Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

How dose this work? Its ether this or its a ship thats so heavy is woulds crack in half and scrape the osion flore.

How dose Jesus avoid being a snack? Or some thing on the bottom of a dinosaur's foot?

I don't know how to make this not sound like a joke but its a real question.

The reason I made this thread is becose I just herd that Kentucky is going to have a mussem that covers Nowas ark. They all so said their was dinosaur on the ark.

lol
he had god on his side what more can any man ask for?

Exactly.
And where do you find a word about dinosaurs in the Bible?
However, the museum must be a very big building then anyway.

Well Christianity is a very curative type of religion for intents the word abortion or gay was not in the bible ether but they seem to be a main forces of some Christian religions.

"thou shall not lay with a man as thy lay with a woman"

what was that about being gay not being in the bible?

Well it said nothing of sex. Pulse allot of the quotes from the bible or in code. I would need to know what context that was said in.

thou shall not LAY
wtf ewm? :pinch:

As I said the Bible is in code and can be spoon to support any vowe pont.

The Karon that very very similar to the bible can be used to justify tarisom but thats only if you chose to look at it in that lite.

further more:

 In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.



    *  DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
      If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
    * DEUTERONOMY 22:22
      If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
    * MARK 10:1-12
      Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
    * LEVITICUS 18:19
      The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
    * MARK 12:18-27
      If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
    * DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
      If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Its really to bad, maybe they can bicker with biologist, who pretty much have them down as loons, but then attacking geography and archeology on the same note. Add that to paleontology I didn't know that many fields of science could be completely wrong.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/fullphaser/1172298562454.jpg

Your chart had the opposite affect on me than what you where trying to convey becos religion according to that chart  every thing so easy wile scientific research vets out the errors and will tell you when they think they have a mistake.

If you cant say you are wrong you should not be creating your own facts. I am wrong allot but their is NO evidents to say that evaluation is wrong. There is NO evidents to say that being gay is wrong. Thar No evidents that abortion is wrong infect their is evidents that says that is the human thing to do - Crating a life in a horrible situation is not right at all.

Abortion and homosexuality are no variables which can be somehow determined as 1s or 0s, so as right or wrong. The question is, if it is right for you or not and if it is right for your society or not. And if the majority decides that abortion is equal to murder it will be persecuted like murder.
If the majority decides that abortion is absolutely fine no one will ever care about it when it is done.
Evidence doesn't matter at all. Evidence can't matter at all if you are discussing morals because it is simply not possible.
Evidence in this context belongs to science and neither homosexuality nor abortion are scientific discoveries.

err... the chart is a joke in reference to the ideology that religion prohibits change while science endorses it. Hence why several million people are ready to base their lives off the words of 5 men

I beg to differ look at the results basted on the past we can have a good idea of what thing will will probably be if they are used in the wrong way today.

Well for our society it is the right thing to do, When we looked at Gay and abortion as bad things where changed because they where not working for our society so to change them back would be not wise at all.

Well if the majority did changer their mind I would move. But for now the majority is for pro chose but the minority is getting their way. Some thing is very wrong here.

Spoking like a true evangelical.

No they aren't BUT the revolts of past and present destions on the subject are by looking at the past you can see the future.

Fullphaser____________________________

I agree but if its not talked about information will not be shared in both directions.

so ewm is saying that cheating on your husband is RIGHT!
lo :lol:l

 :lol:
A man who states that has
- to really love his wife (and propably wants her to have some fun she usually hasn't...)
- is mental ill
- or is cheating himself.

Uhm... pick one  :lol:

 :sweatdrop:

Sorry I am a one woman man.

yeah ya momma  :woot:

weird topic btw. i have an opinon on religion. its fake. however i still keep my mind open that 100 virgins will be waiting for me in heaven  :whistling:

ewm... maybe it helps if you take the look from the perspective of god onto humankind. what is god's intention if he says "do not have sex during periode" or "don't eat the meat of a pic". further see it securalised from our perspective, also out from historical facts (what was the reason for us (not God) to make rulez like stoning) and also do ALWAYS see the absolutly free choice you have in what you are doing or not (also belongs to God's intentions).
It's by far not as dramatic how you intend to tell us. There is so much false information and is absolutly non neutral.

You know I am a scientist but I do also believe in Jesus Christ. I never found one fact that belief and science is something unfitting. It's rather the opposite. It's all about finding truth and if it's not ..so be it. Time and engagement will tell and I'm optimistic. Just watch and learn my friend. There are alsways those who shout around... don't take them as measure.

Religion had is uses but we have grown up as a coacher and don't need a book to tell us what right its pretty clear. infect religion is holding us back.

lol
itd be nice to pick and choose thea parts of the religion you like
ok ill take 100 vigins the garden of eden and the caste system with LITE 10 commandments

Well in that case why do you need the religion you know whats right you don't need a book to validate them.
 
If you are smart you don't need to die to get a 100 virgins + wouldn't having sex with dead body make it necrophilia? any woman how is in to necrophilia is not a woman I wont to know let alone have sex with.

Well, this is absolutely wrong. Religion was the basis for everything concerning culture and education for centuries in Europe. Without monasteries we would e.g. still be cutting lines in trees to communicate. Thanks to the monks' work we've got books and finally the technology to print books was invented. Without books and libraries and people who learned to read - in the first instance they were ecclesiastics - there would never have been a need to print books. And what would have become of our culture without books - I don't have to point that out.

Sure, we can't say if religion still affects progress. But as we can't say, we are not able to tell if religion slows us down or still inspires us.

Further there might be people who don't need religion to know what's right or wrong. But there are a lot of people who can't tell that. And what's wrong with having a religion which tells them not to kill?
For hundreds of years people didn't know about law but they knew the commandments - and social life worked thanks to their religion.
Today lots of people don't see a sense in their lifes. At least a major part of them finds this sense again in religion.
Even if religion might not inspire science anymore in the way it did in the past it still has great and good influence on social life if it is not abused.

- In the middle ages and dark ages now the EU is desecorlised.

- The dark ages where the most unproductively time in WOLD HISTORY.

- ummm Munks did it by print they copped by hand. (dark ages 1100 BC until 800 BC) ( 1st printed book was in Germany and completed in 1454 or 1455 "graham bible") check your facts.

- only a few people know how to read in the dark ages the monks and other necessary perfections read was considered geeky like we think of rocket designers.

This is trow your time is wrong tho.

Um yes we can <the plegge, the wars, the sinshership made it all most imposable for growth and academia.

Much much much much much much less than in the dark ages. Religion dose not help people be more just it just gives them a way to justify what they do. If you need a book to tell you not to kill you are all ready so far gone theirs no hope left.
And litel did the commandments do the dark ages where one of the bludest times in human history.
All the people I know and have seen all most do... ummm religon is moving out of 1st world conteriys to 3ed world conteriys....
Umm you mean control science. throw out history and up to today it is abused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

Uhm... just read what I have written.
If you would have read it there would be no way in which it could come to your mind that I might think the monks printed books.
Well... just read it again.

Further: "dark ages" is not the appropriate term when talking about the Middle Ages.
In this context it only reflects your personal line of argumentation.

Your facts are right but the knowledge of the historic background is missing and you haven't really read - or maybe just not understood - what I have written.

Do yourself a favour and read a good scientific book about the Middle Ages and please no wiki-crap already named "Dark Ages". If you want to have facts you need the right sources. Wikipedia - as nice as the idea behind it might be - is in the majority of cases simply inadequate and scientifically regarded useless.

And one last time: Don't mess with historians.
Try to learn to appreciate the progress religion made possible around the world. Just because you have your (understandable) problems with it, history isn't changed.
And as I've already said: which effect religion has now or might have in the future on progress can't be told today.

I have to agree with Seer.

What I wanted to say additionally: You are showing us the same behavior what right you blame the others for. Up to now you are a fanatic and absolutely contra religion (especially against Christianity - I wonder why?) without any solid background-knowledge. You are right on all aspects you are speaking from ewm but you just know a minimal part of the whole thing and so your argumentation is one sided and "anti". To understand all parts of the surface of a diamond you need to have a look on all of them. Fact is that you will never in your life be able/allowed to have a look on all of them which why is there so much misunderstanding.

My reading is not grate Pluse I was in a herry when I typed it.

your right.

I have read it fully.

I dont have time to go back to school but I aprisate your candor Wiki crap is crap I here bush has his interns check it evey haff hour to make shere it only saiys good things about him. I thot you said my facts where good I am confused?

I do respect religon the problom is its used to justify harible acts and blind people to the realitty.
What about the crsades and the other wars? The killing of the knights timplars. All the torcher systoms mades. very littal documenttaton of the any thing. The mass poverty and indesentcy.

The problom is that that religon has a long long history of being abused. This brings me to a sort stoiy: 



One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

The sickness that came to be like The plag, Lepercy, small pocks, and many more. the pleg killed of 1/3ed of the population be for they did some looking and relised that chageing the watter in the baths is a good idea and to stop drinking it pluse it was not a good idea to thow your shit out the window if academa had any say most of those deaths would have ben prevented. The smell of rotting flesh was every whare. - consittering even the romions had sewage systoms why did the kings of the dark ages use it?

Childron how showed a devlapmental defect where thorn of clifs. The Airbse where very about deeling with some one with a disadvantege.

Panic, death and despair followed the abandonment of farms and towns. Wrote William of Dene, a monk of Rochester in Kent, England, Men and women carried their own children on their shoulders to the church and threw them into a common pit. From these pits such an appalling stench was given off that scarcely anyone dared to walk beside the cemeteries, so marked a deficiency of labors and workmen that more than a third of the land in the whole realm was left to."

So bad was the "Black Death," the Great Fire of London in I 666 can be viewed as a blessing in disguise. Though it killed thousands of people, the holocaust also consumed garbage, muck and black rats, effectively ending the plague.


 

In this case sir, I and you and any American should be shot for the horrible things that we did to the blacks.  Or maybe we should be put in jail for the atrossitys  that were committed to the natives. MOVE ON, it happened we learned, MOVE ON. 


Ah yes, so hasn't every thing else in this world. governments have been evil for ages.

now on to the last bit, how religion destroyed us. I have always found it interesting how it seamed we plumited from the Roman empire to almost nothing. same with the Egyptians. but i dont think it was religion that did this to us. it was us that did. Religion was the thing that lasted through it all, tis the only thing that could make it through empires splitting and horrors beyond horrors that accured.   
Your blaming the fireman for the fire because he was the last one out of the house.
Im not a brilliant person, but im more open mined then 80% of the non-christians i know. I use logic and the scintific method to find my truth, and it wasnt a Church it was GOD.
I think you dont want us 'open minded christian folk' to be open minded i think you want us to conform to you.  :borg:

You seem not to have understood my story. Some things do what they do becose of the way thay are not becoce of chose. To prevent their behaviors you must take the tools away that enables them. It is a clear pattern of behaver  that will be repeated over and over like it has for thousands of years. Its Humans thats need to movie on.

True, but those governments that don't work are overtone at some point religions has never be rethought.

Well than why is it over history at lest half or more wars are over religions imagine if the arbos and isralis did not have a religon. Open minded I bet you voted for bush... My mind is opined I just don't bleave in Santa.

I love your open mindness there buddy. you know, just kinda assume that because im a Christian.

I didnt, i also didnt vote for Kerry, i thought both there ideas were off a bit.  i thought logically through it. it didnt add up.   don't ask me to tell you what i thought about them, i cant remember i have no need to remember bush won, oky doky.
I know, thats what i was saying, we need to move on from the past. not continually look at and dwell on what we did wrong. You will say that religion should have been left in the past. it wasn't, just as poverty wasn't, the natives were, the crusades were, the slavery was. (that erra of it i know its still active, just different.) but religion wasnt it moved, it changed.
I havn't read on of these yet, but look at the titles. i counted at least 3 reformations in the end two books. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm
and here, i skimed it but you can see a lot of thought in it. http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chron.html
Has it changed in your life time? has it been rethought? yes it has, the Gay issue has caused much rethinking, some churches here in Maine have rethought there believes on drinking.
Your incorrect in this statement...unless you mean to say that religion should be 'rethought',  as in deside that is wrong, now make the propaganda.
Stop being petty.  you say you have respect for christians yet you call us unwise children. thats rather petty and offensive yes? i not once have called your thoughts petty, nor childish. i take your ideas to reason and thought. if you can do likewise then tell me, for i find no need to argue a point to closed ears.  :thumbsup:
 
 

My mistake I am  sorry.

Well let me ask you this what positive things have religion done in modern times?

Religion is the cosed of most of the trouble in the modern world. Most religions are desined to funal money from the mass to the few.

No I just thing you are seeing things clearly. Well its not meant that way, What I am trying to say is that its rather weird that you don't have faith in other mythologically stories.

Its your chose if you wish to reply.

Please elaborate on this, couse from were i stand its the governments that have screwed us over.
i can not argue this as you are in a different aria then i. i will say that if the money is just going ot the pastor then i have a few choice words for him/her. but i also know from experience that some of the money goes to other churches. the church i am in now would not be able to minister to the community with out the money from out side. There is a large movement up here of not asking for money. i have only herd money asking twice in 12 years, both at Cathloc churches, churches that make the pope a middle man to Christ. that is why i don't go to one.   ps an after thought. any business is set up that way to. why don't you go after them?
to me Faith and God are not mythological. santa i can disprove God i can not.
appoligey accepted.

The hole medal east is covered in religious wars, North Korea is a religious colt, India has conflict and fighting over religion. terky has cosent suaside bombings over religion. even WWII was over the geniside of a religion. Region separates people groups people need to come to gather not fite over some thing that they cant be %100 is real. o and africa the genaside is done by musloms agisted other people with different bleefs. the fact is governments are run by people and the bad ones are almost always run by one man basted on his bleafs.

Vatican city is so so rich its its own country wile the pore get a meal and a few other things to make the members fell good about them selves - That mite sound cold but I see it as the way it is. mean their is so much more cherchs can do such as makeing showers and use their monny for health works to make shearch they are helth and safe. about making the pope in to crust so why support the cheach?

maybe you can dysperve god but don't wont to? I think the most inportent thing in life is to be a good person becose it helps other not becose it will help you get in to heavin.

-

Sry ewm...now you are talking bullshit. IT IS NOT TRUE. You were misinformed.

Hummm Yes it is.

What makes you think its quote: bull?

It is a waste of your time...go and help the millions of people in Africa that are going to die right now. Do it like millions of believers bringing themselves in serious danger (due war, AIDS, etc.) but be sure noone in the whole world will ever recognize your hard work and your engagement for those who are suffering.
Do it better and after you have succeeded come back and repeat what you have just bubbled.
You think you are talking in wisdom but you don't see that you are just the other extreme.

Thanks for telling me whats a waste of my time..... unfoctintly I need to earn a living I do what I can.

I am not concerned for people becose it makes me feel good or for some kind of reword. I do it becose I feel it needs to be done and don't fell others are doing what is need.

I don't understand your hostility? We are rich compared to most people in the world and have more power over them in many cases than there own government dose.

Spend your life time for other things than talking about a problem. Solve it.

I will spend my life as I choice to. Why do you think I put the banners on my signature and make my debate threads it is share information and thats what I think the people need. I also lisen to different ideas and concepts.

This is really sad. debates like this show the free will of which God gave us is not helping.

Who are we to say to God that his creation is wrong?

I think he meant that the free will is not helping because some don't want to use it.
I don't read it as some kind of religious offence.
Usually it's me who does :lol:

I understood that, but its a moot point, there is nothing we can do about it.
his post interested me, reminded me of Job.

Yep, you're right about that.
If people don't want to do something because they don't want to do it, they simply don't do it because they don't want to....

But in the first instance I was wondering how this thread came up again!

It was a tread that was stared to continue a debate that was in a unpropert place.

I think is really really sad how people have gone back to the days when people prayed to supernatural deities in stead of looking for facts.

One step forward twelve steps backward.

D'oh.  :crybaby:

The facts don't lie and can be ignored but not lost on some.

Back to a time? nay sir this idea of praying to a deity never left. nor has fact finding, its all the same, just in a different format. if only people would take time look at things and them selfs objectively, this goes for me as well, though i believe that i am better at it then you, no offense meant just an observation. 

Yes but its be coming more controlling and is rewriting history books.

I have no problem of people being able to prates what every then like ass long as their bullefs are not frost on the mass population.

I dont feel as if its more controlling, but then im only a lowly lower class idiot.
You and i both agree on the pushing of ones believes on an other, its not right. but it goes both ways, just look at some of my priviose posts in this thread. I think the only way to gt past it is to stop thinking HOLY SHIT THERE PUSHING ME, and think they just want to help and they dont know how. or in my case realize that company's only look at the bottom line in money and could care less about the people. there isnt any thing i can do about that now. However, if you feel that some one is forcing there religion on you its not the religions fault its the persons. say, "Look your pressuring me here, i know you dont see how, but you are. you need hold up for a bit and let me think,  you need to chill, i understand what your saying." Now if you cant do that, then i would consider that you take a hard look in the mirror. the ability to say hold on isn't just for religion you know.

Non bulevers can't force you to buleave in what they buleve because they don't bleve in any thing....

But the people how run the orginzed religion are the ones doing the pushing so it is the religion at this point. The oppressive religions could change but they don't...

Religion is a faith basically its a bulefe. What I am pushing is reality and reality is not bulefe its Fact not Faith.

Every one believes something,  even facts are believed, we thought once that the atom was it the smallest, then HELLO, quarks, pions, protons, and so on and so on, Enstines theory of gravity was the bomb, but now we have to come up with string theory. your science is growing, therefor the facts must be believe at this point in time. Scientific America once printed an article saying that we as humans were but 2 dimensional seeing 3. how is that the same as 3 dimensions? 
our very basic systems are based on believe, the eye sees but dots, blips on the rods, and this is converted to an image, if the brain refuses to believe such dots are true then it changes.

Your social structure is a believe, you believe that the dems are right, and you make it clear, im forced to see your propaganda every time i look here. I dont think your right, dems are wrong on some thing, we all are. yet i don't put it every were? if i wanted to would i have that right? hell yes, just as you do.

but i find myself depressed in this text, i doubt  you will read all of this, let alone consider it for ant time at all. you are closed minded i fear.

I'm sorry, ewm, but this is probably the most stupid thing I have EVER heard you say.  I have had "non-believers" try to force their views on me for years.  GROW UP, ewm.  You honestly are incapable of seeing things from the other side.  Is it so hard for you to understand that some one us choose to follow a moral code?  Is it so unrealistic that some of us choose to believe in what science cannot prove, and cannot disprove?  Are you so deep in your own dogma (yes, I called what you spout DOGMA) that you cannot even try to understand why others believe what they do?  Because all of the flaws of this world have one thing in common:  Us.  WE are to blame.  Not the Bible, but how some self-absorbed fanatics and lofty politicians and heads of state interperated it for their own benefit. 

You see, I am a self proclaimed Christian.  Do you know what that means?  It does not mean one who gets baptized.  It does not mean one who goes to church on Sunday mornings.  It does not mean one who takes the Lord's Supper.  It means I am someone who tries to live his life like that of Jesus Christ.  And do you know what he preached?  LOVE.  You see, love for your fellow man is the answer.  Inoring your wants and needs and PUTTING OTHERS FIRST.  Can you fault that doctrine, ewm?  If you can, than I submit that the problem is not me; it's YOU.  As for all that Deuteronomy stuff you spouted to try and prove your point, Romans 13:10 says this: "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."  Yes.  Everything you put up can be encompassed and serpassed and simply render unnecessary by selfless love.

Do you see any non-believers supporting selfless love?  I haven't.  Maybe you can be the first.

how do non believers force you to to believe in what they do? That statement make no sens.

We don't shutting down churches we don't pass laws that limit your faith. By sharing the way we see things is not forcing you.

When I share my faith, that is what I do.  That is indeed the definition of sharing the Christian faith.  By your own admission then, you can no longer call what many Christians do "forcing their belief on others".  Indeed, they have all the same rights to share their opinions as you have to share yours.  So, before you tell them to stop again, you might as well stop yourself.

To answer the rest of your post, many times I have been rather forcibly confronted by people who believe in humanistic ideology (the same people who you call "non-believers") and insist that their way is true and that I am a fool to believe in what cannot be explained by science, and they leave no quarter, thereby FORCING their opinions on me and allowing me no response.  That is what I define as forcing, and I have rarely if ever seen someone who can truly be described as one who emulates Christ (therefore a Christian) force their beliefs on others in that manner.  I have seen some people do it who claim to be Christian but truly do not try to represent Christ in their actions, but should that behavior be a testimony against those of us who do?

I concur with this, Red you have hit the nail on the head. thanks.
Manys the time when i read the paper and see more and more Christians  being called stupid. I had one guy tell me i was waisting my life, and i have no chance to explain to them why i do what i do and believe what i believe. Even if i did then would clam i was forcing it on them.

Red~

I don't know what paper you read but the papers I read has reports pro and aginsted the idea of faith as governing idea for peoples lives.

Well where I live the government is run for faith as much or more then for the people.

example:

Rowe VS wade which is a law in the USA that sates that a woman has the right to chose to get a abortion is she feel its necessary. The government has bean attaching this law for years on the idea that its is sin.

Science books have bean republished to include creationism as a alternative to evolution.

Stem cell bills are vetoed because it requires the use of embryonic stem cells which the government thinks to take a embryonic stem cell requires the destruction of human live. which is that a embryo is alive despite the fact that the science clearly shows they are wrong. The government thinks that the destruction of a embryo would be a sin.

I am leaving for two weeks in less than an hour, but I have decided to reply anyways to this unknowledgable post.

You're like a broken record, ewm; no matter where a discussion of religeon/faith goes you always return to the same points.  Of course, they're meaningless to this debate.

I will adress them appropriately.

First, since when do the opinions of papers mean anything towards our own opinion?  That doesn't even make sense.  Why bring up the opinion of papers when the debate at this point is between you and me?  Do they express your opionion?  Not all of them.  Scratch one reason.  Do you regard them as meaningful rowards your own opionion?  Not that I'm aware of.  You see, ewm, you have me thouroughly confused with this meaningless paragraph.

Well, ewm, if faith reflects the ideas of the people, then what you are looking at is effective democracy.  The will of the people is reflected in the govenment.  You can't fault that, can you?

Point by point:

I personally oppose abortion not because it could be sin, but because it could be murder.  Partial birth abortion IS murder.  Are you willing to take the chance that millions of little children are being slaughtered just because they inconvinience their mothers?!  Are you that hard-hearted and uncaring that you're willing to risk such atrocity?!

Science books are designed to reflect science, and I hate to brake it to you, but most scientists considered spontaneous generation to be unshakable scientific fact.  Now, it serves us only as a reminder of how current science, such as the theory of evolution, may be rendered completely menaingless by the progress of science.  I'm not saying that I support intelligent design as an alternative, but I am clear-minded enough to see that evolution has many, many, many flaws, many more of which are not publicly admitted.

As for stem cell research, my views on this complex issue are equally complex, and I simply don't have the time to post them now.  Needless to say, I think they may suprise you.

ewm, just stop yapping about all the usual stuff.  Stick to things that are unequvically relevent to the topic istead of turning it into an overarching round of Christian-bashing that we all know is nothing but dogma.

-edit-

Oh, and why is it that you never reply to anything we actually say?  Is it because... you can't?

You have a good point here. People read what they agree with. I do try to lison to things I dont agree with and try to see why they think that there openen is beater.


Democracy is about freedom and forcing ones ideas on others in not freedom their for the Democracy is heart.


abortion can be murder if it is done in a way that would heart a life. But it has bean more that clearly proven that what is performed in the USA is not murder and is far from it. So why is this abortion a problem a sin hummm?


The word theory as applied to evolution is a just a proticall becoss of some loss ends that are so trivial its funny to think that people would think that evolution is not a fact in this day and age.


Theres a reply and its not for the reason I can not its that I can not reply to every one with out my hands falling off.

i dont know if this thread is still active or not, but the word "Dinosaur" wasnt used untill around the seventeen or eighteen hundreds, before then they refered to Dinosaurs as Dragons and the word Dragon is in the bible.

Also there was something about Abortion up there ------^. would you really want to bring an innocent child into the world if you could not care for it?. I mean seriously, would you want to bring a child up if you could not care for it?

Cheers
Dan

Wow, I'm back (sort of) from vacation and this is the first thing I click on!~ >:(

Science and religion should not, and cannot be compared, and here's why:

Each of the three major monotheistic religions (for simplicities sake I will not attempt to explain the nuances of the hundreds of others) each implicitely states that it is in the right. It makes no attempt to explain the actions of the other religious groups, save to lump them as non-believers and hence barbaric. Each describes a moral code and strict rules to govern the followers without room for error or change, even though such rules may be modified to include modern trivialities, the "big picture" remains the same.

Science on the other hand is not a monolith. It is not an it: there is no overarching belief that states that "this is the only right, and everything else is wrong" because there is no organized system of belief. In fact there cannot be one in the sciences. Theories change constantly and are not immutable, and most importantly, the theories only try to explain their own existence and not the existence of other theories. For example, the theory of evolution is much talked about but it is composed of a wide range of theories which are all lumped , under the public's eye, as the theory of evolution. We have darwinism, punctuated equilibrium... etc. These have all been modified to fit what is newly discovered.

Unlike religions, the sciences cannot effectively mold facts to fit a belief/theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, there would be no science as everything would constantly be scrutinized and considered false. Religions recquire leaps of faith, ironically, to function. Irregularities between authors (or the divine word) withiin and between the Talmud and New Testament recquire us to believe it is human folly throughout the millenia that has caused us to misinterpret them. Still, in the grand scheme, those followers MUST still believe in the grand precept, otherwise religions would fall apart: i.e. if humans caused such misinterpretation, who is to say that the entire religious book is not misinterpreted. In fact, this is what the three monotheistic religions say of their predescesors: muslims believe christians misunderstood the New testament, and the same christians believe that the jews misunderstood the talmud. However this is not even limited to the larger religion, but remains prevalent through each sect in each religion. Consequentially, although an overarching belief unites all Christians and all Muslims and all Jews, when confronted as a group, each will splinter when no such confrontation exists.

When we start to try and state that science is a monolith, we misconstrue, that unlike religion, there are no immutable texts, no guiding precepts other than to learn more, and no leaders which can possibly claim that their view is correct. In the sciences there is no one view as they are comprised of a myriad of theories. based on facts, and yet unproved hypothesis, which together give a more realistic understanding of the world. Only through our own knowledge of the science can we form an interepretation. For the 3 major religions this is impossible, for we are told what to believe and when to believe it: very little or no room for error or difference of opinions.

SO all you heretics out there can shut up 'cause my view is better than yours! Just Kidding, all that I ask is you read and make an informed decision, and please give me your own insight.

-nightlord out

wasnt this thread supposed to be about Noahs ark and a museum about it?

Probably, but now that the thread has reached such and such a length, it becomes too difficult to go back to the OP and thus the first 3 pages lose all meaning... Now doesn't that make perfect sense?  :whistling:

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post - thanks.
It's been a long time since I've read something so intelligent on the Fleet Operations board.

I noticed that alot of the things ewm quotes about sexuality are quite obvious to us (ie the world lay), and that the other things he quotes...were removed on the non Catholic side due to the separation. And I agree with the majority of your post regarding science and religion. It is my opinion that religion and politics and religion and science should be separate entities. Even if I believe in creationism, don't teach it in school in place of evolution. If you wish to be religiously educated, there should be an option for the course. But seeing as how multiculturalism is so rampant where I am (it's sort of a curse, and a blessing at the same time) it's unlikely that any one religion would succeed in that, and that we're best off using this current system until the fuel runs dry and it ceases.

I was simply...a little bit late to this party to be able to crash in on it and use my 2 cents. As far as ewm's Liberal crusade goes...well, he's got valid options in making fun of Fox who attacks bloggers because they are left wing, and poking out the MOST EXTREME examples of the lengths the bible has been taken to...which sometimes are too far. But he then ignores the fact that every religion has their fundamentalist component. Islam is a prime example. But fundamentalism does not equal extremism. In the same light that regular attendance of church does not leave you vulnerable to a 'Waco' type scenario. For example the big red mosque issue right now, is because of extremists, and the problem ewm and some other individuals have (And they can have this problem (which is only my opinion, again), it is their right to say and think as they wish) that fundamentalist Christians are all preachers who are unintelligent simply based on the fact that they believe in divine creation. Regardless of what I believe both stories and ideas have gaps. Huge ones.

Anyways, for the original questions...sume humorous ways to make his points moot.

Dinosaurs hey?

What if it was like a Sinosauropteryx, or another small dinosaur that could fit in a mans hands! hmmm!

What if the Ark ACTUALLY was rubbed down in a substance that increased its ability to float! (But no one was looking).

What if the Ark was actually constructed of a strange kind of wood that had properties not available in this day and age due to...CLIMATE CHANGE! LOLS. (And was mis indexed, because with all the problems we have with indexes, they are sure to have had a few).

Fair enough.  However, I know some people from all political sides who say they listen, but their minds are too busy being mad to actually understand what their ear is hearing.


You cannot truly force someone to take something to heart without true mindwashing, or possibly psychic powers.  I once told someone who wouldn't shut up that I agreed with his opinion.  Did I?  Not by a long shot.  I left that room after a ten hour indoctrination seminar and my mind was set exactly the same as it entered.  On top of this, he made some very good points that I couldn't refute.  I was simply so dead-set against it that I refused to listen. 

He "forced his opinion" on me, but he did not force me to listen.  That is a choice made BY the person, and is not the fault of the person who's talking.  Neither you nor the government has any right to make him stop expressing himself to others.  That is a blatant violation of the first amendment.  Blatant.  There is no wiggle room.

Oh, and actually I've come to accept what he said as I've learned more about macroeconomics.

Telling somebody something they don't want to hear isn't a crime.  It shouldn't be a crime.  Would you like it if Christians made it "hate speech" to cuss using the terms "Jesus" or "God"?  For us, if you read the Bible, it's as bad as telling a lie... or committing a murder.  If you don't want others to raise hell over their sensitivities, don't raise hell over yours. 

Not that those of us like me will stop you from saying something we don't want to hear...


Ewm, if it was "more than clearly proven", 70% of Americans (stat might be about 2 years old, but still close enough) would not oppose it and we would understand much more of human brain development in pre-birth stages than we currently do.  Science has never conclusively proven anything about fetal inelegance capacity that can be relied upon on a consistent basis without possibility of failure.  To prevent murder, that is what we are looking for.

And have you ever heard of partial birth abortion, which I do believe is still legal?  Are you saying that killing a child halfway out of the mother is not murder?!


I can tell at this point you were probably getting tired.  First off, the relevancy of your reply is questionable at best, and secondly what you did say was mind-numbingly stupid, from a debater's angle.

First we have this 'word theory as applied to evolution'.  I have no idea where you got it from, but it wasn't my post.  I can only think that you are referring to the theory that evolution was set in motion by God, which I made no mention of or reference to.  Nice try.

Second, (again, two points!) you say something incredibly foolish about evolution... you say people should just accept it as fact, and the phrase 'in this day and age' when attached basically means you believe that everyone should accept it because it is simply the thing to do, not because of any pointed reason.

Oh, and ewm, something that has loose ends is not a fact until those loose ends are accounted for.  For a theory like evolution, that will take centuries.  So be it.  I evolution is the answer, we will not be the generation to find out, and if it's not, that future generation is bound to have another idea.  Do you think anyone who had unshakable faith in spontaneous generation 1200 years ago believed in evolution?  Doubtful.

My point is:  Shut up.  Evolution is not yet a fact.  The future will tell, and I'd rather science gets it absolutely right than they rush it and probably, over the long term, mess up big time.  Either way, our debate will accomplish nothing towards evolution's scientific veracity.  That is now found in the extremely fractured fossil record which, right here in Texas holds human and dino footprints in the same layer, and the lives of earth's animals, who, despite massive climate destruction with the power of an extinction-level event, and despite the onset of probable climate change, have yet to experience anything but microevolution.

Let time be the judge, not us.

[/quote]

I do honestly appriciate the reply.

I sympathize with your hand plight, but the discomfort I experience writing these posts often seems a waste when they are ignored by the intended recipient and more importantly never put to the test.

As a debater, it's like trying to fence someone who just walks away, and then comes up and attacks you (poorly) in a manner made illegal by the rules of the game.  I hope you understand my plight.






Now, for DN:


For science vs. religion, I quickly discovered that the best policy is not caring.





Rhaz (nice avatar, btw):


I much thank you for the complement, and I'm sure ewm and DN feel the same.

Heh... I figured breaking this up is the best way to go.

Indeed.  I didn't check the apocrypha (no offence intended in the term) for any of the comments.


No comment.



I agree.  That is quite probably the most intelligent thought I've heard on the subject.


I'm not quite sure on this one.  The downfall of our current public education system in such a manner could be very bad, unless a replacment is waiting in the wings (unlikely and currently impossible).

It is a subject I'd be more than willing to research or debate, but I feel this is neither the place nor the time.


Well put.  However, you have to consider that no matter what policy Fox has, it's still news media and partakes in sensationalist reporting.  For the record, pointing out the worst of something to represent a growing problem is a legit strategy.  If you got toys with worse and worse defects coming off the line, which one are you gonna show the boss?  The worst one at the time.  I believe your real problem is with Fox's application of this to this subject.  Regardless, I do believe that Fox can use more moderation in these reports.


I am interested in hearing assents and criticisms.


 :lol:

Alright... because I am rather tired and have to pack I'm only going to respond to small chunks of your text Red, ok, so please don't flame me because I haven't "listened" to everything (if any of that sounds sarcastic or denegrating it's not, I'm just being less careful than usual).

First of all, I will attempt to define what a theory (and its associates) is:

1. a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
2. hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If you trust this source, you can understand that theories are conglomerates of knowledge: they are based on facts and reasons that are proven beyond reasonable doubt. When we say fact, this only is a convenience for the public: all facts are "merely" theories that have become so accepted that we think they are unshakeable. This holds true with the (semi-unified) theory of gravity, which probably falls apart when discussed with black holes.

Shut up is not a valid response for a debate, and if you had read my rant (instead of just dismissing it) I have already adressed your concerns regarding evolution. Spontaneous evolution was NEVER a theory, merely a hypothesis, NEVER proven, NO conclusive evidence was ever found to support it (I am not taling about amino acid type genesis: that is still an ill-proven theory/hypothesis), yet still this held until a man named Pasteur applied the scientific method to disprove this common idea.

What do you mean by fractured fossil record. It is the most accurate timetable we have of anything on earth, in the galaxy, and in the universe. Even though we are missing countless species and individuals it is far more complete. If you disagree with this, you are better of believing only what your eyes show you: thus the stars and sun are all just globes of light: we can't prove anything about them cuz we've never been there or maybe our instruments are lying to us. Sorry for that.
Please stop making "science" a monolith. Read my post please, pretty please.

Evolution has taken place over billions of years, yet there are a number of regions/groups of animals in which we can directly observe divergent evolution (allopatric and sympatric). For instance, take the rulers of earth, the insects. Yes you may dismiss them as annoyances, but looking at Krakatau remnants, after insects returned, and observing them for around a century and a half, several beetle species have taken nitches amongst the island remnsants and undergone a limited form of allopatric speciation. Body forms have diverged, feeding habits changed, and reproductive isolation is almost complete (hybrids rarely form and are usually infertile) Or perhaps you prefer plants. For the moment my mind is blank, but sympatric speciation is observable. Homologous chromosomes fail to split, resulting in extra pairs of tetraplody or even quatro (forgot the name at the moment-verrrry tired), thus creating a new species along the appropriate definition; no hybrids with other species, reproductively isolated from them:a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.

In regards to partial birth abortion: I think that is is used anywhere from 4.5 months 'til later. Usually hardly "half-out" of the mother. In regards to abortion in general, where do you draw the line in the sand: where does intelligence begin for you? I find it irresponsible (my opinion remember) to believe that a blastula or gastrula: not specialized in almost anyway, can be considered to be intelligent (no neurons yet). Please don't talk about the capacity for life though: we don't need any more what if statements. I think that it is only fair to consider a fetus, quote, sentient, when it has the capacity for reason (needing higher brain functions). This is very very late in the fetal stages: nearly until birth (around 6-8 months, depending on nourishment etc ad nauseum, don't ask for details right now, I'll give them later if you want). Personally I think it is inhumane to have many of these births for the children are left with so many physical and mental disabilities that they are forced to rely on others for sustenance and even heart beat just to live a minute longer.

Just because the majority of people in one country believe something does not make it right. If you asked the victims of a form of scrapie (who practiced canabilism) if they thought canabilism was wrong, would most answer yes? Think about that analogy carefully please. Although we find canabilism inhumane and horrible, and it was the cause of the prion contamination, that population did not. Humans do not base their opinions on facts and reason, they base them on opinions. That is why we love war, we love to have more children than we can support, and we outpace our resources.

I am asking you again to read my post carefully RedShirt and respond not with abandon, but by counterpoint. If I misunderstood any of it, please tell me and I'll try to rephrase. (Sorry I didn't check my spelling too... :sweatdrop:)

-DN

Allow me to clarify a few points that may or may not have been touced on with regard to how science works. I am in general agreement with the evolutionist side so it will be obvious who I side with.

A common creationist argument is that evolution is "only a theory". Well, yes, it's a theory, but erm, well, in the arena of science it is not correct to say that something is "only" a theory. In any scientific endevour, there are firstly the "facts" (data/observations in nature). When we examine the facts, we may be able to produce a "law" by way of explanation. Finally, after years of study we may be able to piece together a consistent, sensible "theory" which not only explains the original facts, but can predict new ones.

A good example is gravity. We start with planetary motions and observations ("the facts"). Then Newton came along and produced his Law of Universal Gravitation to explain this data, but he admitted that he fudged by way of true explanation. Finally Einstein produced an explanatory framework (The Theory of General Relativity) which showed how energy fields distort spacetime, explaining the apparent gravity effect. If there was a hierarchy in science, the increasing respective order of importance would be facts, law, theory (there isn't such a hierarchy). So theories, although constantly refined or replaced, occupy the highest order in science. So the creationist idea that "evolution is only a theory" is a weak argument. In everyday colloquial speech, a theory is an unproved idea. In science it has an entirely different meaning.

I should now point out that there are two broad distinctions in evolutionary science. The "facts" (the fossil record) and the "theory" (the Modern Synthesis). Darwin observed the facts, and used Natural Selection as a way of explanation. He even attempted a unified theory, but never claimed that this was the last word on the matter, and in fact it has been completely replaced. However, the "facts" have never been in dispute (that of a gradual change from simpler lifeforms to more complex ones). The theory of genetics and heredity lends support to the ensuing theories by providing a unifying mechanism in biology, a common denominator.

I realise that a common appeal by creationists is to "gaps" in the fossil record.  Firstly, a frind of Richard Dawkins wittily pointed out that if we placed a "missing link" in the middle of one gap, the creationists would now say that there are two gaps!  :lol: Like a soccer match, we only have photographs of certain intervals in time, so it is formidably unlikey we will ever see the goals. We just use our intellect to make sensible conclusions about the data.

On the point of missing links, many creationists say, "Why are chimps here if we evolved from apes? Where are the missing links?". This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. Both chimps and humans evolved from one common ancestor. There is no missing link between us and apes because we did not evolve from present day apes. The common ancestor that produced these two divergent paths (apes and hominids) has died out. And as I said above, if a so-called "missing link" were found, we would require two more missing links to satisfy the creationist's urge for missing links, in the two new gaps!  :D

My aim here is mainly to clear up some scientific terminology (facts, theories) and to correct their misuse. They are misused so often, and I hate to see it happen.  B)

I accidentally deleted to bulk of my reply, and do not particularly feel like rewriting it now.  However, when or if I do I will return and write it here.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm the one really ticked about it.

Yeah it's damn annoying when that happens. I advise that you cut and paste into a notepad regularly as you type, especially for long posts. That way you are protected in the event on finger-slip, lightning and nuclear holocaust.  :thumbsup:

Well, to be honest...I wanted to keep my opinion neutral and just attempt to correct giant mis conceptions in each theater. But rest assured, I do believe in one of the above. Umm, in the grounds of evolution, it is a pretty sound theory, and I am very happy that it is taught most often AS science in school, in fact I wouldn't be who I am today if it wasn't. The gaps are interesting points for discussion, because they can only be filled in, not widened.

But the tough questions become this.

Evolution in itself is pretty sound, 100% I'd argue, stuff started at one point, and branched off. And I agree perfectly on the monkey example. With the hominids and chimps out competing the origin species, they simply died off, as a form of 'divergent evolution' two organisms spawning from the same point.

So how can this be wrong when it's proven again, and again?

Now the main creationist platform which is actually very sound is the question of, where did the FIRST parts of life originate from? That first piece of biology? Since the non living universe is capable of creating a condition that can SUPPORT life, but not create it, where did we originate from?

And if creationism is wrong, what ARE the conditions required to create life?

(And isn't that in itself a very scary question?)

The "first origins" thing intrigued me for a while, until I realised that introducing an Almighty Creator right at the beginning simply makes the whole Universe system more complicated (in fact, infinitely so) and also relegates the question of who started it back one step to "Who created God?". Creationists are also fond of using (abusing) the 2nd law of thermodynamics by saying that order cannot come from disorder. As a matter of fact, it can, and this happens all the time in life and in chemistry laboratories. The second law simply says that the total entropy ("disorder") of the whole Universe must increase. However, the entropy of a system may decrease considerably if there is larger increase in the entropy of the surroundings to ofset it. In fact biological systems do this all the time. That's the very definition of life: maintaining offset from equilibrium. You still lose valuable ordered energy in the process, but this is discharged into the environment, an effectively infinite void. Remember that the "closed system" of the 2nd law consists of both the system and the surroundings.

I take exception to the general idea that the universe seems ideal for supporting life; actually the universe seems to favour black holes more than life forms, and most of the universe is chronically hostile to life. Even if it were true with regard to this one planet, it would mean that "God" (however you define God) has an extreme obsession with beetles (not to mention parasitic nematodes), if you just go by numbers alone.

Also I've never been troubled by the argument "who started it all" or "where did we originate from. The bold words are time words. These words imply that the stream of time extends forever backwards into infinity; it does not. As Einstein demonstrated, space and time are inextricbly tied to each other like bad relations. Both space and time came into existence at the "instant" (pardon my language) of the big bang. Any questions of what came first or what "initiated" it are meaningless. This is like asking what is North of the North Pole. Many will try to say that "God" created time, but since "created" is a time word, this implies that God existed in the stream of time before he invented it, a logical fallacy. And since the idea of an infinitely intelligent Creator makes the universe more complex, it is more satisfying to say that the universe "just is". Note that this is precisely what creationists claim about God; he "just is" and required no "beginning". I am equally within my rights to claim the same thing about the Universe, except in my case the whole thing is simpler because it is a finite solution not an infinite one. The most scientific answer is always the one that satisfies "Occam's Razor", the solution that is simlest and has the least peripheral details of implied premises.

This does not rule out the existence of "higher beings" or aliens, robots time-lords. We tend to slap the "god" label on anything we do not understand, when this is probably far too simplistic. As we progress in knowledge, religious people always push everything that we do not understand or cannot yet do into the "God box". This means that gradually God's abilities are changing to adapt to our increasing ability!! :lol: Centuries ago, radio technology would have been a god-ability, now it's old news. As a famous researcher once said, any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What happens when we become "gods" (whatever that means)? At least we will never become infinite (by the defintion of infinity) so we don't need to worry that we will mess up the Occam's Razor test. Phew  :sweatdrop:
Posted on: August 03, 2007, 08:53:00 pm

---

If anyone is interested, many of these points are covered at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html).

Besides the entropy argument, these FAQs may help one to see the biologist's view about the origins of life, although it mainly deals with speciation. In my opinion, the "first cause" question is far more easily answered from a physics/cosmology perspective. The question of how life arose from non-life is partly answered by the entropy idea (this is also the explanation for how non-living order, such as crystals, form), but essentially the question is a biochemical one. The explanations on TalkOrigins are usually excellent, so if you can find a section on self-replicating organic molecules, it will probably be satisfactory. I imagine that along with the physical arguments it forma a coherent whole. Nevertheless, I am not a biologist so it is best to seek expert advice somwhere. That said, from my perspective as a physical scientist it seems quite reasonable that "replication" can arise from a "chemical reaction". After all, DNA replication or the polymerisation of amino acids are chemical reactions, they're just more complex than your everyday schoolbook reaction. As long as the component elements are in existence, such as sequence of events is not as improbable as it sounds, and nobody really questions that the nucleosynthesis of the elements is impossible. Creationists say that such increasing complexity cannot arise "by chance", but evolutionists do not claim this, so this is a "straw man argument" (altering the opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down like a straw man). I advise anyone that holds this view to check out the TalkOrigins FAQ, as there is an FAQ about Evolution and Chance that explains this nicely.  :thumbsup:

All I can state now is that I believe both (or all) arguments have been summed up and very well at that. At the risk of sounding pretentious or self-absorbed, I think this last page has adressed most of the arguments that were introduced and, I think, have been intelligently resolved. :woot:

Perhaps this discussion is finished: the logic of the ending statements is quite appeasing to me, unless someone brings up another point that no one has so far thought of, I am content to leave it be. I sincerely hope that everyone who was on this thread (either reading or writing) will read the discusion in its entirety and make an informed decision. Thanks :D

-DN

well EWM im not shure if anny one has said this but their is one slight problem with what you said.

Jesus was not around at the time of the dinos.

my aunt (in her stupidity) asked a while ago "now tell me which came first, Jesus, or the dinos?"
to witch we replyed,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, and then told her to think.
also jesus was way after the dinos,m and all of them big lizzards were dead by the time of moses.

and thats all i have to say about that.

What I was saying is not that I think there where dinosaur's on the ark, I thinks its as loony a concept as you. But their is  a museum that thinks there was thats what I true. More so the museum thinks people rode the dinosaur's like horses.

Well I think we can all safely say that there were no dinosaurs on the ark. It's even questionable whether there was an ark. The most we can say is that there are stories of a large flood across many ancient civilisations, which is hardly a shocking idea, and does nothing to validate religion or scripture.

Frankly, any Biblical-literalist would be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to claim that any dinos were on any ark. It's greatly debatable that Noah would be able to collect at least a pair of every species anyway. And its utterly absurd to expect lions and bears to obey his command and then not eat all the other animals on the ark (believe me, the list goes on if anybody cares to debate this). In all honesty I've not heard much from creationists about Noah's ark, never mind the dino thing.  :rolleyes:

Personally I got the point of EWM's cartoons right from the beginning. Of course Jesus wasn't around at the time of the flood, but that does not matter with regards to the joke. And if there is a museum (probably in the USA) that is claiming the dino thing, that's seriously worrying because common sense is bein attacked here. When the fundamentalist Christians try to promote the easily debunked ideas, there's nothing we can do about it because there's no getting through to them. It's like talking to a brick wall. I get bored trying to convince these guys that the Genesis account requires subsequent rapid evolution, etc, etc, etc...  :yawn:


Posted on: August 16, 2007, 10:42:22 pm

---

Just found a good sum-up article about Noah's flood. As any thinking person can see, to believe the literal Genesis accountof this is to defy reason to a shocking extreme:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=390 (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=390)

Yes yes of course, some of you religious folk will say, "you're not meant to interpret it literally, it's only a story." Well if that's the case then what is it's value? How did you decide to centre your life around a fictional book? If the "entire" bible is "inspired of God and beneficial" (2 Tim 3:16), then at best God tells campfire stories, and at worst he is a liar. Your final argument may be that the bible is only a moral guide. This claim is even more shocking than the rest, and deserves an entire thread of its own. Suffice it to say, the bible is anything but a moral guide. Either way, it is my strongest conviction that only unthinking people can possibly base their life on a foundation of nothing. Comments, questions welcome as usual.