Evolution 2 - Never-ending Debate
 

Ok, since Peter(OG-) brought back the Evolution links, I thought it only right to start a new thread for this. I didn't want to mess with the old Evolution thread simply because...well...it's old. So, here's where you can post your theories on what really happened a long long time ago.

I'll start things off...

Evolution really can't be possible. It can occur in very very small ways. I mean Dinosaurs are loosley related to birds, so evolution occured some. Now, if humans evolved from an ape. Why hasn't there been any more evolving? I mean for as long as anyone can remember, people have been, well...people. Even back before pictures, people were drawn as, well...people are today.

What are your thoughts???

Micro-evolution ( inner-species) YES.

Macro-evolution ( species to species/ Ape-Man) NO.

Thank you Sadie...

That sums it all up right there.. :D

That's right brother! It's all right there!:)

Not disagreeing per se, but what makes you so sure either way?

It's the " link thing."

Scientists have found evidence for inner species evolving. Such as water dwelling organisims, sprouting legs; to adapt to environmental changes. However, they've never found the bones of the in-between stages of ape to man.
We have the bones of apes. We have the bones of men. We have even " Homer-esque" looking bones, Cro-Magnum...or whatever..but where are the bones that support the transition? They don't exist.

Simply because it never happened. I've said this before, I'll say it again. IF we evolved, why have we stayed with this form for as long as anyone can remember??? Simple, we didn't evolve. God created the Solar Systems, and created man as well, just like that. There wasn't a 10 year span in which man evolved from a parasite or bacteria.

Like Sadie said, transistions in an species to survive in the area they live in is not questionable. It happens. Humans never evolved. If we did, how come no other apes have evolved into a human form???

Re: Evolution 2 - Never-ending Debate
 

While I suspect this to be true, there is no fossil record to validate this theory. All that exists is a similarity of bone structure.

Man's existence is a blip on the geologic timeline. There is evidence that Cro-Magnon existed at the same time as Neanderthal. The bone structure of Neanderthal is much closer to ape than the bone structure of Cro-Magnon. I find it to be a leap that Cro-Magnon evolved from Neanderthal... what could possibly be the vehicle for that transformation?

I do find it interesting that as more and more of the fossil record is revealed more and more anomolies are being found such as the "Lucy" skeleton which is supposed to be the "bridge".

This one goes into the ever increasing file of "I don't know".

Re: Re: Evolution 2 - Never-ending Debate
 

The wheel??? :confused:

:laugh:

I'm with you guys: evolution in some forms is readily evident...no doubt about it...but when you're talking about one species into another...especially into a radically intelligence species, like mankind, I have to draw the line. I'm also with Toose: I don't know for sure...and I don't think anyone else does (though many supporters of evolution will CERTAINLY tell you that they do, indeed, know for sure), either. Technically, if you view The Bible as more symbolic than literal in certain areas, you might be able to argue that God created us through evolution...that's not my view (I think you need to stretch to get there), but it's not completely ridiculous as far as I can tell.

It's scince fiction.

At my church, my class is going through a book that takes religion against science, and is really interesting. In a lot of cases, people that believe in science/evolution can't fully explain what happened, but will jump at a chance to say that God doesn't exist, and that everything evolved.

Or, they will admit God exists, but is only a spectator and is only watching over things. Either way, people who don't believe that everything just was, are going to exhaust themselves looking for answers that don't exist.

Heh, I love this. "Never-ending Debate," but no one really shows up to disagree, and it's over in 11 replies. :laugh:

Are you wanting to upset your stomach some more?

Damn, I'm never going to hear the end of that, am I? :laugh: Naw, I just thought it was kinda funny. Was looking through some old threads and stuff.

You're not one of those that likes to dwell on the past are you!? :laugh:

You don't have to answer that...:D

How much evidence has science found to support the existence of God? None. He doesn't exist. Of course the difference between my statement and yours is that there is a fossil record that can be dug up but there is no magical dump site to dig up looking for God.

You God people kill me. You want definitive "proof" from science which is contantly changing, discovering, and updating it's technology but you read the Bible and you BELIEVE! Please...

It's funny because scientists laugh at the church for not being able to prove a shred about anything relating to the existence of God. I mean it was the church that said the Earth was the center of the universe, it was the church that said the sun was a god, it was the church that said eclipses were signs from God, it was the church that said the world was flat, and now it's the church trying to bash science because it can't fully prove a theory based on 4.5 million years of buried fossil records. It's always been only a matter of time before science has disproven what the church invents to brainwash it's followers. If we're looking at track record, religion is really performing badly at this point.

First off, your whole standpoint is whacked out. "The Church"? What's that got to do with The Bible? Why is religion overall somehow responsible for a few guys with funky ideas in white collars? Should I somehow hold you responsible for the beliefs put forward by secularists?

The Church did not say all those things. Tons of people said all those things, religious or not. If virtually everyone believes the world is flat, including "The Church" (as you put it), then it's not showing us a mistake made by "The Church," it's showing us a mistake made by basically everyone.

Science can't disprove things, because it is in a constant flux. It's constantly screwing up and trying to correct itself. Science is trial and error. If we're looking at track record, we've got just as much crap coming from non-religious people as religious people. If we look at the track record, science has had to go back and make corrections constantly.

Next time, I think you should post less rhetoric, and more real evidence. More real arguments. For a man so high on science, this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
First off, your whole standpoint is whacked out. "The Church"? What's that got to do with The Bible? Why is religion overall somehow responsible for a few guys with funky ideas in white collars? Should I somehow hold you responsible for the beliefs put forward by secularists?

The Church did not say all those things. Tons of people said all those things, religious or not. If virtually everyone believes the world is flat, including "The Church" (as you put it), then it's not showing us a mistake made by "The Church," it's showing us a mistake made by basically everyone.

The church has nothing to do with the Bible except for interpretation, teaching, brainwashing, promoting, but really what the hell was I thinking that's clearly nothing. :rolleyes:

The most illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine reported that the Mathematician Galileo Galilei had acquiesced when warned that the Holy Congregation ordered him to abandon the opinion which he had held until then, namely that the Sun stands still at the centre of the spheres while the Earth is in motion. The Decree of the Congregation of the Index was also presented in which were prohibited and suspended the writings of Nicholas Copernicus On the revolutions of the Heavenly spheres, of Diego de Zuñiga on Job, and of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini. His Holiness ordered that the edict of this suspension and the prohibition be published by the Master of the Sacred Palace".

I'm no English major but this sounds an awful lot like the Church forbidding Galileo from following up on Copernican Theory. Anyone looking for the truth was committing heresy and could spend the rest of their life in prison, ie Galileo. It wasn't a mistake "made by basically everyone" but rather a systematic enforcement of the status quo forced upon people by the church in order to maintain control. Boy doesn't that sound vaguely familiar throughout history.

Science can't disprove things, because it is in a constant flux. It's constantly screwing up and trying to correct itself. Science is trial and error. If we're looking at track record, we've got just as much crap coming from non-religious people as religious people. If we look at the track record, science has had to go back and make corrections constantly.

Next time, I think you should post less rhetoric, and more real evidence. More real arguments. For a man so high on science, this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Of course science can't disprove things. It can't disprove the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the universe or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Thankfully none of that could ever be disproved. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, science makes corrections to honest errors in theory while religion simply continues to tell unfounded, baseless fairy tales under a veil of righteousness. Science uses all evidence found over the course of the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence while religion relies on a 2000 year old book of fairy tales full of contradictions and errors. Apparently according to religion, nothing happened before a few thousand years ago except for that whole God creation thing that's so popular. I can definitely see your point there.

Next time I think you should back up your own claims instead of bashing claims that you can't disprove as you all have attempted to do in this thread. For a man so high on himself and God you'd think you'd have something, anything that can be substantiated in any way at all relating to the existence of God or creation or heaven or evil, etc.

You're completely misunderstanding (not surprising). The point is that "The Church" is not Gospel. It's made up of very fallible humans. You're making a mistake virtually every anti-religious person does: mistaking God and his followers for one and the same. The Bible does not encourage this ridiculous behavior. Look at any group of people and you'll have crap in plain view.

Perhaps, if your arguments consisted of more than rhetoric and sarcasm, you'd make a decent point.

The church issuing a decree does not mean that it was not a mistake made by basically everyone. It means that the church was along with it the whole way.

It can't disprove things, period. There are things it can all but disprove, but that's it. To deny that is to deny what science really is.

4.5 billion, eh? What do you base that on? Some article you've read. Yes, oh so much more credible than the belief in creationism, held by the overwhelming majority of people of people on this planet. The Bible is not full of contradictions. Gonna back that one up ($20 says you've got a link to a skeptic's website behind that faulty claim).

High on myself how? High on God? Yeah, I sure am. Because common sense dictates that this level of complexity can not evolve through chance. Darwin himself said it. Would you see a large stone, 10 feet tall and 10 feet wide, and highly smooth, sitting somewhere like, say, the moon, and assume that it got there on it's own? Hell no: you'd assume that some intelligent being put it there.

Let me ask you this: what do YOU believe? Where do you think we all came from? I'm referring to the earth, AND the human race. FYI: you're "bashing claims you can't disprove" as well. Next time, practice what you preach (no pun intended).

Originally posted by TWTCommish
You're completely misunderstanding (not surprising). The point is that "The Church" is not Gospel. It's made up of very fallible humans. You're making a mistake virtually every anti-religious person does: mistaking God and his followers for one and the same. The Bible does not encourage this ridiculous behavior. Look at any group of people and you'll have crap in plain view.

Well since you can't prove the existence of God and he's nowhere to be seen, it's safe to assume "The Church" plays a huge role in the "Gospel". I can't mistake God for anything if he doesn't exist. Maybe you're mistaking God for something since you actually believe in him.

Perhaps, if your arguments consisted of more than rhetoric and sarcasm, you'd make a decent point.

And if your arguments weren't so childishly based on everything in the universe being relative to your particular baseless religious beliefs then I'd not waste my time. A couple hundred thousand years of man on Earth practicing all types of religions, praying to all types of gods, but you and your Bible are the ones who are really right. Wink, wink, nod, nod. Right...

The church issuing a decree does not mean that it was not a mistake made by basically everyone. It means that the church was along with it the whole way.

No what it means is that the church, which held enormous power in those times, was intentionally using it's influence to stop scientific study that could lessen the power of the church. There is no other reason for it to have been done.

It can't disprove things, period. There are things it can all but disprove, but that's it. To deny that is to deny what science really is.

You keep believing what you want while the rest of the world moves on knowing the world isn't flat, period. I tell you what though, you give me all the data you have on how the world really is flat and I'll make sure and forward it to the Vatican.

4.5 billion, eh? What do you base that on? Some article you've read. Yes, oh so much more credible than the belief in creationism, held by the overwhelming majority of people of people on this planet. The Bible is not full of contradictions. Gonna back that one up ($20 says you've got a link to a skeptic's website behind that faulty claim).

No I base that on this thing called Geology that I studied in college. It's really neat. They show you how they cardon date materials and such and then extrapilate on it. It's amazing but it's really not up there with And on the first day God created Earth. We all know the world is really about 13 days old and of course that can't be proven by anything but aw hell it works in well with that 7 day thing. I'll tell you what though, you tell me how old the Earth is and just edit my post to reflect the age and it still doesn't change the premise of that sentence which you so deftly tried to mangle for your own purposes.

You're the king of faulty claims in this thread so I wouldn't even bother with that but I do happen to have a Bible that a Christian friend of mine gave me so let's start right at the beginning.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

That must have been a cool trick how he created the Earth before the Sun and the stars. I mean we all know the Earth is older than the rest of the universe which, assuming constant expansion, of course would make Earth either the center of the universe (which would surely please the Vatican) or that would make it the far edge of the universe. I think this is where someone tells me I'm not supposed to take the Bible literally. I'm supposed to believe he created everything but then I'm to think he screwed up how he remembered doing it. A Superior Being indeed!

High on myself how? High on God? Yeah, I sure am. Because common sense dictates that this level of complexity can not evolve through chance. Darwin himself said it. Would you see a large stone, 10 feet tall and 10 feet wide, and highly smooth, sitting somewhere like, say, the moon, and assume that it got there on it's own? Hell no: you'd assume that some intelligent being put it there.

When speaking of God you shouldn't utter the phrase common sense. The existence of God makes NO sense at all, much less common sense. Evolution isn't complex, it's rather simple. Life adjusts to it's surroundings in order to survive. As the surroundings change, life changes with it. If you don't change, you die. The only problem with it is that evolution is such a slow process that to this point hasn't been largely observeable in anything meaningful enough to get your immediate attention. I could point out the Panda thumb thing which I read about recently but that's probably not the chimp into a bear type of evolution that it would take to get your attention. In time that will change and future creationists will have nothing to stand on but their debunked worthless bibles.

Scientists make assumptions based on verifiable evidence not on strange stones on the moon. You should drop that stone line because it is soooooooo weak. Assume that NASA took a picture of the moon and a face showed up, would we assume that it got there on it's own!?!? Hell no! We'd assume that some intelligent being created it so we wouldn't waste 30 years of avoiding sending more cameras to take pictures of it! WOOHOO!!

Let me ask you this: what do YOU believe? Where do you think we all came from? I'm referring to the earth, AND the human race. FYI: you're "bashing claims you can't disprove" as well. Next time, practice what you preach (no pun intended).

I believe it's much easier for you creationists to glue together pseudo-scientific questions about evolution than it is for real scientists to debunk all of your nonsense. The difference between you and I is that I'd be glad to hear your evidence with an open mind but you have none and will only question science because of your faith in God, not out of a sincerity to genuinely find truth. One day you creationists will try to pawn yourselves off as scientists and come up with really cool oxymorons like "Creation Science" or something psuedo-science like Intelligent Design Theory. Nah, that would never happen. Incidentally, these will be the first scientific theories based on the existence of a supernatural being without actually proving that the being exists. Nice!

Some of you have boldly claimed that only micro-evolution is possible. I have a question for you. How many times is it possible? If you think that's the only type possible, then what are the rules there? How many times can a species micro-evolve? What about a species that lives on two continents? What if within continent A, species X split into two halves due to whatever. One in the north X1 and one in the south X2. Species X1 has mirco-evolved 50 times over 100,000 years due to colder weather/predators/whatever while Species X2 has micro-evolved only 4 times in the same period. What if Species X1 micro-evolved in a way that it was no longer able to reproduce with Species X2? Similarly, you have Species Y1, Y2, and Y3 on continent B having the same types of micro-evolution affected by it's environment which is very different from continent A. We have ONE species, on TWO continents, all micro-evolving due to their environments over the course of 100,000 years. When you scoop up the original X1, X2, Y1, Y2, and Y3 and put them all together do you think that it just might be possible that they have all micro-evolved enough to be distinct enough from each other in a way befitting a seperate species? Yep, I'm afraid it is possible and probably pretty likely.

Now when some of you say, well as long as we can remember nothing has changed. How long do you remember? 100 years? Regardless if you believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or 4.5 million years old, that's a hell of a HELL of a lot longer than 100 years. You know the magnetic poles have shifted many MANY times. None of us are old enough to remember it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And yes it can be proved.... don't even go there.

And another thing, there are transitional fossils within the record for life forms other than man. Some of you seem to think they don't exist. Perhaps if the rate of sedimentation was much faster than the rate of man's evolution, there would be such a complete direct link of man that would be easy to find. Unfortunately that's not the case but it certainly doesn't mean that a transitional fossil of man doesn't exist.

IT's 4:16 AM here. I'll reply to your rude, disrespectful, self-righteous and (sometimes) off-topic comments tomorrow.

Comic Relief:

Travis is still alive.

This would have gotten very heavy, very quick otherwise.

Sh*t... you should read your own posts pal. You've got self-righteous proselytizer's disease. I'm going to go try to prove the existence of the moon right now. Later...

Oooookaaaaaaay.

Can't this be a friendly debate? For God's sake, it doesn't need to be heated and mean and nasty. It can be a battling of minds and believes without name calling and such. Take a chill pill everyone and smile. Let's have a debate with reasonable points, a lot of THINKING. Anyone can win a debate with nastiness, it takes skill to win with points. So please.

I didn't call anyone any names unless calling someone a Creationist is offensive to those who believe in creation. It's simply annoying to debate with people who's entire logic is based on the completely unverifiable. It's like when your dad says you're grounded and you ask why and he says because I said so. Oh okaaaaay, there we go. Same thing here. God exists well because he said so in the Bible, yeah, that's the ticket. And we exist because God created us... yeah, there ya go. And the universe only exists because... God made it so.... yeah... and 4+4 is only 8 because... yeah God gives it that meaning... yeah.

Whatever... who can seriously debate with that kinda logic.

Well, you have been.

LMAO Good point. I will now hibernate before pre-Super Bowl festivities. Thanks for the laugh! Almost coughed up one of my kidneys! :D

Patriots by 10. I'm calling the shot right here!

Patriots by 10? That's less logical than anything I've been saying. :laugh:

I have not been self-righteous. Don't you see? You're going off...flipping out. Doing whatever you can to demonize religion. You're claiming it was completely false, and stupid, and ridiculous. You can't even understand how someone could believe it. I, on the other hand, am NOT being quite so harsh with your beliefs. That's what I mean by self-righteous: you're completely wrong, I'm not only wrong, but I'm crazy for believing these things, and you won't be convinced otherwise. That's narrow-minded, and VERY self-righteous.

Here's why I believe in it: it makes logical sense. Why?

• Without some Supreme Being, right and wrong are only opinions. Perhaps you disagree, but I think some things are truly, absolutely wrong.
  
• Things don't get this complex through chance. No, I did not say that evolution was complex -- read what I wrote again. WE are complex. This world is complex. Darwin himself admitted that the human retena throws a wrench into "his" theory. Like I said: you wouldn't assume a smooth stone like that got there by itself. So why would you assume a planet, much more precise and complex, would just show up? What do you believe in, The Big Bang? Some big explosion? Something that just always here (like God)? Something that came from nothing. Where'd it all start. No matter what, you're going to have to believe in something completely unprovable. It's called faith, my friend, and EVERYONE has it, regardless of whether or not they believe in God. Perhaps you think highly enough of yourself and your beliefs that you won't acknowledge that faith plays a role, though.
  
• If God doesn't exist, I must ask you: why do anything nice? Why do anything that does not completely benefit YOU? After all, we're only cells and chemicals. Things like love and guilt are just chemical reactions. Nothing more to them. No right and wrong. So why attempt to be moral in any way? Why care about your children? Why do any of those things?
  
• The overwhelming majority of people believe in some kind of God. While I've never been dead positive of my believe in Jesus Christ specifically (I'm still learning about it all), I AM dead positive in my belief of some sort of God. If you only believe what can be proven, Timing, you're not going to be able to believe in a whole lot. But no matter: 5 and a half billion people are wrong. Yet you are one of the few who's seen the light. Uh-huh.

You're not making any sense. You're also changing the subject. There's no way in hell you'd assume a stone like that would just show up. You'd assume something intelligent put it there. Why? Preciseness, and complexity, imply intelligence. If all you've got is "it's sooooo weak," without any true explanation, well, I'm not the one who's bringing weak arguments.

Interesting...I don't recall saying those things. I think you've got a problem...it's a problem I see in virtually every single one of these arguments: some anti-religious person making arguments against "The Church," or wacko Christian groups, or some Christians they've talked with in the past, rather than against the actual beliefs of the religion, and the Christian they're talking to.

evolution is happening.......spud, didn't you claim we have no proof of it acting in fully evolved humans? it just happens so slowly...like tooose said, we're but a speck of a speck on the time scale of the existence of our universe and developing life. you can see racial or regional differences in people that are merely successfully evolved traits for particular conditions and climates.

nordic people have longer, skinnier noses because they function to warm the cold air as it is breathed in.
eskimo's tend to be short and thicker.
dark skin works well in tropic climates because ????????why?????

but as humans on the top of the food chain we don't need to change. perhaps we will evolve to better survive our planets man-made pollution! :( or to be better at multi-tasking in our busy busy lifestyles....

Evolution isn't happening in humans...more in animals.

Humans never evolved from an amoeba, why people want to think this is crazy.

I want to know exactly where Humans evolved from a tiny little speck. Why they think we evolved even from monkey's is crazy as well.

If we evolved from monkey's how is it that the monkey's in today's society haven't showed signs of evolving into a human? Primates have taken on human characteristics, but only through training from human's. Prove to me that monkey's knew sign language before they were taught and you'll have my full attention. :)

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Patriots by 10? That's less logical than anything I've been saying. :laugh:

Well by 3, they were up 14 and I was looking pretty but they started getting tired. I'll pat myself on the back now.

I have not been self-righteous. Don't you see? You're going off...flipping out. Doing whatever you can to demonize religion. You're claiming it was completely false, and stupid, and ridiculous. You can't even understand how someone could believe it. I, on the other hand, am NOT being quite so harsh with your beliefs. That's what I mean by self-righteous: you're completely wrong, I'm not only wrong, but I'm crazy for believing these things, and you won't be convinced otherwise. That's narrow-minded, and VERY self-righteous.

I haven't demonized religion anymore than it has demonized itself throughout history. There are countless examples of how religion and the church have been used to destroy people and perpetuate lies in order to maintain it's authority over people. You are wrong because the entire premise of your belief in creation begins with a point that you can't substantiate. You can't substantiate the existence of God and therefore can't substantiate anything that you claim he has created. It would be like saying Mr X committed a crime but you can't prove there even is a Mr X.

Here's why I believe in it: it makes logical sense. Why?[list][*]Without some Supreme Being, right and wrong are only opinions. Perhaps you disagree, but I think some things are truly, absolutely wrong.

Even if you believe some things are truly and absolutely wrong how can you substantiate that if everyone doesn't believe the same thing? You can say murder is wrong yet there are countries where murder is acceptable and supported by their religion under certain circumstances. There are many past religions that believed in human sacrifice. Therefore murder being wrong isn't universal and therefore can't be absolutely wrong. It's only absolutely wrong according to your Christian beliefs.

[*]Things don't get this complex through chance. No, I did not say that evolution was complex -- read what I wrote again. WE are complex. This world is complex. Darwin himself admitted that the human retena throws a wrench into "his" theory. Like I said: you wouldn't assume a smooth stone like that got there by itself. So why would you assume a planet, much more precise and complex, would just show up? What do you believe in, The Big Bang? Some big explosion? Something that just always here (like God)? Something that came from nothing. Where'd it all start. No matter what, you're going to have to believe in something completely unprovable. It's called faith, my friend, and EVERYONE has it, regardless of whether or not they believe in God. Perhaps you think highly enough of yourself and your beliefs that you won't acknowledge that faith plays a role, though.

Life is all about random chance and chaos. Simply because we cannot at this time prove where the universe came from or how it began doesn't automatically default the answer to the existence of a God. At many times throughout history there have been things that were misunderstood and until scientific study really took shape there was a lot credited to God. People believed comets were signs from God and they believed eclipses were signs from God and that the seasons were run by a God. All of this today is completely silly because now we know better and we know exactly what comets are and how eclipses happen and they have nothing to do with signs from God. This is why people would say your belief in God as an explanation for the universe is a cop out. As our technology becomes more advanced we understand more and more and I'm confident there will be a day where we know with a relative certainty how the universe came to be. However, your belief in creation is no more valid than that guy who posted his bunny rabbit theory. You can no more substantiate creation than he could substantiate that. Human beings simply are at an intelligence level where we're above regular animals who don't have a need to grasp for answers to those questions and just below an intelligence level where we could know those things to a relatively certainty. So what I do I believe? I believe I don't have the slightest clue how the universe came to be but I believe we will know one day through tried and tested scientific means. I guess that's what I believe.

[*]If God doesn't exist, I must ask you: why do anything nice? Why do anything that does not completely benefit YOU? After all, we're only cells and chemicals. Things like love and guilt are just chemical reactions. Nothing more to them. No right and wrong. So why attempt to be moral in any way? Why care about your children? Why do any of those things?

I live a moral life because I respect my family and I respect life. In the grand scope of the universe it's completely meaningless but my life isn't meaningless to me.

[*]The overwhelming majority of people believe in some kind of God. While I've never been dead positive of my believe in Jesus Christ specifically (I'm still learning about it all), I AM dead positive in my belief of some sort of God. If you only believe what can be proven, Timing, you're not going to be able to believe in a whole lot. But no matter: 5 and a half billion people are wrong. Yet you are one of the few who's seen the light. Uh-huh.

I would never and I hope no one else would ever base their beliefs on what the overwhelming majority of people believed. As I pointed out before, the overwhelming number of people throughout history have believed a lot of really idiotic things and have eventually been proven completely wrong. So yes billions and billions and billions of people can be wrong and have been many MANY times. You're making the classic mistake of believing your presence on this Earth is THE one point in history when in fact your life on Earth is but a tiny tiny spec on the timeline of mankind. Things have not always been as they are now nor will they likely be in the future.

You're not making any sense. You're also changing the subject. There's no way in hell you'd assume a stone like that would just show up. You'd assume something intelligent put it there. Why? Preciseness, and complexity, imply intelligence. If all you've got is "it's sooooo weak," without any true explanation, well, I'm not the one who's bringing weak arguments.

It was your subject. You're bringing up completely subjective hypotheticals. You're acting like a smooth stone is something complex that can't be made by the elements or even a river. It's akin to the comet analogy, we don't know what it is or how it got here but it's rather extraordinary and beyond our technology so it must be God.

Interesting...I don't recall saying those things. I think you've got a problem...it's a problem I see in virtually every single one of these arguments: some anti-religious person making arguments against "The Church," or wacko Christian groups, or some Christians they've talked with in the past, rather than against the actual beliefs of the religion, and the Christian they're talking to.

You are the people practicing the religion. Who the heck should I hold accountable for what is preached and taught? The Bible is the word of God no? The creationist argument begins and ends right there.

Man's current ability to create tools and technology probably seriously retards our evolution in relation to other animals. Evolution happens as a result of changes in environment but since we can control our environment to a great extent then we have little need to evolve. If the world suffered a 1,000 year ice age then you might see some evolution in man.


Getting back to the topic of evolution however, how many times can a species micro-evolve? If some of you believe that's the only form of evolution possible then how many times is it possible? I think you can easily see the problem in your beliefs based on that question alone.

Yeah...we would die. Man can not survive in a 1,000 year ice age. Just can't do it.

Back in the medieval times, we weren't controlling our enviroment. Back in the old west, we weren't controlling our enviroment. Back in the early American time, 1776, etc., no control in enviroment.

We've only controlled our enviroment in the 1900's through industries and what not. We're pretty much killing the planet through all of this. There's your control of the enviroment.

Of course I can't prove it. Did I said I could? If I had proof, you'd believe it, too. Fact of the matter there's almost nothing resembling proof no matter what your belief is. What is your belief? The Big Bang? No proof. We don't have proof anymore -- so we go by evidence, and common sense, and to me (and to anyone reasonable, IMO), complexity at this level implies intelligence.

Aren't you reading what I'm typing? An absolute right and wrong isn't contingent on what people think. That's what makes it ABSOLUTE! That's the whole point, man: I believe in a right and wrong that is right, or wrong, REGARDLESS of the majority's opinion. Perhaps you think rape and murder of the innocent is right if the majority of people are okay with it, but I don't. I think it's wrong, PERIOD.

Well, good, at least you admit your ignorance. I admit mine, too. Seems you've traded off arrogance and imagined knowledge for rudeness and anger. :) Not a bad trade, necessarily.

Yes, people used to have ridiculous religious explanations for things they could not yet understand. It seems, though, that people like yourself now, as a backlash of sorts, refuse to believe ANY of it, because of some wackos long ago. It's a very basic problem you have: you let a person here or there (or even a large group of them) taint the actual system of beliefs. You take the people in a group who pervert something, and bash the entire group of people for it, regardless of whether or not they do it.

But why shouldn't it be meaningless? Aren't you just being illogical?

You know very well that I'm not saying that the majority is always right. If I were saying that, I wouldn't believe in an absolute right and wrong, now would I? I do believe, though, that when you're outnumbered something like a few billion to one (exaggeration, you get the idea), it's time to re-evaluate your beliefs. Big time. And, at the VERY least, it needs to be acknowledged that the belief these overwhelming majority of people hold is not ridiculous.

I am making no such "classic mistake." I know very well that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Believe it or not, I am (gasp!) a Christian who believes that knowledge and science are a wonderful thing that God wants us to use. He wants us to learn more about His world.

No, it's not akin to that. You're avoiding the question: if you saw a stone like that, sitting on the moon, would you or would you not think it got there randomly? I'll answer for you (correct me if I'm wrong): no, you'd think some intelligent creature put it there, or sculpted it that way.

Hold The Bible accountable for what it says. Christians are not representative, technically, of Christian beliefs. They only try to be, and they fail often. If you have a problem with Christianity, it had better be with the The Bible itself, because it's ridiculous to try to hold Christianity accountable for the mistakes of it's followers. If you were to do that, no system of beliefs would be without "guilt."

That's the easy way out: blah blah blah, Salem, blah blah blah, Crusades, blah blah blah. I've heard it, literally, at least a dozen times. Do not go looking for perversions of The Faith. Look at The Bible itself. If you have problems with that, say so. If not, well, your gripes with specific Christians does nothing to legitimately attack Christianity...it only attacks those individuals.

Geez... lol

When I say environment I don't mean simply weather. If you want to talk Midieval times how about castles, shelter, knives, medicine, horses for transportation, farming, aqueducts, etc.

Name me one animal other than man that has no natural predator, that can farm, use weapons to hunt, can build shelters in place, can cure illnesses through medication, can sterilize, use fire, etc.

There's your control of environment indeed.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Of course I can't prove it. Did I said I could? If I had proof, you'd believe it, too. Fact of the matter there's almost nothing resembling proof no matter what your belief is. What is your belief? The Big Bang? No proof. We don't have proof anymore -- so we go by evidence, and common sense, and to me (and to anyone reasonable, IMO), complexity at this level implies intelligence.

This is not true. We know the universe is expanding and can thus measure the age of it and therefore know when it began. We know what composes stars and how they're born and therefore know how a solar system forms. We know the things necessary for appearance of life. We know a hell of a lot of things about the universe that you would never know if it were not for science. There is more to substantiate the Big Bang than there is to substantiate creation. That's why Big Bang is a scientific theory and creation is not. You're not going by evidence because if you were you'd not believe in creation. Your insistence on complexity involving intelligence has no bearing on the existence of God or creation. Intelligence or complexity beyond our current understanding is not something that defaults to God. That's a medieval caveman belief for explaining things.

Aren't you reading what I'm typing? An absolute right and wrong isn't contingent on what people think. That's what makes it ABSOLUTE! That's the whole point, man: I believe in a right and wrong that is right, or wrong, REGARDLESS of the majority's opinion. Perhaps you think rape and murder of the innocent is right if the majority of people are okay with it, but I don't. I think it's wrong, PERIOD.

WTF are you talking about? You can't prove right and wrong and thus it is COMPLETELY contingent on what people believe. Just because you believe it's absolute doesn't make it so. Evidence makes it so. There is no such thing in the universe as something right or wrong PERIOD that can't be measured. It's a matter of your opinion, not a matter of verifiable fact. Stop living in fantasy land.


Yes, people used to have ridiculous religious explanations for things they could not yet understand. It seems, though, that people like yourself now, as a backlash of sorts, refuse to believe ANY of it, because of some wackos long ago. It's a very basic problem you have: you let a person here or there (or even a large group of them) taint the actual system of beliefs. You take the people in a group who pervert something, and bash the entire group of people for it, regardless of whether or not they do it.

Nah I don't taint people in a group I taint your entire belief system of a god. Your entire belief system is based on a book. That's it! You could no more prove the existence of God now than could be done 1,000 years ago. I find your belief in creation just as wacko as many past beliefs that have been proven wrong. You hold yourself higher than those before you but you're exactly the same and will be proven wrong exactly the same way, through science. What makes your belief in creation any more valid than the previous beliefs of your religious bretheren? Nothing!

But why shouldn't it be meaningless? Aren't you just being illogical?

In the scope of life it is meaningless. In the scope of my life, it isn't.

You know very well that I'm not saying that the majority is always right. If I were saying that, I wouldn't believe in an absolute right and wrong, now would I? I do believe, though, that when you're outnumbered something like a few billion to one (exaggeration, you get the idea), it's time to re-evaluate your beliefs. Big time. And, at the VERY least, it needs to be acknowledged that the belief these overwhelming majority of people hold is not ridiculous.

Nah, I reject that. It's a belief based on faith, on socialization, on the power of the church, etc. It's not a belief based on anything that can be measured or recorded or scientifically observed. It's opinion, nothing more.

I am making no such "classic mistake." I know very well that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Believe it or not, I am (gasp!) a Christian who believes that knowledge and science are a wonderful thing that God wants us to use. He wants us to learn more about His world.

Yes you are, you believe that your beliefs are more valid than those who came before you who also couldn't substantiate their beliefs. In a thousand years people may laugh at what you believe just like you may laugh at what people once believed.

No, it's not akin to that. You're avoiding the question: if you saw a stone like that, sitting on the moon, would you or would you not think it got there randomly? I'll answer for you (correct me if I'm wrong): no, you'd think some intelligent creature put it there, or sculpted it that way.

Who cares? It's completely irrelevant to the question of creation.

Hold The Bible accountable for what it says. Christians are not representative, technically, of Christian beliefs. They only try to be, and they fail often. If you have a problem with Christianity, it had better be with the The Bible itself, because it's ridiculous to try to hold Christianity accountable for the mistakes of it's followers. If you were to do that, no system of beliefs would be without "guilt."

The Bible says in the beginning the earth was created and two days later the sun, moon, and stars were created. That's the first damn page of the Bible and already a HUGE error. It's not ridiculous to hold Christianity accountable because that's what people derive their inspiration from. It would be like killing Hitler and letting the SS walk out the door with their guns. And you sure want to quote Darwin a lot without recognizing he's only one of millions of scientists who believe in evolution.

That's the easy way out: blah blah blah, Salem, blah blah blah, Crusades, blah blah blah. I've heard it, literally, at least a dozen times. Do not go looking for perversions of The Faith. Look at The Bible itself. If you have problems with that, say so. If not, well, your gripes with specific Christians does nothing to legitimately attack Christianity...it only attacks those individuals.

Blah blah blah? The practice of your religion and the church is responsible for the murder and oppression of thousands upon thousands of innocent people and all you've got is blah blah blah? That's very insightful of you. BTW who are you to judge what is perverse and what isn't? Here you go again judging history by your definitions. The Crusades might have been perverse to you but it seemed to be pretty popular back in the day.

That makes no sense. We see the universe expanding, and therefore we just ASSUME that it's rate of growth is completely constant? And what if we were created? The universe expanding wouldn't contradict that.

You also, I notice, speak of science as if it were not only in conflict with religion (it's not...plenty of scientists believe in God), but as if it were something more than human. "Science" is just humans getting together and messing with stuff in an attempt to figure things out. It's a lot of trial and error. So when you say "you wouldn't know this without science," it's a waste of everyone's time. I don't owe anything to science, and it's not my enemy, but you act as if it is.

Can't you read? I'm telling you I believe some things are absolutely, positively wrong. Maybe YOU believe that the rape and murder of the innocent is only wrong via opinion and majority, but I don't. I think it's wrong, period. That's WTF I'm talking about. Need me to repeat it again? You drone on and on about proof. For the 20th time: if you wait for proof to believe anything, you won't be believing in much. Sometimes you need to take the evidence make the best decision you can.

It's valid because it's right. Valid to you, someone who doesn't believe? Yep, nothing. Matter of opinion. Anything else really pointless and obvious you want to state?

Yeah, lots of others have been, as you put it, proven wrong. Funny...the one I believe in hasn't. I wonder if that means something.

That makes no sense. There is no good reason for you to give a crap about what other people think, or about being moral, if there is no God. Why would you? To satisfy a chemical urge that you know is only there to try to, according to you, help us evolve and live longer as a species? Makes no sense.

What you fail to grasp is that, without any kind of God, EVERYTHING is meaningless. Everything. There is no ultimate meaning. There is nothing wrong. Nothing wrong. No point to it all. Nothing more than chemicals and cells...emotions are a deception. Nothing matters but survival, without a Creator to set the rules, so to speak. Maybe you believe all that. I honestly feel sorry for you if you do.

Virtually everything is opinion. Like I said, if you're waiting around for concrete proof, well, then you're just not being reasonable. I would argue, though, that there's more than faith. I don't see how you could chalk up this remarkable level of complexity to anything other than precise planning.

Sounds an awful lot like you. You have no real proof, and you believe your beliefs are more valid than the people who came before you. In a thousand years people may laught at what you believe, as well. What's that, 3 "duh" comments in one post now?

No it's not. Are you paying attention at all? It completely matters. If you concede that such a stone implies intelligence because of it's preciseness, why would this world, infinitely more precise, not imply the same thing? It's an undeniable chain of logic. The difference between the two is that one has any bias for or against religion removed.

How is that a huge error?

Yes, it IS ridiculous to hold it accountable. People kill other people in God's name. The Bible doesn't support these horrors throughout history the way you may think. If I kill someone in YOUR name, does it make sense to hold YOU and what you say accountable? No, it just means that I'm whacked out.

Of course he's one of millions. And yeah, I want to quote him. I did. Though I didn't quote him "a lot," I quoted him once. It's funny...because modern-day atheism and evolutionism was pioneered by a few men with severe mental and personal problems. I find that interesting. They all had issues with their fathers, too.

You're really not paying attention now. Your knee-jerk responses are becoming obvious. My religion is not responsible for those things -- self-righteous idiots are. If you want to judge what is a perverse interpretation of The Bible, uh, READ THE BIBLE. Most of it is as plain as day, but people create little exceptions in their head, it seems.

Yeah, blah blah blah. The blah blah blah part refers to people who stupidly (yes, stupidly) hold The Bible and what it teaches somehow accountable for how people misinterpret it. If a Christian does something, it doesn't make sense to blame The Bible if The Bible says it's a bad thing. That's insane.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
That makes no sense. We see the universe expanding, and therefore we just ASSUME that it's rate of growth is completely constant? And what if we were created? The universe expanding wouldn't contradict that.

The universe's age is calculated using the expansion rate from precise distance measurements, and the calculated age is refined based on whether the universe appears to be accelerating or decelerating, given the amount of matter observed in space. A rapid expansion rate indicates the universe did not require as much time to reach its present size, and so it is younger than if it were expanding more slowly.

In short, Cepheid stars are of a standard brightness. Think of them as light bulbs of identical wattage. Distance is the only factor that changes the relative brightness of a Cepheid star -- the further away from Earth it is, the dimmer it appears.

The Hubble Team studied almost 800 Cepheid stars, in 18 galaxies, as far away as 65 million light years. In this manner, the team used the stars to calibrate a number of different distance measuring techniques that they then put to work measuring how fast galaxies are speeding away from each other.

Astronomers with the Key Project Team said they've calculated the expansion rate to within 10 percent accuracy. In the end, they came up with a value of 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is 3.26 million light years -- and a light year is about 5.9 trillion miles). This means that a galaxy appears to be moving 160,000 mph faster for every 3.3 light-years away from Earth. And that means the Universe was born 12 billion years ago.

You also, I notice, speak of science as if it were not only in conflict with religion (it's not...plenty of scientists believe in God), but as if it were something more than human. "Science" is just humans getting together and messing with stuff in an attempt to figure things out. It's a lot of trial and error. So when you say "you wouldn't know this without science," it's a waste of everyone's time. I don't owe anything to science, and it's not my enemy, but you act as if it is.

It's the enemy of what your religion preaches.

Can't you read? I'm telling you I believe some things are absolutely, positively wrong. Maybe YOU believe that the rape and murder of the innocent is only wrong via opinion and majority, but I don't. I think it's wrong, period. That's WTF I'm talking about. Need me to repeat it again? You drone on and on about proof. For the 20th time: if you wait for proof to believe anything, you won't be believing in much. Sometimes you need to take the evidence make the best decision you can.

I don't care what you believe is right and wrong. I believe turkey sucks so does that make it absolute that turkey sucks? Of course not, that's friggin ridiculous. Something absolute is by definition not doubted or questioned. You can't claim something is absolute just because you think it is. If you believe it's absolute then it's absolute for YOU, it sure as hell isn't for me.


It's valid because it's right. Valid to you, someone who doesn't believe? Yep, nothing. Matter of opinion. Anything else really pointless and obvious you want to state?

Yeah, lots of others have been, as you put it, proven wrong. Funny...the one I believe in hasn't. I wonder if that means something.

You can't get past page one. Your beliefs are based on the completely subjective question of what is right. Who cares what you think is right? I only care what you can substantiate. If you're going to claim things then substantiate them without saying I just think it's right.

The one you believe in will be just like what others believed. It's only a matter of time.

That makes no sense. There is no good reason for you to give a crap about what other people think, or about being moral, if there is no God. Why would you? To satisfy a chemical urge that you know is only there to try to, according to you, help us evolve and live longer as a species? Makes no sense.

What I feel doesn't have to make sense. I'm a human being and as a result am totally free to have illogical opinions and feelings. Wanting to live however is a natural urge. You never see a tiger just lay down and let the other tiger kill him do you? Of course not, every living thing has a natural instinct to live and it has nothing to do with God. Animals have no concept of God yet still want to live and be liked and be loved.

What you fail to grasp is that, without any kind of God, EVERYTHING is meaningless. Everything. There is no ultimate meaning. There is nothing wrong. Nothing wrong. No point to it all. Nothing more than chemicals and cells...emotions are a deception. Nothing matters but survival, without a Creator to set the rules, so to speak. Maybe you believe all that. I honestly feel sorry for you if you do.

That's preposterous. Simply preposterous. There you go again making blanket generalizations based on your belief in God. The American Indian was living just fine when Christians showed up and tried to push their God upon them.

Virtually everything is opinion. Like I said, if you're waiting around for concrete proof, well, then you're just not being reasonable. I would argue, though, that there's more than faith. I don't see how you could chalk up this remarkable level of complexity to anything other than precise planning.

I'm not being reasonable? You're pushing your beliefs on the world and I'm being unreasonable because I don't believe in mythic gods and supernatural beings. Whatever...

Sounds an awful lot like you. You have no real proof, and you believe your beliefs are more valid than the people who came before you. In a thousand years people may laught at what you believe, as well. What's that, 3 "duh" comments in one post now?

You have a "duh" belief. I have no real proof LOL, sure pal, yet there are thousands upon thousands of astrophysicists working on the issue. I guess there are some people pretty confident if they're spending billions of dollars in research. For people like you the only proof would be a Polaroid of the Big Bang and even then you'd be trying to bash the authenticity of it just like creationists have bashed the authenticity of many signifanct scientific finding throughout history. I'll take my chances with what will be proven over the next 1,000 years while your religious beliefs by defintion will remain constant in the belief of creation. I'll take that bet any day.

No it's not. Are you paying attention at all? It completely matters. If you concede that such a stone implies intelligence because of it's preciseness, why would this world, infinitely more precise, not imply the same thing? It's an undeniable chain of logic. The difference between the two is that one has any bias for or against religion removed.

Honestly this is just so lame that it's a waste of my time. It so undeniable that it is denied completely by science. Wow... pretty undeniable.

How is that a huge error?

Are you serious? The Earth being created 2 days before the moon, sun, and stars? How could the Earth have been created before the Sun if the Sun is older than the Earth? Same thing with the stars.[/b]

Of course he's one of millions. And yeah, I want to quote him. I did. Though I didn't quote him "a lot," I quoted him once. It's funny...because modern-day atheism and evolutionism was pioneered by a few men with severe mental and personal problems. I find that interesting. They all had issues with their fathers, too.

LMAO Let's slander the scientists now... that's great. LOL

This is getting boring so let's just move on to the Bible why don't we.


1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


I could probably spend about 50 years pointing out the inconsistencies in here but let's start in the beginning and we'll just skip that whole stars thing I pointed out already.

In 1.3 God said let there be light, and there was light.

In 1.5 God said the light was day and the dark was night, the evening and morning were the first day.

Then here on 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.


Now explain that one to me. Aside from it being impossible for the Earth to be older than the Sun and stars, how can there be night and day without the Sun? How can there be grass and fruit trees and seeds and herbs without the friggin Sun?


Let me also say I don't hate Christians or any other people who practice religion. I totally respect people like Toose who are simply content to practice their beliefs and live a good life. It's when the religious force themselves upon others that I have a problem with it. If you want to believe creation, fine, but if you want to claim it as fact then you gotta bring the goods.

Man, you amaze me more with every post. BTW, you messed up your use of vB Code, I believe.

Now, first off, concerning your little essay on the expansion of the universe: let me ask you this: does all that not depend on the assumption that there's a steady rate here? What if it were started at a certain point of expansion? Is that amount of time measured in terms of how long it would take, if reversed, to shrink back into basically nothing?

Very blatant mistake on your part. Science is a way to try to ascertain knowledge through trial, error, refinement, and observation. My religion does not preach anything to the contrary of this. On the contrary, we are to fill the earth and subdue it, and you cannot subdue a place you do not know about. Are you saying it's the enemy of The Bible (the actual set of beliefs Christianity is based on), or are you saying that it is the enemy of Bible-thumping morons who fear change? They are NOT one and the same.

I didn't ask you if you cared, did I? I don't care if you don't care. I can indeed believe that something is absolutely wrong, and say so if it comes up. I'm not screaming on street corners, harassing people, and claiming I have undeniable proof. Quit wasting my time (and yours) with pointless statements.

As I've said before, I don't care if you don't care.

Yeah, uh-huh. Christianity will somehow be proven to be impossible after I die. If you say so. I guess that's easy to say now, since you won't be around then. Though, by then, you'll know for yourself.

Yes, of course. Instinct. You're missing my point: I'm asking you why you do illogical things if emotions are just chemical reactions. And, if you do do them, do you attempt to fight them? Your answer is that you're free to be illogical. That's not much of an answer. I'm telling you it makes no logical sense, you're saying you don't have to make sense if you don't want to.

Blanket? It's true. Are you thick? If all we are are cells and chemicals, than ultimate meaning does not exist. No right and wrong. Just opinion. Just a different chemical interaction from one person to another. Emotions are just chemicals. There is nothing evil. Just things your chemicals don't like.

That is a FACT. It's simple logic. I shouldn't have to explain it to a grown man like yourself. And I dunno what little rant you've got going on about American Indians...but I'm sure it's got something to do with more blanket generalizations (to use your own words) concerning Christianity.

I didn't say that. The fact that you resort to exaggeration doesn't speak well of your arguments.

What I said (I'll say it again now) is that if you only believe in things that have concrete proof behind them, you won't have much to believe in at all, and that I imagine there are plenty of things you believe without having concrete proof. I never CLAIMED to have concrete proof of God. Ever. So I dunno what you're on about.

To phrase it more accurately, you're putting your faith in man. The same species you rant over so often in these posts. Perhaps you have faith in man. I do, to a degree...but in the end, we don't know jack sh*t, and you know it.

Yeah, thousands of astrophysicists...I'm sure there are thousands of Christian scientists. Like you said: numbers don't make it so. And if people spending large amounts of money is somehow evidence, then you'll have to stand in awe of the money given every Sunday in this country alone through tithe to local churches.

So, you don't answer it? Uh huh. It's lame. I tell you it's not, and why. You say it's lame. How can I argue with that? You've persuaded me. :rolleyes: I've explained it to you in detail, and you've got nothing to say. It's a question of logic. Let me know when you're ready to answer with something more compelling than "it's lame."

What makes you believe the Sun is older than the Earth? Did you read some research paper? And how do you know the entire thing isn't symbolic? I don't think those passages mention the Sun. Just the day. The light. Sounds pretty symbolic to me. There's plenty of debate as to how literal the beginning of Genesis is.

Laugh it up. It's true. You apparently think it's important when the followers mess up the original concept or idea that they follow. I think it's worth mentioning when the primary originators of the idea or concept are messed up themselves. So, do you have an argument, or what? Are you disagreeing? Got anything real to say in response, or just another acronym to represent amusement?

See above. :rolleyes: I find it amusing that we go as far as to assume, for the sake of this argument, that God exists, and then we try to constrain Him to the physical laws of nature.

See, there's your problem: I didn't claim it as fact. Where'd you get that idea? Thinking of some other Christian again, are you? Lumping us all together because there's more to argue with that way. I am very content to practice my beliefs. I don't go out trying to convert people. But when someone starts talking about it, and they say something I disagree with, I speak up.

This idea of "forcing" a belief is ridiculous. Is forcing a belief on someone means disagreeing vocally when it comes up, and standing firm in your beliefs, oh yeah, then I force my beliefs on others. What it really implies, though, are people who berade you and harass you. As you can see, I'm not doing that here: takes two to dance, in case you didn't know.

Comedy Relief:

It takes two to tango.
It takes one to put in a lighbulb.
It takes two to push over a dairy cow in the middle of the night.
It takes close to seven to capture, main and rape a talking horse, like Ed.

That wasn't even that funny. At least it was light.
This thread is very heavy.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Man, you amaze me more with every post. BTW, you messed up your use of vB Code, I believe.

Now, first off, concerning your little essay on the expansion of the universe: let me ask you this: does all that not depend on the assumption that there's a steady rate here? What if it were started at a certain point of expansion? Is that amount of time measured in terms of how long it would take, if reversed, to shrink back into basically nothing?

I'm not an astrophysicist but I found info to your original question. If you really want that info you can find it on the net like I did. I believe though it's answered in there, they measure the distance between known stars and then see how they move in relation to each other which gives the measurement of how fast or slow the universe is expanding.

Very blatant mistake on your part. Science is a way to try to ascertain knowledge through trial, error, refinement, and observation. My religion does not preach anything to the contrary of this. On the contrary, we are to fill the earth and subdue it, and you cannot subdue a place you do not know about. Are you saying it's the enemy of The Bible (the actual set of beliefs Christianity is based on), or are you saying that it is the enemy of Bible-thumping morons who fear change? They are NOT one and the same.

Where in religion does it say to ascertain knowledge or to question anything in the Bible through trial, error, refinement, and observation? The Bible is the word of God. How is it possible to question his word if he is all knowing?

I didn't ask you if you cared, did I? I don't care if you don't care. I can indeed believe that something is absolutely wrong, and say so if it comes up. I'm not screaming on street corners, harassing people, and claiming I have undeniable proof. Quit wasting my time (and yours) with pointless statements.

Saying that you believe something to be absolute when it can be easily questioned is what's pointless. Who ever heard of something so arrogant?!?

Yeah, uh-huh. Christianity will somehow be proven to be impossible after I die. If you say so. I guess that's easy to say now, since you won't be around then. Though, by then, you'll know for yourself.

Christianity is a religious practice that can't be proven right or wrong because there's no such thing regarding opinions, however, the belief of creation as fact most certainly can be proven wrong with proper scientific study and may be one day.

Yes, of course. Instinct. You're missing my point: I'm asking you why you do illogical things if emotions are just chemical reactions. And, if you do do them, do you attempt to fight them? Your answer is that you're free to be illogical. That's not much of an answer. I'm telling you it makes no logical sense, you're saying you don't have to make sense if you don't want to.

If I like chicken do I have to logically show you why I like chicken? My preferences and beliefs don't have to be logical, I have free will to believe and feel what I want regardless of how stupid or illogical it is. If it were 500 B.C. and I had no idea that emotions were just chemical reactions would that change your opinion on how logical it is to do illogical things? You're free to believe in God without any logical substantiation of God so why can't I like to be nice to people without providing a logical substantiation of why?

Blanket? It's true. Are you thick? If all we are are cells and chemicals, than ultimate meaning does not exist. No right and wrong. Just opinion. Just a different chemical interaction from one person to another. Emotions are just chemicals. There is nothing evil. Just things your chemicals don't like.

That is a FACT. It's simple logic. I shouldn't have to explain it to a grown man like yourself. And I dunno what little rant you've got going on about American Indians...but I'm sure it's got something to do with more blanket generalizations (to use your own words) concerning Christianity.

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about now. Ultimate meaning of right and wrong doens't exist. There is nothing evil. That is very simple logic. My little "generalization" isn't quite. American Indians lived perfectly moral lives without having ever read the bible, or having known your god, or even having known that feelings were simply chemical reactions. I guess they were just totally illogical bastards. LOL


I didn't say that. The fact that you resort to exaggeration doesn't speak well of your arguments.

So God isn't a mythic supernatural being? That's a pretty accurate depiction of what he's believed to be. I love to exaggerate but I surely didn't there.

What I said (I'll say it again now) is that if you only believe in things that have concrete proof behind them, you won't have much to believe in at all, and that I imagine there are plenty of things you believe without having concrete proof. I never CLAIMED to have concrete proof of God. Ever. So I dunno what you're on about.

I believe a whole bunch of crap that I don't have proof of. I however don't claim them to be facts as creationists do.

To phrase it more accurately, you're putting your faith in man. The same species you rant over so often in these posts. Perhaps you have faith in man. I do, to a degree...but in the end, we don't know jack sh*t, and you know it.

Yeah, thousands of astrophysicists...I'm sure there are thousands of Christian scientists. Like you said: numbers don't make it so. And if people spending large amounts of money is somehow evidence, then you'll have to stand in awe of the money given every Sunday in this country alone through tithe to local churches.

In the end we'll know more than we know now. Every day we know more, not less, and not the same. Where my faith lies doesn't matter. I just follow the evidence presented.

LOL You'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your example of Church donations for the next bible study group as equivalent to government funded NASA shuttle missions, the Hubble Telescope, and deep space exploration.

So, you don't answer it? Uh huh. It's lame. I tell you it's not, and why. You say it's lame. How can I argue with that? You've persuaded me. :rolleyes: I've explained it to you in detail, and you've got nothing to say. It's a question of logic. Let me know when you're ready to answer with something more compelling than "it's lame."

It's irrelevant to the topic. You think a smooth rock on the moon is complex and is a relative example to the existence of the universe. Aww hell, that universe is awfully big and complex, it must have been some damn smart supreme being that conjured it all up because ain't no way in hell that'd could just happen. Your example isn't logical at all. It's an archaic way of thinking and not in line at all with accepted scientific methods. You even said it earlier, Science is a way to try to ascertain knowledge through trial, error, refinement, and observation. Where the heck in your definition does it say that science makes assumptions? Science don't make no stinkin assumptions based on nuttin.

What makes you believe the Sun is older than the Earth? Did you read some research paper? And how do you know the entire thing isn't symbolic? I don't think those passages mention the Sun. Just the day. The light. Sounds pretty symbolic to me. There's plenty of debate as to how literal the beginning of Genesis is.

Seriously take an Astronomy or Geology class. Let me ask you, how many planets have you ever heard of randomly soaring through space? Hopefully none and the reason that is that gravity from the SUN pulls mass into it's orbit to create what we call a planet. You can't have a stinkin planet without a solar system. Better yet here's the definition of the word planet of which Earth most certainly is. (hope we can agree on that one lol)

A planet is a nonluminous celestial body illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.

Of course it's symbolic, sure... Fruit trees are symbolic too huh? The Sea is symbolic and the two lights in the sky are symbolic even though it just happens the only two lights in the sky of relative size are the moon and Sun. Why is it that you get to choose what's symbolic and what's real? Please man...

Hey I got an idea, maybe creation is symbolic for the BIG BANG!!!! YEAH!!! Now that is a hell of a use of symbolism I tell ya!

Laugh it up. It's true. You apparently think it's important when the followers mess up the original concept or idea that they follow. I think it's worth mentioning when the primary originators of the idea or concept are messed up themselves. So, do you have an argument, or what? Are you disagreeing? Got anything real to say in response, or just another acronym to represent amusement?

It's hilarious for you to slander Darwin. I don't care if Darwin was a hermaphroditic necrophiliac drug addicted dwarf. It's not important who he is, just what he could substantiate. And more importantly, what those after him substantiate. You could prove Darwin to be the biggest jerkoff in history and that still doesn't make him wrong anymore than the Pope being the greatest person who ever lived would make him right about creation. C'mon now...

See above. :rolleyes: I find it amusing that we go as far as to assume, for the sake of this argument, that God exists, and then we try to constrain Him to the physical laws of nature.

Oh boy, it's getting deep now. A buncha errors in Genesis so we'll just make God break all the physical laws of nature that he just created. This guy sure doesn't know how to build a universe I tell ya.

I'll tell you what's more logical than your assertion. It seems to me this Bible was written before science could ever know these things so basically the writers of the Bible had no friggin clue what came first or what came second and so on. They live on Earth so NATURALLY in the beginning there was the Earth. In actuality, in the beginning there were stars and 7 billion years later there was the Earth. They had no way of knowing that of course and that's why they screwed it up. A supreme being would never make such a silly mistake that he had to break the very laws he created.

See, there's your problem: I didn't claim it as fact. Where'd you get that idea? Thinking of some other Christian again, are you? Lumping us all together because there's more to argue with that way. I am very content to practice my beliefs. I don't go out trying to convert people. But when someone starts talking about it, and they say something I disagree with, I speak up.

This idea of "forcing" a belief is ridiculous. Is forcing a belief on someone means disagreeing vocally when it comes up, and standing firm in your beliefs, oh yeah, then I force my beliefs on others. What it really implies, though, are people who berade you and harass you. As you can see, I'm not doing that here: takes two to dance, in case you didn't know.

Christians have and do force their beliefs on people even if you don't do it personally.

You're thinking Jehova's.
Anywayz, I don't think that Christians really force their beliefs on to others, apart from school chaplains (I hate those guys) and Preists (who are paid by God to do so), most Christians quietly believe to themselves and let you do what you want. Not many are as openly vocal as Chris is, not that there's anything wrong with that. For example, I'm not extremley open about my believes (probablt 'cos I'm a paper Bible kinda guy, wrong thread but...)

Sure there were wars over forcing believes on others and missionary's tried to convert everyone on the face of the Earth at some stage or another, but in today's mul;ti-cultural society, there's basically no point for one and two, everyone's fine to worship and believe what they want, in their own way in they're own time -- regardless of how many other people believe what they believe.

I just think, and I'm not forcing this on anybody, that people who don't believe in anything are kinda cold, not unkind or uncaring, or loving or anything, just it must be so sad and cold having to live not expecting bliss and enlightenment and a higher plane of being after this one. It's something to almost look forward too. At the same time, perhspa not believeing makes you value life more, but I still value life as much as the next non-believer does. Maybe I'm talking nonsense, I just find not having something to grasp onto, some faith, is kind of said. That being said, myself and Chris and all the Christian's may be wrong -- in fact it's very likeley that we don't go anywhere. Our brains shut down and we rot in ground. At the same time, the thoughts, the faith, the hopes. Their nice to hold on to. Remember, Christianity isn't all God and belief about seemingly ridiculous things -- I'm a perfect example of that -- it's also about the laws for living. I'm not saying that people who don't believe don't have those rules and laws, but I don't know what I'm saying.

Christinaity isn't all about believing things that are written.
But at the same time, it's nice to have faith.

I suspected that: you just looked it up online, right? And why do you believe it? Did you do anything more than find some site with so and so's report? The simple fact is that those assumptions, as I clearly stated, make certain assumptions...and therefore do NOT contradict creationism at all. I find it interesting that you said you THINK it's explained in there. Did you read it? Did you follow it? If the answer to either of these is no, you're all wet, my friend. Maybe you're used to Christians who don't actually read scientific things like that. Maybe you thought I'd make some snap judgement and not even bother with it.

I have to repeat myself often, it seems: FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT. There are other passages I'm not going to go diving after now...that one is the one that first comes to my mind. You can't subdue the earth without studying it.

See, you're talking about The Bible -- this is a constant in all your posts: twist around what we're talking about. Try to find some way to get it BACK to the concepts you want to talk about, because you think they sound good and help to emphasize your primary points. It's a real waste of time, and very transparent.

I said that God wants us to study the Earth, and you make some comment about us not being supposed to study The Bible. How does that make sense?

I find it more arrogant to believe that over 90-95% of the population believes in something stupid and idiotic, and you've got it right.

Are you dense? Having it questioned does not stop it from being absolute. That's the flippin' definition of absolute, man. It's ABSOLUTE. It doesn't matter who believes it or questions it. Get a dictionary, will ya? I think the problem here is that you're failing to look at the world from the perspective of someone who believes in absolutes, so all you can do is rant on and on about how ridiculous it is. At least I can get myself into your frame of mind and understand what you think and why. But I feel like I'm talking to someone who's way of life and set of beliefs is unwavering to the point where they won't even let an alternative set to enter their mind...because apparently I have to explain the definition of absolute to you.

Like I said, that's easy to say now, because we both know, even if that does happen, neither of us will be alive to see it. The paragraph is mostly rhetoric, so that's all I've got to say in response.

I never said you couldn't be niec to people without having a reason for it. I'm glad that people like yourself are nice to people (well, assuming you are. You don't come off as all that nice, to be perfectly frank). But you're just repeating yourself now: I say it doesn't make sense, you say you don't have to make sense if you don't want to. But that's a real cop-out answer. If it makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense, why do you do it? Don't tell me you're allowed to do it, because we've established that. I want to know why. Are you a slave to your instincts even if you know them to be illogical?

You said there is nothing evil. You say that's logic. No, that's opinion. What's logic is that there is no absolute right and wrong if there is no God. Did I say that means there is no set of morals in existence? OF COURSE NOT. First you resort to exaggerations, this time to blatantly putting words in my mouth. I never said you had to believe in God to be a moral person, did I? Find me saying that and show it to me...back up your words here, why don't you?

You won't find it, because I didn't say it. Sure, morals can exist. My point is that an absolute right and wrong don't exist without some kind of God. That is the most basic of logical facts. Yet you continue to misunderstand. You think it means that people can't try to be nice, or good, or moral without God...which is not the case. What is the case is that nice, good, and moral are just words and no one can really say what is nice, good, or moral without God. THAT is the point. Without God, there is no meaning.

Nothing evil...hehe. Ok, fair enough. I sure hope you don't feel the same way towards, oh, say, the rape and murder of a village of people. Now, maybe I'm being some overzealous religious wacko here, but I think that's wrong, even if 50.1% of the electorate thinks it's okay. I think it's wrong, period. Perhaps you think that's ridiculous. I really don't care.

No, read the actual words. Try it, seriously: it's a great way to find out what the other person is trying to tell you. You said I was pushing my beliefs on people to believe in that. All I said was that it wasn't reasonable to assume this all came about through chaos.

Oh, and even your statement is wrong. Mythic means, basically, made-up. Not an accurate belief of what most believe Him to be.

So go talk to them. Why are you complaining to me as if I'm the one who claims it as fact? I've never defended that stance and I don't know if I ever will. Hey, a lot of Atheists I know think that Christians are all stupid and incapable of logic. So I guess I'll complain to YOU about them. That alright?

Go ahead, follow something that's constantly falling back on itself and that will be severely flawed when you die. I'll put my faith in something a little more timeless.

Uh, I have no doubt that far more money has been raised via churches than any of those organizations. By far. And let's not forget that "government funded NASA shuttle missions" are funded highly by the taxpayers -- the overwhelming majority of which believe in God. So even if you're going to use money raised as evidence (ridiculous...especially if you're not going to give the overwhelming majority argument any credit), religion would still win.

I am not talking to science. I'm talking to you. I'm asking you what you'd think of a stone like that. I swear, a 9 year old would've answered by now...but you're doing the hokey-pokey around this question. Don't jump to all kinds of conclusions about this or that, and don't waste time telling me what science is. Just answer the question: where would you think it came from? Would you think it got there by itself, or would you think an intelligent creature put it there?

If it's the latter, that means you think the stone implies intelligence, because of it's precise and orderly nature. This planet is a million times more precise, and yet this DOESN'T imply an intelligence behind it as well? That's the chain of logic...one that you don't seem to be able to face. You'd rather just rant about something mildly related.

BTW: scientists assume things all the time. It's called a theory. Some of these theories are even called fact...and published...and then recanted later. Why? Scientists are human. People in white coats are not transformed into infallible beings. "Science" is just made of men...I think people forget that sometimes.

Uh, no, I'd rather read about history and fulfill my other obligations than take an Astronomy class. I already talked about God and the physical world. Hang on, I'll repeat it below.

I didn't say it was symbolic. I said it might be. You have no clue if it is or not. How do you know Genesis is not meant as a fable of sorts? I don't think it is, personally, but you have no idea. I never said I got to choose what's symolic and what's real, now did I? You've really gotta stop doing that. Looks bad, wastes time.

Great, you don't care. I do...and I'm sure others do. I didn't say it made him wrong. But it's certainly worth noting that 4 of the world's pioneering Atheists all had severe family problems.

Who said when he created them? No, we won't "make" Him do anything. You don't understand. If we're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists, and are talking about how he created the universe, it makes absolutely no sense to nitpick physical laws. He is GOD, after all, in case you didn't know.

But, even then, perhaps he snapped his big ol' fingers and the whole thing came into being. Maybe the rest is symbolic of the way it was formed quickly, or the way He thought, or something. I don't claim to know the answer...but I do know that you're grasping at straws when you start misinterpreting someting in virtually every paragraph.

Silly mistake? Why would it be a silly mistake if He's God? If He can just stick it all in place in any order He wants for whatever reason He wants then it makes no difference. The rest of your rant is stuff you've posted before; I won't bother replying again.

"Christians"? What, some of them? Half of them? 64.8% of them? What do "Christians" do, and how many of them do it? :rolleyes: Give me a break. If every set of beliefs were allowed to be tainted because of its crazier/craziest followers, they'd all look bad.

Priests are not paid to force beliefs on people, Matt. :) I think that's a joke, but I honestly can't say (no smilie!). And you don't have to say "and I'm not forcing this on anybody" just to please people who are all hyper-sensitive. People who, to put it as nicely as possible, b*tch about "forcing beliefs" are just people who don't even want to hear about it in the least. They want to avoid it, I'd imagine, whenever possible. They use the phrase "forcing your beliefs on me" because it's a tricky little exaggeration.

Sometimes I see something cra-zay on a message board like this, so I reply. And they reply, and I reply, and others reply, and we all reply. And we all disagree, quite often. And then someone accuses me of forcing my beliefs on them. Why? Because it's the only thing they've got to fall back on when the argument doesn't go their way.

Does that put this thread to rest? I mean MAN...you could write a small book.

Rest? Oh, I doubt it. Timing will likely come back with more of the same. :) Yeah, I guess the posts are getting sort of long, eh? Just think of all the work I could get done with that time. :laugh:

I figured Timing would contribute a few paragraphs. You should collaborate a book or something.

You know, like when two professors spar off with each other about their views.

:laugh: Funny you should mention that, I thought of something just like that a few years ago...though with another friend of mine (who I'm sorry to say is very sick last I heard) -- I thought (and still think) it could be pretty interesting stuff. I mean, I'm spending all this time on it ANYWAY, right? Knowing me, I'll never get around to it, though. :) I am flattered at the mere suggestion, though. If I were going to write something like that, I'd probably do it with an Atheist who I knew fairly well and respected, etc.

Wouldn't even have to be a published book. Could be an e-book...ya know!? :)

Yeah...might be fun. I dunno, maybe I should try to get in touch with that friend of mine. I want to see how he's doing anyway. Again, I'm very flattered -- I guess I'll let you know if anything comes of it. :laugh: Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll be able to turn being agumentative as hell into a virute of sorts.

We are/were going through a book which took the science side and took the religion side and put them together. They would present the Scientific side of say...Darwinism and then compare that to Christianity. Very interesting needless to say. When we finish with it I might see about sending you the book.

That sounds very interesting. Do let me know how it turns out...it soods very worth reading.

Interesting? I've skimmed most of the posts!

Yes, T, of course God doesn't pay the preists.....
:laugh:

Originally posted by TWTCommish

I suspected that: you just looked it up online, right? And why do you believe it? Did you do anything more than find some site with so and so's report? The simple fact is that those assumptions, as I clearly stated, make certain assumptions...and therefore do NOT contradict creationism at all. I find it interesting that you said you THINK it's explained in there. Did you read it? Did you follow it? If the answer to either of these is no, you're all wet, my friend. Maybe you're used to Christians who don't actually read scientific things like that. Maybe you thought I'd make some snap judgement and not even bother with it.

I only quoted it off of a NASA website. I guess they're just a bunch of wackos making stuff up for kicks. I doesn't really matter if I believe it or not, which I incidentally do, but what I believe is irrelevant to what they can substantiate. And of course I friggin read it, that's how I answered your question about the rate of expansion. Maybe you should read it.

I have to repeat myself often, it seems: FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT. There are other passages I'm not going to go diving after now...that one is the one that first comes to my mind. You can't subdue the earth without studying it.

See, you're talking about The Bible -- this is a constant in all your posts: twist around what we're talking about. Try to find some way to get it BACK to the concepts you want to talk about, because you think they sound good and help to emphasize your primary points. It's a real waste of time, and very transparent.

I said that God wants us to study the Earth, and you make some comment about us not being supposed to study The Bible. How does that make sense?

How can you study Earth if it contradicts the word of God to find an answer other than what is written? That's a complete contradiction. How can God be proven wrong by our studies if he is a Supreme Being? Not possible according to your logic.

I find it more arrogant to believe that over 90-95% of the population believes in something stupid and idiotic, and you've got it right.

Yes of course it's arrogant because 90% of the world's population has never believed anything idiotic and we all know if something happened once it could never happen again.

Are you dense? Having it questioned does not stop it from being absolute. That's the flippin' definition of absolute, man. It's ABSOLUTE. It doesn't matter who believes it or questions it. Get a dictionary, will ya? I think the problem here is that you're failing to look at the world from the perspective of someone who believes in absolutes, so all you can do is rant on and on about how ridiculous it is. At least I can get myself into your frame of mind and understand what you think and why. But I feel like I'm talking to someone who's way of life and set of beliefs is unwavering to the point where they won't even let an alternative set to enter their mind...because apparently I have to explain the definition of absolute to you.


It is pretty damn evident you don't have a friggin clue about the defintion of absolute. Get a dictionary. Something absolute can't be questioned no matter how many times you want to rant on about it.

I never said you couldn't be niec to people without having a reason for it. I'm glad that people like yourself are nice to people (well, assuming you are. You don't come off as all that nice, to be perfectly frank). But you're just repeating yourself now: I say it doesn't make sense, you say you don't have to make sense if you don't want to. But that's a real cop-out answer. If it makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense, why do you do it? Don't tell me you're allowed to do it, because we've established that. I want to know why. Are you a slave to your instincts even if you know them to be illogical?

I don't have to have a reason why. They're my feelings and I don't have to prove why I feel what I feel. I just felt like it. No reason.

You said there is nothing evil. You say that's logic. No, that's opinion. What's logic is that there is no absolute right and wrong if there is no God. Did I say that means there is no set of morals in existence? OF COURSE NOT. First you resort to exaggerations, this time to blatantly putting words in my mouth. I never said you had to believe in God to be a moral person, did I? Find me saying that and show it to me...back up your words here, why don't you?

Well there is no God and there is no right and wrong so you're batting 1,000. What you said is that there is an absolute right and wrong, presumably because God makes it so. You even repeat it right below.

You won't find it, because I didn't say it. Sure, morals can exist. My point is that an absolute right and wrong don't exist without some kind of God. That is the most basic of logical facts. Yet you continue to misunderstand. You think it means that people can't try to be nice, or good, or moral without God...which is not the case. What is the case is that nice, good, and moral are just words and no one can really say what is nice, good, or moral without God. THAT is the point. Without God, there is no meaning.

The American Indian certainly said what was nice, good, and moral without your God. The savages!!! A moral code exists within all living creatures as a basis for orderly, successful existence. It's in the interest of every animal to live within a code of conduct in order to survive longer. A moral code distinguishes what is right and wrong for a given group, not God. Ants live an orderly existence without any comprehension of God, the Bible, your morality, or any believe in being rewarded in heaven.

Here we go with the definitions, you really should buy a dictionary

Morality is a set of customs of a given society, class or social group which regulate relationships and prescribe modes of behavior to enhance the group's survival.

Nothing evil...hehe. Ok, fair enough. I sure hope you don't feel the same way towards, oh, say, the rape and murder of a village of people. Now, maybe I'm being some overzealous religious wacko here, but I think that's wrong, even if 50.1% of the electorate thinks it's okay. I think it's wrong, period. Perhaps you think that's ridiculous. I really don't care.

I don't think that's ridiculous. I think that's a horrible terrible thing and it's totally wrong IMHO. I can't prove that to be universal however, and certainly don't claim it to be absolute which is what I would consider ridiculous.

No, read the actual words. Try it, seriously: it's a great way to find out what the other person is trying to tell you. You said I was pushing my beliefs on people to believe in that. All I said was that it wasn't reasonable to assume this all came about through chaos.

Oh, and even your statement is wrong. Mythic means, basically, made-up. Not an accurate belief of what most believe Him to be.

A myth is a traditional story originating in a preliterate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world

God is your supernatural being, Jesus is an ancestor, and let's just call Moses and Noah heroes. Primordial by the way is a basic principle such as the Ten Commanments. Possibly the only problem with that defintion is preliterate because there was written language at the time even if the vast majority of people were illiterate.

So go talk to them. Why are you complaining to me as if I'm the one who claims it as fact? I've never defended that stance and I don't know if I ever will. Hey, a lot of Atheists I know think that Christians are all stupid and incapable of logic. So I guess I'll complain to YOU about them. That alright?

So you're not a creationist or do you don't claim it as fact?

Go ahead, follow something that's constantly falling back on itself and that will be severely flawed when you die. I'll put my faith in something a little more timeless.

Thanks I will!!

Uh, I have no doubt that far more money has been raised via churches than any of those organizations. By far. And let's not forget that "government funded NASA shuttle missions" are funded highly by the taxpayers -- the overwhelming majority of which believe in God. So even if you're going to use money raised as evidence (ridiculous...especially if you're not going to give the overwhelming majority argument any credit), religion would still win.

No this isn't the money race. I was simply pointing out that billions of dollars have been invested by government in an effort to further explain the universe and theories of evolution/big bang. They're not hiring religious scholars to interpret the Bible in order to explain the universe or evolution now are they? There is no such investment currently being made to prove creation. Wonder why?

I am not talking to science. I'm talking to you. I'm asking you what you'd think of a stone like that. I swear, a 9 year old would've answered by now...but you're doing the hokey-pokey around this question. Don't jump to all kinds of conclusions about this or that, and don't waste time telling me what science is. Just answer the question: where would you think it came from? Would you think it got there by itself, or would you think an intelligent creature put it there?

What does it matter what I think? I'm not a scientist and I'm not an authority on smooth rocks or the moon. You want a scientific answer to a bogus question to legitimize your belief that since the universe is so large that it must have been created by a intelligent being. That ain't gonna fly man. If I saw a big rock on the moon I'd probably not think twice about it. If it were a refrigerator sitting on the moon then maybe that would peak my attention.

If it's the latter, that means you think the stone implies intelligence, because of it's precise and orderly nature. This planet is a million times more precise, and yet this DOESN'T imply an intelligence behind it as well? That's the chain of logic...one that you don't seem to be able to face. You'd rather just rant about something mildly related.

You want to talk to me about mildly related when you're using an absurd example such a smooth rock on the moon to relate to the complexity of the universe? Geeez....

Nature in itself is intelligent. So what?

BTW: scientists assume things all the time. It's called a theory. Some of these theories are even called fact...and published...and then recanted later. Why? Scientists are human. People in white coats are not transformed into infallible beings. "Science" is just made of men...I think people forget that sometimes.

Theoretical assumptions are based on a hell of a lot more than oh look a rock, an alien must have put it there.

Uh, no, I'd rather read about history and fulfill my other obligations than take an Astronomy class. I already talked about God and the physical world. Hang on, I'll repeat it below.

I didn't say it was symbolic. I said it might be. You have no clue if it is or not. How do you know Genesis is not meant as a fable of sorts? I don't think it is, personally, but you have no idea. I never said I got to choose what's symolic and what's real, now did I? You've really gotta stop doing that. Looks bad, wastes time.

Sure it might be symbolic, it might not be symbolic but you don't know. Great... it could be either symbolic or not or it just could be flat out wrong.

Great, you don't care. I do...and I'm sure others do. I didn't say it made him wrong. But it's certainly worth noting that 4 of the world's pioneering Atheists all had severe family problems.

Jim Baker and Tammy Fay are scumbags... and? Is that worth noting that people who preached to millions of Christians for many years are scumbags? Of course not.

Who said when he created them? No, we won't "make" Him do anything. You don't understand. If we're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists, and are talking about how he created the universe, it makes absolutely no sense to nitpick physical laws. He is GOD, after all, in case you didn't know.

But, even then, perhaps he snapped his big ol' fingers and the whole thing came into being. Maybe the rest is symbolic of the way it was formed quickly, or the way He thought, or something. I don't claim to know the answer...but I do know that you're grasping at straws when you start misinterpreting someting in virtually every paragraph.

Yes, when all else fails and you can't think of a logical answer he is GOD after all. He can make fruit trees grow without the Sun, he IS GOD after all. He can make the Earth before the universe and still make the universe older than the Earth if he really wanted to. Nitpick physical laws... that's funny for someone who is on the back of science to prove the Big Bang.

Silly mistake? Why would it be a silly mistake if He's God? If He can just stick it all in place in any order He wants for whatever reason He wants then it makes no difference. The rest of your rant is stuff you've posted before; I won't bother replying again.

Follow me here. You can't have a planet without a Sun. So unless you're going back to the "He is GOD after all and he can grow fruit trees and have planets without a sun if he wants to" card it's incredibly impossible to have a planet with fruit trees growing on it without a Sun.

"Christians"? What, some of them? Half of them? 64.8% of them? What do "Christians" do, and how many of them do it? :rolleyes: Give me a break. If every set of beliefs were allowed to be tainted because of its crazier/craziest followers, they'd all look bad.

Yes, some of them and a lot of them. A measure of less than all and more than none which equals some of them and a lot of them both. Currently there is no census question for how many people of Christian faith are hassling and trying to convert other people but as soon as those numbers are ready I'll try to post them here. :D

I've read it twice, just so you know. You said you THINK it's explained there. Why wouldn't you KNOW? Anyway, as I already pointed out, it does not contradict creationism.

But it doesn't contradict the Word of God. The Bible does NOT tell us all the details, so we are to learn what we can. The basic point is that science and knowledge are GOOD things...not enemies of religion, despite what your biases against and blanket generalizations concerning Christians tell you.

Didn't say that. But it's one thing to believe something idiotic, and another to base major portions of your life around it. I never said it made it true, but seeing as how we're talking about arrogance, I decided to point out how arrogant that position of yours is.

The world absolute has many definitions. But no, something that is absolute can indeed be questioned. Even if God were right in front of you you could say "Hmmm, I don't think you really exist." Use some common sense. Just because it's absolute it doesn't mean everyone's going to acknowledge it that way. People don't have to KNOW of it for it to be that way. Absolute does not mean that everyone agrees with it and acknowledges it, it just means that it is completely correct, regardless of who acknowledges it as so.

Concerning a dictionary: I have a block of JavaScript code embedded into my IE links bar on both computers that prompts me for a word and takes me to to the appropriate listing on Dictionary.com. I also have a program in my system tray at least 90% of the time I'm using my computer called Babylon which allows me to hold on shift and right-click any word to have an definition pop up. I use one or the other of these, at the VERY least, a dozen times a day. So, thanks for your advice, but I've got it covered.

There you go again. I ask for a reason, your reply is that you don't have to give a reason. Well, duh, my friend. Of course you don't HAVE to. You don't HAVE to be logical, and you don't HAVE to use arguments that make sense...but you ought to. You ought to have reasons for most things. It makes no sense for you do these illogical things. So why do you? Do you even know?

Well, first off, it's batting "1.000," because you're actually batting 1 -- because the hits, if equal to the at-bats, will total 1 if the two numbers are one in the same.

Yes, we've established that you don't believe in an absolute right and wrong. I do. Anything else to add other than what was basically the equivalent of "nah-uh"?

LISTEN this time. I hope you REALLY read this paragraph, because I'm tired of having to explain it to you. I really am.

I am NOT is saying that you cannot have a set of your own morals without God. Okay? Get that out of your head, because I did NOT say that. I want that made clear right now. What I DID say, however, is that, without God, those morals are opinion, and are not absolute. Not wholly true. Why is that hard to understand?

BTW, I don't know if you think yourself clever for your non-so-subtle references to what some older Christians thought or think of the Indians, but you're not. It's a waste of time. I don't think they were savages, and I never said that order could not exist without the prescence of real, true Christianity (though the morals Christianity teaches through The Bible are, not-so-conincidentally, the same morals healthy societies adhere to, for the most part.)

I understand completely. I just want you to understand that, according to those beliefs, those things being wrong is opinion. I think it's more than opinion. I think it IS. I think there are some things that are wrong no matter how badly you or I or anyone else wants them to be acceptable. I cannot prove this, and I don't claim to be able to.

That's not necessarily true. There are several definitions. You chose one that fit your agenda best, I'd say. IMO, the majority of people tend to think of a myth as something that is untrue...they use this definition, instead:

A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

I am a creationist. I have little to no doubt that some kind of God is behind this. I don't claim it as fact. I personally believe it to be one, but I don't expect you to necessarily believe it, and I don't claim to have proof. So you can't complain about that here, to me.

Well, first off, that's incorrect. There are scientists being funded to try to, for example, disprove several scientific methods related to aging and such. So technically they do exist.

And by the way, there are plenty of religious leaders, and moral leaders (who's morals are almost always remarkably similar to those preached in The Bible, I'll have you know) advising the government and other large organizations, because morals, and where they come from (like it or not, we all use many Christian morals in our life), are an undeniable part of our lives.

Alright, first off, I've now asked you the question I think it's 3 times, and you haven't answered. There's no reason to say "I'm not a scientist" -- I know you're not. I asked you anyway. I'm asking you now.

Secondly, it's "pique," and not "peak." In your own words, go get a dictionary.

Thirdly: answer the blasted question. If you saw that rock, how would you assume it got there? Don't try to argue with the larger argument, because you've already done that. I'm asking you a question. So either answer it, or chicken out for some reason. Just PICK ONE, and we can get on with it.

Nature is not a thing. That's what. Nature cannot be intelligent -- nature is a word to describe many things.

It's not an absurd example. It's a simple logical chain demonstrated through the use of a hypothetical situation with religious bias removed from the equation. Yet even then you refuse to answer straight out.

Uh, yeah. This rock stuff wouldn't be such a big deal if you'd answer the question straight.

Exactly, it could be. So, in short, there is no "error." Just a question as to what's symbolic. Just as I've BEEN SAYING. If you'd acknowledged it before we could've both saved some time.

It depends on the context. The founder or Mormonism (Joseph something I believe. I've forgotten his name for the time being) was a very shady character. The origins of something are always worth noting. They do not negate or justify it, but they are always worth noting. Which is one of the reasons you like to go on and on about how The Bible showed up in a time when scientific theorem did not yet truly exist.

I'm not on their back. Not unless they claim it as fact, in which case I am. I'll say it again: if we're to assume God exists, it's ridiculous to constrain him to the laws he created and completey controls. Even a non-believer ought to be able to realize that.

See last post about symbolism. I'm not typing it again here.

You don't understand. Saying "Christians" do something is ridiculous. Some do, some don't. That's like saying "people are murderers." SOME people are...but it's as if you're implying that they all do it. You obviously have a tendency to lump, and them label. Stick them all in a huddled mass, and throw a blank over them with the word 'WACKO' smeared across it, even if .00001% of them are actually wackos.

Originally posted by TWTCommish

I've read it twice, just so you know. You said you THINK it's explained there. Why wouldn't you KNOW? Anyway, as I already pointed out, it does not contradict creationism.

It most certainly does contradict it, whether you want to admit it as such. The universe is much older than the Earth, PERIOD as you so quaintly like to say. Science doesn't have the luxury of claiming symbolism and whatever else to fit it's agenda.

But it doesn't contradict the Word of God. The Bible does NOT tell us all the details, so we are to learn what we can. The basic point is that science and knowledge are GOOD things...not enemies of religion, despite what your biases against and blanket generalizations concerning Christians tell you.

The universe being older than the Earth contradicts the word of God. If we're able to prove the Big Bang that contradicts the word of God. Micro-evolution and resulting macro-evolution contradicts the word of God.

Didn't say that. But it's one thing to believe something idiotic, and another to base major portions of your life around it. I never said it made it true, but seeing as how we're talking about arrogance, I decided to point out how arrogant that position of yours is.

The degree to which you believe something and incorporate it into your life doesn't make it any more or less accurate.

The world absolute has many definitions. But no, something that is absolute can indeed be questioned. Even if God were right in front of you you could say "Hmmm, I don't think you really exist." Use some common sense. Just because it's absolute it doesn't mean everyone's going to acknowledge it that way. People don't have to KNOW of it for it to be that way. Absolute does not mean that everyone agrees with it and acknowledges it, it just means that it is completely correct, regardless of who acknowledges it as so.

Pick any damn definition of asbolute, I don't care.

Not limited by restirctions or exceptions; unconditional

Not to be doubted or questioned, positive, certain.

Pertaining to measurements or units of measrement derived from fundamental relationships of space, mass, and time.

Complete and unconditional; have no encumbrances; final.

Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

Pick any definition you want and you still can't claim right and wrong to be absolute.

There you go again. I ask for a reason, your reply is that you don't have to give a reason. Well, duh, my friend. Of course you don't HAVE to. You don't HAVE to be logical, and you don't HAVE to use arguments that make sense...but you ought to. You ought to have reasons for most things. It makes no sense for you do these illogical things. So why do you? Do you even know?

If I don't have to be logical then why do you keep asking the same question? Making sense is logical, however I have free will to not make sense. That's why it's illogical!!! Now I have to make sense because I ought to? Why should I? You gonna make me? LOL

Well, first off, it's batting "1.000," because you're actually batting 1 -- because the hits, if equal to the at-bats, will total 1 if the two numbers are one in the same.

So? 3 for 3 is batting 1.000% which is what I was referring to.

I am NOT is saying that you cannot have a set of your own morals without God. Okay? Get that out of your head, because I did NOT say that. I want that made clear right now. What I DID say, however, is that, without God, those morals are opinion, and are not absolute. Not wholly true. Why is that hard to understand?

It's hard to understand because you can't friggin prove that God exists so how the hell can he be giving morals absolution if you don't even know if he exists!? That's VERY friggin hard to understand.

BTW, I don't know if you think yourself clever for your non-so-subtle references to what some older Christians thought or think of the Indians, but you're not. It's a waste of time. I don't think they were savages, and I never said that order could not exist without the prescence of real, true Christianity (though the morals Christianity teaches through The Bible are, not-so-conincidentally, the same morals healthy societies adhere to, for the most part.)

Well since the American Indian existed far before Christianity maybe you just ripped off his stuff? Regardless, it shows that Christianity and the absolution that your God apparently seems to provide is not a necessity for living moral meaningful lives.

I understand completely. I just want you to understand that, according to those beliefs, those things being wrong is opinion. I think it's more than opinion. I think it IS. I think there are some things that are wrong no matter how badly you or I or anyone else wants them to be acceptable. I cannot prove this, and I don't claim to be able to.

Then you can't claim it to be absolute.

That's not necessarily true. There are several definitions. You chose one that fit your agenda best, I'd say. IMO, the majority of people tend to think of a myth as something that is untrue...they use this definition, instead:

A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

The Bible is filled with half-truths and fiction and Christianity is certainly an ideology. Moses parted the Red Sea? For REAL!? Noah built an Arc for ALL living creatures? Even the ones he couldn't have the technology to see. Uh huh.

I am a creationist. I have little to no doubt that some kind of God is behind this. I don't claim it as fact. I personally believe it to be one, but I don't expect you to necessarily believe it, and I don't claim to have proof. So you can't complain about that here, to me.

Fair enough. It is however the word of God so hey.

Well, first off, that's incorrect. There are scientists being funded to try to, for example, disprove several scientific methods related to aging and such. So technically they do exist.

What does that have to do with Christian Science, evolution, and creationism? That's not on their agenda to my knowledge.

And by the way, there are plenty of religious leaders, and moral leaders (who's morals are almost always remarkably similar to those preached in The Bible, I'll have you know) advising the government and other large organizations, because morals, and where they come from (like it or not, we all use many Christian morals in our life), are an undeniable part of our lives.

Whoa whoa there, these religious leaders aren't on the payroll to research the existence of the universe and they're mostly there to guide those religious practitioners who are in power or government. It doesn't hurt that looking religious helps you get elected too.

Christian morals are an undeniable part of our lives yet they aren't pushed on ANYONE? Neat trick!!

Alright, first off, I've now asked you the question I think it's 3 times, and you haven't answered. There's no reason to say "I'm not a scientist" -- I know you're not. I asked you anyway. I'm asking you now.

Secondly, it's "pique," and not "peak." In your own words, go get a dictionary.

Thirdly: answer the blasted question. If you saw that rock, how would you assume it got there? Don't try to argue with the larger argument, because you've already done that. I'm asking you a question. So either answer it, or chicken out for some reason. Just PICK ONE, and we can get on with it.

LMAO I mispell one word over the course of these lengthy very boring exercises of answering all this stuff and now I need to get a dictionary. LOL

That's very mature. Don't chicken out, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! Hey T, what if you saw a big ole smooth rock floating around the Alpha Centauri system, what do you think about that!? LOL Geez... I've answered your question like twice already and a few times before when you asked me. I wouldn't think much about it. I'm not a geologist and I'm not an astronomer so I would think Hey look a big ole rock, cool. I wouldn't make any assumption that some intelligent life form carefully carved this stone and then traveled however many light years through space to come put it on the moon. No, I wouldn't consider it to have been placed by an intelligent life anymore than if I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time that it was carefully carved out.

Nature is not a thing. That's what. Nature cannot be intelligent -- nature is a word to describe many things.

The word nature is a noun, nouns are THINGS!!! In this case nature is someTHING encompassing all living THINGS.

It depends on the context. The founder or Mormonism (Joseph something I believe. I've forgotten his name for the time being) was a very shady character. The origins of something are always worth noting. They do not negate or justify it, but they are always worth noting. Which is one of the reasons you like to go on and on about how The Bible showed up in a time when scientific theorem did not yet truly exist.

Um, I didn't go on and on about the sexual habits of Jesus and Moses now did I? I spoke of what the writers of the Bible could NOT have known at the time they wrote it which is why I believe the errors occur in Genesis. What the writers of the Bible knew and what Darwin said on his death bed are so far different that I can't believe you seriously brought up whatever about Darwin. It would be like saying about someone contributing to the Bible, well that guy had family problems, was a drunk, and saw visions... that's crazy bastard. It's totally irrelevant.

I'm not on their back. Not unless they claim it as fact, in which case I am. I'll say it again: if we're to assume God exists, it's ridiculous to constrain him to the laws he created and completey controls. Even a non-believer ought to be able to realize that.

Anyone should be able to realize you can't take step 2 without taking step 1 as you're attempting to do.

You don't understand. Saying "Christians" do something is ridiculous. Some do, some don't. That's like saying "people are murderers." SOME people are...but it's as if you're implying that they all do it. You obviously have a tendency to lump, and them label. Stick them all in a huddled mass, and throw a blank over them with the word 'WACKO' smeared across it, even if .00001% of them are actually wackos.

Oooh... so touchy about your religious history aren't ya?

You're making a totally bad correlation in what I said and what you're trying to paint about what I said.

I said Christians have and do

I DID NOT say Christians are murderers or are heathens or anything else.

Christians have and do murder

People have and do murder

That's a huge difference from what you're trying to say that I said.

I'm gonna chill from now on about this topic. It's a little too time consuming and I get into debates with friends from time to time too so I'm burned out a little. I hope maybe the discussion has opened some interesting avenues of thought about evolution and stuff. Nobody ever addressed my micro-evolution example which I thought was pretty decent so hey! Later!

Round number: whatever. Surprised the ref hasn't called this one off yet.

Not true. I just read it again. It assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that the rate of expansion is steady. That it is constant. Second, it measures the earth's age back to where it would have fully de-expanded into nothing. So, if the universe were CREATED partially expanded, the two would not contradict each other at all. All it says there is that the universe is expanding at a certain rate, and that if we're to simulate a reversal all the way back down into nothing, basically, we can guess how old it is. But that assumes that we're even supposed to go all the way back down to nothing.

Yes, that's right. We know how old it all is. Oh, wait, what's that? Oh yeah, scientists assume that the rate of growth is constant at all times, don't they? Well, that's a potential flaw, now isn't it? If they weren't around before, they don't know whether there was any increase. And since when do we know just how old the earth is? Carbon dating? Oh yeah, what a reliable method. So reliable that many acknowledge that anything over a certain age is incredibly reliant on guesswork. There's tons of controversy and disputes over carbon dating, radio dating, etc...at least according to everything I've ever read...and no, I'm not talking about biased crap in some Christian newsletter.

The same way some people blindly listen to the preacher on TV, others blindly listen to the guys who put out reports and wear white lab coats.

I didn't say it did. But the whole point here, in case you forgot, is that many, many people believe this. You pointed out that those same people, basically, have all done idiotic things. I'm saying that, yeah, they have, but it's a much more significant, and less likely mistake, to base your entire life around something idiotic.

Yeah, and pretty much all of them support what I'm saying. Like I ALREADY SAID: people could look into The Face of God and still say "I don't believe in you." Just because it's absolute and completely true, regardless of what people think, it doesn't mean they must agree with it. It just means they're wrong if they don't. Like one of those definitions: final. It's the final ruling. It doesn't mean people can't defy it, or try to defy it. Just that they're wrong.

I'm not gonna make you do anything. Even if I could, I wouldn't. That's not the point. I just think it looks awfully bad for you to say things like "I don't have to have a reason" when I ask you for one. If it's illogical, and you know it is, give me one good reason why you shouldn't try to fight it.

You wrote "1,000" I believe. Which is 1000 times more than 1. I was correcting a small mistake of yours. I knew what you were referring to.

I said I believe it. BELIEVE. If I believe it, that means, based on what I know, I think it's true. So, I think it's true, and I treat it as such. The time when I stop treating it as true/fact/whatever, is in reference to other people, who may not interpret things and reach the same conclusion. Do you see, now?

All historical records we have show The Bible coming from times much older than anything we have on the Indians right now. Even atheists acknowledge that Jesus was a real person and that The Bible was indeed written about many things that happened. The disagreements come in during some of the more, shall we say, outrageous happenings in The Bible. In some of the specifics.

And yes, I already said that you could be what I consider (and what most consider) to be a moral person without a belief in Jesus. Did you even read that? I already said it. And you're acting as if you're trying to convince me. What I did say, though, is that it's just their opinion. No God, no meaning. No absolutes. Only opinion, cells, chemicals. Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

That depends on what you mean by claim. I believe it is absolute, and if you ask me, I'll tell you it is. Because that's my conclusion. I won't claim to have proof, though, and I won't act as if you're ignoring concrete facts if you disagree.

Again, you go off-topic. A useless, obvious tendency. And a very rhetorical paragraph. I'm not interested in your childish belittlements of The Bible. I'm wasting enough time typing these replies as it is without you acting your shoe size with pointless remarks.

It's got plenty do with them. For one, I've no doubt that many of them are Christians...which is one of the reasons they're doing it. To see if they can justify their beliefs in the scientific arena. Some people want to get down and dirty like that. You asked why the other side (I think those were your words. Not sure) didn't have people being funded to look into these things, too, and I said that they did.

No trick. They're part of our lives because so many people who are NOT Christian still live by them. The morals that Christianity preaches are ones you largely adhere to, I'll bet. I imagine you dislike the idea of adultery, murder, rape, theft, etc. Almost everyone does. Even people who never run into some Bible-thumper. So why is it somehow an amazing trick for people to have those same morals as an undeniable part of their life and not have things pushed on them? I'll answer that for you: it's not. You just like to jump to conclusions and use sarcasm to try to form arguments.

No, they're not there to research the existence of the universe -- at least not in most cases. The point is that whether you give a crap about these people, lots of others do...and lots of people consider Christian morals to be important...and not always for superficial reasons.

Make that two: misspell has more than one "s." Actually, you've misspelled many words, from what I've seen. I just got bored enough to point one out.

Really? You'd assume that it got smooth then, just sitting there, how? I'm talking an exact rock. An even square. Not the smooth bottom of a riverbed here. You'd think that, due to some weather or some natural condition, it happened to be made smooth, like something built for a skyscraper, and happened to be an exact 10-foot cube?

So, rocks are intelligent? All of nature is intelligent? Care to be a little more specific here?

Who mentioned sexual habits? I don't think I said anything of the sort. If I did, accept my apologies, but I'm pretty sure that I did not.

You seriously can't believe that I brought up "whatever" about Darwin? Do you even know what it was I brought up? I don't think I got too specific. But apparently, even though you don't know what I was going to say, it's unbelievable anyway. Odd. I think it's worth mentioning. You don't. So be it. I happen to think it's more than a coincidence, though.

I'm not attemping to do anything of the sort. If God exists, well, it's cray-zay to try to assume he's bound by the physical world. And if you're going to ridicule The Bible, you need to assume, for the sake of that argument, that he exists in the first place...otherwise there's no point.

I'm only "touchy" when people like yourself fail to distinguish between Christians and Christianity...something you very clearly have not done.

I'm afraid I don't recall just what example you're referring to...and I'm in no mood to go digging for it.

If you want to spend less time on it, be my guest. I will not belittle you for it, because I know how frustrating the large consumption of thought and time can be. I'll be here anyway, though, whether you are or not.

I do not think I've learned much from you, though. I think you've been far too harsh and rude for that. Too heavy-handed and sarcastic. Too condescending. I've known atheists and agnostics before, so I do know what it's like to talk to someone who I disagree with, and still respect them, and learn from them. I'm sorry to say you make it very difficult for me to feel the same way about you.

I wouldn't have had to patronize you if you didn't have such incredibly weak arguments. There are a mountain of things in here that you questioned that would get incredibly amusing looks from people. You even seriously asked what's wrong with the universe being older than the Earth and how do I "know" that. You even resorted to personally slandering scientists to help your argument! LOL

I didn't enter this thread to have you like me nor do I care if you do. In fact I came in with full knowledge that my participation in this thread would make me rather unpopular with the "religious" who frequent this board but again I didn't really care. I tried to make forceful arguments and have a good laugh at the same time so if that's offensive to you then I apologize. It wasn't a malicious intent.

No, I am not offended. I don't get offended easily. I just don't like your methods. Weak arguments? Please. Need I remind you so soon of the "I don't have to explain why I'm illogical if I don't want to"? This from the same guy who actually expects me to believe that he would assume a geometrically precise 3D stone cube would get there without intelligent intervention? Sorry, no leg to stand on.

I make my beliefs very public, and every now and then I run into someone like you. Someone who tries to belittle me by telling me that what I say is ridiculous to most (funny, though...people like you are in the minority). I did not "resort" to any such thing. I mentioned that I don't think it's a coincidence...I don't see how it can be, reasonably. There must be a connection.

You also quoted "something from NASA," I believe is what you called it, claimed that it contradicted creationism, when in fact it did not. I don't care if you like me, either. In fact, I'd be shocked if you did. The only thing I care about is stating my case and stating it well. I'm quite happy with the outcome so far.

Funny, I mention how rude you are, and you basically say "I wouldn't be rude if you didn't make such weak arguments." :rolleyes:

How appropriate this thread title is becoming...I'm going to bed for the night.

Geez... if the universe is 12 billion years old which is the "something from NASA" that I posted and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old that contradicts Genesis which is the story of creation. Pretty easy to follow. :rolleyes:

You wake up.
You breath.
You try to do it right.

That's what it's about.
My two words, my two cents:

WHO CARES?

Who cares how we got here, or where we're going.

This is a purely Toose-ian (add that to the glossary) moment for me. Life isn't about knowing everything about what made us us. It's about living each day, breathing the air. Living life.

My two cents.

But why is it? Because they say so? Again, it's this subconcious belief that people in white coats, instead of white collars, are infallible.

Ya know what really amuses me? You almost argue against yourself with every post. You don't want me to think you're wrong...either that or you don't want others reading this to think you're wrong. Or you just want to justify your beliefs to yourself. But WHY? There is no God, apparently. So what's right? What's the point?

Every day of your life you appeal to people's inner, engrained sense of right and wrong. "Hey, that's my seat," for example. Why would you say that? Because people, even if they do mean things, don't usually do them knowing they are mean. They think that there are exceptions, basically. When you argue with someone, you're appealing, most often than not, to their sense of right and wrong. A common standard of fairness. And yet you don't believe in God, so no such standard exists.

And when you're faced with something like this, you essentially say that you don't have to be logical or make sense if you don't want to. Right.

Timing- How is it you have no trouble putting your faith in science vs. God?
Science has this funny way of making factual statements, and then disproving those facts further down the road. I would think twice about believing everyhing I read in "science books".
Most of the trash I was taught in science classes at school, is laughable material in today's scientific circles. I can't imagine investing my faith into something that is contantly correcting it's self, disproving it's theory's, second guessing it's facts, and altering, what once was, concrete evidence.
I would be careful about putting stock in what scientists say they believe.
Andrew Chaikin, a leading voice in the science community, gave a speech at the Johnson Space Center and said," Human memory is flawed and has to backed up constantly with recorded facts. I've made a living off of archives, and I can tell you with certianty; I've come across tons of contradicting information."
So, Timing, depending on when you heard certian information and who said it...it could all be @ssbackwards by the time you look it up again. Nothing is concrete in science.

Want something to think about, Timing? Read this article ( In the N.Y. Times, not some Christian Mag) about the National Association of Biology Teachers, that are starting to find some validity to Creationisim vs. Evolution. Check it out:http://www.arn.org/docs/fline1297/fl_goodstein.htm

K i havn't had time 2 read this whole thread but i'd like 2 make a statement saying that
EVOLUTION BY CHANCE IS MATHEMATCALLY IMPOSSIBLE

thats all u need to know, k?

it is a mathematical fact that this universe had to be created by a all-powerful/greater power.


www.answersingenesis.org

k.

I used to think debating about evolution was fun - when I was a sophomore in High School.

But when you keep having the same debate over and over again, with the same knee-jerk responses to everything you say (and in this case, it occured on both sides), you realize you should probably be doing something productive with your time.

Whether or not Evolution will be disproven, or laughable in the future, has nothing to do with anything. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was "disproven" (replaced, actually) by Einstein's General theory of Relativity. Yet Newton's version is still taught from primary education all the way up to second-year physics in college. Why? Because it works - under certain conditions.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both mutually exclusive - but we use both theories. Scientists will continue to use both until either one is either disproved or reconciled with the other. Why? Because they both work - under certain conditions.

Occam's razor works. Science is a study of the natural world; it has nothing to say about anything in the supernatural. So scientists will use the theory that best explains certain phenomena - the fossil record, for instance - in a manner that fits into a "naturalistic" view of the universe.

Science, unlike math or logic, is not exact. A theory is never "true"; it is just accepted until it is disproven or replaced by another theory.

And Sades, in that article you linked to, the first two paragraphs claim the NABT has just removed the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from its definition of evolution. I would take this to mean they are lending credence to Theistic Evolution rather than Creationism.

I think there was a short period of time in which I thought of this kind of stuff as fun. It didn't last, though. I rarely find any enjoyment at all in it now. I find I only feel "back to normal" once I've gotten my reply up. Until then, it sort of nags on my mind. Sure, I take satisfaction in, say, a particularly well-made point...but believe me, I don't like this at all.

I only do it because...

1) I feel obligated.
2) I still feel it is something I can learn from.
3) You never know who's "listening." I don't argue with people to necessarily convince them of what I'm saying.

And let me tell you...there are definitely some people I've talked with that seem to have at least come to dispell some stereotypes they had about Christians or Creationists or anything of the sort. They may not believe in it -- and that's fine. But I honestly don't think of these kinds of things as fruitless.

And yes, I agree, it's a lot of the same arguments. I get mildly excited when I see a new one -- it happens so rarely...and if it doesn't, well, I'm not going to be too likely to say anything new, either.

The debate of evolution and creation will never end as non-christian-scientists are almost always atheists and will not under any circumstance admit that a all-powerful God created everything in 7 days.
It's just not scientific enough!

No, it's leaning towards the notion that there must be a "supervisor". Art, don't come here to make our discussion seem fruitless...k?

From the article:

Master Hand at the helm of what? Evolution (notice they didn't drop the E-word from their definition). Once again, this suggests theistic (or "supervised") evolution rather than pure creationism.

I'm sorry. Obviously this isn't MY discussion, it's YOURS. I should have known better.

To everyone who participated in this discussion, I apologize for trespassing on your private property. I also would like to apologize for oppressing you with my comments by making your discussion seem "fruitless."

I'll never do it again.

You're not dumb Arthur -- you know very well what she meant. We're having a discussion about evolutionism and creationism, and you basically came in to tell us off about how much time we were wasting...and, I'm sorry to say, it wasn't in a friendly "it would be for the best" sort of way. Perhaps you intended it another way -- but I can't say it came off well. At least not to me. I don't care much either way, though...but I wouldn't say Sades is out of line for being a tad upset.

And yeah, the article simply talks about intelligent design somewhere. Maybe Jesus really did create us through evolution. Who knows? This debate has been primarily about His existence in the first place, however.

Keeping in mind the title of the thread and comments like these:

...it seems like you would AGREE with me.

This debate seemed to be over. When was the last time Timing posted? 8 days ago?

Yes, there were some new arguments since then: a "WHO CARES?" argument, a "Why do you think scientists are infallible" argument, an "Evolution is impossible, that's all you need to know" argument, a "Science is always correcting itself" argument (which I addressed) and a link to a New York Times article (which I also addressed).

But if you really don't think you're wasting your time, I truly do apologize, especially to Sades. I don't care either way, so go ahead and continue this debate if you'd like.

No, I don't like these debates, like I said. My comments about getting work done are meant in a joking fashion...half-serious. Yes, there are better things I could do with my time. I know that...I don't need to be told. I do not think it's pointless, though.

Yep, the debate seemed to be over. Don't look at me, I didn't dive back in. I'm not even necessarily defending what Sades and Ben & Willie said...I just understand exactly where she's coming from. I see it a lot...

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” - Mark 10:6

“Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.” - 2 Timothy 3:16

Ben (can I call ya Ben? I dunno what to call you with such a confusing username. :)), while I completely agree with your opinion on how we came into being, I don't think it's an undeniable fact that God meant that part of The Bible literally. I think it's POSSIBLE that it could've been meant as symoblic or something of the sort. I don't think it was, and I think it's far-fetched, but not ridiculous. It could be. I'm not sure of that part. The only thing I am sure of is that there's some kind of God out there, and that it appears to be the God from The Bible.

Sure bo!


When it all comes around it doesn't really matter. The question is not Evolution vs. Creation, but rather, – the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible theories.

Mate, I can tell you right now that there is only one God and that God is the God of The Bible.
Christianity isn't actually a religion. Religion is man's attempt to reach acceptence by a Holy God. Christianity is the message that God loves us, and came into this world in human form to die for us so that, anyone who accepts this and believes this, can call themselves Children of God.

Hey Art!
Did I give you a lesson in flying off the handle? I don't remember you showing up for class that day! Where the h ell are you keeping yourself? I miss you! :)

May interest some, may not:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...214080,00.html

Thanks for the link, Matt. I'm not sure if I want to chuckle or punch a hole in the wall when I hear about people who want to talk about having an alternative heard (atheism, evolution, etc), yet don't like the idea of anything BUT their belief being taught in public schools. BOTH should be taught, and neither should be declared true. They should be taught as theories and nothing more, if at all, IMO.

I read it in a time magazine.
I had no real opinions, but I posted it all the same.
Don't care much.

:)