need to do experiments?
-
Maybe he was doing experiments like scientist to see how a world can exist with homo sapiens. I am surprised you didn't give a answer for why was dinosaurs here.
I don't see why an omnipotent and all perfect god would need to do experiments.
Also, no one knows how life started but the only people with plausible ideas on the subject are scientists. As with all of their theories, there's a point of first hypothesizing and gathering data before they can say anything definitively unlike the religious who claim 100% with zero evidence.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people are so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
I'll stick with the wiser people who currently say "I don't know" while actually trying to figure it out instead of the "fools and fanatics" that are so certain of themselves.
-
Maybe he was doing experiments like scientist to see how a world can exist with homo sapiens. I am surprised you didn't give a answer for why was dinosaurs here.
I don't see why an omnipotent and all perfect god would need to do experiments.
I completely agree. If god is omniscient and omnipotent (by definition) then there would be no need to experiment. This too begs the question for the existence of older life forms (like the dinosaurs) for the creationist view that life exists in much the same form as when God created that species... If God created life on this planet whole cloth (instead of having life evolve from one species to the next), then it seems to stand to reason that God would have just created humans right away instead of creating some other life form that existed before humans walked the planet.
Also, no one knows how life started but the only people with plausible ideas on the subject are scientists. As with all of their theories, there's a point of first hypothesizing and gathering data before they can say anything definitively unlike the religious who claim 100% with zero evidence.
I think this may be in part for some of our disagreements... Not all religions claim to have a definitive answer to everything, nor do all believers have a fixed view of the universe. I think it comes down to another statement of faith...
If your faith is that God is absolute truth and the Bible is the actual word of God, then it stands that the Bible must also be absolute truth. People that hold this as their beliefs will then maintain the veracity of the Bible's account vs. scientific theories, since the Bible is true whereas science is just the accepted understanding of how the universe operates based on the best evidence that we flawed humans can come up with.
If on the other hand your faith states that the Bible is the inspired word of God that too was written by us flawed humans, then neither the Bible nor science can state what the absolute truth is. People that hold this as their faith can therefore accept the claims that science has made as probably being closer to the truth (since the writers of the Bible didn't have the knowledge that we do today) and thus can change their beliefs just as a scientist does when shown additional evidence that opposes their previous vies of the world.
As such, the Roman Catholic church (to which I belong) which believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, has undergone several changes in its view of the universe as new scientific evidence is presented. From viewing the Earth as the geocentric, anthropocentric, flat world of only a few thousand years in age; we now accept that the globe is much older, ellipses the sun, and is not the center of the universe neither in terms of physical space nor in it's importance. I will agree that there are times when this change in the view of the world is extremely slow (as evidenced by the apology that the Catholic church gave for its trial of Galileo some 300+ years after the fact), it still doesn't mean that religion cannot change with the times.
Now I will grant that in this discussion your statement is probably a more accurate depiction since the whole tread is about evolution vs. creationism, and those religions that tend to hold to the Bible being literal fact will believe in the account given in the book of Genesis of our planet's (and species') origins. Therefore, those that hold to the truth of creationism as stated in the Bible tend to be more immutable in the face of scientific evidence again because their faith professes that the Bible is always true whereas science is the work of humans and can therefore be fallible.
-
I think what gets missed here is the question.Why did God create life.The answer is simple.The bible says that HE is love so he created out of love.
Is it so hard to see HE has feelings?Read the bible right before the flood in Genesis.The world had become so wicked He felt hurt in HIS heart.
I think whats wrong with a lot of people when they judge the Creator or God they dont look at HIM as a REAL person.Remember mankind is made in HIS image so its easy to understand love and hurt feelings.
Experiment?Suppose he had destroyed A&E right after they sinned....where would human race be?But HE allowed them to have off-spring cos HE knew some of us would love,obey and accept HIM as rightful sovereign of universe.The name Jehovah means "He causes to become".The monkey wrench A&E & Satan put into his purpose was a slight roadblock.It still will be carried out!!As far as HE is concerned cos HE is Alpha and Omega this has only been going on 6 days.
-
I think what gets missed here is the question.Why did God create life.The answer is simple.The bible says that HE is love so he created out of love.
Is it so hard to see HE has feelings?Read the bible right before the flood in Genesis.The world had become so wicked He felt hurt in HIS heart.
I think whats wrong with a lot of people when they judge the Creator or God they dont look at HIM as a REAL person.Remember mankind is made in HIS image so its easy to understand love and hurt feelings.
Experiment?Suppose he had destroyed A&E right after they sinned....where would human race be?But HE allowed them to have off-spring cos HE knew some of us would love,obey and accept HIM as rightful sovereign of universe.The name Jehovah means "He causes to become".The monkey wrench A&E & Satan put into his purpose was a slight roadblock.It still will be carried out!!As far as HE is concerned cos HE is Alpha and Omega this has only been going on 6 days.
I am a creationist! I have a hard time in believing that I evolved from a one cell. Maybe I am wrong but even so where did the one cell come from? I was brought up in believing in God and I would rather take my chances and continue believing in Him rather than be wrong when my time here on earth is gone and suffer the consequences. :peace:
-
Mike....i think its Psalms 139 that reads,"Your eyes <God> even saw me as an embryo.
Hard to understand sometimes that God always was...you can drive yourself crazy cos we had a beginning and HE didnt.
-
I am a creationist! I have a hard time in believing that I evolved from a one cell. Maybe I am wrong but even so where did the one cell come from? I was brought up in believing in God and I would rather take my chances and continue believing in Him rather than be wrong when my time here on earth is gone and suffer the consequences.
1.) I'd recommend taking a basic level biology course at your local community college to get a better grasp on the scientific world. "I don't get it, therefore god did everything." is not a good method of approach to finding answers and has hindered cultural progress for centuries at a time.
2.) There have been hundreds of religions throughout the ages, so putting all your eggs in one basket and sticking with the popular 'flavor-of-the-culture' one you were raised in seems extremely naive. What happens if your religion is false and...say...native american or hindu beliefs are correct?
-
I think what gets missed here is the question.Why did God create life.The answer is simple.The bible says that HE is love so he created out of love.
You obviously missed the point trying to be made. Love does not equal uncaring and malevolent behavior.
The world had become so wicked He felt hurt in HIS heart.
And in turn he destroys everyone including women and children (babies too)? Such traits are worse than a comic book villain.
I think whats wrong with a lot of people when they judge the Creator or God they dont look at HIM as a REAL person.Remember mankind is made in HIS image so its easy to understand love and hurt feelings.
Even if one does that, it's obvious to see that this god is majorly flawed in so many basic and childish ways that using words like "all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent" etc. shouldn't be spoken about it. People should really be worshiping a more competent god if this is what a religious person is supposed to do.
"I've created the universe, time, physics, planets and galaxies! But this one species hurt my feelings so I'm going to kill them all and start over."
The monkey wrench A&E & Satan put into his purpose was a slight roadblock.It still will be carried out!!As far as HE is concerned cos HE is Alpha and Omega this has only been going on 6 days.
Why would a god who transcends time create an antagonist?
-
Evolutionist = a scientist who explains modern biology through natural means, rigorous testing, and evidences. This term is able to improve it's viewpoint on the subject if it is proven wrong.
Creationist = a fundamental religious person who must tie all modern science through ancient mythology and supernatural unproven claims, w/o rigorous testing or evidences. Though the term is seemingly scientific, it is not actual science. This term ignores the contrary evidences and will crumble if proven wrong (or attempt to jerry-rig itself into the evidence to make it seem true).
I'm an evolutionist because I'm not a delusional fundamentalist.
-
Also, no one knows how life started but the only people with plausible ideas on the subject are scientists. As with all of their theories, there's a point of first hypothesizing and gathering data before they can say anything definitively unlike the religious who claim 100% [certainty] with zero evidence.
I think this may be in part for some of our disagreements... Not all religions claim to have a definitive answer to everything, nor do all believers have a fixed view of the universe.
I know all religions don't claim to have a definitive answer and I didn't say the all do. I'm speaking of the religious that chime in on this subject. There's no need to chime in and interject religion if you know it has no place in science. Those that know this, accept their religion for what it is and accept science for what it is. They don't need to be brought up. So, we're talking about a specific argument between the two sides and those that represent that particular religious side that seeks to challenge science with their superstition.
-
I am a creationist! I have a hard time in believing that I evolved from a one cell.
We develop from sperm cells and egg cells. Every living thing we know of starts from some sort of cell and is comprised of cells or is a cell. So evolution from a cell shouldn't be hard to believe or understand.
Maybe I am wrong but even so where did the one cell come from? I was brought up in believing in God and I would rather take my chances and continue believing in Him rather than be wrong when my time here on earth is gone and suffer the consequences. :peace:
That's certainly a great reason to believe something ridiculous... fear. Look up Pascal's wager... while you're at it, look up "god of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance" too.
-
I think of myself as an Apologist---taking the Middle Way. I believe that we are created to evolve!
I think of this 'joke' a preacher tells his church: A group of scientists went up to God one day and told Him "We've discovered how to construct all forms of life out of the dirt, just like you!" He seemed impressed & told them to go ahead and do it, "except for one thing ... create your own dirt! ::) "
-
I am neither an evolutionist or a creationist, I am a realist.
-
I think its kinda hard to argue against the bible that has been around for 1000s of yrs....been translated in hundreds of languages and predicted the future.All of that shows its divine and NOT manmade.Yes man was used as a secretary writes down her employers thoughts...but they are NOT his words.
I agree there are many religeons that profess to teach the Bible but DONT!!Just because this satanic system blinds the minds of many there is NO reason to blame the Creator for that.In the book of Job the calamitys that Satan brought upon him were done to make it look like God was causing them.Yet his love for Jehovah still didnt make Job curse Him as his wife and others wanted him to do.
BTW...just what is a realist?
-
I am neither an evolutionist or a creationist, I am a realist.
Well if you stick to reality, then aren't you an evolutionist due to the fossil record?
I think its kinda hard to argue against the bible that has been around for 1000s of yrs....been translated in hundreds of languages and predicted the future. All of that shows its divine and NOT manmade.
One could say the same exact things for other ancient holy books such as the Vedas. And it's quite easy to dismiss ancient beliefs once you look at it realistically- the bible is full of flaws, hypocrisy, immoral teachings, romanticizations, false prophecies, etc. An all-powerful god expects you to believe he's real just because of an old book with these attributes? It's a lame conduit to argue it's real.
BTW...just what is a realist?
I'm not surprised you had to ask this! Hahah jk!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism
-
I think its kinda hard to argue against the bible that has been around for 1000s of yrs....
You've clearly never read it. It's extremely easy to argue against it. There are scientific and historic inaccuracies, it's often contradictory, and laughably ridiculous. You might want to try reading it critically one day.
...been translated in hundreds of languages
Mistranslated often. Wouldn't it have been more efficient for your god that can do all things to put it in a language that we could all understand and also in a form that wouldn't deteriorate and have to be pieced together? I don't know, maybe I expect my omniscient, omnipotent beings to be... I don't know... omniscient and omnipotent. Crazy me.
...and predicted the future.
Like "there will be storms" and such? Congrats, you've just proven my weatherman is god.
BTW...just what is a realist?
As Falconer02 just said, it's not surprising you would ask this. I no longer think you're a fundamentalist, I think you're a comedy writer just trolling 'cause this is too perfect. You had me fooled though. I'll give that to you.
-
Hey VP...did dinosaurs have mistletoe too?
Hahaha that is funny. Can you say they did not have a Christmas? LOL How would you know and answer that one?
-
VP..Christ birthday supposedly by Christendom and many more was 2000 years on 12/25.Dinosaurs were before that...correct?So how could they celebrate xmas then?My pun had much to do with your season greetings posts.
Jesus said his followers would be ridiculed and objects of hatred because of HIM.In answer to these last few posts lets just say I am not surprised what i have read.Hopefully as i have mentioned numerous times if 1 person gets something positive regarding the bible the discussion was worth it.
Hebrews 4 :12 reads....The word of God is alive and active.Sharper than any double edged sword.It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,joints & marrow,it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
That scripture warned Jesus followers long ago the reaction the bible would get from True disciples and supporters of Satans system.
-
I thought i would offer more comedy when i said the Bible is divine because of predicting future prophecy.
Jesus warns his followers when you see Roman armies encamped around Jerusalem to flee.In 66ce Cestius Gallus armies surround Jerusalem and then apparently for no reason leave.That was the sign Jesus gave to flee.Those that didnt wished they had.In 70 ce Jerusalem fell as Titus finished his fathers campaign.Over a million dead and many sold into slavery.
Hope you had a good laugh!!
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
-
Jesus said his followers would be ridiculed and objects of hatred because of HIM.In answer to these last few posts lets just say I am not surprised what i have read.
"Predicting" you'll be ridiculed for saying and believing ridiculous things must be a display of divine clairvoyance and not just a matter of DUH :silly:
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.
Yes, the bible has references to people, places, and events that are real... so does Spiderman. He lives in New York... never seen him here though.
If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
Battered wives convince themselves that their husbands love them all the time. It's not uncommon for people to deny reality in order to hold on to a belief. Fear is powerful in both cases.
We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
Why do you think this is a competition of worship? Why do you desperately need to worship something? Darwin made his contribution to science, we acknowledge it and tip our hat to him, but the torch has been passed. No worship needed.
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
1st There's nothing militant about me (don't know why you capitalized that). I present facts, you present fantasy, you call me militant. That's all there is to it.
2nd Argumentum ad populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum . You think a lot of people believing something means what?
3rd 2/3 being brain dead primates is not an impossibility but that's not being claimed. These people have a special faith logic that they would never apply to any other area of their life. Start with indoctrination as a child, sprinkle in heavy doses of fear and you've got faith logic.
-
I have read that scientists are proving creationism more and more.
-
A reported conversation between the Hindu leader Mohandas K. Gandhi and the former British Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin:
Lord Irwin asked Gandhi what he thought would solve the problems between Great Britain and India. Gandhi picked up a Bible and opened it to the fifth chapter of Matthew and said: "When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world."
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Johnson- you seem to be educated and skilled in the art of debating. Does it make me a bad person when I literally laughed at his post though? I just showed my friends this on Steam and they're loving it. This has got to be one of the best posts I've read in a long time...I mean...everything here is completely devoid of any intelligent thought. It's off the chart-- this has GOT to be the most face-palm inducing post on Debate and Discussion that you just have to enjoy it. Either JJ is an actual talented internet troll, or he's part of some uneducated scum group like Westboro. Either way, this is an absolutely amazing post highlighting the lack of intelligence in creationists. I'm going to go worship my Charles Darwin statue now to clear my head.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Wow...
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Johnson- you seem to be educated and skilled in the art of debating. Does it make me a bad person when I literally laughed at his post though? I just showed my friends this on Steam and they're loving it. This has got to be one of the best posts I've read in a long time...I mean...everything here is completely devoid of any intelligent thought. It's off the chart-- this has GOT to be the most face-palm inducing post on Debate and Discussion that you just have to enjoy it. Either JJ is an actual talented internet troll, or he's part of some uneducated scum group like Westboro. Either way, this is an absolutely amazing post highlighting the lack of intelligence in creationists. I'm going to go worship my Charles Darwin statue now to clear my head.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Wow...
The arrogance of this response makes me quite relieved to have been brought up to believe in a Higher Power, thus making me a creationist. I will pray for you. People ARE entitled to post what they think and feel without the backlash of such criticism or name calling.
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Johnson- you seem to be educated and skilled in the art of debating. Does it make me a bad person when I literally laughed at his post though? I just showed my friends this on Steam and they're loving it. This has got to be one of the best posts I've read in a long time...I mean...everything here is completely devoid of any intelligent thought. It's off the chart-- this has GOT to be the most face-palm inducing post on Debate and Discussion that you just have to enjoy it. Either JJ is an actual talented internet troll, or he's part of some uneducated scum group like Westboro. Either way, this is an absolutely amazing post highlighting the lack of intelligence in creationists. I'm going to go worship my Charles Darwin statue now to clear my head.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Wow...
I'm no debater, this stuff is just too easy and may make it seem that way. ;)
All you can do is laugh. You're not a bad person at all for doing so. No contradictions in the bible? The bible hasn't been debunked? The bible predicts the future? None of this can be taken seriously. I can't believe these are real people. My current hypothesis is that this is just an ingenious way of reaching thirty posts in no time. I'm way ahead of schedule so, I would tip my hat to them, but, given that the only way to credit someone for their work is to worship them, I'll be creating alters to JediJohnnie and hitch... next to the Darwin one of course.
-
The arrogance of this response makes me quite relieved to have been brought up to believe in a Higher Power, thus making me a creationist. I will pray for you. People ARE entitled to post what they think and feel without the backlash of such criticism or name calling.
If defending an internet troll who spouts laughable stupidity and nonsense is a primary reason you're thankful to believe in such an ancient belief, I must say you really need to open your eyes and be open-minded to reality. You are entitled to believe in whatever ancient mythology you wish (and as crazy as it sounds, I'd die defending your freedom to believe in it), however when people point out the faults of your beliefs or are mocking someone who is making your belief look extremely stupid, it should not strengthen that belief. That is the sign of a delusional person.
-
All you can do is laugh. You're not a bad person at all for doing so. No contradictions in the bible? The bible hasn't been debunked? The bible predicts the future? None of this can be taken seriously. I can't believe these are real people. My current hypothesis is that this is just an ingenious way of reaching thirty posts in no time. I'm way ahead of schedule so, I would tip my hat to them, but, given that the only way to credit someone for their work is to worship them, I'll be creating alters to JediJohnnie and hitch... next to the Darwin one of course.
Ha! I withdraw my previous notion that their responses are the most ridiculous posts on the forum. I completely forgot we had this evangelical witch of a women a while back who said faith healing can cure AIDS and was extremely rude to everyone who disagreed with her. And then there was this other dude who linked videos of himself street-preaching/screaming at passing people and literally threatening them with hell if they didn't listen to him. At first you think these people are just trolling, but then you find out they aren't and you can't help but either laugh or shake your head knowing the truth of how psychotic some people are. So the people here now are fairly crazy, but I'm glad it's not back to that level from the past.
-
Sharon yo can be assured you are on the right side.20,000,000 attended The Lords Evening meal <Memorial>this past year.It is a command Jesus gave to his disciples "keep doing this in rememberance of me"the night he was about to be arrested and to memorialize it cos of the significance of his death with the human race.
If others here dont wanna show the bible to be a divine writing from God what can i say.Its typical of this world.Satan has blinded the minds of many as well as turn himself even to an angel of light at times too.
-
Mr Johnson i cant speak for Jedi but you can save your lifeless alter for yourself.I appreciate the fact that The Living God gave me life and gave me a chance to understand the truth and have a chance to live forever in a world that would be so far removed from the one we live in now.I appreciate what Jesus and His father did to ransom the human race so we would not die or live in sin anymore.
You dont have to answer me anymore to get your 30 posts.If you need the 3 bucks that bad ill send u a check!!
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Johnson- you seem to be educated and skilled in the art of debating. Does it make me a bad person when I literally laughed at his post though? I just showed my friends this on Steam and they're loving it. This has got to be one of the best posts I've read in a long time...I mean...everything here is completely devoid of any intelligent thought. It's off the chart-- this has GOT to be the most face-palm inducing post on Debate and Discussion that you just have to enjoy it. Either JJ is an actual talented internet troll, or he's part of some uneducated scum group like Westboro. Either way, this is an absolutely amazing post highlighting the lack of intelligence in creationists. I'm going to go worship my Charles Darwin statue now to clear my head.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Wow...
I'm no debater, this stuff is just too easy and may make it seem that way. ;)
All you can do is laugh. You're not a bad person at all for doing so. No contradictions in the bible? The bible hasn't been debunked? The bible predicts the future? None of this can be taken seriously. I can't believe these are real people. My current hypothesis is that this is just an ingenious way of reaching thirty posts in no time. I'm way ahead of schedule so, I would tip my hat to them, but, given that the only way to credit someone for their work is to worship them, I'll be creating alters to JediJohnnie and hitch... next to the Darwin one of course.
Soooo,do you high minded intellectuals care to answer the question,or just continue proving me right?Either way will be fine.
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Johnson- you seem to be educated and skilled in the art of debating. Does it make me a bad person when I literally laughed at his post though? I just showed my friends this on Steam and they're loving it. This has got to be one of the best posts I've read in a long time...I mean...everything here is completely devoid of any intelligent thought. It's off the chart-- this has GOT to be the most face-palm inducing post on Debate and Discussion that you just have to enjoy it. Either JJ is an actual talented internet troll, or he's part of some uneducated scum group like Westboro. Either way, this is an absolutely amazing post highlighting the lack of intelligence in creationists. I'm going to go worship my Charles Darwin statue now to clear my head.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Wow...
The arrogance of this response makes me quite relieved to have been brought up to believe in a Higher Power, thus making me a creationist. I will pray for you. People ARE entitled to post what they think and feel without the backlash of such criticism or name calling.
I don't even concern myself with the militant atheists anymore.When confronted with common sense,you'll find they always resort to mocking and condescending arrogance.
Jesus was mocked by people of higher standing than they will ever be.
-
Jesus said his followers would be ridiculed and objects of hatred because of HIM.In answer to these last few posts lets just say I am not surprised what i have read.
"Predicting" you'll be ridiculed for saying and believing ridiculous things must be a display of divine clairvoyance and not just a matter of DUH :silly:
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Yeah...if you have a contradiction in mind,state it.I'm not going to read a ton of stuff on a website.Conversation don't work like that, son.
In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.
Yes, the bible has references to people, places, and events that are real... so does Spiderman. He lives in New York... never seen him here though.
Hey,you're very clever!Now, Where's the supposed contradiction?
If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
Battered wives convince themselves that their husbands love them all the time. It's not uncommon for people to deny reality in order to hold on to a belief. Fear is powerful in both cases.
LOL,so let me get this straight.....The multitude of people who have believed in God (both past and present) are victims of "battered woman syndrome?"
We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin. :sad1:
Why do you think this is a competition of worship? Why do you desperately need to worship something? Darwin made his contribution to science, we acknowledge it and tip our hat to him, but the torch has been passed. No worship needed.
It's called being sarcastic.I'm sure you have no experience there...
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
1st There's nothing militant about me (don't know why you capitalized that). I present facts, you present fantasy, you call me militant. That's all there is to it.
I haven't presented anything,but you sure haven't presented any facts.
2nd Argumentum ad populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum . You think a lot of people believing something means what?
I never claimed it meant anything beyond the fact that there is a vast majority of people who believe in a deity.That does not make them mentally incompitent as you would seem to indicate.
3rd 2/3 being brain dead primates is not an impossibility but that's not being claimed. These people have a special faith logic that they would never apply to any other area of their life. Start with indoctrination as a child, sprinkle in heavy doses of fear and you've got faith logic.
Or it could be that some of us have actually studied the Bible and found it to be historically and internally consistent.
-
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.
Please stop http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Yeah...if you have a contradiction in mind,state it.I'm not going to read a ton of stuff on a website.Conversation don't work like that, son.
In a forum where the conversation is being had through text, linking to text is absolutely how a conversation works. This is just a guess but, not reading through a ton of stuff is probably the reason you think there are no contradictions in the bible.
In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.
Yes, the bible has references to people, places, and events that are real... so does Spiderman. He lives in New York... never seen him here though.
Hey,you're very clever!Now, Where's the supposed contradiction?
Wasn't pointing out a contradiction. Was pointing out the meaninglessness of your "point".
If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
Battered wives convince themselves that their husbands love them all the time. It's not uncommon for people to deny reality in order to hold on to a belief. Fear is powerful in both cases.
LOL,so let me get this straight.....The multitude of people who have believed in God (both past and present) are victims of "battered woman syndrome?"
Pretty much... or do you think the Abrahamic religions spread far and wide because they handed out daises everywhere they went? There's a reason why "God fearing Christian" is a well known term but, "God loving Christian", not so much.
But,I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
1st There's nothing militant about me (don't know why you capitalized that). I present facts, you present fantasy, you call me militant. That's all there is to it.
I haven't presented anything,but you sure haven't presented any facts.
2nd Argumentum ad populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum . You think a lot of people believing something means what?
I never claimed it meant anything beyond the fact that there is a vast majority of people who believe in a deity.That does not make them mentally incompitent as you would seem to indicate.
3rd 2/3 being brain dead primates is not an impossibility but that's not being claimed. These people have a special faith logic that they would never apply to any other area of their life. Start with indoctrination as a child, sprinkle in heavy doses of fear and you've got faith logic.
Or it could be that some of us have actually studied the Bible and found it to be historically and internally consistent.
If you say the bible has no contradictions, you've certainly just presented fantasy which, I guess, is equivalent to presenting nothing. So I guess you're correct.
People that actually study the bible as well as other religions, are typically called atheists. If you can't read through a list of bible quotes on a website, pardon me if the idea of you "studying" the bible is just another example of you presenting fantasy to me.
You dont have to answer me anymore to get your 30 posts.If you need the 3 bucks that bad ill send u a check!!
Wow, you actually did predict something. My last post WAS my 30th post, so yes, I didn't have to answer you anymore. All praise hitch0403!
-
Soooo,do you high minded intellectuals care to answer the question,or just continue proving me right?Either way will be fine.
Answer your questions? Elementary, my dear Watson!
There is nothing contradictory in the Bible.
http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf
Here is an interactive pdf file of all of the contradictions spotted in the bible! Look at all those red marks! Look at that visual proof with all those passages you can easily look up! You'll have to zoom in quite a bit to see them all! Care to troll again and say it's internally consistent?
In fact,pure unbiased science/archaeology is actually consistent with the Bible.
Actually the burden of proof is on you, fine sir! However I will point out that religious archaeologists are well-known for faking their finds. Example? http://www.examiner.com/article/the-great-noah-s-ark-hoax
If the Bible could be proven to be so unreliable,we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now
Well sure it has some good morals and stories in it, and by all means those should stay within culture. But these stories are usually highlighted whereas all the terrible stuff usually goes unspoken due to the immoral behavior present. You yourself have been guilty of this many times if I don't recall, so you've really dug your own grave before these discussions even start.
We'd all be bowing to the alter of Charles Darwin.
Good ol' Darwin! Actually Darwin was a racist jerk through most of his life. Just like a lot of people of the time. Good thing scientists just apply his actual findings to their research rather than worshipping statues of dead people like religious people do. ;)
Thomas Edison was also a huge jerk who stole patents and needlessly killed animals. But you have lightbulbs in your home, don't you? Think about that.
I guess the Militant Atheists consider roughly three quarters of the Earth's population that actually believe in a deity to be brain dead primates.
And, sadly, much of the world's population has near the same education as yourself. Atleast others can read these posts and learn the facts.
-
If you say the bible has no contradictions, you've certainly just presented fantasy which, I guess, is equivalent to presenting nothing. So I guess you're correct.
This jedi guy's a riot, isn't he? You gotta love him!
-
Hey Falcon2,how come you know so much and dont know anything?
Mr Johnson,thanx again for the altar and the praise.Maybe i should ask you to send me money.AHHHH,i also got my 30 posts a longtime ago too and have a decent job.So thanx but no thanx.
-
Hey Falcon2,how come you know so much and dont know anything?
...wha? Sort of an oxymoron statement, don't ya think?
-
Watching Steven Meyers a creationist and he makes some good points about DNA having to be thought of and not just random chance.I also like some things that Richard Dawkins has said he's a big evolutionist.Got his book the Blind Watch Maker it's confusing have to try reading it harder like with no distractions .
I don't believe in the bible and I don't really believe we evolved from apes so I guess I'm not sure what to believe.
-
Joke of the day. Put a evolutionist and creationist along with a Christian in a room what do you get? Many people who think they know so much and try to think they know more than each other. None will ever agree and they will never have a answer except for their own belief that only actually make sense to them. Neither of your RESEARCH have a answer only speculation.
-
Joke of the day. Put a evolutionist and creationist along with a Christian in a room what do you get? Many people who think they know so much and try to think they know more than each other. None will ever agree and they will never have a answer except for their own belief that only actually make sense to them. Neither of your RESEARCH have a answer only speculation.
Evolution is a foundational principle of biology, so calling it 'speculation' is the sign of someone who probably knows nothing about it. This quoted paragraph is nothing more than someone trying to level the playing field, but it fails due to the writer not understanding the topics at hand. Of course there's probably going to be those few who quote it and go "omg this is so true!" which unfortunately only prolongs the severe lack of education in this thread.
-
Joke of the day. Put a evolutionist and creationist along with a Christian in a room what do you get? Many people who think they know so much and try to think they know more than each other. None will ever agree and they will never have a answer except for their own belief that only actually make sense to them. Neither of your RESEARCH have a answer only speculation.
Evolution is a foundational principle of biology, so calling it 'speculation' is the sign of someone who probably knows nothing about it. This quoted paragraph is nothing more than someone trying to level the playing field, but it fails due to the writer not understanding the topics at hand. Of course there's probably going to be those few who quote it and go "omg this is so true!" which unfortunately only prolongs the severe lack of education in this thread.
I stand by my JOKE neither knows more than the other and I get humor of how each try's to outdo each other. I did say I do not get of what is the difference. If you cared to read previous posts. So for you to try and make it seem like your so educated, strange you did not read posts before accusing someone not being of knowledge. That is what's wrong with some who think they are so smart, a educated fool is what I call them. LMAO Guess what you proved my joke to be true.
-
VP...i certainly didnt need to read your joke to see all the mass confusion that the devil has done in this world to hide the illumination of Gods kingdom thru HIS son Jesus.
I support a worldwide brotherhood of followers of Christ that follow HIS command at Mathew 24:14.This good news of the kingdom will be preached in the entire earth and then the end of this satanic system will come to an end.
So if you wanna think 20,000,000 people attended The Lords evening meal <Memorial of Christ death> because they are trying to out-do each other,i seriously think you better get another writer for your joke telling.
-
And i was referring Nisan 14 or last spring with The Memorial.It was March 26th 2013 this past year!
-
I stand by my JOKE neither knows more than the other
That is an incorrect assertion-- by stating that one does not believe evolution to be a reality and a practiced theory, one is showing either ignorance or stating that they are uneducated on the issue. Not knowing anything about evolution means that one is not familiar with science, and therefore one does know more than the other- the person who understands evolution and creationism and can tell them apart from each other.
I did say I do not get of what is the difference.
Then you should be the one re-reading thread. Not I.
That is what's wrong with some who think they are so smart, a educated fool is what I call them. LMAO Guess what you proved my joke to be true.
Calling someone an "educated fool" because they didn't grasp your ignorant joke is just lame behavior. Don't quit your day job.
-
I support a worldwide brotherhood of followers of Christ that follow HIS command at Mathew 24:14.This good news of the kingdom will be preached in the entire earth and then the end of this satanic system will come to an end.
Care to get back on topic and get off your delusions of grandeur?
-
I support a worldwide brotherhood of followers of Christ that follow HIS command at Mathew 24:14.This good news of the kingdom will be preached in the entire earth and then the end of this satanic system will come to an end.
Care to get back on topic and get off your delusions of grandeur?
Maybe 'the opposite of grandeur' is the delusion, and this topic is getting us off the topic we need to focus-on---basically, it's saying that 'creation V evolution' DOESN'T MATTER except as it weighs upon future 'manifestations' (i.e. whether they arise from the 'creative' mind or the 'evolution' of ideas ... I say, Both! the mind CREATES the force that pushes new uses of old material to EVOLVE.)
-
the mind CREATES the force that pushes new uses of old material to EVOLVE.)
That is an interesting way of looking at it! However I think you've confused creativity with creationism in this case-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
-
the mind CREATES the force that pushes new uses of old material to EVOLVE.)
... I think you've confused creativity with creationism in this case-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Can you have 'creation' WITHOUT 'creativity'?
-
Can you have 'creation' WITHOUT 'creativity'?
I suppose creationism can be viewed as a primitive man's way of creativity. I mean when mankind had no clue as to how the world works, it's obvious they'd make stuff up. That requires creativity. What I don't get is how this primitive behavior still tries to act as truth in our modern culture.
-
... when mankind had no clue as to how the world works, it's obvious they'd make stuff up. That requires creativity. What I don't get is how this primitive behavior still tries to act as truth in our modern culture.
Napoleon Hill says in Think & Grow Rich (http://selfhelpsanctum.com/tagr/indextgr.php) (the classic from 1937, on par with How to Win Friends & Influence People) that about 90% of "creation" is just 'putting already-created things together in new ways.'
-
I stand by my JOKE neither knows more than the other
That is an incorrect assertion-- by stating that one does not believe evolution to be a reality and a practiced theory, one is showing either ignorance or stating that they are uneducated on the issue. Not knowing anything about evolution means that one is not familiar with science, and therefore one does know more than the other- the person who understands evolution and creationism and can tell them apart from each other.
I did say I do not get of what is the difference.
Then you should be the one re-reading thread. Not I.
That is what's wrong with some who think they are so smart, a educated fool is what I call them. LMAO Guess what you proved my joke to be true.
Calling someone an "educated fool" because they didn't grasp your ignorant joke is just lame behavior. Don't quit your day job.
Taking my Quote out of context would make you seem a smart person. I stand by my quote and joke. Educated fool!
-
OMG What part of my quotes they keep taking apart and at the end of the day it explains it the same. Stop it, your making yourself look DUMB. :) :)
-
VP...i certainly didnt need to read your joke to see all the mass confusion that the devil has done in this world to hide the illumination of Gods kingdom thru HIS son Jesus.
I support a worldwide brotherhood of followers of Christ that follow HIS command at Mathew 24:14.This good news of the kingdom will be preached in the entire earth and then the end of this satanic system will come to an end.
So if you wanna think 20,000,000 people attended The Lords evening meal <Memorial of Christ death> because they are trying to out-do each other,i seriously think you better get another writer for your joke telling.
[/quote Who cares about your 20,000,000 those are not my people.
-
Taking my Quote out of context would make you seem a smart person. I stand by my quote and joke. Educated fool!
OMG What part of my quotes they keep taking apart and at the end of the day it explains it the same. Stop it, your making yourself look DUMB
No one knows what you're talking about. I suggest you start over.
-
Watching Steven Meyers a creationist and he makes some good points about DNA having to be thought of and not just random chance.I also like some things that Richard Dawkins has said he's a big evolutionist.Got his book the Blind Watch Maker it's confusing have to try reading it harder like with no distractions .
I am a creationist. Only God can create something as wonderful as a human being. And then there are all of the animals. Each one is uniquely different than another. God created the heavens and the earth!
BMaston12
-
Taking my Quote out of context would make you seem a smart person. I stand by my quote and joke. Educated fool!
OMG What part of my quotes they keep taking apart and at the end of the day it explains it the same. Stop it, your making yourself look DUMB
No one knows what you're talking about. I suggest you start over.
Of course not you keep just putting parts of my quote. Anyways I am not going to go back and forth with this. I was replying to another when you entered in. I refuse to make a mountain out of mole hill.
-
Creation, Evolution; Why does it matter? And why not both?
-
Of course not you keep just putting parts of my quote. Anyways I am not going to go back and forth with this. I was replying to another when you entered in. I refuse to make a mountain out of mole hill.
Okay then. See ya later.
Creation, Evolution; Why does it matter? And why not both
An important quality of mankind is that we evolve and adapt so we understand reality more. From there, we can improve...well...practically everything! Creationism in the modern world is a step in the wrong direction since it's saying mythology is reality. What if I were to tell you that the reason the sun moves across the sky each day is because of a god and his horse are pulling it? And then when you find out that that's preposterous and show me proof that there is no god and chariot, I implement some skewed version of my original story to make it fit within my crazy beliefs? You'd think I'm a nut, right? That's pretty much what creationism strives for- failure to be rational and factual in favor of ancient myths.
-
Not everyone believe in your assumption. Just because you say it does not make it real!
-
Creation, Evolution; Why does it matter? And why not both
An important quality of mankind is that we evolve and adapt so we understand reality more. From there, we can improve...well...practically everything! Creationism in the modern world is a step in the wrong direction since it's saying mythology is reality. What if I were to tell you that the reason the sun moves across the sky each day is because of a god and his horse are pulling it? And then when you find out that that's preposterous and show me proof that there is no god and chariot, I implement some skewed version of my original story to make it fit within my crazy beliefs? You'd think I'm a nut, right? That's pretty much what creationism strives for- failure to be rational and factual in favor of ancient myths.
So why does it matter? Suppose you actually did believe that 'G*d pulls the sun across the sky in his golden chariot' ... so? Does it CHANGE the Truth? What evidence have you that it's NOT G*d-pulled?
What's the difference between ancient mythology & the modern mythology we have today (a.k.a. "science," but really 'scientist's highly-convincing stories')?
-
Not everyone believe in your assumption. Just because you say it does not make it real!
You are correct. However it'd show a lot of integrity if you were to explain how my facts and examples (or assumption as you put it) are incorrect.
-
God created the Earth 6,000 years ago.
-
So why does it matter? Suppose you actually did believe that 'G*d pulls the sun across the sky in his golden chariot' ... so? Does it CHANGE the Truth?
Why does it matter? Because let's apply the same thought process to natural disasters. I'm sure you can see the difference between these 2 ideas-
"This earthquake happened because gay people are rampant in this area. God is punishing us for allowing them to do what they want. If we get rid of them, these earthquakes will stop."
"This earthquake happened because we're dangerously close to the edge of a tectonic plate. We should probably move away from it, set up some seismic activity scales, and mark it on a map so people know of it and we can avoid more damage and death."
The truth does not matter to religious people. If it did, there would be no religious people.
What evidence have you that it's NOT G*d-pulled?
A 1st grade education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit
What evidence do you have that this god does pull it? Once we set both sets of evidences on the table, we can rationally determine which is more logical.
What's the difference between ancient mythology & the modern mythology we have today (a.k.a. "science," but really 'scientist's highly-convincing stories')?
There's a humongous difference between mythological beliefs and the scientific process. It is true that they would overlap each other in ancient times, but that's simply because of technological limitations and religious dogma of the time. The scientific process in modern times and marvelous- the fact that you can see this message is proof of that. Science has the ability to improve itself- if it's wrong, that's a good thing! That means we can improve our view with any new evidences we find.
Mythology- specifically creationism as an example, does not have that luxury. If one thing is wrong with it, the whole foundation crumbles and there's nothing to build upon since it relies so much on the ancient beliefs. This is why creationists are so crazy with rigging and tacking-on their beliefs onto legit sciences- if they're wrong, their entire beliefs are proven to be faulty. Thus is why you hear "the bible actually meant this when it says this." It's a cheap and convenient way to make something seem legit, but the reality is it's a delusional and fallacious way of thinking.
-
God created the Earth 6,000 years ago.
A-HYUK HYUK!
-
Man has created natural disasters with his pollution of the earth.
And less we forget what God told Adam after they rebelled.."Cursed is the ground on your account"
-
God pulling the sun with a cart....LOL!!!
Lets just say Jehovah is a much better mathematician then we could ever imagine!!
-
The word of God says that "God trys NO ONE with evil."
It also says,"God is NOT to be mocked,for whatever a man sows this he will reap"
The evidence is as abundant as is the ignorance of the world!
-
Man has created natural disasters with his pollution of the earth.
Natural 'disasters' have been happening since the formation of our planet. Some in the far past are exponentially worse than what we deal with now. Though it is possible that we're potentially giving a way for natural disasters to occur, I would not go so far as to say we are the primary cause for them (well...desertification can easily be caused by us, but it occurs naturally too). They're going to happen with or without our acts.
God pulling the sun with a cart....LOL!!! Lets just say Jehovah is a much better mathematician then we could ever imagine!!
That's an actual ancient belief. Just like yours! So the irony in this quote is very apparent.
The word of God says that "God trys NO ONE with evil."
Except for originally creating antagonists, condoning evil behavior, killing off nearly the entire planet, and promising to do it again in the future.
The evidence is as abundant as is the ignorance of the world!
Another ironic statement as it could be applied to the disbelief in gods.
-
A creationist....absolutely! Listen to youtubes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. Circular reasoning MANY "proofs" that have been proven false continue to circulate. If you want the truth....you can find it.
-
A creationist....absolutely! Listen to youtubes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. Circular reasoning MANY "proofs" that have been proven false continue to circulate. If you want the truth....you can find it.
You mean the well-known liars and convicted frauds? Yeah, let's take points from them. How Christian.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
-
The word of God says that "God trys NO ONE with evil."...
Oh really? Who made Pharoah harden his heart against Hebrew Exodus?
Why does it matter? Because let's apply the same thought process to natural disasters. I'm sure you can see the difference between these 2 ideas-
"This earthquake happened because gay people are rampant in this area. God is punishing us for allowing them to do what they want. If we get rid of them, these earthquakes will stop."
"This earthquake happened because we're dangerously close to the edge of a tectonic plate. We should probably move away from it, set up some seismic activity scales, and mark it on a map so people know of it and we can avoid more damage and death."
The truth does not matter to religious people. If it did, there would be no religious people.
What if it's NOT tectonic-plates? What if it's because our arm of the Milky Way Galaxy is swinging us through a wormhole for the next billion years?
What evidence have you that it's NOT G*d-pulled?
A 1st grade education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit
What evidence do you have that this god does pull it? Once we set both sets of evidences on the table, we can rationally determine which is more logical.
If you 'prove' that God does something, you 'prove' He exists; as faith necessitates a LACK of proof, and as God only exists because of faith, it is at that point that God "vanishes in a puff of logic."
What's the difference between ancient mythology & the modern mythology we have today (a.k.a. "science," but really 'scientist's highly-convincing stories')?
There's a humongous difference between mythological beliefs and the scientific process. It is true that they would overlap each other in ancient times, but that's simply because of technological limitations and religious dogma of the time. The scientific process in modern times and marvelous- the fact that you can see this message is proof of that. Science has the ability to improve itself- if it's wrong, that's a good thing! That means we can improve our view with any new evidences we find.
Mythology- specifically creationism as an example, does not have that luxury. If one thing is wrong with it, the whole foundation crumbles and there's nothing to build upon since it relies so much on the ancient beliefs. This is why creationists are so crazy with rigging and tacking-on their beliefs onto legit sciences- if they're wrong, their entire beliefs are proven to be faulty. Thus is why you hear "the bible actually meant this when it says this." It's a cheap and convenient way to make something seem legit, but the reality is it's a delusional and fallacious way of thinking.
Let me make my question clearer: what's the difference between 'I read that somebody saw something amazing' & 'I read that somebody tested-&-measured something amazing'? You're still left with 'I read ... he said/she said' (except with the 'measured' one you can theoretically "test it yourself")>
-
God had nothing to do with Pharoah being a creep.He saw in his heart thats the person he was.He gave him every chance to change and let Israel go and prove he is long suffering for a reason.He also told him,I have kept you in existence for the very reason to show the world "I am the TRUE GOD!!!"Which he proved when Egypt still challenged HIM coming after his people and drowning them in the sea.
He allowed Abraham to find 50 righteous people in Sodom before HE destroyed it and Abraham got it down to 10.
There are many instances in the Bible that shows Jehovah is a very forgiving God.Jesus forgave the evildoer on the stake next to him when the evildoer asked to be remembered.Jesus told him,You will be with me in paradise.Obviously Jesus saw his heart was asking for mercy.
The difference between us being a judge and the CREATOR is that HE knows our hearts better than even ourselves.
Many even say God knew A&E would sin.Well if HE knew why did he bother warning them of penalty.Being an all knowing God doesnt mean HE has to know ALL THE time.He can choose that also.If he couldnt then that would mean he had no control over that.
Bible discernment lets you understand all this.If your heart isnt right towards it its like that double edge sword.Draws out the other intentions of the heart and dont wanna be accountable.
-
Wow there is people out there you should stay away from.
-
What if it's NOT tectonic-plates? What if it's because our arm of the Milky Way Galaxy is swinging us through a wormhole for the next billion years?
Well can you provide your evidence of this? Because if you can't, we'll have to shelf this idea until we discover actual proof. That's the point of science/methodological naturalism. I mean the idea of the god and his chariot has been sitting on the shelf for centuries now...it's only practical to believe it's fake. It may not be, but do you want to put any money on it being true?
If you 'prove' that God does something, you 'prove' He exists; as faith necessitates a LACK of proof, and as God only exists because of faith, it is at that point that God "vanishes in a puff of logic."
Correct!
Let me make my question clearer: what's the difference between 'I read that somebody saw something amazing' & 'I read that somebody tested-&-measured something amazing'? You're still left with 'I read ... he said/she said' (except with the 'measured' one you can theoretically "test it yourself")>
The difference is this-
A.) Reading a quick article on wikipedia.
B.) Testing a new hypothesis with scientific scrutiny from hundreds (if not thousands) of different scientists who are trying to prove this hypothesis wrong over the course of decades before the evidence is confirmed and taken as a legit scientific theory.
-
What if it's NOT tectonic-plates? What if it's because our arm of the Milky Way Galaxy is swinging us through a wormhole for the next billion years?
Well can you provide your evidence of this? Because if you can't, we'll have to shelf this idea until we discover actual proof. That's the point of science/methodological naturalism. I mean the idea of the god and his chariot has been sitting on the shelf for centuries now...it's only practical to believe it's fake. It may not be, but do you want to put any money on it being true?
Why bother with dis-proof? If believing lets you sleep a little more-comfortably, what's the harm? (Maybe I ought to answer that one too, as I spend a lot of time arguing AGAINST "wrong" dogma: the man who believes something 'wrong' is like the one who built his house on the ancient swamp-ground. Maybe his house'll stay up while he's awake, but we all must sleep. And maybe he has enough friends-&-family to keep it up while he is sleeping, but ... better to trust a firm foundation than the shifty force of men's flesh.)
Let me make my question clearer: what's the difference between 'I read that somebody saw something amazing' & 'I read that somebody tested-&-measured something amazing'? You're still left with 'I read ... he said/she said' (except with the 'measured' one you can theoretically "test it yourself")>
The difference is this-
A.) Reading a quick article on wikipedia.
B.) Testing a new hypothesis with scientific scrutiny from hundreds (if not thousands) of different scientists who are trying to prove this hypothesis wrong over the course of decades before the evidence is confirmed and taken as a legit scientific theory.
And who's to say that those hundreds (if not thousands) of different scientists were not merely characters in 'the mythology of today' (science-fiction)?
-
Emperor Constantine has what meaning to the Bible? Just a question to gain knowledge.
-
Why bother with dis-proof?
Because people used to think smearing animal blood on wounds would heal people. Knowing how things work is extremely vital to humanity. This extends to basic biology to vast astronomical studies.
If believing lets you sleep a little more-comfortably, what's the harm?
I could argue that it's delusional, but you'd be right- no harm is coming to the individual. The reality of it is that it's not just individuals who are doing this- there has been bloodshed over these delusions for ages and there still is.
And who's to say that those hundreds (if not thousands) of different scientists were not merely characters in 'the mythology of today' (science-fiction)?
That very well could be! But the evidences we've discovered so far have stuck within our reality for quite some time, so I really don't find a reason to dismiss them as pseudoscience. But going back to the original thought of this thread, would you rather trust scientifically literate people whose job requires them to disprove each other, or would you rather trust an ancient book written by primitive people who were scientifically illiterate and gullible?
-
I believe that God created the Earth in the beginning. :angel11: He created time. I also believe there was evolution among the species to allow for the survival of the fittest, but the animals were initially created in their own kind by a creator.
It takes faith to believe in God, but I know it's right in my :heart:. To believe that all life evolved from nothing, and that before that, there was nothing at all seems to me to require much more faith. Plus the fact that when we die, if there is nothing to look forward to (like Heaven), that's a very sad prospect indeed. :(
This was just my two cents worth, people. I hope we keep this clean. That's the best part about Fusion Cash. No one really gets nasty about their point of view. After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.
-
After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.
Lizzie.....when the evil-doer dying next to Jesus asked Jesus to remember him,did he change his mind from what he was?
Obviously he did from Jesus answer back to him after Christ saw his heart.
The apostle Paul was killing others and thought he had the right religeon until Jesus humbled and blinded him.But then he found truth cos God saw his heart was in the right place to be forgiven and teach the truth about TRUE God.
Judas was NOT forgiven cos he sinned directly against the holy spirit knowing all along Jesus was Gods son and selfishly only thought of his GREEDY self.
-
well, since I don;t believe in evolution, then I must be a creationist, and then, I just create all those cool things that come into my mind, whether it be food, gardening, woodworking, painting, building, crocheting, etc... - see? :rainbow:
-
Emperor Constantine has what meaning to the Bible? Just a question to gain knowledge.
He oversaw it's original binding-together; when Christianity was still a New Age religion.
Why bother with dis-proof?
Because people used to think smearing animal blood on wounds would heal people. Knowing how things work is extremely vital to humanity. This extends to basic biology to vast astronomical studies.
And disproving that does what-exactly?
If believing lets you sleep a little more-comfortably, what's the harm?
I could argue that it's delusional, but you'd be right- no harm is coming to the individual. The reality of it is that it's not just individuals who are doing this- there has been bloodshed over these delusions for ages and there still is.
There's bloodshed over all kinds of delusions (love, property-rights, etc.) How `bout start with those, & leave our made-up past alone? lol
And who's to say that those hundreds (if not thousands) of different scientists were not merely characters in 'the mythology of today' (science-fiction)?
That very well could be! But the evidences we've discovered so far have stuck within our reality for quite some time, so I really don't find a reason to dismiss them as pseudoscience. But going back to the original thought of this thread, would you rather trust scientifically literate people whose job requires them to disprove each other, or would you rather trust an ancient book written by primitive people who were scientifically illiterate and gullible?
It sounds like the question is 'Who do you wanna team with: the group of people who all agree, or the group who all disagree.' Sometimes the first is best, sometimes the second is; depends on what your goal is in choosing. If you want peace, go for agreement. If you want conquest-type power, you want the one whose leadership is 'shaky without you.'
-
And disproving that does what-exactly?
It prevents death and the spread of disease.
There's bloodshed over all kinds of delusions (love, property-rights, etc.) How `bout start with those, & leave our made-up past alone? lol
Because it's still a reason there's bloodshed. And out of all of the ones you've listed, it's probably the most needless due to it's ancient and out dated origins. In no way am I defending the immoral acts you've listed- I'm just stating that, as far as substance and reason goes, it's the most pointless.
It sounds like the question is 'Who do you wanna team with: the group of people who all agree, or the group who all disagree.' Sometimes the first is best, sometimes the second is; depends on what your goal is in choosing. If you want peace, go for agreement. If you want conquest-type power, you want the one whose leadership is 'shaky without you.'
My previous post was only referring to the difference between science and religion. Though I understand what you mean, I'm not really delving into politics here.
After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.
Then you shouldn't be in debate and discuss if you aren't willing to educate yourself. If you wish to continue spewing your false religious ideologies, you have that right. But at least stand back and question your own beliefs if someone makes a decent point.
-
It sounds like the question is 'Who do you wanna team with: the group of people who all agree, or the group who all disagree.' Sometimes the first is best, sometimes the second is; depends on what your goal is in choosing. If you want peace, go for agreement. If you want conquest-type power, you want the one whose leadership is 'shaky without you.'
My previous post was only referring to the difference between science and religion. Though I understand what you mean, I'm not really delving into politics here.
Oh, but you're getting into the very ROOT of politics---which people agree with what! On this question, religion's "proof" (what EVERYONE agrees with) is the tradition that's been written; science's 'proof' is the NEW tradition (taken from better-&-better observation & measurement) that's been written. I think it depends on what ground you're standing-on; the sturdy boat (stuff you know) on the shifty sea of the unknown, or the firm ground in the middle of the island where all your ancestors are buried.
After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.
Then you shouldn't be in debate and discuss if you aren't willing to educate yourself. If you wish to continue spewing your false religious ideologies, you have that right. But at least stand back and question your own beliefs if someone makes a decent point.
[/quote]
Walking the Middle Way: I guess they're saying we aren't going to change 'what we know' because you 'know' something different (God's work--almost by-definition--DEFIES logic, being "foolish" to those who don't believe).
But does the one who builds on sinking-sand--after he SEES that he's building on sinking-stand--hurry up and start working on the next floor (swiftly becoming the new ground-floor)?
-
You'll find that Falconeer often spouts his "superior" wisdom,and is easily offended when it is not instantly agreed with.
-
You'll find that Falconeer often spouts his "superior" wisdom,and is easily offended when it is not instantly agreed with.
This is an incorrect assumption, and is simply a cheap baiting tactic. It's also "Falconer" not "Falconeer". It's like every one of your posts is mean-spirited and full of errors...I have fun pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who says they're a Christian ;-)
-
Oh, but you're getting into the very ROOT of politics---which people agree with what! On this question, religion's "proof" (what EVERYONE agrees with) is the tradition that's been written; science's 'proof' is the NEW tradition (taken from better-&-better observation & measurement) that's been written. I think it depends on what ground you're standing-on; the sturdy boat (stuff you know) on the shifty sea of the unknown, or the firm ground in the middle of the island where all your ancestors are buried.
I see what you're saying and mostly agree, however I believe the island metaphor you speak of is not a rational reason to keep believing in ancient ideas. Ultimately this is all I'm stating-
(http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/6/5319/600px-Science-vs-religion.jpg)
Walking the Middle Way: I guess they're saying we aren't going to change 'what we know' because you 'know' something different (God's work--almost by-definition--DEFIES logic, being "foolish" to those who don't believe).
In all honesty I'm just quoting Hitch because he has this inability to debate or discuss while listening to other people. I know I'm being condescending, but it's very odd constantly seeing "If it ain't in the bible, I don't care!" posts-- that mentality is what impedes any discussion from progressing. You on the other hand are the opposite as you seem to want to discuss beliefs and such, so I appreciate the replies.
Going back to this quote, if I were to tell you that there's a magic invisible dragon in my freezer and he created and sees everything, would you believe me? And if you didn't, couldn't I use the same logic path to make this dragon seem real?
But does the one who builds on sinking-sand--after he SEES that he's building on sinking-stand--hurry up and start working on the next floor (swiftly becoming the new ground-floor)?
Interesting metaphor. Do you think it fits within that picture I posted?
-
Falconer...discuss would be a better choice of words.As ive said many times to debate the bible would mean that its more important to me than to do a kind service to God or any other member on FC interested.Whereas i know you enjoy debating and i also know you have a poison in you regarding a Creator.Its more obvious to me you believe there is a Creator than not.How could one have such a dis-like for something they didnt think existed?
I am not fond of yor untruths towards the JWs i will admit.They truly have love among themselves and its a shame you NEVER saw it.But for whatever reasons you fell that way so be it.Again when i write on the forum it has nothing to do with debating you.If you wanna discuss something in a humane manner i dont have a problem with that...but if its just to gratify yourselve to say,"I won that round"...take a hike.There are others here i am sure that can read into my posts and also see where you are at!!!
Have a nice day.....LOL!
-
There are a few typos in my last post Falconer.You be the shark...i left you some blood!!!LOL!
-
There are a few typos in my last post Falconer.You be the shark...i left you some blood!!!LOL!
I AM ZE GRAMMAR NAHT-ZEE!
As ive said many times to debate the bible would mean that its more important to me than to do a kind service to God or any other member on FC interested.
My point is you're incapable of carrying on a conversation without having a bible handy. If we were to have a discussion on world war 2 history, and all I keep doing is quoting Mein Kampf and only literature surrounding that, you're just going to scratch your head.
i know you enjoy debating and i also know you have a poison in you regarding a Creator.
Not A creator. THE creators-- defined gods and the failure of people to realize that these concepts are wickedly flawed. That's probably a more accurate description of my 'poison' I suppose.
Its more obvious to me you believe there is a Creator than not.How could one have such a dis-like for something they didnt think existed?
Again, it's the fact of these concepts being flawed, willingly ignoring them, and still preaching them as if they're perfect. I do not have a problem with the speculation of there being some supreme being/beings/aliens/etc. out there. However if you don't have proof of them, you can't state that the mythology surrounding them is true and that they can be taken legitimately (well...besides the moral parts).
I am not fond of yor untruths towards the JWs i will admit.
Falsehoods you mean? You do know that everything I've stated in the past about this religion (false prophecies, frauds, uncaring individuals, etc.) are backed up by factual info and examples? I'm not saying they're all bad, but I am stating that the negative treatment within this religion is fairly well known.
If you wanna discuss something in a humane manner i dont have a problem with that.
We've tried numerous times, and you've done nothing but ignore, disappear, or continuously quote JW literature rather than focus on the actual issue and try to understand each other. I do believe most people would actually enjoy hearing your actual thoughts on an issue rather than reading a wall of bible quotes. I'm not saying you shouldn't use quotes-- I'm just stating you shouldn't be so heavily reliant on them for every post you make.
There are others here i am sure that can read into my posts and also see where you are at!
I suppose that's a good thing.
-
(http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/6/5319/600px-Science-vs-religion.jpg)
But does the one who builds on sinking-sand--after he SEES that he's building on sinking-stand--hurry up and start working on the next floor (swiftly becoming the new ground-floor)?
Interesting metaphor. Do you think it fits within that picture I posted?
Looking at that 'ignores all contradictory evidence,' I think of the bumblebee. I've heard that the bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. It obviously is, but (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm) it takes more brute-force than it looks like they have! "The bumblebee flies anyway."
The metaphor I think fits better with the picture is ... I look at them and think of 'boats' (or "starships"): the science-one looks like it has too many doors-to-keep-a-watch-on---ways for leaks & bugs etc. to tear it apart. The faith-one looks safer.
-
Falconer...discuss would be a better choice of words.As ive said many times to debate the bible would mean that its more important to me than to do a kind service to God or any other member on FC interested.Whereas i know you enjoy debating and i also know you have a poison in you regarding a Creator.Its more obvious to me you believe there is a Creator than not.How could one have such a dis-like for something they didnt think existed?
I am not fond of yor untruths towards the JWs i will admit.They truly have love among themselves and its a shame you NEVER saw it.But for whatever reasons you fell that way so be it.Again when i write on the forum it has nothing to do with debating you.If you wanna discuss something in a humane manner i dont have a problem with that...but if its just to gratify yourselve to say,"I won that round"...take a hike.There are others here i am sure that can read into my posts and also see where you are at!!!
Have a nice day.....LOL!
Exactly.It's the man's insufferable arrogance that I can't tolerate.If anyone wants an honest discussion of what I believe,that's fine.But Falconeer's attitude of demeaning the beliefs of a vast multitude whom believe in a deity (and as I said earlier,a multitude of people whom he obviously thinks has the mind of a tapeworm) is not worth the effort.If you don't allow him to "educate" you and agree with whatever his liberal philosophy professors filled is head with,you're not "debating" him properly.Let him think he "won" all the debates in the world.I'm sure that's the only reward he'll have.In this life or the next.....
-
xactly.It's the man's insufferable arrogance that I can't tolerate.
Just because it's easy to disprove every elementary flawed thing you type does not mean I'm arrogant. It means I'm correcting your misinformation. If you take offense to that, I really have no idea why you're in this part of the forum (I'm starting to sound like a broken record stating that to you, aren't I?). The only arrogant thing about me is just laughing over how terribly you display yourself as the kind religious person your religious protagonist tells you to be- you state lies, exhaggerations, the spreading of rumors/misinformation, and general spite towards others.
If you don't allow him to "educate" you and agree with whatever his liberal philosophy professors filled is head with,you're not "debating" him properly.
Really? Do I need to really explain what a debate is? I suppose I would since you obviously just contradicted yourself-
Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
So, despite the spiteful little personal attack on these fictional liberal professors you made up, you're pretty much saying "If you can't debate, don't engage in a debate with Falconer." so I thank you for that. You don't have to agree with what I say, but you do need to be kind and explain why so you can educate the other person. And besides- I'm all for reaching a consensus in the end. And there's ample proof of such examples on the forum if you search my posts. But, in religious arguments, it's always the religious person who either disappears or has a temper tantrum at the end. You above most are proof of that. Oh wait- I'm arrogant again for stating that fact now, aren't I?
Let him think he "won" all the debates in the world.I'm sure that's the only reward he'll have.In this life or the next.....
And the 3$ at the end of each month! So again I thank you for engaging me. I gotta go turn in my post count now, but for debate's sake and to see if you have the integrity to carry on a formal debate, what is your proof that there is a life after this one?
-
I mean lets get real here.The earth and society is pretty screwed up.You have those....
That say God doesn't exist
That say God doesn't care but exists
That say God allows all this crap to happen for a reason.
Now those are 3 beliefs.NOW just think for a sec....they all cant be right.Just like 1 religion teachs the soul is immortal and one doesn't.But then there are many that might say,well as long as you are a good person and go to church blah blah blah...God will find favor with you.OH really???So we get to decide how God feels??LOL!
You could use biblical answers but there are those that twist it around or have no use for it either.
I guess it matters where our hearts are and the judge of the universe sets the standards and then decides from there.And again to those that feel God doesn't exist and death is an end or theres another after-life so be it.But is it enuff to trust what you really don't know?Just like the many that think they will see heavenly bliss when they die.Oh really??How come they aren't jumping off bridges now?
-
Looking at that 'ignores all contradictory evidence,' I think of the bumblebee. I've heard that the bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. It obviously is, but (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm) it takes more brute-force than it looks like they have! "The bumblebee flies anyway."
I would say that the 'faith' approach to saying the bumblebee does not fly would mean that one still believes it can't fly even though they can actually watch it fly. The scientific approach may start with that premises, but it would be proven false since we have observable evidence of the contrary-- we can see the bumblebee fly and therefore we can state that as fact. If I were to state that they can't fly after both you and I observed it, I would be the delusional individual. Does that make sense? Either way, bumble bee's are weird.
The metaphor I think fits better with the picture is ... I look at them and think of 'boats' (or "starships"): the science-one looks like it has too many doors-to-keep-a-watch-on---ways for leaks & bugs etc. to tear it apart. The faith-one looks safer.
Ignoring contradictory evidence is safer? Are you suggesting that ignorance is bliss? Please explain.
-
I am both you can love God and and how the plan of evolution unfolded. We have more DNA now and can act and with faith make miracles. Prayers are real. energy is real. The correct frequency vibration sound color is all real to your soul. It is just that people who believe in evolution dont realize that was Gods plan for us./
-
I thought this thread was started for Evolutionist and creationist. Why always it becomes a Bible issue. I asked a ? Emperor Constantine change many things of the bible. No one answered that. At the end of the day none of you are serious scientists or creationist but just ones who have a comment. When CHURCH and SCIENCE concedes it is like Politics and Church. They do not match and can never exist in the same FORUM WORLD.
-
my favorite scienist is crick codiscovered of dna he says it more likely that a hurricane hits a junk yard and makes a fully functional 747 airport
-
I would say that the 'faith' approach ... would mean that one still believes it can't fly even though they can actually watch it fly.
So 'that you saw it' is incontestable proof?
If I were to state that they can't fly after both you and I observed it, I would be the delusional individual. Does that make sense?
Wouldn't I be the 'delusional one' if I saw it fly even though we both know it can't?
The metaphor I think fits better with the picture is ... I look at them and think of 'boats' (or "starships"): the science-one looks like it has too many doors-to-keep-a-watch-on---ways for leaks & bugs etc. to tear it apart. The faith-one looks safer.
Ignoring contradictory evidence is safer? Are you suggesting that ignorance is bliss? Please explain.
If you're looking for a potential problem, you'll often CREATE the problem itself. For example, I--looking to BLAME 'something other than myself' for my un-married-ness--mistakenly PROCLAIM reasons for women not to marry me (hoping some girl would hear about that 'hole in the boat' and set to work mending it). Therefore, the prospect of marriage-to-me becomes 'a complicated, often-leaky boat.' Now if only I had kept my big 'philosoph-o-phile' mouth shut, I might've gotten some girl to 'hop on board my dinghy and head through rocky, uncharted waters' like most guys do ;-)
(philosophophile - lover of the love of wisdom :-)) )
-
Started right in the beginning...the finger pointing.....Adam told God,the woman you gave me made me sin.
You see it quite happening all the time even in our time.
I think they call it plea bargains to rat on your partners in crime!!
-
Wow, we're still at it huh?
Falconer, I've been reading through what I've missed, and every time I read one of your posts, I had to hit the "say thanks" link but unfortunately, I can only do that once every hour. You'd be flooded with them otherwise.
Btw, without fail, no matter the forum, online or otherwise, believers will always whip out "he's so arrogant" or "he thinks he knows everything". This is of course an ad hominem. It's very high school. I liken it to a pretty girl who all the guys are into, walking by another group of girls. She says nothing and is just minding her business, but what's the first thing that comes out of the other girls mouths? "She thinks she's all that!" She's just walking by! YOU must think she's "all that" and you don't compare. Instead of acknowledging this inadequacy, you instead project it on to her where it manifests itself (in your head) as her being conceited. You can now, of course, proceed to attack this short coming "she" has.
What's arrogant and insufferable is believing in something, providing zero evidence for it, insisting that it's true, ignoring all contradictory evidence, refusing to understand (or being incapable of understanding) the most basic of arguments, spouting nonsense that defies all logic and reason, then pointing to the person dismissing that nonsense as the one with some sort of character flaw. Give me a damn break.
-
So 'that you saw it' is incontestable proof?
Practically? Rationally? Yes. Scientifically? Not so much. I mean we could discover that the universe is actually revolving around that 1 bee! But without proof of this concept, you can only speculate. And speculation does not equate to proof.
Wouldn't I be the 'delusional one' if I saw it fly even though we both know it can't?
In this specific and simple case, I would just require a visual example of it flying. I wouldn't really call you delusional since it's a plausible statement and it's only practical that I gave you time to gather your evidence. BUT if you were to exclaim that the bee's name is "Nectarius", is the 1 chosen bee, has magical mysterious powers, died for everyone's sins and then came back from the dead to spread the word of Nectarius, and if I didn't believe you I'd be stung by billions of bees in the after life, then yes. Unless I could visually confirm your wild claims, you'd be labelled a delusional.
f you're looking for a potential problem, you'll often CREATE the problem itself. For example, I--looking to BLAME 'something other than myself' for my un-married-ness--mistakenly PROCLAIM reasons for women not to marry me (hoping some girl would hear about that 'hole in the boat' and set to work mending it). Therefore, the prospect of marriage-to-me becomes 'a complicated, often-leaky boat.' Now if only I had kept my big 'philosoph-o-phile' mouth shut, I might've gotten some girl to 'hop on board my dinghy and head through rocky, uncharted waters' like most guys do ;-)
(philosophophile - lover of the love of wisdom :-)) )
If I read this right and I'm following you correctly, you're a riot! lol I suppose in many contexts ignorance (or rather keeping one's mouth shut) has it's perks!
-
alconer, I've been reading through what I've missed, and every time I read one of your posts, I had to hit the "say thanks" link but unfortunately, I can only do that once every hour. You'd be flooded with them otherwise.
Hahah thanks, man!
Btw, without fail, no matter the forum, online or otherwise, believers will always whip out "he's so arrogant" or "he thinks he knows everything". This is of course an ad hominem. It's very high school. I liken it to a pretty girl who all the guys are into, walking by another group of girls. She says nothing and is just minding her business, but what's the first thing that comes out of the other girls mouths? "She thinks she's all that!" She's just walking by! YOU must think she's "all that" and you don't compare. Instead of acknowledging this inadequacy, you instead project it on to her where it manifests itself (in your head) as her being conceited. You can now, of course, proceed to attack this short coming "she" has.
Exactly.
What's arrogant and insufferable is believing in something, providing zero evidence for it, insisting that it's true, ignoring all contradictory evidence, refusing to understand (or being incapable of understanding) the most basic of arguments, spouting nonsense that defies all logic and reason, then pointing to the person dismissing that nonsense as the one with some sort of character flaw. Give me a damn break.
This is also completely true. And unfortunately the ones who need this truth the most will most likely skip this quoted paragraph or think it does not apply to themselves. Such is the way of the internet trolls...
-
So 'that you saw it' is incontestable proof?
Practically? Rationally? Yes. ...
So you've seen STAR WARS & I've STAR WARS, therefore The Force must be the ultimate power in the universe :-?
... Yep, it was showing under my bridge too!
-
What's arrogant and insufferable is believing in something, providing zero evidence for it, insisting that it's true, ignoring all contradictory evidence, refusing to understand (or being incapable of understanding) the most basic of arguments, spouting nonsense that defies all logic and reason, then pointing to the person dismissing that nonsense as the one with some sort of character flaw. Give me a damn break.
This is also completely true. And unfortunately the ones who need this truth the most will most likely skip this quoted paragraph or think it does not apply to themselves. Such is the way of the internet trolls...
This is why sometimes, all I can do is make fun. It's impossible to have a discussion or debate with a brick wall. But of course, I'm the a-hole at that point :-\ .
-
wow what a good topic! Love reading these replies. And its good to know I am not the only one open to other possibilities besides what we have all been taught from the bible and society. BTW I consider myself a spiritual evolutionist!
-
I am a Creationist. As a Christian, I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I believe that the Biblical account of how the world began is completely accurate.
-
So you've seen STAR WARS & I've STAR WARS, therefore The Force must be the ultimate power in the universe :-?
Huh? No- I'd hope to think we both know it's a fictitious movie. Unless you can prove "The Force" exists, you cannot say it does exist unless you want to be labelled a delusional. As crazy as it sounds, it could possibly exist, but since we have no proof, we therefore cannot state it as fact/reality. Does that make sense?
This is why sometimes, all I can do is make fun. It's impossible to have a discussion or debate with a brick wall. But of course, I'm the a-hole at that point
Don't let their insecurities stop you from discussing with the other people here who are actually interested in the topic!
-
This is why sometimes, all I can do is make fun. It's impossible to have a discussion or debate with a brick wall. But of course, I'm the a-hole at that point
Don't let their insecurities stop you from discussing with the other people here who are actually interested in the topic!
Don't worry, never have, never will. :)
-
So you've seen STAR WARS & I've STAR WARS, therefore The Force must be the ultimate power in the universe :-?
Huh? No- I'd hope to think we both know it's a fictitious movie. ...
How do we KNOW it's fictitious? How do we KNOW George Lucas wasn't recounting the actual history of 'a galaxy far-far away'?
-
So you've seen STAR WARS & I've STAR WARS, therefore The Force must be the ultimate power in the universe :-?
Huh? No- I'd hope to think we both know it's a fictitious movie. ...
How do we KNOW it's fictitious? How do we KNOW George Lucas wasn't recounting the actual history of 'a galaxy far-far away'?
If he stated this, he would have to provide evidence for it. He hasn't stated it, therefore there's no reason to even consider it. The burden of proof would fall on him since he's the one making that claim. Until he fulfills his burden, there's no reason to take it seriously.
I can see now, you're just going to start delving into solipsism which will lead to a pretty pointless conversation.
-
So you've seen STAR WARS & I've STAR WARS, therefore The Force must be the ultimate power in the universe :-?
Huh? No- I'd hope to think we both know it's a fictitious movie. ...
How do we KNOW it's fictitious? How do we KNOW George Lucas wasn't recounting the actual history of 'a galaxy far-far away'?
If he stated this, he would have to provide evidence for it. He hasn't stated it, therefore there's no reason to even consider it. The burden of proof would fall on him since he's the one making that claim. Until he fulfills his burden, there's no reason to take it seriously.
I can see now, you're just going to start delving into solipsism which will lead to a pretty pointless conversation.
Solipsism ... :-P ... Soooooooooooooo-Lipz :-P ...
Maybe I am ... sounds fun ... Did George Lucas ever 'state' that it WAS fictitious?
-
Solipsism ... :-P ... Soooooooooooooo-Lipz :-P ...
Maybe I am ... sounds fun ... Did George Lucas ever 'state' that it WAS fictitious?
Only if spinning around in circles is your idea of fun.
He wouldn't have to state that it's fictitious, he'd only have to state if it was not. If this were not the case, you'd have to put "not based on a true story" on most movies. Movies were created to put people's imaginations on display. So, the default would be "fictitious unless stated otherwise".
-
He wouldn't have to state that it's fictitious, he'd only have to state if it was not. If this were not the case, you'd have to put "not based on a true story" on most movies. Movies were created to put people's imaginations on display. So, the default would be "fictitious unless stated otherwise".
Is this a 'law' written somewhere official?
-
Is this a 'law' written somewhere official?
In the realms of reality! It should be common sense. But I mean...if you're on shrooms...whateva!
-
Is this a 'law' written somewhere official?
In the realms of reality! It should be common sense. But I mean...if you're on shrooms...whateva!
Hmm ... maybe the Shrooms-World is the real, & we're all just sharing in one boring dream! (Like in Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION), Hmm?
-
Is this a 'law' written somewhere official?
In the realms of reality! It should be common sense. But I mean...if you're on shrooms...whateva!
Hmm ... maybe the Shrooms-World is the real, & we're all just sharing in one boring dream! (Like in Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION), Hmm?
Aaaand there's your solipsism. We're all just living in a dream because all that exists is our minds and yadda yadda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
...like a dream, the solipsist's subconscious mind creates a world which the solipsist's conscious mind might not have chosen but has no control over changing.
This, like I said before, leads to a pointless conversation, because we still would have to adhere to the rules of the world we do exist in. So if we're trapped in the mind of just one person, a big red dog, or the interactions of several minds, all that matters is the rules of the world we do exist in no matter what that world is.
-
Is this a 'law' written somewhere official?
In the realms of reality! It should be common sense. But I mean...if you're on shrooms...whateva!
Hmm ... maybe the Shrooms-World is the real, & we're all just sharing in one boring dream! (Like in Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION), Hmm?
Aaaand there's your solipsism. We're all just living in a dream because all that exists is our minds and yadda yadda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
...like a dream, the solipsist's subconscious mind creates a world which the solipsist's conscious mind might not have chosen but has no control over changing.
This, like I said before, leads to a pointless conversation, because we still would have to adhere to the rules of the world we do exist in. So if we're trapped in the mind of just one person, a big red dog, or the interactions of several minds, all that matters is the rules of the world we do exist in no matter what that world is.
So ... is that created-ed or evolveded-ed?
-
Not sure
-
Not sure
Well, "whom do ye serve?" What do they say you are?
-
I was brainwashed by my Christian family after being adopted from my Native American family at age 6. By the time I was 8, I had realized inside myself that
"something just didn't ring true" and I felt I was being lied to. The brainwashing has taken many years to undo. I still suffer from some of the effects but after
50 years of life here on this plane, I now feel certain that humans evolved or even were brought here by some other life form from some other planet. I do not
believe there is any god.
-
I was brainwashed by my Christian family after being adopted from my Native American family at age 6. By the time I was 8, I had realized inside myself that
"something just didn't ring true" and I felt I was being lied to. The brainwashing has taken many years to undo. I still suffer from some of the effects but after
50 years of life here on this plane, I now feel certain that humans evolved or even were brought here by some other life form from some other planet. I do not
believe there is any god.
I agree that god(s) (who are supernatural people) are kind of 'blame-mules' for humans, ever since (Moses's storybook-character) Adam's "this woman you gave me"-nonsense.
god has been used as a blame-mule not just for people who 'don't want to feel guilty about hurt they do unto others,' but also for people who 'don't want to be "held responsible" for GOOD things they show people (like when Jesus told most of the people He healed NOT to tell others about the miracles He had done).'
-
I am an evolutionist because I believe in the laws of evolution.