-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
Again this is wrong and very offensive, what part of im neither a creationist or an evolutionist dont you understand?
I don't see how it is offensive, I was pointing out a simple thing, and meant no offensive by it. But if you want to take it as an offense, go ahead.
Quote:
What part of, I dont wish to debate the validity of the two dont you understand?
Well, since you have corrected someone else's spelling mistake, I will tell you that the comma you placed was incorrect. I don't know what you mean by what you say, though. To me it seems that you are arguing that intelligent design is just as valid and viable as evolution. Is that arguing validity? You tell me...
Quote:
What exactly do you believe I have a lack of understanding about?
Evolution.
Quote:
The fact that the theory of evolution is just as valid as intelligent design when applying it to how we got here? How is this a lack of understanding?
I thought you weren't arguing the validity of the two? You're right, evolution doesn't explain how we got here. Then again, it doesn't really aim to explain that. It aims to explain how we became what we are, not how the first unicellular organisms appeared on Earth billions of years ago.
Quote:
You are one of the many ignorant evolutionists whom ignore the possibility of their own theory being wrong, it could be that intelligent design is true.
Am I? I didn't know you knew me or my beliefs. I never said intelligent design is completely wrong, I simply said there's no evidence to back it up. It's possible, sure. If you look at this universe, anything is possible. You're pretty quick to judge, my friend.
Quote:
What you fail to understand is the theory of evolution you always take into context as being so obvious is basic "change", thats it, just change, since when does intelligent design say things do not "change">?
That "basic change" is called adaptation, I believe.
Quote:
How on earth can you proclaim change (your perception of evolution) as a figuehead belief over intelligent design.
Because intelligent design doesn't have any evidence to back it up, that's why. I've thought about it - about aliens possibly starting things up here... but is there evidence of this? No, so why would I sit here and claim it to be a viable option, when it's obviously not? It's possible, as anything is, but it's not something that needs to be taught in school.
Quote:
Evolution explains how life changes, it does not explain how this life got here, of course you can live your life believing things "just happend".
You're right... it doesn't. Things do "just happen," if you didn't know. Believing that something "just happens" doesn't mean that one does not believe that there's a reason behind it.
Quote:
So I suggest you put your thinking cap on and show respect to the people who actually question religion and the oppsing theories to religion and creationism, do not always intelink creationism and religion.
Then you should practice what you preach, because I do question religion, and opposing theories. But I would not hold it as a viable option over something that actually has evidence.
Quote:
People have castigated me for interlinking abogenisis with evolution (even though they can be interlinked), peopel on this forum have also castigated me for interlinking eugenics with
darwinist evolution, when they are linked.
Sorry, but maybe you should take your own advice and think about your own beliefs as well. Perhaps it's possible that they are correct and you are wrong?
Quote:
So why on earth do you have the right to continuously link religion with creationism?
Why do I have the right to link these things? Well, I have the right to say anything I please, as I have a mouth (or hands), and it allows me to say whatever I please. Creationism is used in religion, if you didn't know. You should be mad at religion for spoiling and tainting the "theory" that you are defending.
Quote:
The two can exist apart.
Good. Then I guess there's no reason to argue about it, huh? Considering this, you're just trying to push your beliefs on others. Don't say you don't subscribe to these beliefs. I think you do believe the things you're saying, but you say you don't so that you can increase your credibility. Too bad you destroyed that possibility with arguments like "we didn't evolve from rocks."
Quote:
Having evolution does not by any means rule out any intelligent designer, an intelligent designer could have intervened during the process of evolution and/or have begun the whole process of evolution, just because you do not have facts about this, does not mean you can blindly rule it out.
Good, then there's no reason for a debate. I have not blindly ruled out anything. I'm open to all possibilities, even the possibility of there being a God. However, I believe it's pretty improbable that there's a God. Thus, I do not subscribe to the belief. And not to mention that religion is corrupt, and thus I will not subject my mind to such mind-garbage.
Quote:
What? Firstly, why on earth should evolution rule out creationism?
You're asking this question again? You just love going in circles, don't you? Where is that going to bring this debate, which should not be debated, because supposedly they can coexist, right?
Quote:
This is the body of the debate, why should you who believes the 'evidence' of human evolution or macroevolution overwhelms the evidence for creationism should therefore create a rule by which we rule out the presence of some kind of creator.
Nope, never ruled out some kind of creator. Though, I see no evidence for it, and thus it's not a viable option. Get some evidence, then we'll talk, not argue.
Quote:
Why should it create an attitude by which we 'laugh' at people who believe in intelligent design, like I said before, and I wont get offensive and stoop to your level, but you dont understand the simple fact that evolution just is not powerful enough a theory to explain exactly how life arrived here, it is not even intended to answer this question.
Trying to turn the tables around? I've seen you be offensive on here, so don't go telling me that I have been offensive - I have not been. Of course, you can perceive things any way you wish, but then I'm going to question your perception of reality. Do you have to reiterate the same thing over and over again? Of course evolution does not explain how life arrived here... I don't think anybody is arguing you on that matter. However, I believe the basic element of this whole thread is the validity of intelligent design... which you say you're not arguing about (even though I think it's pretty obvious you are).
Quote:
Your perception of evolution being filled with such obvious truth is simple "change", nobody here is denying this, certainly not me, things do change over time, animals adapt to their environment, businesses adapt to changing consumer and market trends etc.
Animals adapt to their environment... and that is essentially natural selection, which is part of the theory of evolution. I don't think that anybody here claimed that evolution was cold, hard fact. But it is certainly a much more viable option than intelligent design.
Quote:
We do evolve, we do change but you cannot apply this aspect of change to the theory that we evolved from apes (human evolution).
Says who, Ted Haggard? :eek:
Quote:
Well its funny you should make this assumption, you honestly sound like a 40 year old man still living by Carl Sagans: The Cosmos.
Well it's funny that you should make that assumption. I've never heard of "Carl Sagans: The Cosmos."
Quote:
I hate to shoot you to death with a dose of MODERN scientific thinking which actually does support the theory of intelligent design, even with evidence of evolution.
Well, I'm still here, alive and kickin'. Are you going to come up with anything other than criticism to try and make a good argument? Or are you going to sit here and make unsupported claims that have no place in science?
Quote:
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHATTTT?????
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!
Quote:
Did you just hear me? I said evidence of evolution (transitional fossils actually does not rebuke intelligent design and actually could go to lengths at supporting intelligent design).
Show us these lengths at which it goes to, to support intelligent design. I'd love to see this.
Quote:
There is fossil evidence found in east africa if I am correct which is challenging the entire theory of evolution, infact this fossil evidence claims an overlap of about 500,000 years of which the two homo habilis and homo erectus co existed in that area.
Source, please.
I'd love to sit here and spend 3 hours replying to your 3,283,298,139 character post, but you're starting to bore me with saying the same old things over and over again (rephrased, mind you).
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
But I have a hard time believing in macroevolution when all of the transitional fossils that you speak of are nowhere to be found. Even though they're supposed to be everywhere.
I posted a large list of these fossils here a few pages back:
http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...ml#post1694563
There are loads of them, the list I posted is not exhaustive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Darwin even stated that in order for his theory to be proven scientifically, there would need to be proof in these transitional fossils. So, why are we unable to find any? I find it hard to consider this science when the definition supposedly is the systemic knowledge of a matter, based around what is gained from experimentation & observation.
The only group pretending that transitional fossils don't exist are creationists I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Nevermind that, why am I ridiculed for believing what I do when there's this huge flaw in the theory that humans evolved from lower primates? It's a nice theory, yes...but, then again, so is the theory that we are created in God's image. It's hard, as a person of faith, to honestly believe that my Lord was an orangutan God before he evolved into a God in human form!
There is no huge flaw, Macroevolution is just as real too - with plenty of evidence (see my other thread on the subject -
http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...-examples.html for more details) the problem is people - not evidence :( it seems that anything that doesn't work for creationists is attacked. e.g. Microevolution is OK but Macroevolution isn't.
Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".
I hope no-one is ridiculed simply for believing something - the ridicule normally comes along when creationists use bad "science" to try and attack evolution.
I do hope that these debates somehow make some sense of what is a VERY complex topic (which is also not accessible to the majority of readers). I know I can get a bit hot under the collar myself in these threads so I'm sorry if any of this has gotten beyond simply stating facts.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
There is no God, its a figment of your imagination, just like the countless other Gods invented by man.
Well, gee, now that you put it that way... :wtf:
So, that's it? I'm just supposed to take your word for it...and not bother questioning why I believe what I do? Who gave you the authority to disrespect me and countless other Christians by labeling us "stupid/weak minded"? Who made you God?
By the way, I've questioned my faith innumerous times...and still came to the same conclusion each time. It's much more comfortable for me to believe what I do, than it is for me to believe that snide, caustic little punks like you are right. What are you honestly expecting me to say? "You're right, I'm wrong...and it was just plain ignorant of me to stick by my beliefs."? Are you expecting me to feel ashamed, and live in regret for ever believing that I may have actually been right? Sorry, but your personal opinion on this matter means very little to me, as well as anyone else who's not afraid to stand up to arrogant people like yourself. Especially when the opinion is presented in such a rude and insincere fashion. Using your logic, I could just respond with, "There is a God...a Christian God, and He's not just a figment of my imagination, unlike the countless other gods invented by man.", and the justification would be all mine. Not that I would actually just tell you that out of the blue, because I pride myself on not being evangelistic, and pushing my beliefs on unsuspecting people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Tell me, how can a God invented by man exist anywhere other than our imaginations?
No, you tell me how you know for an irrefutable fact that MY God was invented by man. Then I'll have the courtesy to respond to this pathetic and malicious inquiry.
As for your impressive little list of Egyptian mythological "gods"...I'm willing to bet that I could make an even longer list of mythological Greek gods, many of whom faded into obscurity in the hearts of the populace after a few hundred years, or less. Modern day Greeks and Egyptians view the followers of these gods as more akin to a cult, as opposed to an actual organized religion.
And you're the one who's ignorant of history if you're actually trying to convince me that Jesus Christ never walked on this earth in human form. Regardless of whether or not you believe Him to be the living Son of God. Maybe if you actually took the time to read up on some Roman history, you wouldn't look so foolish right now. You could start by researching right around the time that Roman procurator Pontius Pilate was in power, to...oh, say, around the time that the Romans crucified a man named Jesus in Palestine. This is the same time that (ironically) a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" is specifically mentioned...several times, and in the same context that the Bible speaks of Him. Labeled a blasphemer for claiming to be the Son of God, and eventually crucified for his crime. You also don't have to believe in His miracles, virgin-birth, resurrection, etc. I'm not trying to force you to do such a thing. Also, since much of the authoritative Roman texts aren't widely translated in the English language, you could also look up the works of these historians who lived right around the same time as Jesus: Tacitus (Annals XV.44), Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine), Thallus (as recorded by Julius Africanus, A.D. 221), Suetonius(Life of Claudius 25.4), Josephus(Antiquities XVIII.33; XX.9.1). You're not going to try and tell me that they never existed either, are you?
Now, please, in the future when you're attempting to belittle a Christian...at least have the courtesy to be courteous, and if at all possible, knowledgeable of the subject that you're trying to argue.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Here are just a few definitions of 'theory':
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed as the basis of a specific action:
4. an ideal or hypothetical set of principles, or circumstances - often used in the phrase "in theory..."
Used in this fashion, many atheists would probably consider organized religion a theory, as opposed to a faith. One definition of faith is simply - confidence or trust in a person or thing. So, with that in mind, I'll still stand by my statement.
As for your deductive reasoning about evolutionists, I'm sure there are plenty of them who say 'don't steal, commit murder, commit adultery, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc'. This has more to do with standard morals and ethics, than it does with the teaching of a religion alone. Well, except for the sex before marriage/masturbation part. That's predominantly a Christian set of morals, I believe. But, even then, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who abstain from sex before marriage so that they'll savor the experience more when it finally does happen. :wtf:
And there are plenty of conditions necessary for one to believe in a theory. Even though parts of it may not be backed up by actual fact, it still has to be compelling enough for someone to believe that it may be true. I'd say that the concept of eternity and divine salvation are pretty compelling to most people...even though they cannot be properly explained, and are difficult to grasp. You're right that 'theory' and 'faith' have separate definitions, but in this case, they can still coexist in the same sentence!
It may just be that there are more conditions necessary for a person to believe in a faith...however much sense that makes.
no, in a theory u believe it or you dont. theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).
a faith/religion is much more complex than that. a faith has a bunch of moral values (ethics) attached to it. like the 10 comandments is the basic foundation of the christian faith along with the idea that god created the world and man. if you believe in that religion you will follow most of them (as well as other practises by the church) and also some practises and ethics that people who do not have that faith wouldnt normally follow.
and yes im sure that most people who arent religious dont comit murder and all that as well, but thats not beacuse of the ethics or morals that would be involved in the theory of evolution. they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.
another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.
theories are not stated as a fact, and they let you set you own morals and ethics, a faith or religion tells you what they are or should be and states their views as facts.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
As we learn more about genetics, we begin to understand how a small genetic mutation can result in a huge change in the organism.
But, it still would not be feasible to assume that the species of the organism could ever be changed into an entirely difference species by a mutation, small or large. In this respect, I could also consider myself a scientist. Because until I see definitive proof that a horse managed to evolve into a cow due to a random genetic abnormality, and even then...see it replicated, I still find plenty of reason to doubt the authenticity of the theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
By the way, on the face of it, what I said was very disrespectful, and I want you to know I was just joking around!
Don't worry about it. :thumbsup:
I knew you weren't trying to deliberately be offensive. In fact, as soon as I posted that little comment, I was just waiting for someone to come back with a similar quote! No harm done.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
I remember reading those, but I won't lie...I'm familiar with very few of the species in question. Certainly not familiar enough to pose any kind of rebuttal. But, from what I do know about the theory of macro-evolution, transitional fossils that definitively prove that a certain species evolved into a more complex animal are still undocumented. In order for the theory to be proven, there would need to be fossil discoveries that show gradual changes in the structure of the skeleton of the fossils. Hypothetically, scientists can speculate and artists can draw what these fossils should look like, but I'm still under the impression that these specific fossils have yet to be discovered.
Stephen Jay Gould, respected evolutionist and former paleontologist, once stated: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
To know that bacteria do evolve, yet deny evolution is the sign of a small narrow mind.
Evolution: Fact and Theory by Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D.
HHMI News: Evolutions Mirror in a Fishs Spines
The Short Proof of Evolution
In the end there can be only one answer.
God does NOT exist, never has , never will.
Carbon Dating has already proved this.
To deny carbon dating is to accept you are ignorant to the point of insanity.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
I remember reading those, but I won't lie...I'm familiar with very few of the species in question.
That's totally understandable but certain ones are pretty famous - Archaeopteryx for example is well known - and creationist even claim it is a hoax - all 11 of them ;)
Really though there are so many examples now that it isn't much of a debate within the mainstream scientific community.
But this is exactly what I mean when I say this topic is not really accessible to the general public - IMHO creationists in the media use this to their advantage.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
Really though there are so many examples now that it isn't much of a debate within the mainstream scientific community.
But this is exactly what I mean when I say this topic is not really accessible to the general public - IMHO creationists in the media use this to their advantage.
The media would have you believe that there is a huge debate on the validity of evolution, but there are very few scientists who are actually debating it, only people who havent even studied evolution are saying there should be a debate.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfqr
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!
He's got you there.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
To know that bacteria do evolve, yet deny evolution is the sign of a small narrow mind.
Who here ever denied evolution? I certainly didn't, I only denied that the human species evolved from primates...and I did this because I haven't seen any irrefutable proof to prove otherwise. You obviously didn't read this thread, but just decided to jump in and run your mouth when you saw there was a Christian present. It's obvious you didn't even read my earlier response to your belligerent post to me. Which, in my opinion, is the sign of an arrogant mind and a narrow attention span.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
God does NOT exist...Carbon Dating has already proved this.
:S2:
Are you really serious? It's painfully apparent that you didn't read my response now, because I specifically asked that you actually attempt to understand these desperate arguments you're trying to make!
Carbon-14 dating can only be used to provide a date for once living organisms, so...how exactly do you propose that it could manage to disprove the existence of an ethereal (and by your accounts, fictional) God? Carbon-14, or radiocarbon/radioisotope dating isn't even a precisely scientific method of dating living organisms...because in order for the methods to work, you also need to know how long the specimen has been dead. Carbon-14 is unstable and degrades over time, changing back into nitrogen...so, real scientists can only speculate how this would affect the accuracy of any readings. They claim to be able to determine an approximate age by making a hypothesis based around the half-life of the remaining organism. Is that too complex for you to wrap your little mind around? It's hypothetical...not undisputed fact. Nothing more, nothing less.
But wait, there's more! According to Don Batten, Ph.D.:
"The amount of cosmic rays penetrating Earthâ??s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore the dating system. The amount of cosmic rays varies with the sunâ??s activity and passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of Earthâ??s magnetic field also affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere (with a stronger magnetic field, more cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth). Overall, the energy of Earthâ??s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are."
I could go on to disprove this even further, but I'm almost certain that I've already lost your undivided attention. I'm sure you can't be bothered by listening to facts, and all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
To deny carbon dating is to accept you are ignorant to the point of insanity.
To believe that carbon dating is infallible would be to openly admit that you are a bumbling moron. And, sadly, an insanity plea won't excuse you from the fact that you're totally ignorant of the scientific methods you profess to know anything about.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
You are full of shit. You deny science.
Biblical age of earth 6000-10000 years.
Actual age several million - 100 million years.
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are 100s of Gods, older than the Christian God.
The bible has stolen most if not all of the events from the myths of these gods.
I asked a question concerning many of these gods earlier in the thread , why cant you answer it? What makes your god different?
God does not exist.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Oh and i see where you got that info from .
LMFAO
ChristianAnswers.net.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Using the Genesis Flood (noah) as proof????
Well hows that for a biased opinion. Man, you haven't even half a brain.
Heres another quote from the same page.
"Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood"
WTF so you are changing the bible(again)?????
Creationists are trying to use the same methods they are attacking to try to prove the date of a mythical flood 35000 years ago????????
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
You are full of shit. You deny science.
You make such a compelling & civil argument...
I never denied science, moron. Actually, I used science to benefit my argument, and discredit yours. But I didn't actually expect you to follow along, and see the point(s) that I made...you're to thick-skulled to do accomplish such a simple task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Actual age several million - 100 million years.
...and you know this is the "actual age"...how, exactly? Because an evolutionary scientist told you so? Oh, wait...carbon dating, right? Did you know that the older an object is (such as dinosaur bones), the less amount of carbon-14 is still left in the specimen? Meaning, once again, that your carbon dating method would be even less accurate in determining the actual age of the species in question. In other words, the bones that were found that were estimated to be 700 zillion years old, could actually be only a few thousand years old. Otherwise, there'd be no more carbon-14 left in the specimen to analyze...giving it the physical properties of granite. And I'm sure you know that carbon dating only works on organisms that were once living...otherwise, you'd look like more of a fool than you probably are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
I asked a question concerning many of these gods earlier in the thread , why cant you answer it? What makes your god different?
I did answer your asinine question...you didn't listen, or didn't like what you heard.
My God has been worshiped for thousands of years. The gods that you posed were worshiped for hundreds, many were worshiped for even less. The Egyptians made up new gods every time they needed rain, or fertility in marriages, or a cure for an ailment, or more hair on their head, etc. The followers of these false gods are likened more to a cult, which gradually faded into obscurity, and were never considered an organized religion in the first place.
The same could be said about Greek gods, Anglo-Saxton gods, African gods, Mayan gods, and so forth. The difference between their gods, and my God? Mine is still being worshiped by a large population of the entire world, not just a specific region. And has been for thousands of years, not hundreds. There's your answer, highlighted in bolt for added effect (and to make sure I'm actually getting my point across), though I still don't see you fully understanding what I'm saying. Because it totally contradicts the weak point you were trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
God does not exist.
That is a personal opinion. Thanks for sharing it with me. But, no offense, I really don't care at all about your personal opinions. I never asked for it, you simply felt compelled to give it. Now you can have it back, because it has done nothing to convince me that I'm wrong. Quite the opposite actually. Every time a belligerent jerk like yourself gets all bent out of shape because you'll never change my mind, it simply makes me understand why my God considers souls like you to be "lost". And regardless of whether or not it will do any good, I'll still say a small prayer for you.
...furthermore, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, we'll end up bickering even more...and there's nothing productive in that at all.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Oh and i see where you got that info from .
LMFAO
ChristianAnswers.net.
Man! If you even had a tenth of a brain, you'd open your bloodshot eyes and see that I actually quoted my source! But, I don't expect you to retain information for longer than five minutes, so I'll show you again: Don Batten, Ph.D.
There you go, genius. A physiologist and research scientist, who also happens to be a *gasp* Christian. I know, I know...those don't exist. He's just a really good liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Using the Genesis Flood (noah) as proof????
Well hows that for a biased opinion.
Dude, I never even once mentioned Noah's flood in this entire thread! Are you hallucinating? You totally skim over everything I actually tell you, then make all kinds of weird suppositions about things I never even said! What in the world is wrong with you? Open your eyes! I'm responding to everything you have to say...you're just not happy because my responses aren't playing into the outcome you were expecting this conversation to have! Get over it! My feelings weren't hurt over this, yours shouldn't be either...especially to the point of telling flat-out lies about what I did or didn't say!
And every link you've posted to me has either been to an evolutionist website, or Wikipedia. So, your sources aren't exactly the most credible or unbiased, either!
Again, we're not going to reach a common ground here...and that's okay. I don't mind ending this conversation, here and now. But every time you decide you need to run your mouth about me (and what you thought I said), just know that I'll be around to shut it again for you.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
My God has been worshiped for thousands of years. The gods that you posed were worshiped for hundreds, many were worshiped for even less. The Egyptians made up new gods every time they needed rain, or fertility in marriages, or a cure for an ailment, or more hair on their head, etc. The followers of these false gods are likened more to a cult, which gradually faded into obscurity, and were never considered an organized religion in the first place.
The same could be said about Greek gods, Anglo-Saxton gods, African gods, Mayan gods, and so forth. The difference between their gods, and my God? Mine is still being worshiped by a large population of the entire world, not just a specific region. And has been for thousands of years, not hundreds. There's your answer, highlighted in bolt for added effect (and to make sure I'm actually getting my point across), though I still don't see you fully understanding what I'm saying. Because it totally contradicts the weak point you were trying to make.
Yup your definitely full of shit.
indiayogi.com - Indian Gods and Goddesses - Shiva - The Oldest God known to Mankind - Shiva,Shiv,Chidanandaroopa,Oldest God ,Yahweh,Rudra,Raudra Brahman,Nataraja,Lord Of Yoga, Mahadeva,Skanda,Tamil Nadu,Ayyapan,Kerala,Vedic Shiva ,Fire,Prajapati,Defe
Your telling me the ancient Egypt Gods were only worshiped for 100s of years........LOL ... LMFAO.
Gods and Mythology (Religion) of Ancient Egypt - Main Menu
And at the end of the day, the length of time you worship a god does not make a god any more credible. Every argument you make is flawed. These gods were worshiped long before Christianity was invented.
God does not exist.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Dude, I never even once mentioned Noah's flood in this entire thread! Are you hallucinating?
Are You?
look on the page you found this biased info. just below where you quoted.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net
or did YOU not read it all?
And how are Scientific websites and wiki not credible? Your stupidity precedes you.
God does not exist.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Yup your definitely full of shit.
Yup, you're clearly incapable of a coherent argument...especially without resorting to childish remarks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Your telling me the ancient Egypt Gods were only worshiped for 100s of years........LOL ... LMFAO.
LOL........LMFAO.......that's exactly what I'm telling you, smart guy! Every time the Egyptians needed a new god to fulfill a new desire, other - and less consequential - gods fell by the wayside, and eventually faded into obscurity. I've said this three times now, and somehow I still don't think it's going to sink into your shallow skull! Could it be evolution that's causing me to develop these psychic abilities? L....O....L....
Here are a few quotes from a link you were so gracious to share with me:
"We must be careful when examining the ancient Egyptian religion. Though there was a considerable amount of consistency between various areas of Egypt and over the religion's long existence, there were significant variations and over time, changes in the theology."
"That theological discussions and probably discourse took place is almost certain, because the mythology of the religion evolved, becoming more complete, sophisticated and more complex over time." (By the addition of new gods showing up and old gods being forgotten frequently.)
"A number of attempts have been made to explain Egyptian religion in terms of monotheism, and certainly scholars of the nineteenth century, steeped in Christian tradition, tended to find traces of monotheism in Egyptian beliefs. The main evidence they sited was the anonymous "god" who the Egyptians referred to in literary and wisdom texts. Now, however, the anonymous god found in Egyptian texts is understood to represent a way of invoking any divine power emanating from any gods, or sometimes, a specific, assumed god worshiped by an individual or one in a specific region."
"However, several researchers have applied the concept of henotheism to Egyptian religion. This practice focuses on one god addressed in a particular time of worship. Essentially, henotheism is the belief in one god without denying the existence of others. The believer unites all known divine powers in his favorite god."
"Cults were the official structure used to worship the Egyptian gods. In regards to ancient Egypt, this structure included the priests who carried out rituals associated with the gods, who were frequently manifest in the form of statues, within the cult temples."
Sums up just about everything I said about them completely. Thank you for helping to prove my point. And nowhere in that little article did it state that Egyptians worshiped more than just a handful of gods for any extended period of time. In fact, it explains that most of the gods were only worshiped when circumstances dictated that they should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
look on the page you found this biased info. just below where you quoted.
For the second, and last, time...this is not where I got my information. I paraphrased from...oh, forget it. Just see for yourself: http://www.answersingenesis.org/radi...rbondating.pdf
Now that you know where my source originated from, you can take your foot out of your mouth. So, to answer your question...No, I did not read it at all. Because my source came from elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
And how are Scientific websites and wiki not credible?
You're taking what I actually said out of context, again. Big shocker there. I said that evolutionist websites aren't exactly unbiased, and that Wikipedia isn't the most credible source. Read the disclaimer on Wikipedia if you don't believe me, it states something like: "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Meaning, anyone can put blatantly objectionable material on there, and do so with little concern for ambiguous definitions or alternate meanings. You should know this, you quote it all the time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
God does not exist.
Does repeating the same old drab sentence reaffirm your belief that you know what you're talking about? Maybe you're the missing link that can prove that humans evolved from stubborn, ignorant, shit-flinging monkeys! Get yourself to a lab quick, so that your primitive brain can be sliced open and scrutinized!
There...now you've done it. You made me swear. I was hoping to be able to keep my implacable calm for the duration of our little pissing contest, but I guess that's just not possible when dealing with imbecilic & pompous assholes. Go grab yourself a banana. That ought to keep you preoccupied for a few hours.
L...M...F...A...O...
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
what would a combination of evolution and religion be, say if god created us then we evolved from what he created, so therefore both side are correct? :rasta:
good 2 see some intelligent stoners :)
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420 FMX
what would a combination of evolution and religion be, say if god created us then we evolved from what he created, so therefore both side are correct? :rasta:
Sympathizers of evolutionist theories and creationist theories can certainly coexist peacefully. While there aren't terribly many compromises, there are definitely empathetic people on both sides who don't want to hurt the feelings of the other...and, hence, will base their arguments around civil topics and then have civil discussions about them.
The person I'm arguing with isn't one of those people. He simply showed up out of left field, told me that I'm stupid for adhering to my beliefs, and is now desperately flailing about trying to discredit me. I'm perfectly capable of having an inquisitive conversation with people who know a lot more about evolutionist theories than I do, and at least remain open-minded to the things they're teaching me...even if I cannot entirely agree with their views. Some people, unfortunately, are not capable of remaining civil while discussing topics such as these...and therefore, boisterous yelling contests can sometimes ensue.
I apologize for this, because it's partially my fault for even responding to his crude post in the first place. I'm trying to negotiate an end to all this pointless bickering...but I feel he'll probably want to get in a last word, especially since I was a little less than civil with my last post!
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Biblical age of earth 6000-10000 years.
Actual age several million - 100 million years.
Well, of course the Earth is not 6k-10k years old, but it's definitely more than 100 million years. Last I heard it was estimated be around 4 billion years old. But of course, that could be incorrect. I have a feeling it could be much older than that. But that's just my feeling.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg23
He's got you there.
No, I was saying "OKKKAAYYY" in a Lil Jon voice, just like he said "WHAAAAAT." It was a joke ;).
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
For the second, and last, time...this is not where I got my information. I paraphrased from...oh, forget it. Just see for yourself:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/radi...rbondating.pdf
Now that you know where my source originated from, you can take your foot out of your mouth.
and answersingenesis.org is credible????:wtf:
Its a Christian website you fool. The name says it all, Answers in Genesis. Try looking for answers in the real world.
Your boring me now so i'll leave you to it.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfqr
Well, of course the Earth is not 6k-10k years old, but it's definitely more than 100 million years. Last I heard it was estimated be around 4 billion years old. But of course, that could be incorrect. I have a feeling it could be much older than that. But that's just my feeling.
Ye, your right. My mistake, shoulda put a + on the end.:thumbsup:
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
"That theological discussions and probably discourse took place is almost certain, because the mythology of the religion evolved, becoming more complete, sophisticated and more complex over time." [B](By the addition of new gods showing up and old gods being forgotten frequently.)
1 more thing... no need to add your own interpretation
Set has been worshiped since predynastic times. The first representation of Set that has been found was on a carved ivory comb, an Amratian artifact. He was also shown on the Scorpion macehead. He was worshiped and placated through Egyptian history until the Third Intermediate Period where he was seen as an evil and undesirable force. From this time on, some of his statues were re-carved to become the statues of other gods, and it was said that he had actually been defeated by the god Horus.
Egypt: Set (Seth), God of Storms, Slayer of Apep, Equal to and Rival of Horus
Set along with many other gods were worshiped for several thousand years. 2000+years
Predynastic times.. 3100-5100+ BC
Egypt: Upper Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic Religion and Rulers, A Feature Tour Egypt Story
Egypt: History - Predynastic Period
3rd Intermediate .. 664-1069 BC
Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period
Also, does any of this sound familiar?
examples of famous births on december 25th besides that of jesus
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
The media would have you believe that there is a huge debate on the validity of evolution, but there are very few scientists who are actually debating it, only people who havent even studied evolution are saying there should be a debate.
Indeed that seems to be the case, as a Brit I didn't even know there was a debate outside of the U.S until I came onto this website ;) seems like its a hot topic though.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Cron
no, in a theory u believe it or you dont. theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).
a faith/religion is much more complex than that. a faith has a bunch of moral values (ethics) attached to it. like the 10 comandments is the basic foundation of the christian faith along with the idea that god created the world and man. if you believe in that religion you will follow most of them (as well as other practises by the church) and also some practises and ethics that people who do not have that faith wouldnt normally follow.
and yes im sure that most people who arent religious dont comit murder and all that as well, but thats not beacuse of the ethics or morals that would be involved in the theory of evolution. they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.
another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.
theories are not stated as a fact, and they let you set you own morals and ethics, a faith or religion tells you what they are or should be and states their views as facts.
Mr. Clandestine you still havent responded to my previous post...?
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
ok first let me state i am an artist not a scientist.
i have question: radio carbon dating is the prossess of messuring the amount of decay that has taken place in cabon 14 correct? so if there is more carbon 14 then wouldnt that make something look younger than it would older? also if only a lving thing can absorb carbon 14, wich it quits doing at the time of its demise, what would it matter if the levels were higher now? i just cant see the argumnt with the inrease in the level now as aposed to the past. because from my understanding carbn 14 degrades into a nitrgen atom and that specific atom can be messured there by giving you an amount of carbon in the atmosphere at the time. i would say without a shadow of a doubt that this is not the first time i history that atmospheric carbon levels have changed.
one other thing i would like to say is that i DID in fact study creation in school. being an artist i studied many forms of art one being litterature. i studied the creation "theory" right in the class where it belongs.mythology. because that is exacly what it is. a myth.
i had to right a paper on the differant gods once, well the subject i chose some would call sacrilage. my paper was titled "the death of god" . simply put is the fact that a hindu beleives as strongly in the existance of shiva as a christian believes in the existance of "god". same with all religions the greeks believed as strongly in their gods as any one else. but now these gods are "dead". why? thats easy people quit believing. so what brings these gods into being? same thing, belief. so it is within mans power to create or destroy a god or to give him power or make him powerless. so if there were no christian or jews there would be no god ,if there is no god then he could not have created us, it is a myth. and myths are not science. i am by no means an atheist i beleive in the oldest of all religions, nature. that is what created us.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
I have no faith anymore, i do not believe in a God. I am now an Atheistic, Existentialist, Preference Utilitarian.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Stein speaks the truth.
btw, isn't that the guy from the clear-eyes commercials?
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
and answersingenesis.org is credible????.
You're telling me it's not? Why? Because it's Christian based? Under your moronic premise, I can just say that every evolutionist source you so ceremoniously quote is equally as discredited, based on its biased views on the subject. But, I wouldn't do that...because I'm perfectly capable of keeping an open mind when it comes to reading evolutionist sources. In fact, I enjoy reading most of the sources, because I know many of them are actually pointing out relevant evidence...while others only make vain attempts to discredit and belittle religion. Maybe you should consider doing the same, because I hate to break it to you...but not all Christians sources are going to blatantly lie just to try and prove a point. And my source wasn't Answersingenesis.org, it was a detailed article by Dr. Donald James Batten that AIG.org decided to include on their site. I read the article a while back, and was initially introduced to their website a few nights ago when I Googled Dr. Batten's name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Your boring me now...
That's funny, because you've been boring me ever since you insulted me with your atheistic & commonly parroted drivel. Don't forget this, bud...you attacked me for no reason. I have just been defending myself against your petty & widely parroted rhetoric. Had you simply posted your opinion - which is all you have, an opinion - without feeling the need to insult the only Christian in the room, then I would have gladly let you have your say and wouldn't have ended up "boring" you with my own opinions. But you couldn't do that, because your narrow mind won't allow you to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your snide & hateful rhetorical arguments. At least, that's exactly how they were presented to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Set along with many other gods were worshiped for several thousand years. 2000+years
Again, you take things that I actually said...and rearrange it to fit your own interpretation and desperate scrutinization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
As for your impressive little list of Egyptian mythological "gods"...I'm willing to bet that I could make an even longer list of mythological Greek gods, many of whom faded into obscurity in the hearts of the populace after a few hundred years, or less.
How you misinterpreted "many of whom" and get "every single one" out of it, I won't even try to understand. I only wanted to point out that my God is still being worshiped to this day, while Set, Amn, Ra, etc., etc., etc., were long forgotten and replaced by modern day (and mostly monotheistic - including Christian) religions.
Forgive me, but I'm not even going to bother following any more of the links you provide...because I know that arguing any of the points isn't going to do any good. You'll only hear what you want to hear, and completely disregard the rest. And I'm tired of wasting my time on someone who's not even interested in what I have to say. Good day to you, my friend. I pray that you can find some peace and learn not to be so quick to spitefully criticize people with opinions that are so different from your own.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Cron
Mr. Clandestine you still havent responded to my previous post...?
I apologize, but I've been wasting what little time I have to spend online trying to get a point across to someone who despises me because of my religious beliefs. It obviously didn't end very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Cron
no, in a theory u believe it or you dont.theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).
I guess what it all boils down to is a simple difference in opinion on the definition of ethics. Philosophically, ethics relates to personal values and standards of conduct that a person holds dear and true to them, regardless of any outside influence, i.e. - religious influence, societal influence, parental, etcetera. Though all of those influences can play a part in molding a persons values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Cron
they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.
Again, I apologize if I made it seem that I was likening choices that a non-religious person makes to choices that an evolutionary thinker makes. If I said this, it wasn't done on purpose. I was simply trying to liken the mindset between what religious and non-religious (or even evolutionists) consider to be a theory, and what makes them believe in it, even if it's not backed up by tangible facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Cron
another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.
This is where opinions can vary concerning the definition of a theory. When discussing religion, especially my own, I consider contemplation/speculation as viable as others would consider blind faith. I don't just have blind faith in Christianity, and am not one of the evangelists who will tell you that it's an undisputed fact, and that you're just flat-out wrong if you disagree with me. I understand that it's a belief system; it's just a belief that I happen to have faith in, where many others do not. But again, in many respects, there are also a lot of people who probably refer to me having faith in a theoretical concept. (A coherent group of general propositions.) I just don't consider it theoretical, I actually believe in it. Again, I'm not trying to convince you it's a fact just because I believe in it. I'd rather you make the decision for yourself, just like I did. I wasn't always a Christian, you know.
Sorry again for taking so long to respond to your follow-up post. I still have some reading I'd like to do on transitional fossils, and specifically, Archaeopteryx, so that I can better understand what Delta9 pointed out to me earlier. Again, I'm not ignorant to the views that others have about evolutionist theories...I just need to have the time to read about them and understand them on my own terms, as opposed to having views shoved down my throat by unscrupulous people. I may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean I have a closed mind...unlike quite a few of the Christians that I know are out there. I still strongly believe in the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you'd want to be treated. And I know evolutionists and non-religious people alike don't want to be treated cruelly and skeptically by Christians, which is why I try my best not to do such things.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I have no faith anymore, i do not believe in a God. I am now an Atheistic, Existentialist, Preference Utilitarian.
Dude are you joking?
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeforeYourTime
Ye, your right. My mistake, shoulda put a + on the end.:thumbsup:
Lol, don't worry about it bro. It's not a big deal.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
Dude are you joking?
I'm not joking. God is a delusion.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
maybe someday everyone will come to understand their true potential.
until then the government will continue their brainwashing.
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I'm not joking. God is a delusion.
Well, welcome to a world of truth bro :)
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I'm not joking. God is a delusion.
god i just an oversimplification of reality.:hippy:
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
It's amazing to be free. Embrace existence =]
-
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I'm not joking. God is a delusion.
Well, well, well. Welcome, friend.
