Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 254

Thread: is creation outside of the scope of science?

  1. #1 is creation outside of the scope of science? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i though of making this a poll but will be satisfied if anyone just comments. give your answer and why please.

    i have asked this question on another 'science' forum and it was an instant hit. against me of course.

    so let's see what the consensus is here.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    is creation outside of the scope ofsecular science?
    Well, obviously not, or else we wouldn't have medicine or any understanding on the world [or "creation"] around us.

    What is "secular science" by the way? I've never heard of it. I'm assuming you just mean science.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    is creation outside of the scope ofsecular science?
    Well, obviously not, or else we wouldn't have medicine or any understanding on the world [or "creation"] around us.
    It difficult to understand what your comment means, but then the comment you are responding to is also difficult to comprehend the meaning of.

    It is possible that what He means to ask is whether the truth of the assertion that God created the earth and all living things is not a truth that can be assessed by modern science because it is an account of the role of a non-physical causes amidst many physical causes and while the methodology of science can quantify and assess the physical causes it cannot do so for the non-physical causes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    What is "secular science" by the way? I've never heard of it. I'm assuming you just mean science.
    Wouldn't it have to mean science that isn't twisted, perverted and manipulated into serving the interests of some theocratic relgion? That is after all what a secular (or free) country is right? - a country whose government and public services are not twisted, perverted and manipulated into serving the interests of some particular organization of religion. But yes I quite agree that this is exactly what is meant by modern science because in contrast, "creation science" which IS twisted, perverted and manipulated into serving the interests of a theocratic relgion, isn't science (in the modern sense of the word) at all but pseudo-science.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It difficult to understand what your comment means, but then the comment you are responding to is also difficult to comprehend the meaning of.

    It is possible that what He means to ask is whether the truth of the assertion that God created the earth and all living things is not a truth that can be assessed by modern science because it is an account of the role of a non-physical causes amidst many physical causes and while the methodology of science can quantify and assess the physical causes it cannot do so for the non-physical causes.
    I kind of half-deduced that he/she might've meant that, but I just wanted to be heinous.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Wouldn't it have to mean science that isn't twisted, perverted and manipulated into serving the interests of some theocratic relgion? That is after all what a secular (or free) country is right? - a country whose government and public services are not twisted, perverted and manipulated into serving the interests of some particular organization of religion. But yes I quite agree that this is exactly what is meant by modern science because in contrast, "creation science" which IS twisted, perverted and manipulated into serving the interests of a theocratic relgion, isn't science (in the modern sense of the word) at all but pseudo-science.
    I am working under the assumption that archaeologist uses the term "secular" to refer to everything he/she does not like. A kind of a ideological trash can of some sort.

    I have yet to confirm my suspicion that this is the case though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Archaeologist - Creation, as in God created the universe, is outside of secular science. The reason being, is that science is based on OBSERVATION, TESTS, THEORIES etc. We can not test God, We can not observe God, we don't even know if God exists. There is no evidence for God. By assuming God is real based on the bible is a logical fallacy. It is begging the Question.
    "Person A makes claim X, thus claim X is true"
    There is no evidence for your claim. None, Zip, Zilch, Nada!
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Archaeologist - Creation, as in God created the universe, is outside of secular science. The reason being, is that science is based on OBSERVATION, TESTS, THEORIES etc. We can not test God, We can not observe God
    Close but not quite. It is based on objective observation which means that you specify a proceedure and people make same observation no matter who follows that proceedure. God is not observable by such a methodology.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    we don't even know if God exists.
    You don't know if God exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    There is no evidence for God.
    There is no objective (or scientific) evidence for God.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    By assuming God is real based on the bible is a logical fallacy. It is begging the Question.
    "Person A makes claim X, thus claim X is true"
    Incorrect. That is not begging the question and the following is the relevant syllogism which is quite logical and not a fallacy of any kind.
    1. What the Bible says is true.
    2. The Bible claims X.
    3. Therefore X is true.
    You simply disagree with the first premise. But no matter how much you disagree with that premise, that does not make this syllogism invalid or any kind of logical fallacy. It doesn't mean that you cannot attack the conclusion, it just means that you should do so in the correct way, such as by arguing that the first premise false and thus the conclusion does not follow.

    Here is an example of begging the question.

    1. God always tells the truth.
    2. The Bible is God's word.
    3. The Bible tells us that God exists.
    4. Therefore God exists.

    This is an example of begging the question because the conclusion is assumed in the premises already. To fix this we would change the premises to the following:

    1a. If God exists then God always tells the truth.
    2a. If God exists then the Bible is God's word.
    3. The Bible tells us that God exits.
    But now we cannot conclude number 4. The best we can do is:
    4a. If God exits then God exists.
    which is a meaningless tautology. That is the nature of all examples of the begging the question fallacy.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Same thing I was trying to say. I may of skipped a step or two. I am not currently in a good state of mind and I am a little high on Oxycodone still..
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The reason being, is that science is based on OBSERVATION, TESTS, THEORIES etc
    the first bolded word destroys the theory of evolution. you have not observed it start life, you have guessed that it affects 'changes' but can't prove it. you second bolded word also destroys your argument as those 'tests' are made up by biased people who already believe in evolution, circular reasoning and no objectivity = no honesty--i wonder what the results will be.

    your third bolded word points to the weakness of your position. you rely on 'theories' then set out to prove those theories true. instead of seeing what is there and going with the reality.

    We can not test God, We can not observe God, we don't even know if God exists.
    your error is that you want to do those things YOUR WAY not God's. The Bible does say to 'test His words' and by doing that you canobserve God and know that He exists. your problem is to find out the correct way to do that.

    There is no objective (or scientific) evidence for God.
    Dr. Wm. dever quoted Dr. Robert Orr, i believe is the corrct name, and said that every true scholar knows that objectivity does not exist, it is an ideal to shoot for but in reality it cannot be obtained. your calls for objectivity are just excuses to ignore the truth.

    i told you to go to the nurseries that serve plants, animals and humans and youwould see creation in action at that moment. no need to wait millions of years when everyone is dead and gone. yet you refuse to do so, the responsibility lies withyou now and it is your choice. the evidence is there, you just demand more and more and you won't get it.

    It is based on objective observation which means that you specify a proceedure and people make same observation no matter who follows that proceedure. God is not observable by such a methodology
    God is very observable, if you would just look. One scholar whose name escapes me right now, commented on the restoration of Israel. his words were in effect 'that should not have happened' in fact it never happened throughout history, israel is the first and only nation to be dispersed and come together centuries later.

    The Bible said it would happen, long before it did, so your 'begging the question' has been proven false and the Bible proven true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Archaeologist. You realize that you can use your own EXACT words against your own argument, right? Replace evolution with creationism and the argument still works.
    That is what we call a faulty argument. When you argue for against something such as evolution and then you use an argument which contains the same type of faults.
    the first bolded word destroys the theory of evolution. you have not observed it start life, you have guessed that it affects 'changes' but can't prove it. you second bolded word also destroys your argument as those 'tests' are made up by biased people who already believe in evolution, circular reasoning and no objectivity = no honesty--i wonder what the results will be.
    Unfortunately for you, evolution has been observed. There have been humans who have been born with an extra finger or a tail. There is a genetic disease which causes excessive hair growth. The hair is also fine hair, unlike the human hair. Plus, various races within the human species or within any other animal or bird species is also a form of evolution. It is evolution within species.
    However, God cannot be observed at all
    We have been able to test evolution to make sure it's a realtiy. Evolution brought to you by Darwin was correct. In order to survive in this one area, the birds needed longer beaks. The shorter beaked birds died off leaving only that genetic code left in that area. It's a simple concept really. But I guess that isn't good enough evidence for someone who is biased like you, right? No honesty in your belief.

    your third bolded word points to the weakness of your position. you rely on 'theories' then set out to prove those theories true. instead of seeing what is there and going with the reality.
    Um, this is exacly what religion does? Religion states that God exists then they go out and try to find proof of his existence.
    Science observes nature and tests what is in nature to find out their results. At the end, they come up with their results based on what they found in nature.
    I think you are talking about religion bub.

    your error is that you want to do those things YOUR WAY not God's. The Bible does say to 'test His words' and by doing that you canobserve God and know that He exists. your problem is to find out the correct way to do that.
    So the way of science is automatically flawed since man created science, is that what you're getting at? I've yet to see God. I've yet to witness him in any shape or form. God simply does not exist. He has not brought us to the moon. He has not stopped hunger. He has not stopped famine. He has not stopped death. He has not done anything to help this world out. Science and certain governments have done their part to help the people who have trouble helping themselves. If you can't see that then you are too far gone to be helped.

    Evolution IS a reality. Take a biology course some time. God DOESN'T exist and by saying he does because life is too complex without him is an argument to ignorance.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God DOESN'T exist and by saying he does because life is too complex without him is an argument to ignorance.
    Please. Lets keep the theology out of at least one side of this debate.
    Science has nothing to say about the supernatural because it is methodologically naturalistic, not because it atheistic. Lets keep it that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God DOESN'T exist and by saying he does because life is too complex without him is an argument to ignorance.
    Please. Lets keep the theology out of at least one side of this debate.
    Science has nothing to say about the supernatural because it is methodologically naturalistic, not because it atheistic. Lets keep it that way.
    Exactly. Religious fanatics may try equating anything that doesn't use God in every other sentence with something that is atheistic or even hostile to religion, but that is their insecurity (and other mental problems) speaking and you really don't want to reinforce or play to such paranoid delusions. The truth is that there is plenty of things in life in which God plays no meaningful role (except perhaps personally in the head of a particular person), and of course for many people God plays no meaningful role at all in their life BUT that doesn't mean that those activities or people have to be seen as a threat or as the enemy of religious people.

    Science does not say ANYTHING about God. God has no place in modern science because the concept just doesn't fit into its methodology any more than God has anything to do with fixing a computer or a toaster. I mean if you want pray for God to fix these thing then go ahead and knock yourself out but I and most other people are going to use a different method for these things.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You realize that you can use your own EXACT words against your own argument, right? Replace evolution with creationism and the argument still works.
    except for at least one thing. creationists do not argue for the secular scientific way and we do not put fals eprinciples in placewhich are arbitrarily followed (or followed when convenient).

    Unfortunately for you, evolution has been observed. There have been humans who have been born with an extra finger or a tail. There is a genetic disease which causes excessive hair growth. The hair is also fine hair, unlike the human hair. Plus, various races within the human species or within any other animal or bird species is also a form of evolution. It is evolution within species.
    no it is unfortunate for you, because that doesn't prove evolution is at workor responsible for those miscues. all that shows is 'attribution' not evolution. what you leave out is genetic disfunction and leap right to your prejudice conclusion.

    you also ignore many facts, thatthose traits are rare and not common and you have no way of knowing if it will continue and the species will actually change. you do not have enough time to make the proper observations.

    all you are doing is leaping to conclusions and assuming, which in reality means using 'conjecture', to make your point.

    We have been able to test evolution to make sure it's a realtiy. Evolution brought to you by Darwin was correct. In order to survive in this one area, the birds needed longer beaks. The shorter beaked birds died off leaving only that genetic code left in that area.
    wrong again. you assume again and attribute to evolution an action which has nothing to do withit. you so desperately want to believe that evolution exists that you would go to any lengths to justify it.

    if you want to believe in a cruel process like evolution that is your choice but it isn't true and darwin was far from right. he, like you, take small sections of life and try to apply a grand idea to all, yet that fails because it removes vital information from the equation which would disprove his and your thinking.

    what you can't get around is the fact that everything takes place as it was designed to do from creation and then the subsequent influe nce from the fall of adam. when you apply the right information thenyou get the truth and evolution is not the answer.

    this is exacly what religion does? Religion states that God exists then they go out and try to find proof of his existence
    no we do not have to go out and find proof that God exists. we know He does and we see it everyday without special experiments and theories.

    I've yet to see God. I've yet to witness him in any shape or form. God simply does not exist. He has not brought us to the moon. He has not stopped hunger. He has not stopped famine. He has not stopped death. He has not done anything to help this world out.
    so just because God doesn't do what you want Him to do, He does not exist. well you are very arrognant and selfish forgetting the rules that God laid out for man to follow. you want heaven on earth and that is just impossible because of the sin and corruption that permeates the place.

    You haven't seen God in action because you have been looking in the wrong places and you have been blindly accusing God of things He is not guilty of. i would say more but i will let you think on that for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Please. Lets keep the theology out of at least one side of this debate.
    can't because you are in the theological world now and you and science cannot dictate the rules or what is mentioned.

    Science does not say ANYTHING about God. God has no place in modern science because the concept just doesn't fit into its methodology any more than God has anything to do with fixing a computer or a toaster
    God does have a place in modern science but it is the unbelievers who do not want him their. especially since you are studying what HE created. the people who are wrong are those who omit God from the equation and go in the wrong direction and to the wrong people for their answers.

    you cannot come up with the truth until you humble yourselves and bring God back into the field. you arrogantly assume that there are things impossible for God to do and that is not wise.

    who gave you your brains? certainly not evolution for it has no conception of what a brainis, for it lacks one. who gave you your abilities ? certainly not evolution, for it lacks any concept of what abilities are. who gave you your emotions? certainly not evolution, for it lacks comprehension of what emotions are.

    if you want to be logical, think this through. if one has no conception of what something is, they cannot invent or create it. man would not think about flying if they did not see birds fly, they would have no concept of what flight is or could be.

    your evolutionary process, lacks everything that man and the world have. it is impossible for evolution to even think it could produce what we know exists today. at best, it would be able to produce only the same species,without variation, without thought, without emotion,without morality and so on.

    the old saying 'you can't get blood from a turnip' applies here. you cannot get life and all it contains out of evolution for it does not have any of those things itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    can't because you are in the theological world now and you and science cannot dictate the rules or what is mentioned.

    Science does not say ANYTHING about God. God has no place in modern science because the concept just doesn't fit into its methodology any more than God has anything to do with fixing a computer or a toaster
    God does have a place in modern science but it is the unbelievers who do not want him their. especially since you are studying what HE created. the people who are wrong are those who omit God from the equation and go in the wrong direction and to the wrong people for their answers.

    you cannot come up with the truth until you humble yourselves and bring God back into the field. you arrogantly assume that there are things impossible for God to do and that is not wise.

    who gave you your brains? certainly not evolution for it has no conception of what a brainis, for it lacks one. who gave you your abilities ? certainly not evolution, for it lacks any concept of what abilities are. who gave you your emotions? certainly not evolution, for it lacks comprehension of what emotions are.

    if you want to be logical, think this through. if one has no conception of what something is, they cannot invent or create it. man would not think about flying if they did not see birds fly, they would have no concept of what flight is or could be.

    your evolutionary process, lacks everything that man and the world have. it is impossible for evolution to even think it could produce what we know exists today. at best, it would be able to produce only the same species,without variation, without thought, without emotion,without morality and so on.

    the old saying 'you can't get blood from a turnip' applies here. you cannot get life and all it contains out of evolution for it does not have any of those things itself.
    You definitely do not understand evolution if you think it's a conscious entity that is directed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Please. Lets keep the theology out of at least one side of this debate.
    can't because you are in the theological world now and you and science cannot dictate the rules or what is mentioned.

    Science does not say ANYTHING about God. God has no place in modern science because the concept just doesn't fit into its methodology any more than God has anything to do with fixing a computer or a toaster
    God does have a place in modern science but it is the unbelievers who do not want him their. especially since you are studying what HE created. the people who are wrong are those who omit God from the equation and go in the wrong direction and to the wrong people for their answers.

    you cannot come up with the truth until you humble yourselves and bring God back into the field. you arrogantly assume that there are things impossible for God to do and that is not wise.

    who gave you your brains? certainly not evolution for it has no conception of what a brainis, for it lacks one. who gave you your abilities ? certainly not evolution, for it lacks any concept of what abilities are. who gave you your emotions? certainly not evolution, for it lacks comprehension of what emotions are.

    if you want to be logical, think this through. if one has no conception of what something is, they cannot invent or create it. man would not think about flying if they did not see birds fly, they would have no concept of what flight is or could be.

    your evolutionary process, lacks everything that man and the world have. it is impossible for evolution to even think it could produce what we know exists today. at best, it would be able to produce only the same species,without variation, without thought, without emotion,without morality and so on.

    the old saying 'you can't get blood from a turnip' applies here. you cannot get life and all it contains out of evolution for it does not have any of those things itself.
    If everything needs to be created, what created God?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is impossible for evolution to even think it could produce what we know exists today. at best, it would be able to produce only the same species,without variation, without thought, without emotion,without morality and so on.
    I don't normally bother replying to this sort of thing, but this was just too weird. Of course evolution couldn't think it could produce what exists today, because evolution isn't an entity with a brain. It's a process. It can't think about anything. No one ever suggested it could.

    Or maybe english isn't your first language? In which case you might not have meant exactly what you wrote there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God does have a place in modern science but it is the unbelievers who do not want him their. especially since you are studying what HE created. the people who are wrong are those who omit God from the equation and go in the wrong direction and to the wrong people for their answers.
    But I am not an unbeliever, I am a Christian, but no I don't want modern science absorbed into theology so that we return to the dark ages. Science was created by visionary people who saw the value in looking for an explanation for things other than God. The fact is, that the concept of God does not explain things in any way that is useful to science. This is because God CANNOT be in an equation. I don't think that those that want to put God in an equation really believe in God at all. They want God in an equation because they want to manipulate God and the people who believe in God in the same way that scientists manipulate physical things. These are the people who just use religion as a tool of power for their own selfish purposes.



    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you cannot come up with the truth until you humble yourselves and bring God back into the field. you arrogantly assume that there are things impossible for God to do and that is not wise.
    On the contrary you think you can put God in an equation and manipulate God because YOU think that there are things that God cannot do. I bet you think you have God bound in contracts and promises such that he is your little lap dog - a weapon you keep in your pocket for your own private use. You ask people to humble themselves to God because you want them to humble themselves to you. It is you who are arrogant, though this is probably compensating for a deep seated insecurity.



    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    who gave you your brains? certainly not evolution for it has no conception of what a brains, for it lacks one. who gave you your abilities ? certainly not evolution, for it lacks any concept of what abilities are. who gave you your emotions? certainly not evolution, for it lacks comprehension of what emotions are.
    I am a child of the God who created the universe and I am a new creation in Christ. Your pocket god has given me nothing. All that God has given me, He intends me to use, and so I will use them to discern between the seekers of truth and the pushers of an opiate for the masses.

    It is with the use of what been given me that I understand the truth that I have an inheritance of the mind from God and an inheritance of DNA from my bretheren in life on this planet. The brain is a physical organ which I have grown based on the information in that latter inheritance. The biological sciences are well able to study how it works, for it is just a few pounds of matter in a measurable configuration in which measurable processes are ocurring.

    Perhaps you are different from me and your brain is something that has been "given" to you -- installed in your skull like a computer processor as part of a design. I can well believe this of robotic christians who act like their thinking is limited to downloaded software with which they have been programmed. I can also believe that such drones are the creation of your pocket god and that you do indeed have nothing but that which has been given you, put in your skull by your programmers.

    If you are designed in the image of your god, then perhaps your god is a machine like you. But I am created in the image of my God who is a creator and thus I too am a creator, for creativity is the most important ingredient in the process of life. From the beginning, life was created with or involves the basic capacity for creativity and learning. Thus what living things become are never purely a result of external forces or designers but also their own choices and creativity.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you want to be logical, think this through.
    In my case logical is not an aspiration but an achievement, and I do not have to think what others tell me because I am very well able to think for myself, thank you very much.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if one has no conception of what something is, they cannot invent or create it. man would not think about flying if they did not see birds fly, they would have no concept of what flight is or could be.
    LOL LOL LOL You are amusing.... Jet engines, particle accelerators, microwave ovens, cell phones, ... LOL

    Perhaps you are a reductionist? believing that things are only a sum of their parts? In that case there is nothing new under the sun because we only rearrange what is already there. But in that case, what are you but a rearrangement of a pile of crap. Go ahead and believe this if you like. But I think that belief is a part of reality and what you believe about yourself is a large part of what you in fact are.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    your evolutionary process, lacks everything that man and the world have. it is impossible for evolution to even think it could produce what we know exists today. at best, it would be able to produce only the same species,without variation, without thought, without emotion,without morality and so on.
    My evolultionary process is simply the creative learning process of living things, and THAT is a process with infinite potential, for the ability to become more than what one is, is an ability that is without limit. But it is an ability that works in response to stimulation from the environment. Thus when an infinite God is a part of that environment acting as the farmer, shepherd and teacher to provide the stimulation of a little pruning, culling and discipline then there is no limit to what such an ability can accomplish.



    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the old saying 'you can't get blood from a turnip' applies here. you cannot get life and all it contains out of evolution for it does not have any of those things itself.
    A moron cannot get meat from a nut. But when we learn to think for ourselves we can get gold from lead and a diamond from coal. A moron has a brain, but by refusing to use it, he accomplishes nothing, and what he has been given is completely wasted on him -- though perhaps it is more like unthinkingly following instructions to construct a computer but then not knowing what it is for or how to use it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Archaeologist:

    I realise that this might be something that you'd expect from an atheist like me, but I genuinely think you might be of a bit below average intelligence. I mean, you have missed so many tricks in this whole saga of yours that it is not even funny anymore. Some really straight forward things, things that are so simple that nobody even thinks of them, you are screwing up.

    The fact of the matter is that you believe every word of the Bible, completely literally, and nothing you will ever encounter will convince you otherwise. Everyone who does not do the same, no matter what, will end up in hell. True?

    A world where people like you are the majority is a world that would be in the darkest depths of ignorance. Thank Olympus that this is not the case! I really sincerely hope that one day you realise what a terrible sentence you have given yourself by not being able to think for yourself.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    On the contrary you think you can put God in an equation and manipulate God because YOU think that there are things that God cannot do. I bet you think you have God bound in contracts and promises such that he is your little lap dog - a weapon you keep in your pocket for your own private use. You ask people to humble themselves to God because you want them to humble themselves to you. It is you who are arrogant, though this is probably compensating for a deep seated insecurity.
    I value my visits to the forum for the occassional insight it affords. This is a very interesting perspective. The arrogance in archaeologist is easy to detect. You have provided a plausibe source for this arrogance.
    (Before archae accuses me of being arrogant, of course I am. My arrogance stems, however, from a pleasant surprise at doing rather better in life than I imagined. Put simply I'm quite chuffed rather than arrogant. [Is that an exclusively British expression?])
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Put simply I'm quite chuffed rather than arrogant. [Is that an exclusively British expression?])
    Probably, since I had to look it up to find out what it means. This definitely applies to me as well - VERY chuffed - it should become rather evident before very long to anyone who has a discussion me that I must be rather pleased with the sound of my own words as I read them. This is probably a character flaw of mine, that is often mistaken for arrogance, and for this reason I have often admitted that I may well tend to come off as supercilious to many people. But I think it is balanced by a considerable degree of honesty and there is often a difference between impressions and reality. I am contemptuous of certain ways of thinking/talking for what I think are very good reasons and I often don't see a way of making those reasons clear without expressing this contempt --- at least not yet --- but I think I am slowly learning ways to do so.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You definitely do not understand evolution if you think it's a conscious entity that is directed.
    you are wrong as you do not understand the point being made and you do not grasp what is needed to 'create' life. but you illustrate my point, why believe in something that doesn't care about you, doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know you?

    that is just foolish.

    If everything needs to be created, what created God?
    why does God need to be created? That is why He is God, He always is.

    I don't normally bother replying to this sort of thing, but this was just too weird. Of course evolution couldn't think it could produce what exists today, because evolution isn't an entity with a brain. It's a process. It can't think about anything. No one ever suggested it could.

    Or maybe english isn't your first language? In which case you might not have meant exactly what you wrote there.
    right to the insult and you missed the point altogether. it is quite clear you are very deceived as you miss the simple things. it is very evident that what we se in life is far beyond the abilities of this 'process'. it is impossible for your 'porcess' to conjure up anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    You know what this forum needs?

    A mirror.

    That would solve everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    But I am not an unbeliever, I am a Christian, but no I don't want modern science absorbed into theology so that we return to the dark ages. Science was created by visionary people who saw the value in looking for an explanation for things other than God
    then i would doubt your christianity if you want to exclude God from the picture given that throughout the Bible He was very clear that HE CREATED all things. no process was used or in use.

    you also fear an illusion, the misinterpretations of men who did not know God and you clearly do not grasp what was said in the Bible concerning the world and the universe.

    I bet you think you have God bound in contracts and promises such that he is your little lap dog - a weapon you keep in your pocket for your own private use
    wrong again. you people need to stop assuming and insulting as it just reflects badly upon you .

    You are amusing.... Jet engines, particle accelerators, microwave ovens, cell phones
    i am skipping most of your post as it is the standard insult after insult coupled with my dad is bigger than your dad mentality.

    to get to the jet engines, particle accelerators, and microwave ovens one had to satrt at the beginning. men watched birds and got the idea to try to fly. particle accelerators from other simple forms of destruction and speed, and microwave ovens from cooking over a fire.

    you like to gloss over the reality and think more highly of yourselves and science than you should.

    My evolultionary process is simply the creative learning process of living things, and THAT is a process with infinite potential, for the ability to become more than what one is, is an ability that is without limit. But it is an ability that works in response to stimulation from the environment. Thus when an infinite God is a part of that environment acting as the farmer, shepherd and teacher to provide the stimulation of a little pruning, culling and discipline then there is no limit to what such an ability can accomplish
    you would be wrong as Gen. 1:31 says--creation was complete by the 7th day. you have no argument.

    i will ignore your 'moron' analogy as i am sure if i read it it would hold some insult in there.

    I realise that this might be something that you'd expect from an atheist like me, but I genuinely think you might be of a bit below average intelligence. I mean, you have missed so many tricks in this whole saga of yours that it is not even funny anymore. Some really straight forward things, things that are so simple that nobody even thinks of them, you are screwing up
    again with the insult. in fact i am not of below average intelligence and completed my masters in 2 1/2 months. (it is not impossible for me.)

    i am not the one who has missed things nor am i theone screwingup. your unbelief is what is screwing you up.

    The fact of the matter is that you believe every word of the Bible, completely literally, and nothing you will ever encounter will convince you otherwise. Everyone who does not do the same, no matter what, will end up in hell. True?
    i believe the Bible and those who go to hell are those who reject Jesus as their savior and as Jesus said in John 5;42--which basically says 'if you do not believe what moses wrote how will you believe what Jesus says?

    if you disbelieve Gen. 1 then you call God a liar and if you call God a liar there what stops you from calling God a liar about salvation? or other parts of the Bible/ sorry but you have to accept all of the Bible or you have problems.

    A world where people like you are the majority is a world that would be in the darkest depths of ignorance. Thank Olympus that this is not the case! I really sincerely hope that one day you realise what a terrible sentence you have given yourself by not being able to think for yourself.
    but i do think for myself, and i have exercised my ability of free choice to believe Jesus and the Bible. why are you trying to hinder that choice? is it because you hate the fact that i have chosen the truth and you have not?

    you keep saying I am arrogant yet i have to ask 'what arrogance? i am stating my position , just like you; i am not insulting you as you insult me; i am showing you the holes inyour argument yet you cannot defend your position without insults and generalities. you have yet to prove one of my points wrong with any real evidence or examples.

    in other words you all talk a good game but the substance is sorely lacking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Why believe in a book written by man which contains hundreads of contradictions and otherwise absurd things like God enjoying making women eat their children, etc?

    What keeps you from thinking that perhaps the bible is a trap set up by the devil?

    How come people who believes the bible so fully don't stone to death nonbelievers, homosexuals and disobedient children when it clearly says in the bible you should? Even Jesus said:

    "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ Matthew 5:17

    If I was a christian I would discard the bible the very moment I opened a random page in the old testament and read a few lines of God's happy mass murdering and injustice. Every person with an iota of morals would never follow half the crazy shit you find in the horrible thing called the bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Archaeologist - Creation, as in God created the universe, is outside of secular science. The reason being, is that science is based on OBSERVATION, TESTS, THEORIES etc. We can not test God, We can not observe God, we don't even know if God exists. There is no evidence for God. By assuming God is real based on the bible is a logical fallacy. It is begging the Question.
    "Person A makes claim X, thus claim X is true"
    There is no evidence for your claim. None, Zip, Zilch, Nada!
    you can not see God, you cannot touch God and you do not have the means to detect God or find God therefore God does not exist.

    and i trust you know what a scientific theory is ? ( what should, may or could) have happened. not a scientific fact!

    i reckon, there are more atheist in this forum than theist. to this moment non of you have been able to persuade me that the universe was made out of nothing. the best explanation you can give is an unimaginable explosion... then the universe ,then the world came to be.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Why believe in a book written by man which contains hundreads of contradictions and otherwise absurd things like God enjoying making women eat their children, etc?

    What keeps you from thinking that perhaps the bible is a trap set up by the devil?

    How come people who believes the bible so fully don't stone to death nonbelievers, homosexuals and disobedient children when it clearly says in the bible you should? Even Jesus said:

    "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ Matthew 5:17

    If I was a christian I would discard the bible the very moment I opened a random page in the old testament and read a few lines of God's happy mass murdering and injustice. Every person with an iota of morals would never follow half the crazy shit you find in the horrible thing called the bible.
    you are very stupid person. youread the bible without any biblical knoweldge
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    and i trust you know what a scientific theory is ? ( what should, may or could) have happened. not a scientific fact! [emphasis mine]
    Well, you seem pretty ignorant on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAS
    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[6]
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    you are very stupid person. youread the bible without any biblical knoweldge
    What does that even mean? Have you even read the bible?

    This site may help you spot the evil you seem to be willfully ignorant of:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Why believe in a book written by man which contains hundreads of contradictions and otherwise absurd things like God enjoying making women eat their children, etc?
    many people claimthere are contradictions but that is usually only after reading on the surface and sans indepth study.



    What keeps you from thinking that perhaps the bible is a trap set up by the devil?
    the question is, do you believe the devil exists?

    How come people who believes the bible so fully don't stone to death nonbelievers, homosexuals and disobedient children when it clearly says in the bible you should? Even Jesus said:
    do you want to be stoned? be thankful that God's grace rules and Jesus also said 'do untio others as ye would have them do unto you' i do not want to be stoned so i will not do so to you.

    don't take parts of Jesus' words and make a one-sided case. take them all and see the whole picture.

    If I was a christian I would discard the bible the very moment I opened a random page in the old testament and read a few lines of God's happy mass murdering and injustice
    thenyou have no morals and do not believe in punishing disobedience and sin. God has set the rules and He must pubish or He would not be just and people would be able to accuse Him rightly of sinning. there is a bigger picture here you refuse to see, and only look at God through very narrow viewpoints.

    i am sure your parents disciplined andpunished you, and you thought it was an atrocity at the time. why are you disallowing God the same right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    many people claimthere are contradictions but that is usually only after reading on the surface and sans indepth study.
    You mean personal interpretation based upon flawed and selfish human emotions which willfully ignores what is actually written.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the question is, do you believe the devil exists?
    Stop deflecting. The question was posed to those who believe, in order to logically assess the flawed rationalizations they may have.

    What keeps you from thinking the bible is not the devil's working? Is it really such a scary question that you would rather not answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    do you want to be stoned? be thankful that God's grace rules and Jesus also said 'do untio others as ye would have them do unto you' i do not want to be stoned so i will not do so to you.

    don't take parts of Jesus' words and make a one-sided case. take them all and see the whole picture.
    Irony at work. Jebus being contradictory doesn't seem to bother you. Ignorance is bliss...

    Jesus also encouraged cutting off your hands if they offend thee. And to hate your family and friends. If you've actually read the bible you'll know what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    thenyou have no morals and do not believe in punishing disobedience and sin. God has set the rules and He must pubish or He would not be just and people would be able to accuse Him rightly of sinning. there is a bigger picture here you refuse to see, and only look at God through very narrow viewpoints.

    i am sure your parents disciplined andpunished you, and you thought it was an atrocity at the time. why are you disallowing God the same right?
    Personal attacks will not work on me.

    You are examplrary in your arrogance and ignorance. "The bigger picture" is just another word for "the end justifies the means" which is an ideological statement only an immoral man would make.

    The fact that you don't seem to question yourself even a little is proof of your hypocrisy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You mean personal interpretation based upon flawed and selfish human emotions which willfully ignores what is actually written
    no, i mean that what they think are contradictions are not in reality if they only look a little harder and use a little honesty.

    Stop deflecting. The question was posed to those who believe, in order to logically assess the flawed rationalizations they may have
    wasn't deflecting but posed to elicit a response so as to know how to proceed with the answer.

    What keeps you from thinking the bible is not the devil's working? Is it really such a scary question that you would rather not answer?
    no but your answer to my question is important before i do. but to give you a sneak peak, if it wasof the devil, lives would not be changed and sinners would not be leading sin less lives, joy would not be evident nor would peace in their hearts. there are many clues as to why it is not a trick of the devil.

    Irony at work. Jebus being contradictory doesn't seem to bother you. Ignorance is bliss...

    Jesus also encouraged cutting off your hands if they offend thee. And to hate your family and friends. If you've actually read the bible you'll know what I'm talking about.
    i know what you are talking about but you lack understanding and stop at the literal meanings of the words in the passages. you accuse me of being literal yet the Bible's opponents are more literal in their accusations than i ever could be.

    Personal attacks will not work on me.
    wasn't a personal attack, it was a comment on your actions stated in the quoted block. throw out God you throw out morals. i noticed you did not address my point but went in another direction to maintain your avoidance of dealing with the facts of the issue you raised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    many people claimthere are contradictions but that is usually only after reading on the surface and sans indepth study.
    You mean personal interpretation based upon flawed and selfish human emotions which willfully ignores what is actually written.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the question is, do you believe the devil exists?
    Stop deflecting. The question was posed to those who believe, in order to logically assess the flawed rationalizations they may have.

    What keeps you from thinking the bible is not the devil's working? Is it really such a scary question that you would rather not answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    do you want to be stoned? be thankful that God's grace rules and Jesus also said 'do untio others as ye would have them do unto you' i do not want to be stoned so i will not do so to you.

    don't take parts of Jesus' words and make a one-sided case. take them all and see the whole picture.
    Irony at work. Jebus being contradictory doesn't seem to bother you. Ignorance is bliss...

    Jesus also encouraged cutting off your hands if they offend thee. And to hate your family and friends. If you've actually read the bible you'll know what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    thenyou have no morals and do not believe in punishing disobedience and sin. God has set the rules and He must pubish or He would not be just and people would be able to accuse Him rightly of sinning. there is a bigger picture here you refuse to see, and only look at God through very narrow viewpoints.

    i am sure your parents disciplined andpunished you, and you thought it was an atrocity at the time. why are you disallowing God the same right?
    Personal attacks will not work on me.

    You are examplrary in your arrogance and ignorance. "The bigger picture" is just another word for "the end justifies the means" which is an ideological statement only an immoral man would make.

    The fact that you don't seem to question yourself even a little is proof of your hypocrisy.
    Jesus encouraging one to cut ones hands of and head . let me go cut everybody's head off....
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    no but your answer to my question is important before i do. but to give you a sneak peak, if it wasof the devil, lives would not be changed and sinners would not be leading sin less lives, joy would not be evident nor would peace in their hearts. there are many clues as to why it is not a trick of the devil.
    So killing abortionist doctors is okay? The inquisition was okay? The crusades was okay?

    Why?

    Because the end justifies the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i know what you are talking about but you lack understanding and stop at the literal meanings of the words in the passages. you accuse me of being literal yet the Bible's opponents are more literal in their accusations than i ever could be.
    I lack the understanding? What about yourself? What makes you so high and mighty?

    Why do we take the bible more literal than those who only take some bits and pieces of it which soothes them literal? To expose the hypocrisy of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    wasn't a personal attack, it was a comment on your actions stated in the quoted block. throw out God you throw out morals. i noticed you did not address my point but went in another direction to maintain your avoidance of dealing with the facts of the issue you raised.
    So your saying your sudden presumption of me being disciplined and punished by my parents as a kid was not a personal attack?

    You pick and choose what soothes you in the bible and say that if you throw out God then you throw out morals? Ironic, ridiculous, contradictory and hypocritical. You choose to interpret the bible according to your agenda. It's balantly obvious.

    Why am I not going around killing people at random? It's really, really simple: it's because every choice has a consequence. Besides, going around and frantically killing people without being insane or anything would go against the predictions of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    .... why believe in something that doesn't care about you, doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know you?

    that is just foolish.
    So you base your beliefs upon what makes you feel comfortable, upon what you believe is 'good', not upon what objective evidence leads you towards.

    In the above post you have openly declared your intention to indulge in self deception. By pure accident this is the most honest thing you have said on this forum and pretty well closes down the point of any further dicussion.

    Run and hide in the skirttails of your fictitious god and find your comfort there. I choose the unpalatable truth over the sugar coated lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    So killing abortionist doctors is okay? The inquisition was okay? The crusades was okay?
    how did you leap to this? again you use misguided people to paint a broad brush and plant an accusation. remember they had/have freedom of choice, they could choose to follow whatis right or their own ideas.

    you cannot hold me responsible or Christ for those decisions. God has allowed them, like you, to choose. if you are deceived and make the wrong coices or ignore the truth then what do you expect to take place?

    no they weren't okay but until you put them honestly in their right place you willbe believing distorted ideas.

    I lack the understanding?
    about scriptures

    Why do we take the bible more literal than those who only take some bits and pieces of it which soothes them literal? To expose the hypocrisy of course
    you would miss the mark then.

    the rest will not be dealt with at this time.

    So you base your beliefs upon what makes you feel comfortable, upon what you believe is 'good', not upon what objective evidence leads you towards
    wrong. assuming is never right.

    In the above post you have openly declared your intention to indulge in self deception
    never said that but i expect such things from you.

    Run and hide in the skirttails of your fictitious god and find your comfort there. I choose the unpalatable truth over the sugar coated lie.
    youare being decieved, i would take care of that problem if i were you. i wonder what happened to make you so angry at God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    then i would doubt your christianity if you want to exclude God from the picture given that throughout the Bible He was very clear that HE CREATED all things. no process was used or in use.
    Just like the silliest of atheists I have encountered, when confronted with facts about me that don't fit their imbecilic dogmas they simply decide that I am lying and that I cannot be what I say.

    But I guess it is true that I am not your sort of magical christian at all. I don't belong to your flat earth - "love the dark ages" society and I refuse to participate in your program of willful ignorance and the use of religion as a tool of power.

    Thus I am probably your worst enemy here as I am an enemy of all with this Nazi-like "with me or against me" sort of mentality because I can show people how Christianity has nothing to do with your sort of willfull ignorance and thus can pull the rug right out from under your attempt to turn Christianity into a tool of power and manipulation. The truth will set us free from people like you who would "shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in... for you traverse see and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourself."

    God is not about blindness and ignorance but about seeking the truth and light. What you have found is a corner of hell and your master is its master and not the God of love and truth. This is what the people of this forum can see so clearly about a pusher (of lies no matter how much they seem like truths to you) like you compared to the honest seekers of truth to be found in the sciences.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you also fear an illusion, the misinterpretations of men who did not know God and you clearly do not grasp what was said in the Bible concerning the world and the universe.
    No I don't fear your illusions and misinterpretations at all. Such willfully ignorant people that refuse to face the fact about reality like the Flat Earth society mostly just need to be ignored except as an example of the ignorance that human beings are capable of.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am skipping most of your post as it is the standard insult after insult coupled with my dad is bigger than your dad mentality.
    Well at least you got that last part right. My God is so much bigger than your petty ridiculous long-ago god that I really do pity you. You go ahead and believe in this ancient necromancer god of yours creating golems of dust and flesh, but your theology really is more suited to a Dungeons and Dragons game than real life.


    P.S. What are you getting your masters in and where?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    So you base your beliefs upon what makes you feel comfortable, upon what you believe is 'good', not upon what objective evidence leads you towards
    wrong. assuming is never right.
    Where it the assumption. Here are your words.

    why believe in something that doesn't care about you, doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know you?

    that is just foolish
    .


    There is no assumption here. You plainly state that you should place your belief in something that does care about you, does know you exist and knows you. No concern over wheterh such an entity exists. No weighing of the evidence. Just an a priori decision to worship something you would like to be.

    No assumptions, just a plain observation of self delusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    :
    I realise that this might be something that you'd expect from an atheist like me, but I genuinely think you might be of a bit below average intelligence. I mean, you have missed so many tricks in this whole saga of yours that it is not even funny anymore. Some really straight forward things, things that are so simple that nobody even thinks of them, you are screwing up


    again with the insult. in fact i am not of below average intelligence and completed my masters in 2 1/2 months. (it is not impossible for me.)

    i am not the one who has missed things nor am i theone screwingup. your unbelief is what is screwing you up.
    It was not a simple insult. I was being entirely serious. You've got a masters? In what field and from where? Don't say archaeology! If this is true then it might be one of the saddest things I have ever heard. I would love to discuss the evidence with you, but I know it is already a lost case, since you have already indicated that no matter what, you will only believe what the Bible says. There is just no use arguing with that.

    You have an unshakeable belief in a being that is capable of anything you can imagine and even that which you can't. You have an unshakeable belief in a book you believe was written by this very being. The two reinforce the each other, because for you to believe fully in what the bible says, you have to surrender all incredulity. Any inconsistency can simply be interpreted away, since of course the bible can't be wrong so we must be (somehow). Interpretations that get rid of inconsistencies are deemed to be the result of due diligence, study and letting your incredulity go (like a child). You are simply fixing a misunderstanding that has no possibility of being an actual continuity error in your mind. So any solution that does not make you laugh out loud immediately is good enough and the truth. This is done, while every other attempt to interpret the bible that is not done exactly word for word is automatically believed to be wrong. You will simply believe anything the bible says, no matter how absurd! I am sure I don't have to list some of these problems, since you must have wondered about them yourself at some point, no? How can a man survive on the inside of a fish? How can a snake talk with no physical capability of doing so? How can a man walk on water? Why would a man's power be stored in his long hair? Oh that's easy, god made it so. What an effective way of getting rid of all doubt! Just believe everything, no matter how absurd!

    The fact of the matter is that you believe every word of the Bible, completely literally, and nothing you will ever encounter will convince you otherwise. Everyone who does not do the same, no matter what, will end up in hell. True?


    i believe the Bible and those who go to hell are those who reject Jesus as their savior and as Jesus said in John 5;42--which basically says 'if you do not believe what moses wrote how will you believe what Jesus says?

    if you disbelieve Gen. 1 then you call God a liar and if you call God a liar there what stops you from calling God a liar about salvation? or other parts of the Bible/ sorry but you have to accept all of the Bible or you have problems.
    But what if god did not write Genesis? Then you wouldn't be calling him a liar would you? Is that what you are afraid of? That if everything is not true, then how are you supposed to know what is? Well, let me tell you, I used to be a Christian and the God I worshipped was much bigger than the petty god of the bible. Just think about it for a second. Don't you see how many attributes of the god of the bible is exactly what humans would ascribe to such a being? Think about it!

    We humans are programmed to follow. If we could not surrender completely to the will of another we would never have survived for very long. You see this kind of behaviour all over the place. People idolise. They have to. People completely surrender to the will of kings, to statesmen, to cult leaders, to rock stars and almost invariably to the Ultimate Alpha, the source of all that we want, like, miss and aspire to. The unfailing comforter, advisor, father. It is part of who and what we are. I completely understand the fear and uncertainty that comes with even contemplating the possibility that it is all a delusion. A wilful delusion. You stop yourself, punish yourself for even thinking about it. But it is easy to stop that strangely familiar uncomfortable feeling. Just give yourself over again to the One that Knows.

    The sad part is that this comfort blanket of yours is all that you know. You simply don't know how to go about your life in any other way. You can't. How can people live without Him? How can they laugh when they are naked? You know that your life without Him is the worst thing you can imagine, so they must be of that worst thing! Thing? Satan! Godlessness personified!

    My sadness is profound and deep.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    My sadness is profound and deep.
    It does not even compare with my sadness because I am a Christian. I actually believe that there is a profound and valuable truth in Christianity, but how are people to see this when so many Christians are like this example of willful ignorance? And yet it is clear in the Bible that religious people have always been the greatest obstacle to God's effort to raise up mankind out of this morass of ignorance and this tendency to crush the intellegence and creativity of its children and thus stifle the potential that God sees in us.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    you are very stupid person. youread the bible without any biblical knoweldge
    Oh this is REALLY a classic! In other words, if you read the Bible without preconceived notions about what is says, you are likely to come to very different conclusions about what it is saying. LOL Yep! I can certainly testify to the truth of that!

    Wow! Why if you did something like that, you might even read what God is trying to say to you personally (which I think may indeed include that it would be better for you not to believe in God at all).
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    how did you leap to this? again you use misguided people to paint a broad brush and plant an accusation. remember they had/have freedom of choice, they could choose to follow whatis right or their own ideas.

    you cannot hold me responsible or Christ for those decisions. God has allowed them, like you, to choose. if you are deceived and make the wrong coices or ignore the truth then what do you expect to take place?

    no they weren't okay but until you put them honestly in their right place you willbe believing distorted ideas.
    Perhaps I was a bit unfair in some of those mentions, yes. Yet one shouldn't ignore what the bible has often directly inspired.

    If anyone was to follow the bible as it is written, this would be a horrible world indeed, which was basically my point.

    The clues you mentioned for why you were convinced the bible was not of the devil were not convincing. I know many who are devout to christianity (and other faiths for that matter) who are not sinless. And not everyone are happy either. Truth be told, the clues you mentioned could be applied to any group or religion, but they would be too general to convey any sort of meaning. They are miniscule details yet evident in humanity as a whole where there's both sadness and happyness regardless of one's beliefs.

    When being relative on the matter the clues you mentioned just seem to disperse in the sand unless you intentionally define everyone who are joyfull and at peace to be christians, but that would be commiting a severe logical fallacy and potentially include non-christians as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    about scriptures
    Good job answering the rhetorical question which was followed by other questions for you to reciprocate on. It kind of looks like a failed attempt at quote-mining or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    .... why believe in something that doesn't care about you, doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know you?

    that is just foolish.
    I believe what I consider to be right, not what benefits me the most.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    So killing abortionist doctors is okay? The inquisition was okay? The crusades was okay?
    how did you leap to this? again you use misguided people to paint a broad brush and plant an accusation. remember they had/have freedom of choice, they could choose to follow whatis right or their own ideas.

    you cannot hold me responsible or Christ for those decisions. God has allowed them, like you, to choose. if you are deceived and make the wrong coices or ignore the truth then what do you expect to take place?
    It had nothing to do with god, only what belief in him caused people to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    no they weren't okay but until you put them honestly in their right place you willbe believing distorted ideas.
    So.... it didn't happen? Or are you just really really sorry for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I lack the understanding?
    about scriptures
    So do you. I've read the bible, and it disagrees with most christian morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why do we take the bible more literal than those who only take some bits and pieces of it which soothes them literal? To expose the hypocrisy of course
    you would miss the mark then.

    the rest will not be dealt with at this time.
    The bible is not fundamental to the christian faith any more. So, basically; you make it up as you go along. OK, no more biblical quotes to underline your point, since it cannot be taken seriously/literally, and some parts are just smoothed over to avoid awkward situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    So you base your beliefs upon what makes you feel comfortable, upon what you believe is 'good', not upon what objective evidence leads you towards
    wrong. assuming is never right.
    You assume there is a god. It is an assumption, as you have no proof or evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    In the above post you have openly declared your intention to indulge in self deception
    never said that but i expect such things from you.
    To be fair, I think you were decieved by others, probably vicars/bishops/parents/local community. I, however, accept some ideas in science and reject others, based on the amount of evidence presented to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Run and hide in the skirttails of your fictitious god and find your comfort there. I choose the unpalatable truth over the sugar coated lie.
    youare being decieved, i would take care of that problem if i were you. i wonder what happened to make you so angry at God.
    I am not decieved. From an early age I was forced to see the religious side of everything. Over time, I decided (completely independantly) that it was completely false, and instead chose to see everything from my own perspective. You, on the other hand, do not make up your own minds on matters. You follow the words told to you by parents/vicars/bishops or whoever it is teaches/taught you about your religion. It is you who is decieved.

    Remember; books and opinions are not proof. Don't accept what you are told; question it. Otherwise, how can you make sure it is right?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    ***keep in mind that i am responding to 4-5 people and you all write long posts

    Thus I am probably your worst enemy here as I am an enemy of all with this Nazi-like "with me or against me
    but God said it first, are you saying He is a Nazi because He left no middle ground for you?

    Such willfully ignorant people that refuse to face the fact about reality like the Flat Earth society mostly just need to be ignored except as an example of the ignorance that human beings are capable of.

    You plainly state that you should place your belief in something that does care about you, does know you exist and knows you. No concern over wheterh such an entity exists. No weighing of the evidence. Just an a priori decision to worship something you would like to be.
    you keep putting words in that i haven't said. you want to be honest, compare the two and see which one makes more sense: the one who has emotions, feelings, morals, a brain and has the ability to create such things OR the one without all those things and has no ability to 'create those things'. which is more likely to be able to produce what we have today?

    I have ever heard. I would love to discuss the evidence with you, but I know it is already a lost case, since you have already indicated that no matter what, you will only believe what the Bible says. There is just no use arguing with that.
    why bring up something that you will answer yourself? i have made many declarations about evidence andnot oneof you have been able to rebut them yet. so it is a fair conclusion that you are looking for excuses to avoid the topic.

    But what if god did not write Genesis
    but He did.

    You simply don't know how to go about your life in any other way. You can't. How can people live without Him? How can they laugh when they are naked? You know that your life without Him is the worst thing you can imagine, so they must be of that worst thing! Thing? Satan! Godlessness personified!
    instead of making blanket generalizations why don't you investigate first . insteadof assuming and extrapolating, why don't you be honest and see the reality.

    Perhaps I was a bit unfair in some of those mentions, yes. Yet one shouldn't ignore what the bible has often directly inspired.

    If anyone was to follow the bible as it is written, this would be a horrible world indeed, which was basically my point
    how can 'love thy neighbor as thyself' be horrible? or 'do good to those who do evil'? i am afraid you only see what you want to see and ignore the rest which upsets your point of view. or how about this invitation 'come unto me all ye who are heavy ladened and i will give you rest?' how is that horrible?

    The clues you mentioned for why you were convinced the bible was not of the devil were not convincing. I know many who are devout to christianity (and other faiths for that matter) who are not sinless. And not everyone are happy either
    christians are still human and fallible, if you expect us to be sinless then you are mistaken. we still sin, we just do not practice that lifestyle. if anyone says they are a christian yet still practices sin well, God says they are not. {I John.} try to get the whole picture before condemning someone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I believe what I consider to be right, not what benefits me the most.
    didn't say that. i was giving you a comparison to show you that what you consider right, evolution, is not andis incapable of producing what we have in the world today.

    a process does not know when soemthing is right or wrong or if it needs more work. it is a process designed to produce one type of product. evolution fails because their is just too much variety for it to be able to be considered responsible.

    you all are attributing God-like attributes to something that doesn'tpossess them. (your own words)

    You follow the words told to you by parents/vicars/bishops or whoever it is teaches/taught you about your religion. It is you who is decieved.
    you assume falsely once again.

    books and opinions are not proof. Don't accept what you are told; question it. Otherwise, how can you make sure it is right?
    oh pulease. you need to stop all the archaeologists who use ancient texts, mss. and books as proof for their ideas about the past. they are proof and we use them all the time. your absurdity undermines your credibility.

    You assume there is a god. It is an assumption, as you have no proof or evidence.
    asked and answered several times.

    The bible is not fundamental to the christian faith any more. So, basically; you make it up as you go along. OK, no more biblical quotes to underline your point, since it cannot be taken seriously/literally, and some parts are just smoothed over to avoid awkward situations.
    you do not get to make the rules andit is fundamental to the christian faith, who told you it wasn't? you would be wrong with your last sentence as well.

    I've read the bible, and it disagrees with most christian morals.
    proof please. empty declarations like this are far too general and are dismissed as baiting.

    It had nothing to do with god, only what belief in him caused people to do.
    you ignore all the ingredients that come with life and use a distortion tomake your point. until you accept the fact that there are mitigating factors like free choice, free will, cognitive reasoning , evil influences you aere only using part of the picture to justify your unbelief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    instead of making blanket generalizations why don't you investigate first . insteadof assuming and extrapolating, why don't you be honest and see the reality
    Oh, I have and it has brought me to where I am now. Do you think it is easier to give up belief or to stay with it? It is not easy to be really honest with yourself, but I am very very glad that I did!

    But what if god did not write Genesis


    but He did.
    How do you know? Because you believe it? Has God told you that he wrote it?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Thus I am probably your worst enemy here as I am an enemy of all with this Nazi-like "with me or against me
    but God said it first, are you saying He is a Nazi because He left no middle ground for you?
    No I am saying that you are the Nazi because you adopt the same "with me or against me" sort of attitude that they had. It does not surprise me that you twist and distort the Bible to justify this, for Hitler did the same thing, even though I think that his comments in private proves that he had nothing but contempt for most of Christianity. I bet you are the same. It is only your magical christianity twisted and reshaped into a tool of power that you have regard for and all the rest of Christianity, who will not go along with this, you have nothing but contempt for.

    You like this "God leaves no middle ground" rhetoric because you reshape God into the kind of dictator that you aspire to, and so the reality is that you are just using the Bible as the basis for a fictitious God that serves only your own selfish interests. The real reason that it must be on God's terms and not ours is NOT because He is any kind of dictator, but because He is the one who understands the realities and all of our childish wishful thinking that God is some kind of magic man sugar daddy that can give us whatever we want, cannot change those realities.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Such willfully ignorant people that refuse to face the fact about reality like the Flat Earth society mostly just need to be ignored except as an example of the ignorance that human beings are capable of.
    you keep putting words in that i haven't said. you want to be honest, compare the two and see which one makes more sense: the one who has emotions, feelings, morals, a brain and has the ability to create such things OR the one without all those things and has no ability to 'create those things'. which is more likely to be able to produce what we have today?
    This doesn't even really look like a response to what I said so maybe you were just responding to the other guy and ignoring my comment. But I will respond anyway, just in case. This is indeed a reason for believing in God but it is not a reason for rejecting science. You have simply taken a lazy way out. If you want to leave everything up to God's mysterious ways and plan, that is all well and good. You don't have to participate in scientific inquiry if you don't want to. Just butt out. But it isn't necessarily a choice between God and no God, but can be a choice between the long ago necromancer God making golems of dust and flesh, and the God of the here and now who is just as much my creator as He was the creator of Adam and Eve. You see even if I had no regard for science at all I would still reject your fairy tale interpretation of Genesis for purely theological reasons.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    How do you know? Because you believe it? Has God told you that he wrote it?
    we know and we take it by faith. if one wants to be with God they believe His word not call Him a liar. 1 Cor. 13.

    It is not easy to be really honest with yourself, but I am very very glad that I did!
    how do you know you were honest with yourself? were you using deception and lies to take your eyes of Christ? if so, then you weren't honest with yourself but looking for a way out of believing.

    if you recall the story of Jesus and Oeter walking in the water then you woud know that the easiest way to fail is to take one's eyes off Christ. you let the devil do just that and look what happened to you.

    I am saying that you are the Nazi because you adopt the same "with me or against me" sort of attitude that they had. It does not surprise me that you twist and distort the Bible to justify this, for Hitler did the same thing, even though I think that his comments in private proves that he had nothing but contempt for most of Christianity
    i said God said it first, which He did. you are also given a choice, 'choose ye this day whom ye will serve' 'ye cannot serve 2 masters...' so it is easy to call someone a nazi because you want to insult, it is another to be honest and respectful in the course of a discussion.

    You like this "God leaves no middle ground" rhetoric because you reshape God into the kind of dictator that you aspire to, and so the reality is that you are just using the Bible as the basis for a fictitious God that serves only your own selfish interests. The real reason that it must be on God's terms and not ours is NOT because He is any kind of dictator, but because He is the one who understands the realities and all of our childish wishful thinking that God is some kind of magic man sugar daddy that can give us whatever we want, cannot change those realities.
    accusing me of rewritng wat God said is a false accusation as i have never re-written the Bible nor have i participated in any major biblical translation efforts. using me as the target shows that you are too afraid to talk to God about it and accuse Him of such things.

    you keep insulting God for setting the rules, yet He is allowed to do that, it is His world, His creation, His plan of salvation, His heaven. you must come to terms with this as no matter how much you rant, rave, despise etc., those rules aren't going to change.

    you get to exercise your freeom of choice BUT you do not get to insult others for doing the same thing though they choose a different path than you.

    This is indeed a reason for believing in God but it is not a reason for rejecting science
    this has been one of the biggest myths going. christians are NOT rejecting science per se, they are rejecting the secular version and conclusions as they are wrong. we get to do that and we still can do science without contradicting God's achievments and word.

    But it isn't necessarily a choice between God and no God, but can be a choice between the long ago necromancer God making golems of dust and flesh, and the God of the here and now who is just as much my creator as He was the creator of Adam and Eve
    now you want to change God to be what you want Him to be, one that is not moral or just but allows you to do what you want regardless of right and wrong or how others view whatis right or wrong. nother words yiou wat to do what you want and you refuse to humble yourself to meet God's ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    we know and we take it by faith. if one wants to be with God they believe His word not call Him a liar. 1 Cor. 13.
    You can't use the bible as a source for your claim that God exists. Taking something by faith is the belief in something without evidence. See, even you can't prove God exists.

    this has been one of the biggest myths going. christians are NOT rejecting science per se, they are rejecting the secular version and conclusions as they are wrong. we get to do that and we still can do science without contradicting God's achievments and word.
    Wrong. Good science will change depending on new evidence for it's claims. It doesn't add the stipulation, "As long as it follows God's laws." That would be biast science and do you know where biast science led us? It brought us such beliefs that the world was flat and that the world was the center of the universe and that the sun rotated around Earth. It even brought us the thought that taking baths was bad for our health. Every belief that biast religious science has come up with has been proven wrong. Secular science however has brought us to the moon, created vehicles, controlled electricity and is responsibile for modern times.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You can't use the bible as a source for your claim that God exists.
    yes i can. you do not get to make the rules here.

    Taking something by faith is the belief in something without evidence. See, even you can't prove God exists.
    sorry your definition of faith has been rejected and in its place, God's is used. i am going to level this playing field so you will stop having escape routes to justify your disbelief.

    Wrong. Good science will change depending on new evidence for it's claims
    wrong. good science finds the truth and sticks with it, any other option renders it useless to the world.

    That would be biast science and do you know where biast science led us
    that would be 'biased' the 'ed' makes 3 sounds, one of them a 't' which may confuse people. know it would not be biased science if it is the truth.

    It brought us such beliefs that the world was flat and that the world was the center of the universe and that the sun rotated around Earth.
    again you are charging the Bible with teaching something it has never taught. plus you are using the misinterpretation of some men and applying it to the Bible, that would be wrong as well.

    Secular science however has brought us to the moon, created vehicles, controlled electricity and is responsibile for modern times.
    again you distort by painting a one-sided picture. let me point the following out:

    1. going to the moon-- pollution in the universe, pollution from the rocket fuel, pollution from the jettisoned space craft, also from the support crews and industries that go with space shots.

    2. vehicles-- hit and run accidents, vehicular homicide, traffic accidents, pollution from themanufacturing plants and support industries, etc.

    3. controlled electricity-- pollution from construction of dams, destroyed farmland, vegetatation, widllife, global warming and so on

    4. modern times-- the most polluted, crime-filled, war torn era of all history rockets, tanks, bombs, guns etc. all that kill/killed millions. you do not have a argument at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You are a depressing little chap. I like the Christians who are positive, who are enthralled by life, fascinated by the Universe and intrigued by what science has revealed about it.

    It's a real shame all those Christians will spend eternity in hell. Still, I'll have someone nice to talk to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    How do you know? Because you believe it? Has God told you that he wrote it?
    we know and we take it by faith. if one wants to be with God they believe His word not call Him a liar. 1 Cor. 13.
    I know you take it by faith. The Bible was written by people though and this is evident by the overly human nature of it. The ideas of justice and social responsibility, attitude towards other creeds, etc. are all very very human and were widespread among the peoples of those ages, not just among the good guys. The Bible was also put together by a group of people in such a way that a more or less consistent message was put forward and so it would align with their own ideas, while rejecting a large number of other works based on these criteria. You will believe that those people were also guided by god, as with everything to do with the Bible, but how do you know? You take it by faith, but how do you know what to believe? This is the part where you find it easy, as you simply put your faith in everything to do with the Bible. You find the most comfortable spot and refuse to budge. You have been brainwashed.

    I am sure that you can imagine a greater god than the one from the Bible?

    It is not easy to be really honest with yourself, but I am very very glad that I did!
    how do you know you were honest with yourself? were you using deception and lies to take your eyes of Christ? if so, then you weren't honest with yourself but looking for a way out of believing.

    if you recall the story of Jesus and Oeter walking in the water then you woud know that the easiest way to fail is to take one's eyes off Christ. you let the devil do just that and look what happened to you.
    I know, because it was only me that made the decision. I did not and still don't have any peer pressure. In fact, I am much more limited socially now than I was before. It is much easier to stay a believer than it is to get out of it, believe me. I am not really significantly different than I was before you know. I am a good person by any standard and I have real compassion for my fellow man. I actively strive towards as an empathic understanding of people as I can manage.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    You are a depressing little chap. I like the Christians who are positive, who are enthralled by life, fascinated by the Universe and intrigued by what science has revealed about it.

    It's a real shame all those Christians will spent eternity in hell. Still, I'll have someone nice to talk to.
    Yes, I think it is obvious that hell is made by the people who are in it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You can't use the bible as a source for your claim that God exists.
    yes i can. you do not get to make the rules here.
    No, a Pagan Roman Emperor made up the rules here. You seem to think it was you, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Taking something by faith is the belief in something without evidence. See, even you can't prove God exists.
    sorry your definition of faith has been rejected and in its place, God's is used. i am going to level this playing field so you will stop having escape routes to justify your disbelief.
    God is welcome to tell me his opinion any time. I will listen; hell, I even listen to fanatics like you.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Wrong. Good science will change depending on new evidence for it's claims
    wrong. good science finds the truth and sticks with it, any other option renders it useless to the world.
    If it finds the exact truth first time. If not, the theories are adapted. Religion, on the other hand, sticks to outdated beliefs and ideas, often which have been shown to be false.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    That would be biast science and do you know where biast science led us
    that would be 'biased' the 'ed' makes 3 sounds, one of them a 't' which may confuse people. know it would not be biased science if it is the truth.
    The truth can be biased. For instance, it is true that the bible exists. But you often present it as fact and law, rather than what it is; unproven idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    It brought us such beliefs that the world was flat and that the world was the center of the universe and that the sun rotated around Earth.
    again you are charging the Bible with teaching something it has never taught. plus you are using the misinterpretation of some men and applying it to the Bible, that would be wrong as well.
    The book became obsolete years ago. The people define the religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Secular science however has brought us to the moon, created vehicles, controlled electricity and is responsibile for modern times.
    again you distort by painting a one-sided picture. let me point the following out:

    1. going to the moon-- pollution in the universe, pollution from the rocket fuel, pollution from the jettisoned space craft, also from the support crews and industries that go with space shots.

    2. vehicles-- hit and run accidents, vehicular homicide, traffic accidents, pollution from themanufacturing plants and support industries, etc.

    3. controlled electricity-- pollution from construction of dams, destroyed farmland, vegetatation, widllife, global warming and so on

    4. modern times-- the most polluted, crime-filled, war torn era of all history rockets, tanks, bombs, guns etc. all that kill/killed millions. you do not have a argument at all.
    Point out a tangible good point to religion then. None of this 'going to heaven' crap, something tangible, something we can see happening.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Phew... fascist magical christians like this make the muslims look good. It drives me to the conclusion that secularism maybe the only substantial thing that redeems the western (Christian) world.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    yes i can. you do not get to make the rules here.
    You are so far gone from logic you amaze me. That would be like being a lawyer in a court case and asking the defendant if he killed the man and taking him at his word. It's illogical to assume the bible is right simply because it says it is Gods word. It's called circular reasoning.

    sorry your definition of faith has been rejected and in its place, God's is used. i am going to level this playing field so you will stop having escape routes to justify your disbelief.
    faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA
    –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
    2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

    wrong. good science finds the truth and sticks with it, any other option renders it useless to the world.
    So if science finds contradictory evidence to the claim it will stick by a biast standard without changing it's view? I hope to God you're not a scientist.

    that would be 'biased' the 'ed' makes 3 sounds, one of them a 't' which may confuse people. know it would not be biased science if it is the truth.
    The word is actually No, sometimes the k and w confuse people.
    How do you know it's the truth or not? You are suggesting for people to stick to one conclusion and not change the conclusion even if there is evidence to the contrary. This is not science.



    1. going to the moon-- pollution in the universe, pollution from the rocket fuel, pollution from the jettisoned space craft, also from the support crews and industries that go with space shots.

    2. vehicles-- hit and run accidents, vehicular homicide, traffic accidents, pollution from themanufacturing plants and support industries, etc.

    3. controlled electricity-- pollution from construction of dams, destroyed farmland, vegetatation, widllife, global warming and so on

    4. modern times-- the most polluted, crime-filled, war torn era of all history rockets, tanks, bombs, guns etc. all that kill/killed millions. you do not have a argument at all.
    If you would rather go into the past where you would most likely die by the age of 30 then you are insane. If you got appendicitus, you would die. If you got the common flu, you would die. So many things in the past would kill you. It was so bad that people would walk around whipping themselves to try to get a cure for the black plague!

    You are insane!
    And btw, we can't really deal much dmg to space with pollution.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The Bible was also put together by a group of people in such a way that a more or less consistent message was put forward and so it would align with their own ideas, while rejecting a large number of other works based on these criteria
    #1. this is the idea of the copehagen or minimalist schools of thought which just doesn't believe anything

    #2. if this were so, and there is NO evidence remotely supporting this idea, then the Bible and its teachings would not have spread world wide and changed lives.

    #3. the idea above ignores are allevidence which proves it false, as philip davies and others in this school of thought continually just remain in a state of denial.

    I am not really significantly different than I was before you know. I am a good person by any standard and I have real compassion for my fellow man. I actively strive towards as an empathic understanding of people as I can manage.
    pride.

    God is welcome to tell me his opinion any time. I will listen; hell, I even listen to fanatics like you
    God has...it is called the Bible.

    If it finds the exact truth first time. If not, the theories are adapted. Religion, on the other hand, sticks to outdated beliefs and ideas, often which have been shown to be false.
    wrong but then you love science and are afraid that you would have to giveit up if you become christian. that would be a false fear all you would have to do is change a few things but you would still be able to study andpractice science.

    The truth can be biased. For instance, it is true that the bible exists. But you often present it as fact and law, rather than what it is; unproven idea.
    wrong. truth cannot be biased. itis eiother true or false, their is no middle ground here. the Bible has never been proven false, feel free to try but keep inmind you have to apply all of its words not a cut and paste selection ,that would be biased.

    The book became obsolete years ago. The people define the religion
    no, not true. just because some people do not follow its words does it mean they define religion. the Bible still defines the true faith and false ones. definition does not depend upon following or believing it.

    the Bible would also NOT be the best seller year after year. thatis another piece of evidence for you.

    Point out a tangible good point to religion then
    intelligent, wisdom, companionship, good harvests, no poisons,, no pollution, better treatment of people, animals and plant life, less crime, unselfishness (people would share not hoard food, money etc.)and so much more.

    *of course one would have to follow the instructions of the Bible notchange it tofit their ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    If you would rather go into the past where you would most likely die by the age of 30 then you are insane. If you got appendicitus, you would die. If you got the common flu, you would die. So many things in the past would kill you. It was so bad that people would walk around whipping themselves to try to get a cure for the black plague
    this is a good example of going to the absurd or extreme to denounce someone without looking at the complete picture. the black plague happened inthe middle ages--not the time of Christ. why? because people did not follow sanitary practices. the Bible does contian some sanitary rules. so you would be wronghere. doctors were in existence in Jesus time, did He ever say do not go to them? did he ever say NOT to study?

    most people lived well beyond the age of 30. don't take the median age as a fact, it is nothing but the average and includes wars and other factors that distort the reality.

    try to be honest when you make a dissenting argument instead of using distortions.

    faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA
    sorry but the dictionary definition is not complete and is dismissed. iuse God's definition which is more exact and correct.

    You are so far gone from logic you amaze me
    wrong, you forget which court you are in. you are dealing with spiritual issues, you are in God's court not your own. plus the current legal system omits God even though the majority of laws are based upon the Bible.

    So if science finds contradictory evidence to the claim it will stick by a biast standard without changing it's view? I hope to God you're not a scientist
    as i have said repeatedly, science has never done so, nor has archaeology. to say their is a contradictionone must prove that the opposed thought was actually taught by the Bible.

    e.g. the 4 corners of the earth. said inthe Bible BUT it is also used by sailors to describe the extent of their travels. the Bible didn't teach the earth has four corners but used a common saying so people would understand what is being said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    wrong. truth cannot be biased. itis eiother true or false, their is no middle ground here. the Bible has never been proven false, feel free to try but keep inmind you have to apply all of its words not a cut and paste selection ,that would be biased.
    The bible has not been proven true either. You made the claim that the bible is God's word and it is true so prove it.

    intelligent, wisdom, companionship, good harvests, no poisons,, no pollution, better treatment of people, animals and plant life, less crime, unselfishness (people would share not hoard food, money etc.)and so much more.

    *of course one would have to follow the instructions of the Bible notchange it tofit their ideas.
    ROFLMFAO!!! That is brilliant! Comedy gold!

    The bible advocates murder, rape, genocide, torture... need I say more?
    If a man rapes a women who is a virgin he is to marry her.
    If a man rapes a women and she does not scream loud enough and she is already married both are to be stoned to death.
    If a child is unruly he is to be stoned to death
    The bible is very immoral and yet you seem to think that it advocated better treatement for people. It even says it is ok to sell your daughter to slavery for crying out loud! This is STRAIGHT from the bible and not someones misinterpretation.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    How do you know it's the truth or not? You are suggesting for people to stick to one conclusion and not change the conclusion even if there is evidence to the contrary. This is not science.
    you forget that science is NOT the final authority or standard. God and His word are. science is fallible, corruptible, manipulated, full of sin, lies ulterior motives, and everything else that entered into the world at adam's fall. it can no more be the ultimate guide than a mickey mouse cartoon.

    all you are doing is replacing the Bible with your own ways, you haven't changed anything but have substituted what you don't like with what you do. and you do so with the weakest of reasons.

    as i have said--thereis NO evidence to contradict the Bible, there si no smoking gun, there is no hidden discovery some scientist is waiting to reveal. we all have the same evidence and we all know that no one is discoverying anything that disproves the Bible.

    soi must pose the question, why believe in a unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, uncreative, et al process? not only have you removed your own hope, salvation and purpose, you have cheapened your own life. does your existence mean so little to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    you forget that science is NOT the final authority or standard. God and His word are. science is fallible, corruptible, manipulated, full of sin, lies ulterior motives, and everything else that entered into the world at adam's fall. it can no more be the ultimate guide than a mickey mouse cartoon.
    You are ASSUMING God is the final authority or standard.

    as i have said--thereis NO evidence to contradict the Bible, there si no smoking gun, there is no hidden discovery some scientist is waiting to reveal. we all have the same evidence and we all know that no one is discoverying anything that disproves the Bible.
    First you have to prove the bible before we should even considering disproving the bible. That would be the same thing as telling someone that since no one can disprove the existence of unicorns that must mean unicorns are real. It's absurd logic like yours that is the downfall of society.

    soi must pose the question, why believe in a unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, uncreative, et al process? not only have you removed your own hope, salvation and purpose, you have cheapened your own life. does your existence mean so little to you?
    Does your existence mean so much to you that you must believe in a personal God even if that belief is delusional?
    Every single mythical story in the bible is from an older source. The story of Adam and Eve is just a rehashed Pandora's box. The story of Pandora's Box is far older than that of Adam and Eve and it is a blatant rip off of the Pandora's box story so why even believe Adam and eve and not Pandora's Box?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    How do you know it's the truth or not? You are suggesting for people to stick to one conclusion and not change the conclusion even if there is evidence to the contrary. This is not science.
    you forget that science is NOT the final authority or standard. God and His word are.
    You cannot assume this untill you prove he exists, and prove the feats mentioned in the bible happened. Just as I cannot assume you have a central nervous system untill you show signs of having one.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    science is fallible, corruptible, manipulated, full of sin, lies ulterior motives, and everything else that entered into the world at adam's fall. it can no more be the ultimate guide than a mickey mouse cartoon.
    A very vague comment, which carefully avoids explaining anything. Science is a concept, just like religion. Are you saying religion is corrupted, manipulated and full of sin? No. But some sections of it are, like extremism and suicide bombing. It is not correct to assume this is an overlying trend.

    So, assume I am not full of sin and I will assume you are not an extremist suicide bomber. Deal?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    all you are doing is replacing the Bible with your own ways, you haven't changed anything but have substituted what you don't like with what you do. and you do so with the weakest of reasons.
    Not at all. My reasons are that I never saw a good reason to follow the bible. Meanwhile the computer you are using to read this shows the benefit of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    as i have said--thereis NO evidence to contradict the Bible
    There is much. I pointed some out to you; you chose to ignore it. There is none against religion, yet you continue to deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there si no smoking gun, there is no hidden discovery some scientist is waiting to reveal. we all have the same evidence and we all know that no one is discoverying anything that disproves the Bible.
    Because the bible is a book. So is harry potter. Go on, disprove Harry Poter.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    soi must pose the question, why believe in a unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, uncreative, et al process? not only have you removed your own hope, salvation and purpose, you have cheapened your own life. does your existence mean so little to you?
    Not by choice; because it is true. It is what we are discovering is correct.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    You cannot prove that God exists because God does not want it that way and people like archaeologist show us why - if God's existence were more obvious then people like archaeologist would rule the world and there would be no hope for humanity at all.

    We have two historical examples from which to understand this: if you believe the history in Genesis as I do there is the time before the flood in which we had humanity united in thought and culture and the inevitable result was evil continuously without opposition because that is the nature of man. The second example is the dark ages when mankind was ruled by the Catholic church. The Christianity of the Catholic church was no where near as ignorant and destructive as the Christianity of archaeologist but the fact that it was unopposed was sufficient to drown the potentiality of man in a sea of ignorance.

    Both times God did what was needed to put and end to the pattern that was damaging the potential of man because archaeologist is wrong. God is not the enemy of mankind and opposed to the growth of our potential wanting to keep us in ignorance as archaeologist does. The number one enemy of mankind is quite obviously mankind itself and the perfect example is to be found in this archaeologist who opposes scientific inquiry in dedication to this delusion where his sort pretends that there can be no scientific theory for the origin of life and the species. Both times God dealt with tendency of mankind to unite in a frenzy of self-destructivenes like the Nazis, with the same solution and that solution is diversity. The first time it was to prevent the mankind from restoring a one world civilization by scattering mankind throughout the earth and confusing our languages, so that we would have the diversity of culture we have today, and so this diversity is part of the salvation of mankind. The second time we see this is in the Protestant Reformation, to bring a diversity of thought to Christianity and I believe that this diversity in Christianity is also its salvation.

    Thanks to this we have a diverse culture where people can speak up against the attrocities that the Nazi types like archaeologist would commit. He would destroy the sciences if able, but he will not succeed because there are opposing voices to stop him. On the other side of the coin there are many atheists here who have a bit of this Nazi like character themselves and they would destroy the freedom of religion based on their dogma that it is a disease. But thanks to our diversity there are opposing voices to stop them too. It is amazing how groups of human beings can gather and devote themselves to promote ignorance and oppression like the Nazis, communists, fundamentalist muslims and magical christians like archaeologist. But as long as there is a diversity of thought that keeps people looking at things from a different point of view then we have some hope that such groups can be kept from destroying the world.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You cannot assume this untill you prove he exists, and prove the feats mentioned in the bible happened. Just as I cannot assume you have a central nervous system untill you show signs of having one.
    talk about using apples and oranges. sorry but God exists you just choose not to believe it. the mere fact you have freedom of choice proves His existence. evolution doesn't even know what choice is.

    Science is a concept, just like religion.
    for me to explain all the details would take pages and all you would do is dismiss it with one sentence. use your intelligence instead of always going to the extreme for justification.

    Jesus even said there would be false people in the true church, it isn't news and you are probably well acquainted with many examples. BUT that doesn't mean that God and the Bible are subject to such things.

    My reasons are that I never saw a good reason to follow the bible. Meanwhile the computer you are using to read this shows the benefit of science.
    is it a benefit? let's see, cyber bullying, computer games, rumors are spread faster as are false accusations and stories, prone to power faiures, crashing, damage do to dropping, or bangings etc. you continue to paint one side of the picture to make yourself lookgood and that is just wrong. computers are subject to the same influencing factors as anything else.

    besides, computers are a product of God given intelligence and raw materials, so science cannot take the credit.

    Not by choice; because it is true. It is what we are discovering is correct.
    no, you are following a lie and constructing a fable. none of evolution is true

    You are ASSUMING God is the final authority or standard
    He is, it is a fact. remember the majority of ALL countries' laws are based upon the Bible and its morality, science tries to step out from that restriction time and again.

    First you have to prove the bible before we should even considering disproving the bible.
    no i don't. it is a choice by faith. no proof needed but then proof comes from the changed lives who take that step. you want to do things via your arrogance, which is sin, you won't get what you want till you do things God's ways.

    Does your existence mean so much to you that you must believe in a personal God even if that belief is delusional
    you can't even answer a question, which shows you are being closed and narrow minded.

    Every single mythical story in the bible is from an older source
    wrong again. you are forgetting the timeline and placing oldest written against real time events. adam and noah came before the sumerians, egyptians, babylonians and greeks, and so on. you have it reversed.

    even those oldest records may not be the first written as we have not uncovered all the books from the past. it is assumed the israelites copied but it is well known that the Babylonians had the reputation for being the copyists (Mesopotamia and the Bible, ed. younger and chavalis pg. 263 approx.). the israelites had no such reputation.

    that is an idea from the minimalist camp supported by the likes of Is. Finkelstein and Wm. Dever. problem is, they have no proof for their contention.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    if God's existence were more obvious then people like archaeologist would rule the world and there would be no hope for humanity at all.
    this is why i ignore this particular poster. his hatred is very evident and he is not being rational let alone civil. he sent me a pm but i only responded with the word 'ignored' as i am not going to entertain such behavior while we discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I'm amused. He ignored a moderator.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i have no idea who is or isn't a moderator on this forum. i certainly have answered people's challenges with a lot of patience and civility and it would be nice to receive same in return no matter who they are.

    the other poster i have been ignoring is galt as his attitude reminds me of a spoiled child and i wil not encourage such behavior either. very few, if any, of you have posted in a manner that is respectful to other people's opinion, cementing the evolutionist's reputation that is known far and wide.

    it is one piece of evidence that we know evolution is false. if evolution were correct, then they would have nothing to fear and would invite all challengers to the science classroom. as it stands they want a monopoly and will go to great lengths to violate the rights of others to obtain that monopoly.

    it is very clear that they have no evidence to support their views and will distort what they do get for the only purpose of having an alternative to the truth--The Bible.

    darwin was wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by pseudo-archaeologist
    it is one piece of evidence that we know evolution is false. if evolution were correct, then they would have nothing to fear and would invite all challengers to the science classroom.
    Creation and other superstitions like religion have no place in a science classroom. There is a preponderance of evidence for evolution and the only people who assert otherwise are deliberately deceptive and obstinate in deference to their superstitions or ignorant and undereducated. There simply are no "challengers" to to science in the science classroom (hint: evolution is science; so-called alternatives are not).

    as it stands they want a monopoly and will go to great lengths to violate the rights of others to obtain that monopoly.
    This is fear-mongering and bigoted rhetoric. Who is "they" and what legitimate "challengers" exist? The so-called 'intelligent' design proponents have been demonstrated to be both liars and ignorant -seeking to indoctrinate and evangelize school children in their superstitions. There's no place in the science classroom for pseudoscience and superstition.

    it is very clear that they have no evidence to support their views and will distort what they do get for the only purpose of having an alternative to the truth--The Bible.
    If you don't see the evidence for evolution, then you're ignorant. Plain and simple. A lack of education is a serious danger to the United States: fear-mongering, superstitious bigots who want to promote their superstitions over reality could be the downfall of our nation if left unchecked. The decline in science education leads to a decline in innovation and progress since there are fewer and fewer qualified researchers and scientists.

    darwin was wrong.
    Why bother with Darwin? He was probably wrong about many things, but he was right enough about enough of the important parts of natural selection that modern science has a very good understanding of the evolutionary process.

    In addition, I quite frankly take offense at your use of the screen name "archaeologist" since I'm an actual archaeologist. No genuine, legitimate archaeologist would demonstrate such ignorance and spout superstitious, anti-science rhetoric on a Science Forum. And, by the way, I'm an administrator on this forum -just to give you an idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I'm amused. He ignored a moderator.
    I am not just a moderator. I am also a participant. I have not put on the moderator hat either in this thread or in my personal message to archeologist. Thus there is no reason to bring this up and I don't particularly appreciate you doing so either. That should be my decision alone. My being a moderator should add no weight to my arguments or opinions as a poster. When I am acting as a moderator I will be very clear that I am doing so.


    If there is cause for amusement here, I think it is the the reasons he gives for deciding that certain people are those he should not respond to. The idea that some are more hostile to him than others is little amusing since the hostility seems pretty universal to me. I think it is crystal clear that the real reason he is choosing to ignore certain people (and myself and Galt are NOT the only ones) is that they are the ones that have been particularly effective at pointing out his BS and not letting him get away with it. In other words, he is ignoring those comments and persons that he cannot think of any good answer to.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    If there is cause for amusement here, I think it is the the reasons he gives for deciding that certain people are those he should not respond to. The idea that some are more hostile to him than others is little amusing since the hostility seems pretty universal to me. I think it is crystal clear that the real reason he is choosing to ignore certain people (and myself and Galt are NOT the only ones) is that they are the ones that have been particularly effective at pointing out his BS and not letting him get away with it. In other words, he is ignoring those comments and persons that he cannot think of any good answer to.
    the real reasons why i ignore certain people are: 1. their attitude; 2. i do not have the time to answer everyone. many posts take me up to 15 minutes or more to construct and i have limited time. this is not the only thing i do.; 3. subject matter and the absurdity of some demands

    it has nothing to do with pointing out the 'bs' as they are not. which brings me to #4. it takes time reading all those single line posts and to process what is said to make sure i did not get it wrong. construction of their posts are dne in such a way to hide whatthey are saying and i am not going to play thatgame. 5. many of those posts are just personal attacks and i am not going to get into a fight with anyone. 6. those posts are just baiting and flaming and i do not need the distraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Creation and other superstitions like religion have no place in a science classroom
    why not/ there is more evidence for creatin than there is evolution but here is the main difference between the two. secular science needs evolution because creation was a one time supernatural act that cannot and will not be repeated. the only things secular science could study in the classroom is the result of creation, the use of the raw materials and so on.

    it could not explore origins as that answer has been given already. in other words, they want to waste everybodies' time by chasing illusions while sick people die or others go hungry. think of the resources that could be saved and used for better purposes if creation was studied instead of evolution.

    There is a preponderance of evidence for evolution and the only people who assert otherwise are deliberately deceptive and obstinate in deference to their superstitions or ignorant and undereducated
    thisis wrong again as the 'evidence' is based upon conjecture and theory not fact or hard physical proof. the insult is ignored as it assumes that chrisians are uneducated, i am not and i know many,many more who are very well educated. the only people deliberately deceiving themselves are the evolutionists.

    There simply are no "challengers" to to science in the science classroom (hint: evolution is science; so-called alternatives are not).
    problem is, evolution basically violates the principles of science and cannot be declared scientific because you cannot fit the process into a test tube or study it. you only study what you attribute to it.

    one cannot claim that the beaks of finches speak for the wings from legs mutation yet that is what evolutionists do. they say we have this over here thus evolution must do that over there yet no one has ever observed wings from legs.

    so the evolutionist really looks like a person pissing in the wind. there house of cards blows over upon close scrutiny.

    This is fear-mongering and bigoted rhetoric. Who is "they" and what legitimate "challengers" exist?
    actually it isn't. in an earlier post, i mentioned the smithsonians attack on the publisher and i know from experience what evolutionists will do to stop people from presenting their alternative opinions. even here i have galt threatening me twice now. so it is a hard reality.

    The so-called 'intelligent' design proponents have been demonstrated to be both liars and ignorant -seeking to indoctrinate and evangelize school children in their superstitions.
    i am not an intelligent design supporter, i am a believer in Gen. 1 as written and as supported by all the other biblical references throughout the Bible.

    If you don't see the evidence for evolution, then you're ignorant. Plain and simple. A lack of education is a serious danger to the United States
    this is what discredits evolutionists and shows thatthey have nothing to support their thinking. they have to always go to the personal attack and it is old. if you need to do this you have nothing to pull out of your bag of tricks as you blew your wad with your generalities and conjectures.

    evolution has nothing to support it but rhetoric and threats. boring. so far notone of you have refuted one claim i have made against evolution or for the Bible. you keep saying the same thing: evolution has lots of evidence or you are ignorant and so on

    time to pony up.

    Why bother with Darwin? He was probably wrong about many things, but he was right enough about enough of the important parts of natural selection that modern science has a very good understanding of the evolutionary process.
    when the time comes everyone points to him no matter what. he was wrong about natural selection as well.

    I quite frankly take offense at your use of the screen name "archaeologist" since I'm an actual archaeologist. No genuine, legitimate archaeologist would demonstrate such ignorance and spout superstitious, anti-science rhetoric on a Science Forum. And, by the way, I'm an administrator on this forum -just to give you an idea.
    you would be wrong and why would you take offense? you know nothing about me but make a generalization and asumption coupled with a false accusation. i do not care if you are the admin. or not. it remains to be seen if you are honest inyour duties or not as well.

    what you do not know is that the bible and God are over all sciences, God created the fields not humans and the Bible gives the truth. if you think you can use the limited abilitites to discern the past your are quite mistaken. science cannot tell you what you did last week let alone what humans andanimals did 5,000 years ago.

    the limitations placed upon those fields ensure that they cannot rise above their station. as K.A. Kitchen said in his book, The Bible in its World, pg.12 approx. the amount of areas excavated is very minute, rarely going above 5% of the total area.

    science, archaeology and other parts of the field deal with very limited data yet they try to tell the unwary that they know it all. they don't even come close in most situations. besides too many areasof archaeology are very subjective and as i said, we all have the same evidence itis the conjecture, the opinions that do the interpretationa ndlast i looked, interpretation is not truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Creation and other superstitions like religion have no place in a science classroom
    why not/ there is more evidence for creatin than there is evolution but here is the main difference between the two. secular science needs evolution because creation was a one time supernatural act that cannot and will not be repeated. the only things secular science could study in the classroom is the result of creation, the use of the raw materials and so on.

    it could not explore origins as that answer has been given already. in other words, they want to waste everybodies' time by chasing illusions while sick people die or others go hungry. think of the resources that could be saved and used for better purposes if creation was studied instead of evolution.
    This is nonsense.

    Evolutionary biology is used to predict the upcoming strain of Influenza and to engineer an effective vaccine ahead of time every year.

    Understanding of evolution is the foundation of all biology. It allows us to study genes and proteins in mice, fruit flies, arabidopsis, and c. elegans and make extrapolations that apply to people. It allows us to understand how certain features of animals come about. It explains why living things aren't perfect. If they were designed, the designer was incompetent.

    It let's us understand how genetic disorders, new viruses, and new strains of bacteria come about.

    Moreover, evolution is at the foundation of biology because without it biology would simply be a descriptive process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Evolutionary biology is used to predict the upcoming strain of Influenza and to engineer an effective vaccine ahead of time every year
    and if the prediction is wrong---people die and the vaccine is useless.

    you are driving down the road and you have gone through road construction, seen the signs and realized thatis what is taking place. you now do not see road construction but see similar signs of things to come--is that evolution or just intelligent, common sense thinking putting two and two together?

    you like to attribute everything to evolution but wait, that is exactly what the christian does with God. evolution has been changing over the past few decades and it is almost tothe point it is God and creation but with the words changed.

    this is another proof that evolution is wrong and a lie. It has to change becuase the impossibilities of it destroy the theory. it has to become creation to survive. The Book of Genesis explains all origins of diseases, function, languages and so on. evolutionists can only copy because there is no other answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolutionary biology is used to predict the upcoming strain of Influenza and to engineer an effective vaccine ahead of time every year
    and if the prediction is wrong---people die and the vaccine is useless.
    The fact that the flu mutates is very strong evidence for evolution. How well scientists can predict a mostly random process is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you like to attribute everything to evolution but wait, that is exactly what the christian does with God. evolution has been changing over the past few decades and it is almost tothe point it is God and creation but with the words changed.
    The difference is evidence supports evolution, not god.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this is another proof that evolution is wrong and a lie. It has to change becuase the impossibilities of it destroy the theory. it has to become creation to survive. The Book of Genesis explains all origins of diseases, function, languages and so on. evolutionists can only copy because there is no other answer.
    Describes, not explains.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The fact that the flu mutates is very strong evidence for evolution. How well scientists can predict a mostly random process is irrelevant
    mutates or becomes immune?

    just like humans become immune to certain diseases so do other life forms to poisons to their structure. we do not say that a human is mutating so why apply it to diseases only?

    i will say this act does not provide strong evidence for evolution because such diseases are NOT turning into different species or other alterations. they are just doing what humans do--become immune to certain things but not invincible, they will still die.

    this is one of the stretches in evolutionary thinking that shows they are willing to change the facts to fit their theory.

    How well scientists can predict a mostly random process is irrelevant.
    not at all as people's lives are on the line which makes this ability to be very relevant. failing to predict correctly, which happens more than is advertised, has great reprocussions but the evolutionist fails to take responsibility for their actions and blame it on other factors.

    The difference is evidence supports evolution, not god.
    not at all. what it supports is the Gen. account of the fall of man which then supports God. evolution still has no stake in this as you are using the results to work backwards to something you have nothing to compare with.

    since you have no idea what evolution really is, you are working blind and making proclamations you have no right to make. it is all a guessing game because the original is missing and you can design evolution any way you want it to be.

    that is not being honest but in control of one's 'creator' empowering man and supporting pride. with creation man is not in charge, they cannot design their creator and they must humble themselves to Him and the secular world doesn't like that.

    evolution is a designer theory much like the fashion industry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    mutates or becomes immune?
    Mutations cause immunities to happen

    just like humans become immune to certain diseases so do other life forms to poisons to their structure. we do not say that a human is mutating so why apply it to diseases only?
    Yes we do

    i will say this act does not provide strong evidence for evolution because such diseases are NOT turning into different species or other alterations. they are just doing what humans do--become immune to certain things but not invincible, they will still die.
    I wonder how HIV2 got here without mutations.. you know, since it's an alteration of HIV1. And don't say it got here by Sin.

    this is one of the stretches in evolutionary thinking that shows they are willing to change the facts to fit their theory.
    Actually we change the theory to fit the facts like we have done multiple times.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    mutates or becomes immune?

    just like humans become immune to certain diseases so do other life forms to poisons to their structure. we do not say that a human is mutating so why apply it to diseases only?

    i will say this act does not provide strong evidence for evolution because such diseases are NOT turning into different species or other alterations. they are just doing what humans do--become immune to certain things but not invincible, they will still die.

    this is one of the stretches in evolutionary thinking that shows they are willing to change the facts to fit their theory.
    Um a virus mutating and having a different isoform of HA and NA on it's surface is evolution.

    A human being has an adaptive immune response, which by the way is generated partly through a random process of diversity generations.

    And actually B-cells will undergo somatic hypermutation to produce more effective antibodies against infections.

    The difference is, that humans do not pass on their immunity genetically, although the B cells and T cells do all have slightly different DNA from the rest of the body.

    A virus particle will replicate and pass on it's mutations, and during that replication mistakes will be made and millions of virus particles will be unviable, while a few will be even better at avoiding the immune system. This is evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by pseuod-archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Creation and other superstitions like religion have no place in a science classroom
    why not/
    Because one is science; the other is superstition (a.k.a. not science).



    there is more evidence for creatin than there is evolution
    Only in the minds of the deluded, the ignorant, or the deceptive. No rational, educated person holds this to be true.

    but here is the main difference between the two. secular science needs evolution because creation was a one time supernatural act that cannot and will not be repeated.

    "Supernatural" as in outside of nature. Thus: not science.

    the only things secular science could study in the classroom is the result of creation, the use of the raw materials and so on.
    If "creation" (the superstitious belief that all life on the planet was created as is and did not evolve) were a real result, then science could study it. But it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural. There is no indication that creation as told in biblical mythology actually occurred. There is zero evidence for creation. Indeed, I challenge you to provide this evidence -please cite the most convincing evidence for creation.

    it could not explore origins as that answer has been given already. in other words, they want to waste everybodies' time by chasing illusions while sick people die or others go hungry.
    At best, this is an argument from ignorance; at worst a complete non sequitur since the conclusion implied is that science is ignoring the "sick" and "hungry" while focusing on evolution. The same sciences used to explore the fact of evolution and the various evolutionary forces has yielded a preponderance of medical advances and increased yields in domesticated plants and animals. One need only a modicum of education to see this.

    think of the resources that could be saved and used for better purposes if creation was studied instead of evolution.
    The economy of the United States would likely collapse and we would all go hungry whilst on a fool's errand of superstition; meanwhile, the rest of the world would continue to progress and point their fingers, laughing at the nation that once dominated the world in science and innovation.

    There is a preponderance of evidence for evolution and the only people who assert otherwise are deliberately deceptive and obstinate in deference to their superstitions or ignorant and undereducated
    the insult is ignored as it assumes that chrisians are uneducated, i am not and i know many,many more who are very well educated.
    There are, indeed, very well educated "chrisians" (sic), but few of them buy into the superstitions of creation and dismiss the fact of evolution if they are educated in science to even a moderate degree.

    the only people deliberately deceiving themselves are the evolutionists.
    And, yet, the evidence shows otherwise. Recent intelligence estimates show that the more conservatively religious a person is, the lower their IQ is likely to be. In other words, those who score high in tests like the CAT and the ASVAB are more likely to be agnostic or atheist than conservatively religious (Nyborg 2008).

    There simply are no "challengers" to to science in the science classroom (hint: evolution is science; so-called alternatives are not).
    problem is, evolution basically violates the principles of science and cannot be declared scientific because you cannot fit the process into a test tube or study it. you only study what you attribute to it.
    This is evidence of your own ignorance and lack of education more than an argument. But I'm willing to humor (and, probably, embarrass) you: which "principles of science," specifically does the fact of evolution "violate?"

    one cannot claim that the beaks of finches speak for the wings from legs mutation yet that is what evolutionists do. they say we have this over here thus evolution must do that over there yet no one has ever observed wings from legs.
    Again, this is complete and utter ignorance. It would be beyond the scope of an internet thread on a science forum to educate a single, deluded and unwilling-to-learn religionist on evolution, but suffice to say that there *is* evidence of wings from legs and it is demonstrated via seriation in the fossil record as well as genetic analysis. Indeed, there are thousands of facts of evolution which all converge on the same conclusion: all life today share a common ancestor.

    so the evolutionist really looks like a person pissing in the wind. there house of cards blows over upon close scrutiny.
    It's interesting that you say "house of cards" because for the rational observer, it is clearly the other way around. While there is a preponderance of evidence for evolution, believers in the superstition of creation consistently provide zero real evidence for their claim that all life began as it appears today. I'd still like to know what you consider to be the single most convincing bit of evidence to you. If you posit it here, I'll demonstrate what a house of cards looks like.

    The so-called 'intelligent' design proponents have been demonstrated to be both liars and ignorant -seeking to indoctrinate and evangelize school children in their superstitions.
    i am not an intelligent design supporter, i am a believer in Gen. 1 as written and as supported by all the other biblical references throughout the Bible.
    Which amounts to much the same thing. Actually, your brand of superstition is far easier to show as such since it doesn't make the pretense of being science that 'id' does.

    If you don't see the evidence for evolution, then you're ignorant. Plain and simple. A lack of education is a serious danger to the United States
    this is what discredits evolutionists and shows thatthey have nothing to support their thinking. they have to always go to the personal attack and it is old. if you need to do this you have nothing to pull out of your bag of tricks as you blew your wad with your generalities and conjectures.
    You call it a personal attack, and perhaps it should be accepted as so. But there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend. Particularly when they so clearly demonstrate ignorance and ant-science rhetoric that isn't informed by an education. But "ignorance" isn't a personal attack. Its an observation. Your arguments are nearly all from ignorance, which is to say that they are positions held in the absence of knowledge or education. You take this as an "attack" since you want to count yourself as a member of the educated populace, but this doesn't appear to be the case -or, if it is, then it leaves us with the conclusion that you know the facts behind evolution but intentionally play dumb or ignorant to perpetuate a superstition.

    evolution has nothing to support it but rhetoric and threats. boring. so far notone of you have refuted one claim i have made against evolution or for the Bible. you keep saying the same thing: evolution has lots of evidence or you are ignorant and so on

    time to pony up.
    Then do me the courtesy of restating this claim (or claims) in a single post here. Or, at least point me to the post via a link. You've made several dozen and I the arguments I observed where either not cogent, not sound, or both. Please cite or posit the claim you feel is most convincing.

    when the time comes everyone points to him no matter what. [Darwin] was wrong about natural selection as well.
    "As well" as what? What are the premises that conclude Darwin was wrong?

    you know nothing about me but make a generalization and asumption coupled with a false accusation.
    Actually, I know quite enough: you're superstitious; you assert anti-science rhetoric in place of rational discourse; you come to a Science message board to troll the "Darwinists" and the "evolutionists" with your drivel -you probably read nonsense creationist sites and believe every word without thinking for yourself; you probably fancy yourself an "amateur archaeologist" with an interest in archaeological bits that support preconceived conclusions about biblical mythology whilst ignoring and dismissing archaeological data that contradicts or doesn't lend kind support; etc., etc.

    what you do not know is that the bible and God are over all sciences, God created the fields not humans and the Bible gives the truth.
    Please cite or demonstrate the empirical evidence that demonstrates this claim.

    if you think you can use the limited abilitites to discern the past your are quite mistaken. science cannot tell you what you did last week let alone what humans andanimals did 5,000 years ago.
    This is, again, an argument from ignorance and evidence of a lack of education. You continue to embarrass yourself, so I'll leave it to you if you want to continue this line of discussion by posing this question: how many examples of archaeological data would I need to explain and cite for you to retract or revise your position? I would expect that if you're thoroughly enough deluded by superstition, no amount would suffice and that you'd simply wish away or ignore any analyses I provided.

    the limitations placed upon those fields ensure that they cannot rise above their station. as K.A. Kitchen said in his book, The Bible in its World, pg.12 approx. the amount of areas excavated is very minute, rarely going above 5% of the total area.
    This is a strength of archaeological sciences not a weakness. The fact that there remains so much left to explore and discover is encouraging. The fact, also, is that the more we discover, the more we demonstrate that biblical accounts are more myth and legend and less and less history. It can easily be conceded that there are many place names and events described in biblical mythology that actually existed or took place, however, there are also many instances of evidence where biblical mythology is just that: myth. I'm tempted to cite examples, but this would easily be another, detailed thread. If you want examples of archaeological discovers that contradict biblical mythology, I'm more than willing to take this to another thread.

    science, archaeology and other parts of the field deal with very limited data yet they try to tell the unwary that they know it all.
    This is more evidence of ignorance. Archaeology doesn't make enough an effort to tell the general public what it knows, which, in my opinion, is a weakness of archaeology that I'm interested in correcting. There are many good archaeologist authors out there: Fagan, Renfrew, Feder, Finkelstein, Dever, Lerner, Redford, Clark, Pritchard, etc. but their works are but the tip of the iceberg. Most archaeological discovery ends up in dissertations, reports and journals -all peer reviewed and evaluated. Hardly told to the "unwary."

    But your ignorant comment smacks of a closed-minded religionist with a conclusion to which he only wants data that supports it. Hardly science. Hardly rational.


    Reference:

    Nyborg, Helmuth (2008). The intelligence-religiosity nexus: a representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37(1), 81-93.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I wonder how HIV2 got here without mutations.. you know, since it's an alteration of HIV1. And don't say it got here by Sin.
    i consider the source of the person making the labels.

    i alsowould disagree with the use of the word 'mutating' since that implies more change than what is taking place. 'adapting' is the better word for the species stays the same but is able to withstand certain invasions.

    Mutations cause immunities to happen
    i would disagree with you as again genes are designed to react in a specific way, which means they have encoded in them instructionson what todo in these nstances. still doesn't prove evolution as you have not ruled out design by God.

    i am going to skip some of you to address the admin.

    Because one is science; the other is superstition
    except the Bible is not superstition. some science is so should we toss all of it out the window?

    Only in the minds of the deluded, the ignorant, or the deceptive. No rational, educated person holds this to be true.
    and you wonder why no one gives respect to evolutionists.

    Supernatural" as in outside of nature. Thus: not science.
    secular science is limited and designed to be limited to omit the supernatural, which means it has no authority and no ability to investigate the supernatural acts and cannot be consider a viable tool.

    it shoots itself in the foot from the beginning and points people in the wrong direction for the wrong answers. there is an old story about scientists who have taken thousands of years to get where the theologians have been all along.

    i am not the uneducated one here for your studies disallow you to examine all the evidence, in other words you fall short. your hatred is quite obvious making your point of view moot.

    then science could study it. But it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural
    this is why you cannot study the supernatural, you keepo trying to bring it down to your definitions and level.

    There is no indication that creation as told in biblical mythology actually occurred. There is zero evidence for creation
    asked answered and still is a lie. compelling evidence--if the Bible were false we would not be having this discussion.

    The same sciences used to explore the fact of evolution and the various evolutionary forces has yielded a preponderance of medical advances and increased yields in domesticated plants and animals
    which produces lethal side effects far more dangerous than the disease itself. as for the rest, more demand for food which means less available for others and hunger sets in.

    for every 'advance' i can present a negative which nullifies your argument and turn youto the Bible which talks about planting and so forth which also yield good results.

    actually i am tired of your insults, you have proven yourself to be unworthy and limited. you have nothing.

    as for the rest, i have been nice and dealt with your points in an honest manner without being disrespectful. you are basically playing semantics and using the different words to prove your ideas but those are not real evidence and you have not provem only evolution can come up with those results.

    you have not disproven creation at all. it is all declatory statements based upon a willfulness not to see the truth. genes were designed to act in a certainway and when sin entered into the world that design got corrupted and they became succeptible to negative influences which alter their productivity and work.

    becoming immune is not a mutation but an adaption an overcoming of threatening force as some genes were designed to do. it is not a mutation because there is no real change taking place.

    oh and 'hell' is not a threat. it is a choice of destinations, and if it were a threat more people would not choose it but because people love darkness rather than light they ignore that part and hide themselves in arealm of delusion hoping their disbelief will change their future--it won't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I wonder how HIV2 got here without mutations.. you know, since it's an alteration of HIV1. And don't say it got here by Sin.
    i consider the source of the person making the labels.

    i alsowould disagree with the use of the word 'mutating' since that implies more change than what is taking place. 'adapting' is the better word for the species stays the same but is able to withstand certain invasions.

    Mutations cause immunities to happen
    i would disagree with you as again genes are designed to react in a specific way, which means they have encoded in them instructionson what todo in these nstances. still doesn't prove evolution as you have not ruled out design by God.

    i am going to skip some of you to address the admin.

    Because one is science; the other is superstition
    except the Bible is not superstition. some science is so should we toss all of it out the window?

    Only in the minds of the deluded, the ignorant, or the deceptive. No rational, educated person holds this to be true.
    and you wonder why no one gives respect to evolutionists.

    Supernatural" as in outside of nature. Thus: not science.
    secular science is limited and designed to be limited to omit the supernatural, which means it has no authority and no ability to investigate the supernatural acts and cannot be consider a viable tool.

    it shoots itself in the foot from the beginning and points people in the wrong direction for the wrong answers. there is an old story about scientists who have taken thousands of years to get where the theologians have been all along.

    i am not the uneducated one here for your studies disallow you to examine all the evidence, in other words you fall short. your hatred is quite obvious making your point of view moot.

    then science could study it. But it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural
    this is why you cannot study the supernatural, you keepo trying to bring it down to your definitions and level.

    There is no indication that creation as told in biblical mythology actually occurred. There is zero evidence for creation
    asked answered and still is a lie. compelling evidence--if the Bible were false we would not be having this discussion.

    The same sciences used to explore the fact of evolution and the various evolutionary forces has yielded a preponderance of medical advances and increased yields in domesticated plants and animals
    which produces lethal side effects far more dangerous than the disease itself. as for the rest, more demand for food which means less available for others and hunger sets in.

    for every 'advance' i can present a negative which nullifies your argument and turn youto the Bible which talks about planting and so forth which also yield good results.

    actually i am tired of your insults, you have proven yourself to be unworthy and limited. you have nothing.

    as for the rest, i have been nice and dealt with your points in an honest manner without being disrespectful. you are basically playing semantics and using the different words to prove your ideas but those are not real evidence and you have not provem only evolution can come up with those results.

    you have not disproven creation at all. it is all declatory statements based upon a willfulness not to see the truth. genes were designed to act in a certainway and when sin entered into the world that design got corrupted and they became succeptible to negative influences which alter their productivity and work.

    becoming immune is not a mutation but an adaption an overcoming of threatening force as some genes were designed to do. it is not a mutation because there is no real change taking place.

    oh and 'hell' is not a threat. it is a choice of destinations, and if it were a threat more people would not choose it but because people love darkness rather than light they ignore that part and hide themselves in arealm of delusion hoping their disbelief will change their future--it won't.
    Bah this is hopeless, you obviously have no education in biochemistry, genetics, or even basic biology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    the topic of this threads was 'is creation outside the scope of science' none of you have presented one iota of an argument to answer 'no'. you have avoided the reality.

    yes, creartion is outside the scope of science because secular science has designed itself in such a way as to look in the wrong direction for the wrong answers. it wants to pull the supernatural down to the natural and that is just impossible.

    in fact many leaders of the science community, past and present, have declared that they want God out of science (Battle if Beginnings by Del Ratzsch) but in so doing secular scientists are forced to use limited data, from limited sources skewing their results and conclusions. they are drawing conclusions from incomplete andmisdirected experiemnts and theories.

    until you correct the errors you will never find the truth. evolution does not exist and is a figment of the secular world's imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    i consider the source of the person making the labels.
    Maybe I should do the same.

    except the Bible is not superstition. some science is so should we toss all of it out the window?
    Yes it is. It claims God is watching us and if we are naughty we will get coal in our stocking.. erm, I mean we will be condemned to hellfire.

    asked answered and still is a lie. compelling evidence--if the Bible were false we would not be having this discussion.
    I could argue with someone if dragon's use to be real at one point in time. It doesn't mean they are automatically real.
    I could argue with you about zeus being real at one time and you would argue with me about it, does that mean Zeus was a God at one point in time?

    you have not disproven creation at all.
    You have made the claim. It is up to you to prove creationism. We do not need to disprove it. You have been told this several times. Why won't you listen?

    oh and 'hell' is not a threat. it is a choice of destinations, and if it were a threat more people would not choose it but because people love darkness rather than light they ignore that part and hide themselves in arealm of delusion hoping their disbelief will change their future--it won't.
    Telling someone that they deserve to burn for all of eternity is a threat. I don't care how you want to spin in. But if you were to tell someone that they DESERVE or are GOING TO BE tortured for all of eternity then that is a THREAT and I am still curious why it is legal for theists to threaten someone with torture if they don't conform but a regular individual like me can't otherwise I can go to jail.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the topic of this threads was 'is creation outside the scope of science' none of you have presented one iota of an argument to answer 'no'. you have avoided the reality.

    yes, creartion is outside the scope of science because secular science has designed itself in such a way as to look in the wrong direction for the wrong answers. it wants to pull the supernatural down to the natural and that is just impossible.

    in fact many leaders of the science community, past and present, have declared that they want God out of science (Battle if Beginnings by Del Ratzsch) but in so doing secular scientists are forced to use limited data, from limited sources skewing their results and conclusions. they are drawing conclusions from incomplete andmisdirected experiemnts and theories.

    until you correct the errors you will never find the truth. evolution does not exist and is a figment of the secular world's imagination.
    Since creation in itself is of a religious nature and secular means to be void of religion then yes. Creationism should have nothing to do with science void of religious influence. What you sound like is a conspiracy theory nut. You just asked a question you "knew" the answer to, only to befuddle the results to try to get things your way. You think secular scientists are deceitful, what do you think you just tried doing? How do you know scientists can only use limited data from limited sources? How can a scientist expand on his sources when God is in the picture? Here is a hint, he can't. It actually narrows his sources since the belief in God automatically means you must assume that you already know the answers. That line of thinking is arrogant and unscientific.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Yes. Creation is outside of the scope of science since belief in creation is the result of superstition. And, yes, the bible is superstition -or at least belief in biblical mythology is. I'll demonstrate:

    The definition of superstition is belief in and reverence to the supernatural.
    Biblical mythology includes a preponderance of supernatural references.
    Believing that biblical mythology is actually the inerrant of a deity is to believe in and have reverence for the supernatural.
    Thus, the belief in the bible is superstition.

    There isn't more that anyone here can discuss with you.

    You have a preconceived conclusion to which you will only accept that data which are supportive. You will clearly ignore, dismiss, and intentionally remain ignorant of that data which are unkind to your superstition.

    You unfairly and irrationally assert that I'm "insulting" you, but that isn't the case. I'm making fair and legitimate observations to which you disagree. They aren't intended as insults. Moreover, I'm more than willing to revise my positions and the assertions I've made as a result of my observations of you with evidence. This is in contrast to your own position.

    I ask again: what do you consider to be the most convincing evidence of what you define as creation?

    You'll need to cite this next or discontinue posting since its clear that your interest is in trolling a science forum with your anti-science and willful ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Creation is outside of the scope of science since belief in creation is the result of superstition. And, yes, the bible is superstition -or at least belief in biblical mythology is.
    but this is bias and prejudiced based upon a prconceived idea without real proof.

    You have a preconceived conclusion to which you will only accept that data which are supportive. You will clearly ignore, dismiss, and intentionally remain ignorant of that data which are unkind to your superstition.
    this is an assumption and a false accusartion implying i have not had these discussions before or have done no research and made a very informed choice. which you are tyring to deprive me of by dmanding i have to choose your ideas or else.

    who is threatening whom here?

    You unfairly and irrationally assert that I'm "insulting" you, but that isn't the case. I'm making fair and legitimate observations to which you disagree
    justify it all you want but if i did the same you would condemn christianity and myself then ban me for doing what you freely practice.

    what do you consider to be the most convincing evidence of what you define as creation?
    i gave you an answer, just becaus eyou do not like it doe si tmean i have to keep doing it over and over under threats. your behavior is appalling and your fellow evolutionists should be embarrassed by your demands and boorish bullying.

    Since creation in itself is of a religious nature and secular means to be void of religion then yes. Creationism should have nothing to do with science void of religious influence
    except you forget who created science--- God. without Him you would have nothing to study

    You just asked a question you "knew" the answer to, only to befuddle the results to try to get things your way. You think secular scientists are deceitful, what do you think you just tried doing? How do you know scientists can only use limited data from limited sources? How can a scientist expand on his sources when God is in the picture? Here is a hint, he can't. It actually narrows his sources since the belief in God automatically means you must assume that you already know the answers. That line of thinking is arrogant and unscientific.
    we already know the answer for creation, it does not need to be studied BUT there are many other areas where science is still valuable and more important. science is NOT eliminated because we know an answer, it is just re-directed to more valuable areas of life.

    belief in creation doesn't mean science is thrown out the window, it is just used differently.

    It claims God is watching us and if we are naughty we will get coal in our stocking.. erm, I mean we will be condemned to hellfire.
    don't you watch your children? punish then when the disobey?

    I could argue with someone if dragon's use to be real at one point in time. It doesn't mean they are automatically real
    my point is this discussion would have died out centuries ago as we are just repeating the same ones that havebeen held since the beginning of time and your hatred for the Bible would be non-existant because it wouldn't be true.

    you would not feel threatened by the Bible (which is how all of you come across) and you would be able to prove the existence and responsibility of the process without having to design it yourself.

    You have made the claim. It is up to you to prove creationism. We do not need to disprove it. You have been told this several times
    i have given you evidence several times, even thrown in the hybrid experiments. animals can't reproduce outside of their kind, i am not the one who is not listening.

    Telling someone that they deserve to burn for all of eternity is a threat. I don't care how you want to spin in. But if you were to tell someone that they DESERVE or are GOING TO BE tortured for all of eternity then that is a THREAT and I am still curious why it is legal for theists to threaten someone with torture if they don't conform but a regular individual like me can't otherwise I can go to jail
    but you still have a choice and use your free will to determine that destination. i am being given no choice as the admin. and galt have threatened action against me plus have used false accusations to justify their threats.

    since i am not trolling why am i being told to go even though i am in the religion section and i am discussing religious events. i have not insulted anyone nor have i done personal attacks yet the threats come. who is more fair?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    but this is bias and prejudiced based upon a prconceived idea without real proof.
    LOL!

    Did you even read the logical proof I demonstrated! HA!

    You've demonstrated exactly what I've been saying: you have preconceived notions and conclusions to which you only see that data which are supportive!

    Nice talking with you. I see no reason to read the rest of your post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    don't you watch your children? punish then when the disobey?
    No, I would never tie my child up to a wall in my basement and burn them with fire no matter how badly they misbehaved. I would not torture my children. You are a very sick individual.

    i have given you evidence several times, even thrown in the hybrid experiments. animals can't reproduce outside of their kind, i am not the one who is not listening.
    You have not supplied ANY evidence. Telling us 'What' happens is not evidence. Explaining the 'why' and the 'how' is evidence.

    i have not insulted anyone
    By telling me I deserve to be lit on fire and feel tormented for eternity is an INSULT.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by someone sensible
    You have made the claim. It is up to you to prove creationism. We do not need to disprove it. You have been told this several times
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i have given you evidence several times, even thrown in the hybrid experiments. animals can't reproduce outside of their kind, i am not the one who is not listening.
    The couple of instances you have offered that you call evidence for creation are nothing more than weak evidence against evolution*. If evolution were disproved tomorrow this would not prove creationism.

    This is such a basic logical fallacy, yet it underpins much of the creationist movement.

    archaeologist, you may well think I wish you to be permanently banned from this forum. I do not. I wish you to remain posting on this forum for a long time into the future, but I wish that posting to be honest and logical. At the moment it is neither.

    I do not think the dishonesty is intentional. You are unaware of the depth of your self deception. So I would like you to remain here until that self deception is as clear to you as it is to the rest of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    i have given you evidence several times, even thrown in the hybrid experiments. animals can't reproduce outside of their kind, i am not the one who is not listening.
    To top it off, the reason we cannot mate outside of our own kind is do to our chromozones. I am not sure on the entire details, but I am positive that magic is not one of the details I forgot.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    , I would never tie my child up to a wall in my basement and burn them with fire no matter how badly they misbehaved. I would not torture my children. You are a very sick individual.
    obviously i am not the sick one as i never even hinted towards that idea of yours. But God is God and He gets to decide how He will punish inspite of what you think.

    You have not supplied ANY evidence. Telling us 'What' happens is not evidence. Explaining the 'why' and the 'how' is evidence
    again-- the why: God wanted to. such an act tells us that we are wanted no matter how rejected we get by other humans. we have someone who always cares.

    the how: By His power through His spoken word. all of creation was designed to function in a certain way and it does but it is now influenced by evil and corupted because people let evil in to di its dirty work. there was no process, no mutations, no continuing of creation after it was done. all that takes place is the result of that creative act and the fall of adam.

    but I wish that posting to be honest and logical. At the moment it is neither.
    yet i have been honest and logical, i am not the one advocating a pie n the sky, invisible, process that has no cognitive ability, morality or anything else that exists in the world. it can't even tell when to stop 'evolving' a species for it would never know when it got it right and thatit needed to move on to the next task.

    the impossibilities and absurdities destroy evolution.

    all of you have not even come close to rebutting my points, in fact most lay ignored because you can't.

    the reason we cannot mate outside of our own kind is do to our chromozones. I am not sure on the entire details, but I am positive that magic is not one of the details I forgot
    credit evolution if you want but you would be wrong for in evolution there would be no reason to stop inter-breeding between kinds. you can't even explain why the boundary exists or for what purpose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    , I would never tie my child up to a wall in my basement and burn them with fire no matter how badly they misbehaved. I would not torture my children. You are a very sick individual.
    obviously i am not the sick one as i never even hinted towards that idea of yours. But God is God and He gets to decide how He will punish inspite of what you think.
    And despite what you think. So you can't tell us anything about it, not being god.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You have not supplied ANY evidence. Telling us 'What' happens is not evidence. Explaining the 'why' and the 'how' is evidence
    again-- the why: God wanted to. such an act tells us that we are wanted no matter how rejected we get by other humans. we have someone who always cares.
    Again the assumption of god. Most of the people worldwide do not believe in the christian god. So we could easily dismiss his existance for that reason; if he were real you would expect a majority of people to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the how: By His power through His spoken word. all of creation was designed to function in a certain way and it does but it is now influenced by evil and corupted because people let evil in to di its dirty work. there was no process, no mutations, no continuing of creation after it was done. all that takes place is the result of that creative act and the fall of adam.
    This is not the how, this the the what.

    I'll explain; in evlution, species changing over time is the what. Mutations and spread of genes in a species is the how.

    You are not explaining how anything was made; you just assure me that it was. That is not enough; you do not even have a theory, let alone a believable one.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    but I wish that posting to be honest and logical. At the moment it is neither.
    yet i have been honest and logical
    Ha. You have been lying through your teeth right from the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am not the one advocating a pie n the sky, invisible, process that has no cognitive ability, morality or anything else that exists in the world.
    More than one person believes in time cubism. (www.timecube.com). Does this make it true?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it can't even tell when to stop 'evolving' a species for it would never know when it got it right and thatit needed to move on to the next task.
    Evolution never stops. But a species will stop changing drastically when none of the new adaptations aquired enable them to survive better, so they do not become widespread, or are lost entirely when the individuals fail to reproduce.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the impossibilities and absurdities destroy evolution.
    I can't believe you said that.

    The theory with the proven mechanism and the evidence is less believable than flying invisible man-thing who is eternal?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    all of you have not even come close to rebutting my points, in fact most lay ignored because you can't.
    You are yet to make any points. But repeat them all in one post and I will dismiss them easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the reason we cannot mate outside of our own kind is do to our chromozones. I am not sure on the entire details, but I am positive that magic is not one of the details I forgot
    credit evolution if you want but you would be wrong for in evolution there would be no reason to stop inter-breeding between kinds. you can't even explain why the boundary exists or for what purpose.
    The boundary exists because species which mate with another species generally produce zygotes which die because they have genes that work against each other, or they produce sterile offspring (e.g mules).

    Actually, here is where creationism fails to explain, seeing as you can provide no reason why inter-species breeding is so rare/unlikely.

    The boundaries exist to start with where species in different regions evolve differently. Partly by chance, partly because of varying environments.


    At the end of the day, you are trying to pick small faults (and failing), in a pretty sound theory, when your own theory you intend to replace it with is riddled with flaws which you pretend don't matter.

    No matter how strongly you believe in your floaty invisible man in the sky, that doesn't mean he is real.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    credit evolution if you want but you would be wrong for in evolution there would be no reason to stop inter-breeding between kinds. you can't even explain why the boundary exists or for what purpose.
    Looks like I was right

    Thanks for your question, Ahmed… The reason for the rarity of
    cross-species breeding in nature is, essentially, a three-fold
    problem; there are behavioral barriers, anatomical barriers, and
    genetic barriers. Firstly, differing species of organisms are, quite
    simply, not usually interested in mating, and (in most cases) are only
    apt to mate at very specific times of the year, which decreases the
    likelihood of cross-species copulation. Secondly, the anatomies of
    two, sexually-reproducing organisms of differing species are likely to
    be reproductively incompatible. Thirdly (and probably most
    importantly), the genetic variations (the number of chromosome pairs,
    for example) among different species dictates that their sex cells are
    incapable of successful fertilization.

    The evolution model predicts that, as a consequence of genetic
    mutations, populations of organisms will, over a sufficiently long
    period of time, naturally acquire physical traits that make them
    distinctly different from their ancestors, so much so that they may no
    longer be sexually compatible with those ancestors. Your observation
    that any two organisms who can mate are, by definition, members of the
    same species very nearly answers your own question… with one
    problem, however. It is true that, traditionally, a species was
    defined as a mating group. We know today that this definition does
    not hold, however, as cross-species mating (a lion and a tiger, for
    example) is, in fact, possible. The point I would like to make is
    that our taxonomic classification of organisms is purely a convention;
    there is nothing in nature that actually dictates that two organisms
    that are classified by scientists as belonging to different species
    should necessarily be classified as such. In short, nature makes no
    attempt to classify organisms as being related or unrelated. As far
    as nature is concerned, every organism on this planet is unique and
    can only be truly classified by itself. That you and I are both
    classified as belonging to the same genus and species (Homo sapiens)
    is purely artificial, and only done so for the purpose of making
    biological information more easily organized and the search for
    patterns more easily accomplished. We both individually represent
    separate, unique attempts on the part of nature to build a more
    survival-prone organism.

    Humans and “great apes” (e.g. orangutans, chimpanzees, and
    gorillas) cannot successfully produce offspring due to a difference in
    the number of chromosomes in their gametes… human gametes (sex
    cells) each have 23 chromosomes (for a total of 46) and ape gametes
    have 24 chromosomes (for a total of 48). This difference in the
    number of chromosomes prevents a sperm cell of either species from
    successfully fertilizing an egg from the other species. It would be
    possible, as you suggest, for an organism to develop unique physical
    traits that do not necessarily interfere with its ability to be
    fertilized by or to fertilize another; yet, eventually, that ability
    is likely to change as a consequence of mutation, too, in the
    successive generations following. When those mutations occur, the
    resulting offspring are no longer sexually compatible with their
    predecessors and we arrive at our “traditional” definition of a
    new species.

    I hope that this has helped answer your questions…
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Again the assumption of god. Most of the people worldwide do not believe in the christian god. So we could easily dismiss his existance for that reason; if he were real you would expect a majority of people to believe.
    no, as 'people love darkness rather than light'. not many people want to be brave, stand alone, face persecution for Christ. it doesn't take courage to be a sinner and part of the crowd but it takes real cagonies to stand with Christ.

    Jesus also said 'pick up yur cross and follow me', so a believer will expect things to be rough and tough. which would you choose: wait for sex till marriage or premarital sex?

    I'll explain; in evlution, species changing over time is the what. Mutations and spread of genes in a species is the how.

    You are not explaining how anything was made; you just assure me that it was. That is not enough; you do not even have a theory, let alone a believable one.
    sorry but it is how--He spoke and it was. very simple. if you can't accept that then that is your problem not mine and it is your choice. evolution is the lie meant to deceive.

    You have been lying through your teeth right from the start
    false accusation

    Evolution never stops.
    it never existed in the first place. but i am not going to keep repeating the same things.

    The theory with the proven mechanism and the evidence is less believable than flying invisible man-thing who is eternal?
    that is the problem, you all keep claiming it is proven yet you cannot provide one definitive example. it is all hearsay , bias, conjecture, manipulations and lies. you cannot even use predictions properly.

    You are yet to make any points. But repeat them all in one post and I will dismiss them easily.
    feel free to comb through my posts and respond. you all left many unanswered and they will be easy to find.

    The boundary exists because species which mate with another species generally produce zygotes which die because they have genes that work against each other, or they produce sterile offspring (e.g mules).

    Actually, here is where creationism fails to explain, seeing as you can provide no reason why inter-species breeding is so rare/unlikely.
    do you want to be spoon fed all the answers? i thought you wanted to do science? if the Bible provided allthe information ou wanted, no one would do anything for the answer would be there, people would be lazy plus no one would be able to pick the Bible up or publish it for it would be too thick. then no one would read it as it would be too boring.

    you have the right amount of information, and God has left roomfor people to explore to find answers, with His direction. going beyond the scope of science is where people error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    no, as 'people love darkness rather than light'. not many people want to be brave, stand alone, face persecution for Christ. it doesn't take courage to be a sinner and part of the crowd but it takes real cagonies to stand with Christ.
    Considering that Atheists and not Christians have been persecuted for the last 1,700 years.. Your argument that it takes brave people to stand up to the persecution of being a Christian doesn't stand.

    Jesus also said 'pick up yur cross and follow me', so a believer will expect things to be rough and tough. which would you choose: wait for sex till marriage or premarital sex?
    Sex is sex. It's meant to procreate. Why should it matter if you're married or not? It's just the church and others butting into your personal life.

    sorry but it is how--He spoke and it was. very simple. if you can't accept that then that is your problem not mine and it is your choice. evolution is the lie meant to deceive.
    Did you even get into High School? If he spoke and it was, then that is labeled as a "what happened" not "How it happened." If it was a How it happened then you would say the sea's rose up or Adam formed from Mud, that is the How.
    Evolution was never meant to deceive anyone. Darwin was highly religious when he came up with the theory of evolution.

    that is the problem, you all keep claiming it is proven yet you cannot provide one definitive example. it is all hearsay , bias, conjecture, manipulations and lies. you cannot even use predictions properly.
    We provided fossil records and explained that the Flu Vaccine is made by knowledge of evolution. Your response to the Flu Vaccine was that if we got it wrong then it can kill people so evolution must be false. It is you who is the follower of hearsay, bias, conjecture, manipulations and lies.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Again the assumption of god. Most of the people worldwide do not believe in the christian god. So we could easily dismiss his existance for that reason; if he were real you would expect a majority of people to believe.
    no, as 'people love darkness rather than light'. not many people want to be brave, stand alone, face persecution for Christ. it doesn't take courage to be a sinner and part of the crowd but it takes real cagonies to stand with Christ.
    Not what I'm arguing. I'm saying, why would you go against common belief and choose an unproven theory over a proven one.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Jesus also said 'pick up yur cross and follow me', so a believer will expect things to be rough and tough. which would you choose: wait for sex till marriage or premarital sex?
    Premarital sex, but how is this relevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I'll explain; in evlution, species changing over time is the what. Mutations and spread of genes in a species is the how.

    You are not explaining how anything was made; you just assure me that it was. That is not enough; you do not even have a theory, let alone a believable one.
    sorry but it is how--He spoke and it was. very simple.
    You misunderstand me. I mean, explain it in terms of physics and lepton number and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you can't accept that then that is your problem not mine and it is your choice. evolution is the lie meant to deceive.
    I have shown you enough evidence to prove beyond doubt it is not a lie. You are the one decieved.

    I wouldn't care normally, but you seem to be convinced that nobody but yourself can be right, and thet everyone needs to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You have been lying through your teeth right from the start
    false accusation
    Based on the evidence I see and statisitcs I know, I can safely conclude that what you say cannot be considered to be true.

    (you're talking crap)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolution never stops.
    it never existed in the first place. but i am not going to keep repeating the same things.
    You never proved it doesn't happen to start with, how could you repeat?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The theory with the proven mechanism and the evidence is less believable than flying invisible man-thing who is eternal?
    that is the problem, you all keep claiming it is proven yet you cannot provide one definitive example.
    I have provided several, and you gave diplomatic answers about 'even though there is very very very very strong evidence it is still not proved 100%, more like 99.99999%, and that's why it can't be true'. You cannot find a flaw in any of my examples, yet somehow they are not proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is all hearsay , bias, conjecture, manipulations and lies. you cannot even use predictions properly.
    Yes, you the god-botherer tell me how science works. Without you I would be lost[/sarcasm]

    I have mentioned previous predictions, so have other people. All of them turned out to be right, yet this is not evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You are yet to make any points. But repeat them all in one post and I will dismiss them easily.
    feel free to comb through my posts and respond. you all left many unanswered and they will be easy to find.
    I leave out none of your posts to which I have replied. If I missed a post, re-post it and I will point out your errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The boundary exists because species which mate with another species generally produce zygotes which die because they have genes that work against each other, or they produce sterile offspring (e.g mules).

    Actually, here is where creationism fails to explain, seeing as you can provide no reason why inter-species breeding is so rare/unlikely.
    do you want to be spoon fed all the answers? i thought you wanted to do science?
    The point of science is to find the answers. Religion tends to veil them by never quite explaining anything.

    I have said before, I am open to change. It's just a matter of providing evidence, and you have failed to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if the Bible provided allthe information ou wanted, no one would do anything for the answer would be there
    A while back you were claiming the bible did have all the answers. And whether you subscribe to this belief or not, the majority of christians do.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    people would be lazy plus no one would be able to pick the Bible up or publish it for it would be too thick.
    But still not as thick as you

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    then no one would read it as it would be too boring.
    Good point. The bible as it is at the moment is a hilarious read, I would reccomend it for fictional reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you have the right amount of information
    none, from the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God has left roomfor people to explore to find answers
    By encouraging the persecution of scientists for hundreds of years?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    with His direction.
    No thanks, I prefer to be free.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    going beyond the scope of science is where people error
    By which you mean disagreeing with you.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Not what I'm arguing. I'm saying, why would you go against common belief and choose an unproven theory over a proven one.
    that is the problem, you claim evolution has been proven but it hasn't. creation is the one that has been proven true and life proceeds as Gen. stated.

    I mean, explain it in terms of physics and lepton number and so on.
    again you are tyring to bring the suypernatural down to your level. doesn't work that way. if you want more proof you have to take the step of faith. this is God's world, universe etc., so it is his rules not yours that need to be followed.

    I have shown you enough evidence to prove beyond doubt it is not a lie. You are the one decieved.
    you haven't shown one iota of proof. a wingless bird does not prove evolution especially since all of its offspring are the same as its anscestors and they produce the same offspring. as i said evolutionists use conjecture and you have shown me right.

    A while back you were claiming the bible did have all the answers. And whether you subscribe to this belief or not, the majority of christians do.
    it does bit that doesn't mean all the details will be revealed so yoou do not have to do anything.

    By encouraging the persecution of scientists for hundreds of years?
    this is why you get no respect. you are holding the misguided actions of others over the heads of innocent people. i and God did not have anything to do with that why put the blame on us? you are just hindering and hurting yourself.

    a 'christian' shoots an abortion doctor yet people like you blame God, forgetting that that person has free choice to obey God or not. he did the shooting heis to blame not God or other christians.

    like i said when you get honest, then maybe you will learn something. the same goes for evolution, you people hate God so much thatno matter how ludicrious it sounds you will hold to evolution and waste your lives pursuing a way to make it sound palatible.

    your desperation is very obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Not what I'm arguing. I'm saying, why would you go against common belief and choose an unproven theory over a proven one.
    that is the problem, you claim evolution has been proven but it hasn't.
    Then why are you having such difficulty finding some piece of evidence which disagrees with evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    creation is the one that has been proven true and life proceeds as Gen. stated.
    'proven'? More like 'decided by theists'. Not the same thing. NO PROOF WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I mean, explain it in terms of physics and lepton number and so on.
    again you are tyring to bring the suypernatural down to your level.
    UP to my level, since so far there is NO detail mentioned about how it works. If it continues past my level, so be it; as I said, I am willing to learn. So; explain away.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    doesn't work that way.
    Which way does it work? That's what I'm asking, fool.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you want more proof you have to take the step of faith.
    bullshit. Proof exists whether or not you agree with the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this is God's world, universe etc., so it is his rules not yours that need to be followed.
    Presumably they are his rules, if it is his universe. So you will therefore be able to explain it?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I have shown you enough evidence to prove beyond doubt it is not a lie. You are the one decieved.
    you haven't shown one iota of proof. a wingless bird does not prove evolution especially since all of its offspring are the same as its anscestors and they produce the same offspring.
    A series of fossils showing change in a species gradually over time is proof, however.

    Anyway, you yourself have said that offspring do not necessarily match their parents. The example you gave was mongoloid children.

    Yet again you contradict yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    as i said evolutionists use conjecture and you have shown me right.
    Evidence I provide cannot be shown to be insufficient unless you provide some to support your theory. I'm still waiting on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    A while back you were claiming the bible did have all the answers. And whether you subscribe to this belief or not, the majority of christians do.
    it does bit that doesn't mean all the details will be revealed so yoou do not have to do anything.
    You mean, you don't understand biology? Well, I do, but if I explain any small part of it (what you would call a detail excluded from the bible), you tell me that this isn't true because it's not in the bible. It's a big contradictory circle we have been round 4 or 5 times now.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    By encouraging the persecution of scientists for hundreds of years?
    this is why you get no respect.
    From you, you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you are holding the misguided actions of others over the heads of innocent people.
    It's the history of your religion; based on the teachings of your holy book. If you choose not to follow them, you are denying your own faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i and God did not have anything to do with that why put the blame on us? you are just hindering and hurting yourself.
    religion gets the blame because the church was behind the persecution.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    a 'christian' shoots an abortion doctor yet people like you blame God, forgetting that that person has free choice to obey God or not. he did the shooting heis to blame not God or other christians.
    He is a christian, so I assume he obeys 'god'. Are you saying christians deny their own beliefs?


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    like i said when you get honest, then maybe you will learn something.
    Rich, from you who likes to pretend evidence does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the same goes for evolution, you people hate God so much thatno matter how ludicrious it sounds you will hold to evolution and waste your lives pursuing a way to make it sound palatible.
    I was brought up christian. I decided on my own that there was no reason to believe in god, so I stopped. In the majority of cases, I don't care what someone believes, but I am arguing with you because of your inability to see what is in front of you; not because fo your faith. I would defend evolution equally against a rival scientific theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    your desperation is very obvious.
    Desperation? I am desperate to prove an already proven thory? Or I am desperate to win an arguement with an idiot?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Then why are you having such difficulty finding some piece of evidence which disagrees with evolution?
    i'm not. itold you where to go look to see the results of creation in action everyday...there is no waiting like there is with evolution and no conjecture...just simple evidence needing no scientists to interpret.

    why are you so afraid to go look?

    'proven'? More like 'decided by theists'. Not the same thing. NO PROOF WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
    again ihave addressed this...not only by the above but by posting the example of all the changed lives throughout history and acrsoss international borders. if that is not evidence enough then you will never be satisfied.

    christianity is not something you can put in a test tube and dissect, whichmakes science limited and incapable of determining its construction.. christianity is supernatural which puts science on the sidelines and outside of its scope.

    Proof exists whether or not you agree with the theory.
    this is what evolutionists and scientists do not get--chrisianity is not natural BUT supernatural and until you realize this and make adjustments you will never understand the evidence or find what you are looking for.

    Presumably they are his rules, if it is his universe. So you will therefore be able to explain it?
    possibly...let's see...God did it...that might work...no, because they do not understand God's power but want everything in a human fallible context which is impossible to do...they are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

    A series of fossils showing change in a species gradually over time is proof, however.
    except for one thing, you cannot observe that, which makes evolution convenient because you cannot produce any real evidence. you just use conjecture, wishful thinking and hypothesis all of which are not real evidence.

    Anyway, you yourself have said that offspring do not necessarily match their parents. The example you gave was mongoloid children.
    now you are using birth defects to prove evolution? desperate.

    He is a christian, so I assume he obeys 'god'. Are you saying christians deny their own beliefs?
    the word 'deny' is used to distort the reality. in his ind it would be a 'no' but in Christ's mind then he disobeyed and needed to repent plus be punished for his sinful act. your question is trying to put a limitation on christianity as it ignores things like misguided, or a wrong belief while trying to bring disrepute upon ALL of christianity when that would be wrong. Christ did not advocate such anact and one needs tocompare Christ's words with some humans andyou would see how the humans, NOT Christ, gotit wrong.

    there is no need to blame Christ for the misdeeds of those who claim to be following Him.

    I was brought up christian. I decided on my own that there was no reason to believe in god, so I stopped
    this is normal as people (esp. teenagers or college students) tend to take their eyes off Christ and put it on people. such an act opens the door for their being deceived. when i was growing up, all my friends left the church except me. the lures of the world are great and they are not meant to help a believer but get them away from Christ.

    i am saddened you let this happen to you. you seem to be a nice guy/girl when you are not insulting. your anger with God needs to be checked to make sure you are not blaming God for things He did not do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Then why are you having such difficulty finding some piece of evidence which disagrees with evolution?
    i'm not. itold you where to go look to see the results of creation in action everyday...there is no waiting like there is with evolution and no conjecture...just simple evidence needing no scientists to interpret.
    Yes, if memory serves you said to go and look at some plants and animals. A move born out of desperation on your part. you see, I can explain them by evolution, whereas you can only describe them by creation.[/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why are you so afraid to go look?
    Looking is not the problem I have. Looking blindly like you do, however, I find quite impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    'proven'? More like 'decided by theists'. Not the same thing. NO PROOF WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
    again ihave addressed this...not only by the above but by posting the example of all the changed lives throughout history and acrsoss international borders. if that is not evidence enough then you will never be satisfied.
    Not evidence to start with, let alone sufficient evidence to prove a theory. As you keep telling me, you cannot ruel out other theories. Including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    christianity is not something you can put in a test tube and dissect, whichmakes science limited and incapable of determining its construction..
    Christianity is an ideology. It is not the belief I intend to test, but the predictions it makes, and its origins.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    christianity is supernatural which puts science on the sidelines and outside of its scope.
    i.e. you cannot EVER prove it. Funny, that...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Proof exists whether or not you agree with the theory.
    this is what evolutionists and scientists do not get--chrisianity is not natural BUT supernatural
    i.e. made up completely

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    until you realize this and make adjustments you will never understand the evidence or find what you are looking for.
    What 'adjustments'? You mean blindly accepting the word of a badly written book which has been badly translated an unknown number of times?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Presumably they are his rules, if it is his universe. So you will therefore be able to explain it?
    possibly...let's see...God did it...that might work...no, because they do not understand God's power but want everything in a human fallible context which is impossible to do...they are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.
    Right.... you mean you can't explain ANYTHING then.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    A series of fossils showing change in a species gradually over time is proof, however.
    except for one thing, you cannot observe that, which makes evolution convenient because you cannot produce any real evidence. you just use conjecture, wishful thinking and hypothesis all of which are not real evidence.
    I can observe the results of it happening, and I can observe a similar process happening today with bones becoming fossilised or otherwise preserved. You can make no observations which relate directly to creation; you cannot identify any materials or tools involved in its creation. You cannot even explain the mechanism. All you have to try to disprove one theory and prove another is a book which contains no sources or necessarily any provable facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Anyway, you yourself have said that offspring do not necessarily match their parents. The example you gave was mongoloid children.
    now you are using birth defects to prove evolution? desperate.
    Again you show a lack of understanding. What is the difference between a mutation in genes, and a birth defect? Answer: a birth defect is CAUSED by a mutation in a gene.

    Genetic mutations happen randomly and can have any number of effects. Much like mutations in genes do. They change an organism, and that organism's offspring, much like mutations do. They cause a change in the gene pool, therefore, and this is evolution.

    You fool, once more you contradict yourself, and try to disprove evolution by dismissing evidence as being caused by evolution.

    Research your supposed facts before posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    He is a christian, so I assume he obeys 'god'. Are you saying christians deny their own beliefs?
    the word 'deny' is used to distort the reality. in his ind it would be a 'no' but in Christ's mind then he disobeyed and needed to repent plus be punished for his sinful act.
    Not very well done, for an omnipotent omniscient being. If I was everywhere and all knowing and all powerful, I would do a much better job. Like showing people that I believe instead of leaving them to invent me in their own way, and kill each other because of me.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    your question is trying to put a limitation on christianity
    Just like the bible does.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    as it ignores things like misguided, or a wrong belief
    When is a belief wrong? When it disagrees with you, is what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    while trying to bring disrepute upon ALL of christianity when that would be wrong.
    Persecution of scientists over hundreds of years was by ALL christians, whoever or wherever. Only when science started to solve the problems religion could not, did various governments stop them.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Christ did not advocate such anact
    No, but the old testament did. It advocated killing anyone with different beliefs to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and one needs tocompare Christ's words with some humans andyou would see how the humans, NOT Christ, gotit wrong.
    Naturally. After all, you are a good friend of Jesus, and have discussed this point with him. This is how you know what he meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is no need to blame Christ for the misdeeds of those who claim to be following Him.
    I can blame him if I want - he died almost 2000 years ago, he's not exactly going to argue back.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I was brought up christian. I decided on my own that there was no reason to believe in god, so I stopped
    this is normal as people (esp. teenagers or college students) tend to take their eyes off Christ and put it on people. such an act opens the door for their being deceived.
    Good. I abandoned christianity when I was 6, at a Church of England and Methodist School, where we were forced to pray twice daily. I kept both eyes on christ, which was probably how I realised how rediculous the faith was. I was never deceived, either; I researched alternative theories from books, I was never 'converted'.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    when i was growing up, all my friends left the church except me.
    I'm guessing they probably didn't suffer any consequences because of this, and neither have I.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the lures of the world are great and they are not meant to help a believer but get them away from Christ.
    The world that god made (according to you) was made to prevent people from believing in him? How decidedly.... clever of him......

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am saddened you let this happen to you. you seem to be a nice guy/girl when you are not insulting. your anger with God needs to be checked to make sure you are not blaming God for things He did not do.
    I blame god for nothing; I do not believe he exists.

    My anger comes from being lied to throughout my childhood, by family and friends and teachers.

    You say all your friends abandoned christ, so you will know what it's like growing up being the only one who in your community with your beliefs. This is, I suspect, why you defend your faith so strongly and readily.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You definitely do not understand evolution if you think it's a conscious entity that is directed.
    you are wrong as you do not understand the point being made and you do not grasp what is needed to 'create' life. but you illustrate my point, why believe in something that doesn't care about you, doesn't know you exist, and doesn't know you?

    that is just foolish.
    You don't believe in rocks?

    Good website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •