Huge!!! Black Hole next doer
posted on June 12th, 2009, 11:14 pm
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on June 12th, 2009, 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, I used wikipedia 
. I don't think you understood when I said "since"... 
. If you'd like to find a textbook, however, that's fine by me--but I cannot supply it to you over the web (Wikipedia thus offers a usually slightly dumbed down version that can be easier to understand). I can give you some names and authors of some good ones though if you're actually interested.
The article in the link is actually further down in the forum. However, if you do a quick google search, you can find no less than five (and probably much more than 5 if you look more carefully) places where the arc has been "found". However, now you are trying to convince me that the "panel fell off" and floated magically where it is now found?
You misread that other article I believe: it is a debunker. However, since we are now on the notion of petrified wood (which the article states was not petrified wood) what's your time estimate for the arc now. Don't you wonder why the sites haven't been investigated: there's plenty of money involved, that's for sure, so why has no proof been brought back? If this is "heavy evidence" (the supposed find of a supposed plank which actually happens to be sedimentary rock in the crude shape of a plank which then of course must be the remains of the arc) then I don't dare ask you for circumstantial evidence.
I thought you just said the Bible was not a valid source. So where do you get your source material from? Are you divinely inspired? Any way, to carry on, their are currently about 2 million described species in existence. It is estimated that there are a minimum of 6 million and a maximum of anywhere from 20-50 million species alive right now. We are not talking about breeds (which are the same species--canis domesticus is canis domesticus everywhere for example) but different species which are in nealry all cases incapable of breeding with one another. Now consider that 98% of all species have gone extinct over the course of 3.8 billion years or, for that matter, consider the amount of fossils that have been discovered. That is where you get your exceedingly high number of species. But really, do you think that a ship of that size could even carry 2 million described species as well as their food (consider the biggest steel nuclear poweredships we've constructed, and how many people are onboard and how many supplies for comparison if you will)?
So let’s move onto your flood: my first question to you is... where did all the water come from, and where did it go? Keep in mind that you must account for the mass of the Earth remaining nearly constant... otherwise very bad things would happen.
Really? Come now, you must have at least heard of Archaeopterix? However, if you mean just human lineages I can give you a nice list: Human Ancestors Hall: Tree
That should do it nicely.
"I'm not quiet sure what you ment by saying..."
It's another creation myth . Surprisingly, there happen to be thousands of them. Why choose the Judeo Christian one: why not settle for... being pooped out by giant ants, or being created by some deity aliens, or created out of fish?
Really, because I could have sworn you said this *look down*:
Where did you say "science" relies on observation too much? Maybe I read too fast. Of course, I also do not understand your argument in the first place as you say "Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe". What does this mean? What is "too much" and what is this "something we cannot observe"? If we cannot observe it, then how can we make observations about it in the first place? You've seriously confused me. The difference between the scientific method and the religious is that one makes quantifiable easily studied and proved or disproved observations (which eventually are brought together under theories when all the data is determined to be correct) while the other relies on “the written word” of whatever deity was supposed to have handed down the text as absolute truth.
Please don't resort to that my friend, it's a weak strawman. I certainly can "prove" evolution and disprove the flood. Modern geology and physics disproves a world wide flood, and the field of evolutionary biology (and molecular biology, and organic chemistry etc) gives proven and substantiated evidence to evolution. Evolution isn't even under debate honestly. If nothing else, the religious movements that have tried to disprove it (such as the creation institute with little Mr. Behe) have done more to prove evolutionary theory by forcing the--excuse the pun--evolution of various branches of the field.
First off, the Bible is not the oldest known "book". Secondly, it specifies in measurements that we cannot translate properly (in fact, you stated "bible is not a valid source in this debate").
If you care to crack open any biology book or evolutionary biology book for that matter you will find information that makes your brain want to explode. Seriously, the fact that you are even comparing the little bit of information that is found in the Bible to any modern cladistic study is extremely frightening. Then again, lets feel free to analyze the biblical notion of evolution then: birds were created separately from fish, separately from humans, separately from "crawly things" separately from plants. Thus none of these things should share any genetic resemblance? Well unfortunately they do (TATA box, homeobox: there are plenty of extremely conserved aspects). Secondly, microevolution is macroevolution: there is no distinction but time. If you want to try and convince me that a personal savior created 450,000 species of beetles that are wholly different species and occupy drastically different living environments, that’s fine. However, realize that they are not breeds of each other. Your argument is that you take a few stock animals from the arc and eventually with “microevolution”, as you put it, create many different species (by the way, that’s the definition of macroevolution). So where do you say the difference between species is too great to be of simply one stock organism? Or perhaps you DO say they are of very limited numbers of stock organisms (say a handful). Now you’ve simply adapted evolutionary biology to religious ends.
Then you need to look harder. Seriously, to even begin listing “proof and citation” would require more pages then this forum has. I’d suggest you start by reading your typical Evolutionary Biology text book if you wish basic information (I personally like the one by Freeman and Herron). If you wish more in depth material, simply start pulling off papers from journals such as Comparative Morphology, Physiology and Anatomy, etc.
Likewise, before you say that I’m not giving you proof directly, realize that I am giving you the tools to search for it. Unlike the flood and arc ideas you posted earlier, all the theories that I am dealing with are very specific, are extremely widespread and well known (and well studied and peer reviewed to boot) and are easily found without having to sift through articles that claim the arc is on one mountain top, while another claims that the arc is on this mountain top. Can you claim the same for the views you are posting. Likewise, what makes them special from other creation myths? Vishnu or Athena haven’t come down yet either, and although I know exactly where Mt Olympus, we know by story that the gods decided to leave us after having been disgusted.
When we talk with the Rovers on Mars, or the satellites exiting our Solar System, we use the same laws as physics to do so as when we determine the distance to our sun, or where it will be at what time (or any other star or galaxy for that matter). When you say that we have incorrectly calculated the date at which a star went supernova, you are saying that it is impossible that we could have landed rovers on another planet and communicate with them—the laws of physics are universal.
As you are aware, the Bible is not the original document. So if you wish to go read the original biblical chapters, you must travel to Israel (or when the scrolls enter the U.S. again; go to the Smithsonian). Either way, the older documents of the Bible are quite different then the modern King James version for example. What are these other documents you are talking about though? I mean, some of the Egyptian documents talk about the Israelites (as a small unimportant nation ironically) but do you have access to some special treasure trove of original articles (not from the same tribe please) that discusses “Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul”. Please no hearsay though, as according to the Aztecs, the feathered serpent is mentioned everywhere too
Were you there a second before you were conceived? Right. However, science doesn’t operate like this. For instance, the birth of the field of geology was because Lyell believed that the same principles that acted in modern times also acted in the past. He could see sedimentation occurring, and by measuring the rate of sedimentation per year on the river bed, he could figure out how old certain rocks were etc. The processes of evolution are ongoing. Currently the human population is evolving faster than it has ever (because of the huge population… 6.7 billion-holy crap). It was evolving 5, 10, 100,1000 years ago. You can look at genetic samples 40,000 years old and older and know exactly where we come from: I don’t know if you learned about the founder theory for example, however, I can explain if you wish. The original population should have the highest genetic diversity, so to figure out where humans physically came from, all you need to do is gather a large amount of genetic samples from different groups across the group and figure out who has what markers (satellite DNA, RFLPs and mtDNA markers etc). Each founding population will only have a subset of the original markers, and will continue to evolve new ones. Thus, we have figured out from what continent (and even what location on that continent) we come from. Of course, you can also do this over time through the use of a molecular clock. We know the rate at which specific genes mutate as well as the genome in general. By looking at the rate of mutation in specific very conserved sequences (such as mtDNA for instance) you can determine extremely accurately when and what species gave rise to other species (or became extinct). By comparing similarities between living species, you can even determine genetic relatedness and how long each species has lived as a non interbreeding species. Of course, this is all a really simple explanation, so please either buy at a used book sale, or borrow from the library some nice biology textbooks. They can explain these thoughts much better than I can, and can give you specific studies for citation and related articles. Incidentally, if the arc idea had any merit, every single land organism on the planet should show exactly the same genetic bottleneck (two individuals… wow imagine the inbreeding… poor Noah…) and the same date when they experienced the bottleneck. Good luck
Oh, one last thing. You never answered my previous accusations/questions (for instance, about the physics of things thrown from one central location). Just get back to me when you can, I’ll be waiting
. I don't think you understood when I said "since"... . If you'd like to find a textbook, however, that's fine by me--but I cannot supply it to you over the web (Wikipedia thus offers a usually slightly dumbed down version that can be easier to understand). I can give you some names and authors of some good ones though if you're actually interested.The article in the link is actually further down in the forum. However, if you do a quick google search, you can find no less than five (and probably much more than 5 if you look more carefully) places where the arc has been "found". However, now you are trying to convince me that the "panel fell off" and floated magically where it is now found?
You misread that other article I believe: it is a debunker. However, since we are now on the notion of petrified wood (which the article states was not petrified wood) what's your time estimate for the arc now. Don't you wonder why the sites haven't been investigated: there's plenty of money involved, that's for sure, so why has no proof been brought back? If this is "heavy evidence" (the supposed find of a supposed plank which actually happens to be sedimentary rock in the crude shape of a plank which then of course must be the remains of the arc) then I don't dare ask you for circumstantial evidence.
However, I would say we should stay out of the flood, because it seems that it has been resolved that the bible is not a valid source in this debate. Other wise we wouldn't be arguing.
[...] As for Evolution being more reasonable I completely disagree. as it says there were only two of eash type...
I thought you just said the Bible was not a valid source. So where do you get your source material from? Are you divinely inspired? Any way, to carry on, their are currently about 2 million described species in existence. It is estimated that there are a minimum of 6 million and a maximum of anywhere from 20-50 million species alive right now. We are not talking about breeds (which are the same species--canis domesticus is canis domesticus everywhere for example) but different species which are in nealry all cases incapable of breeding with one another. Now consider that 98% of all species have gone extinct over the course of 3.8 billion years or, for that matter, consider the amount of fossils that have been discovered. That is where you get your exceedingly high number of species. But really, do you think that a ship of that size could even carry 2 million described species as well as their food (consider the biggest steel nuclear poweredships we've constructed, and how many people are onboard and how many supplies for comparison if you will)?
So let’s move onto your flood: my first question to you is... where did all the water come from, and where did it go? Keep in mind that you must account for the mass of the Earth remaining nearly constant... otherwise very bad things would happen.
we have found none. This is pretty conclusive evidence that shows he is wrong. we would have at least found a few.
Really? Come now, you must have at least heard of Archaeopterix? However, if you mean just human lineages I can give you a nice list: Human Ancestors Hall: Tree
That should do it nicely.
"I'm not quiet sure what you ment by saying..."
It's another creation myth
. Surprisingly, there happen to be thousands of them. Why choose the Judeo Christian one: why not settle for... being pooped out by giant ants, or being created by some deity aliens, or created out of fish?I didnot say I trust observable evidence at all. All I said was Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe.
Really, because I could have sworn you said this *look down*:
I agree, You cant prove something you can't observe. You can make an educated guess, but no more. Weather people take it as fact or fiction it up to them.
Where did you say "science" relies on observation too much? Maybe I read too fast. Of course, I also do not understand your argument in the first place as you say "Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe". What does this mean? What is "too much" and what is this "something we cannot observe"? If we cannot observe it, then how can we make observations about it in the first place? You've seriously confused me. The difference between the scientific method and the religious is that one makes quantifiable easily studied and proved or disproved observations (which eventually are brought together under theories when all the data is determined to be correct) while the other relies on “the written word” of whatever deity was supposed to have handed down the text as absolute truth.
So again, I canon proove the flood, just like you canot evolution or dis proove the flood.
Please don't resort to that my friend, it's a weak strawman. I certainly can "prove" evolution and disprove the flood. Modern geology and physics disproves a world wide flood, and the field of evolutionary biology (and molecular biology, and organic chemistry etc) gives proven and substantiated evidence to evolution. Evolution isn't even under debate honestly. If nothing else, the religious movements that have tried to disprove it (such as the creation institute with little Mr. Behe) have done more to prove evolutionary theory by forcing the--excuse the pun--evolution of various branches of the field.
At least we have found an ark, and the oldest known history book that talks about exact measurements and specifics right down to what it is made of.
First off, the Bible is not the oldest known "book". Secondly, it specifies in measurements that we cannot translate properly (in fact, you stated "bible is not a valid source in this debate").
Do you have detailed evidence that is that detailed? Can we recreate the amino acid thingy that is supposed to have created life? Can we see evolution? Not adaptation, but real Macro evolution? You ask for proof and Citation, but I see none for evolution.
If you care to crack open any biology book or evolutionary biology book for that matter you will find information that makes your brain want to explode. Seriously, the fact that you are even comparing the little bit of information that is found in the Bible to any modern cladistic study is extremely frightening. Then again, lets feel free to analyze the biblical notion of evolution then: birds were created separately from fish, separately from humans, separately from "crawly things" separately from plants. Thus none of these things should share any genetic resemblance? Well unfortunately they do (TATA box, homeobox: there are plenty of extremely conserved aspects). Secondly, microevolution is macroevolution: there is no distinction but time. If you want to try and convince me that a personal savior created 450,000 species of beetles that are wholly different species and occupy drastically different living environments, that’s fine. However, realize that they are not breeds of each other. Your argument is that you take a few stock animals from the arc and eventually with “microevolution”, as you put it, create many different species (by the way, that’s the definition of macroevolution). So where do you say the difference between species is too great to be of simply one stock organism? Or perhaps you DO say they are of very limited numbers of stock organisms (say a handful). Now you’ve simply adapted evolutionary biology to religious ends.
You ask for proof and Citation, but I see none for evolution.
Then you need to look harder. Seriously, to even begin listing “proof and citation” would require more pages then this forum has. I’d suggest you start by reading your typical Evolutionary Biology text book if you wish basic information (I personally like the one by Freeman and Herron). If you wish more in depth material, simply start pulling off papers from journals such as Comparative Morphology, Physiology and Anatomy, etc.
Likewise, before you say that I’m not giving you proof directly, realize that I am giving you the tools to search for it. Unlike the flood and arc ideas you posted earlier, all the theories that I am dealing with are very specific, are extremely widespread and well known (and well studied and peer reviewed to boot) and are easily found without having to sift through articles that claim the arc is on one mountain top, while another claims that the arc is on this mountain top. Can you claim the same for the views you are posting. Likewise, what makes them special from other creation myths? Vishnu or Athena haven’t come down yet either, and although I know exactly where Mt Olympus, we know by story that the gods decided to leave us after having been disgusted.
I'm not quiet sure what you mean by the first statement?
When we talk with the Rovers on Mars, or the satellites exiting our Solar System, we use the same laws as physics to do so as when we determine the distance to our sun, or where it will be at what time (or any other star or galaxy for that matter). When you say that we have incorrectly calculated the date at which a star went supernova, you are saying that it is impossible that we could have landed rovers on another planet and communicate with them—the laws of physics are universal.
The bible is not the only piece of evidence tht talkes about Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul. do you think the bible is the only source that talkes about great kings of Israel?
As you are aware, the Bible is not the original document. So if you wish to go read the original biblical chapters, you must travel to Israel (or when the scrolls enter the U.S. again; go to the Smithsonian). Either way, the older documents of the Bible are quite different then the modern King James version for example. What are these other documents you are talking about though? I mean, some of the Egyptian documents talk about the Israelites (as a small unimportant nation ironically) but do you have access to some special treasure trove of original articles (not from the same tribe please) that discusses “Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul”. Please no hearsay though, as according to the Aztecs, the feathered serpent is mentioned everywhere too
Were you there to see us evolve from whatever you believe we evolved from?
Were you there a second before you were conceived? Right. However, science doesn’t operate like this. For instance, the birth of the field of geology was because Lyell believed that the same principles that acted in modern times also acted in the past. He could see sedimentation occurring, and by measuring the rate of sedimentation per year on the river bed, he could figure out how old certain rocks were etc. The processes of evolution are ongoing. Currently the human population is evolving faster than it has ever (because of the huge population… 6.7 billion-holy crap). It was evolving 5, 10, 100,1000 years ago. You can look at genetic samples 40,000 years old and older and know exactly where we come from: I don’t know if you learned about the founder theory for example, however, I can explain if you wish. The original population should have the highest genetic diversity, so to figure out where humans physically came from, all you need to do is gather a large amount of genetic samples from different groups across the group and figure out who has what markers (satellite DNA, RFLPs and mtDNA markers etc). Each founding population will only have a subset of the original markers, and will continue to evolve new ones. Thus, we have figured out from what continent (and even what location on that continent) we come from. Of course, you can also do this over time through the use of a molecular clock. We know the rate at which specific genes mutate as well as the genome in general. By looking at the rate of mutation in specific very conserved sequences (such as mtDNA for instance) you can determine extremely accurately when and what species gave rise to other species (or became extinct). By comparing similarities between living species, you can even determine genetic relatedness and how long each species has lived as a non interbreeding species. Of course, this is all a really simple explanation, so please either buy at a used book sale, or borrow from the library some nice biology textbooks. They can explain these thoughts much better than I can, and can give you specific studies for citation and related articles. Incidentally, if the arc idea had any merit, every single land organism on the planet should show exactly the same genetic bottleneck (two individuals… wow imagine the inbreeding… poor Noah…) and the same date when they experienced the bottleneck. Good luck
Oh, one last thing. You never answered my previous accusations/questions (for instance, about the physics of things thrown from one central location). Just get back to me when you can, I’ll be waiting
posted on June 12th, 2009, 11:35 pm
Last edited by ewm90 on June 12th, 2009, 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There we go opening some some flesh the blood is flowing, Its grate I can all most hear the anger! 
>:( 
I am wright and you are wrong!!! Kill of the leftover friendly elements. Hate, fear, justified, and Mutual destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_a ... tion 
---
Don't worry its what most people do in conversations its has a predictable out come both party leave with what they came in to the debate about. Both side feel they had the high grown and they feel vindicated.
In fact what happened is both people are left cut of from being opened and venerable. If you wont to have some thing installed over there you need to be willing to have some thing installed over here.
This concept is hard to rap you head around, Well I know I am wright and he is real wrong thats that wired-o speaking of.
Its a hole new world of real cosign things to happen being a leader in area that seem to be unmovable. How dose one get to this place is not hard to get to its rare to find the path to it.
Look at leaders in your lives, people how are responsible for running things that require allot of responsibility look at the way they are able to deal with sensitive problems and come out with amazing solutions.
To have this debate be useful you need to rethink the way you think about conversations and the impact you wont to have and how to have it.
>:( I am wright and you are wrong!!! Kill of the leftover friendly elements. Hate, fear, justified, and Mutual destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_a ... tion
---
Don't worry its what most people do in conversations its has a predictable out come both party leave with what they came in to the debate about. Both side feel they had the high grown and they feel vindicated.
In fact what happened is both people are left cut of from being opened and venerable. If you wont to have some thing installed over there you need to be willing to have some thing installed over here.
This concept is hard to rap you head around, Well I know I am wright and he is real wrong thats that wired-o speaking of.
Its a hole new world of real cosign things to happen being a leader in area that seem to be unmovable. How dose one get to this place is not hard to get to its rare to find the path to it.
Look at leaders in your lives, people how are responsible for running things that require allot of responsibility look at the way they are able to deal with sensitive problems and come out with amazing solutions.
To have this debate be useful you need to rethink the way you think about conversations and the impact you wont to have and how to have it.
posted on June 13th, 2009, 12:04 am
Aww, Ewm, I know I didnt' feel any anger when I wrote that post 
Even if the debaters don't learn anything, I hope one of the hundreds of people who visit this site will. Then I will be happy.
To have this debate be useful you need to rethink the way you think about conversations and the impact you wont to have and how to have it
Even if the debaters don't learn anything, I hope one of the hundreds of people who visit this site will. Then I will be happy.
posted on June 13th, 2009, 12:55 am
posted on June 13th, 2009, 5:11 am
Ok, I will give you the satisfaction of one rebutal, yo each of your statements, bit no more. I'm Growing tired of this futile debate. We arn't going to get any where, and It is obvious that neither one of us are going back down. As ewm said, this Does remind me Of MAD. In fact I recently debated Missile defense programs, and MAD was a big topic.
ok, I was using the Ark as evidence to support the flood, but any how I am definitally not Devinly inspired, so I will use it. Water: Have you herd of Pangaea? the Theory that the water was under ground, and when the land mas broke apart, the water came down in the form of rain, and engulfed the land for a short time. Of course the easier answer would be (if you believed in God, which you obviously don't) God made the Rain, But I'll give you the theory instead.
"Christian one: why not settle for... being pooped out by giant ants, or being created by some deity aliens, or created out of fish?"
Because most Christans believe we came from Dirt. That is soo much better than Poop.
"First off, the Bible is not the oldest known "book". Secondly, it specifies in measurements that we cannot translate properly (in fact, you stated "bible is not a valid source in this debate")."
You misunderstand what I mean and say. I said oldest, not book in general, but history book, which I believe I left something out. It is the Oldest Acruate form of history. weather you believe in God or not, it is undeniable that it presents true events, such as wars, and real People. Now where as we cannot translate it correctally is wrong too. If all the trans ations, where even in other languages have the same meaning, and the same measure ments. And last I said You obviously won't accept the Bible as a valid source, not that I wouldn't.
As for your hall of Ancestors. The first two not only have question marks next to them, and they do not connect, the Title says Millions of years ago, and is very un specific, from what i can read It says this is 6 million years ago. I see pictures of Plastic Reconstructed skulles, and Human foot prints. I see what look like slight ly deformed apes, and or very deformed humans. If it was better for the Apes to evolve to humans then Why do we still have Apes? How do they deserve to live if they always evolve to better them selves, but don't evolve into humans, even tho humans are obviously better.
Even it there were hundres of the same looking Neanderthals, I could easly explain that. In breeding. Not to long ago, royalty only married into ther own family. Lepers were set aside with other lepers. People with deformities were set aside and banished.
"Where did you say "science" relies on observation too much? Maybe I read too fast. Of course, I also do not understand your argument in the first place as you say "Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe". What does this mean? What is "too much" and what is this "something we cannot observe"? If we cannot observe it, then how can we make observations about it in the first place? You've seriously confused me. The difference between the scientific method and the religious is that one makes quantifiable easily studied and proved or disproved observations (which eventually are brought together under theories when all the data is determined to be correct) while the other relies on “the written word” of whatever deity was supposed to have handed down the text as absolute truth.
"
Exactally. You can't prove evolution, because we haven't recorded any evolution in our last 6 -4 thousand years of human history. And A deity did not write the bible and say it was absolute truth, nor hand it to any one. That was the Normal people that wrote down the facts, and history.
"Please don't resort to that my friend, it's a weak strawman. I certainly can "prove" evolution and disprove the flood. Modern geology and physics disproves a world wide flood, and the field of evolutionary biology (and molecular biology, and organic chemistry etc) gives proven and substantiated evidence to evolution. Evolution isn't even under debate honestly. If nothing else, the religious movements that have tried to disprove it (such as the creation institute with little Mr. Behe) have done more to prove evolutionary theory by forcing the--excuse the pun--evolution of various branches of the field."
If it could have been Prooven, it wouldn't still be called the Theory of evolution. Noy unless you think you are smarter than the leading Scientific experts. And I haven't seen you dis prove the flood.
"Seriously, the fact that you are even comparing the little bit of information that is found in the Bible to any modern cladistic study is extremely frightening."
So biblical Figures and philosophers were dumb Liers? And Does that make Darwins work out dadted, compared to Modern study?
"When we talk with the Rovers on Mars, or the satellites exiting our Solar System, we use the same laws as physics to do so as when we determine the distance to our sun, or where it will be at what time (or any other star or galaxy for that matter). When you say that we have incorrectly calculated the date at which a star went supernova, you are saying that it is impossible that we could have landed rovers on another planet and communicate with them—the laws of physics are universal."
When did they say they were wrong? This is from an earlier dropped Argument so I will keep my promise. But any way the speed of light is not consistent. You may look it up but it is a known fact.
"As you are aware, the Bible is not the original document. So if you wish to go read the original biblical chapters, you must travel to Israel (or when the scrolls enter the U.S. again; go to the Smithsonian). Either way, the older documents of the Bible are quite different then the modern King James version for example. What are these other documents you are talking about though? I mean, some of the Egyptian documents talk about the Israelites (as a small unimportant nation ironically) but do you have access to some special treasure trove of original articles (not from the same tribe please) that discusses “Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul”. Please no hearsay though, as according to the Aztecs, the feathered serpent is mentioned everywhere too"
You are silly Dom, The Aztecs are nowhere near Israel. Ok, but seriously. Even something as contradictory to the bible as the Koran talks about biblical figures. Budah, In an Asian country knew who Jesus was. Saul and David were Great kings, and I do not believe that the Historic record would forget them.
Oh, one last thing. You never answered my previous accusations/questions (for instance, about the physics of things thrown from one central location). Just get back to me when you can, I’ll be waiting Smiley
As I promised, I will stay away from Big bang theory, and now I am Growing tired of Debating any thing bur Armada in general, becaus it is taking more time than I can spare, and I really don't care what you believe. If neither of us are going to change our minds, then Debate is useless, arguement is pointless when there is no resolve. Heck we can't even agree on an solid source of truth. I an (most likely) going to stop even trying to change your mind, and Really School has ended, and this is not my favorite subject. I Was enjoying it in the begining, but now I see that I am alone in this debate, and I canont give any proof that you would believe, I resign from this Debate. Tho is was kinda fun this is not the reason I come to this site. Not to Talk about religion, or origin Theorys. i'm here to help FO to get better, and play an awsome game. Gool luck, with what ever you plan on doing with your self, and I hope you find your own truth and are satisfied with a ( no offense it is just what you believe atm) meaning less life.
ok, I was using the Ark as evidence to support the flood, but any how I am definitally not Devinly inspired, so I will use it. Water: Have you herd of Pangaea? the Theory that the water was under ground, and when the land mas broke apart, the water came down in the form of rain, and engulfed the land for a short time. Of course the easier answer would be (if you believed in God, which you obviously don't) God made the Rain, But I'll give you the theory instead.
"Christian one: why not settle for... being pooped out by giant ants, or being created by some deity aliens, or created out of fish?"
Because most Christans believe we came from Dirt. That is soo much better than Poop.
"First off, the Bible is not the oldest known "book". Secondly, it specifies in measurements that we cannot translate properly (in fact, you stated "bible is not a valid source in this debate")."
You misunderstand what I mean and say. I said oldest, not book in general, but history book, which I believe I left something out. It is the Oldest Acruate form of history. weather you believe in God or not, it is undeniable that it presents true events, such as wars, and real People. Now where as we cannot translate it correctally is wrong too. If all the trans ations, where even in other languages have the same meaning, and the same measure ments. And last I said You obviously won't accept the Bible as a valid source, not that I wouldn't.
As for your hall of Ancestors. The first two not only have question marks next to them, and they do not connect, the Title says Millions of years ago, and is very un specific, from what i can read It says this is 6 million years ago. I see pictures of Plastic Reconstructed skulles, and Human foot prints. I see what look like slight ly deformed apes, and or very deformed humans. If it was better for the Apes to evolve to humans then Why do we still have Apes? How do they deserve to live if they always evolve to better them selves, but don't evolve into humans, even tho humans are obviously better.
Even it there were hundres of the same looking Neanderthals, I could easly explain that. In breeding. Not to long ago, royalty only married into ther own family. Lepers were set aside with other lepers. People with deformities were set aside and banished.
"Where did you say "science" relies on observation too much? Maybe I read too fast. Of course, I also do not understand your argument in the first place as you say "Science relies on observation too much to prove something we can not observe". What does this mean? What is "too much" and what is this "something we cannot observe"? If we cannot observe it, then how can we make observations about it in the first place? You've seriously confused me. The difference between the scientific method and the religious is that one makes quantifiable easily studied and proved or disproved observations (which eventually are brought together under theories when all the data is determined to be correct) while the other relies on “the written word” of whatever deity was supposed to have handed down the text as absolute truth.
"
Exactally. You can't prove evolution, because we haven't recorded any evolution in our last 6 -4 thousand years of human history. And A deity did not write the bible and say it was absolute truth, nor hand it to any one. That was the Normal people that wrote down the facts, and history.
"Please don't resort to that my friend, it's a weak strawman. I certainly can "prove" evolution and disprove the flood. Modern geology and physics disproves a world wide flood, and the field of evolutionary biology (and molecular biology, and organic chemistry etc) gives proven and substantiated evidence to evolution. Evolution isn't even under debate honestly. If nothing else, the religious movements that have tried to disprove it (such as the creation institute with little Mr. Behe) have done more to prove evolutionary theory by forcing the--excuse the pun--evolution of various branches of the field."
If it could have been Prooven, it wouldn't still be called the Theory of evolution. Noy unless you think you are smarter than the leading Scientific experts. And I haven't seen you dis prove the flood.
"Seriously, the fact that you are even comparing the little bit of information that is found in the Bible to any modern cladistic study is extremely frightening."
So biblical Figures and philosophers were dumb Liers? And Does that make Darwins work out dadted, compared to Modern study?
"When we talk with the Rovers on Mars, or the satellites exiting our Solar System, we use the same laws as physics to do so as when we determine the distance to our sun, or where it will be at what time (or any other star or galaxy for that matter). When you say that we have incorrectly calculated the date at which a star went supernova, you are saying that it is impossible that we could have landed rovers on another planet and communicate with them—the laws of physics are universal."
When did they say they were wrong? This is from an earlier dropped Argument so I will keep my promise. But any way the speed of light is not consistent. You may look it up but it is a known fact.
"As you are aware, the Bible is not the original document. So if you wish to go read the original biblical chapters, you must travel to Israel (or when the scrolls enter the U.S. again; go to the Smithsonian). Either way, the older documents of the Bible are quite different then the modern King James version for example. What are these other documents you are talking about though? I mean, some of the Egyptian documents talk about the Israelites (as a small unimportant nation ironically) but do you have access to some special treasure trove of original articles (not from the same tribe please) that discusses “Jesus, or Moses, Iseaih. How about David, or Saul”. Please no hearsay though, as according to the Aztecs, the feathered serpent is mentioned everywhere too"
You are silly Dom, The Aztecs are nowhere near Israel.
Ok, but seriously. Even something as contradictory to the bible as the Koran talks about biblical figures. Budah, In an Asian country knew who Jesus was. Saul and David were Great kings, and I do not believe that the Historic record would forget them.Oh, one last thing. You never answered my previous accusations/questions (for instance, about the physics of things thrown from one central location). Just get back to me when you can, I’ll be waiting Smiley
As I promised, I will stay away from Big bang theory, and now I am Growing tired of Debating any thing bur Armada in general, becaus it is taking more time than I can spare, and I really don't care what you believe. If neither of us are going to change our minds, then Debate is useless, arguement is pointless when there is no resolve. Heck we can't even agree on an solid source of truth. I an (most likely) going to stop even trying to change your mind, and Really School has ended, and this is not my favorite subject.
I Was enjoying it in the begining, but now I see that I am alone in this debate, and I canont give any proof that you would believe, I resign from this Debate. Tho is was kinda fun this is not the reason I come to this site. Not to Talk about religion, or origin Theorys. i'm here to help FO to get better, and play an awsome game. Gool luck, with what ever you plan on doing with your self, and I hope you find your own truth and are satisfied with a ( no offense it is just what you believe atm) meaning less life. posted on June 13th, 2009, 4:26 pm
Since you insist on making snide remarks and have said that you will not respond again (hmm, you seem to have said that 3 times now) I’m glad I can end this debate for you:
Contrary to your belief, we are definitely getting somewhere: you have shown ignorance on every topic we have discussed as well as sidestepping every accusation I have made against you because you said “you’ve put it to rest” even though you only decide to say that after the question has been posed.
So let’s start at the beginning:
Clearly you have absolutely no conception of what Pangaea was, nor any intention of learning. I’m not even sure where to begin with your completely erroneous idea. First you state that the “water was underground”. Pangaea is all of our current continents smashed together—no need for “hidden” water, when the oceans were still around (by the way, you can see that by tectonic movement, fossil evidence, and dating of the basalt). Where is this “theory” of water underground becoming rain mentioned anyway? I know I’ve never heard of it, and I’ve read a lot of geology books (and heck, my gf studies this stuff as part of her major). This would completely screw with how modern tectonics work, or for that matter how life exists on earth (it wouldn’t be able to, if what you described happened—going against any laws of physics).
Great argument, you still haven’t resolved the issue. Just like the Big Bang, or your strange ideas of physics when objects thrown from a center, or communication satellites or… yes, there are a lot of things you haven’t responded to and are unlikely to because you can’t make up more stuff that quickly it seems.
Actually, it very deniably presents “real history”. If you read any of the other texts around the same time, or for that matter look at the archeological leftovers, you’ll find that many things were simply made up. For instance, the exodus of the Jews from Eqypt, and wandering in the desert for 40 years. Never happened. In fact, if you know anything of biblical history, you’d quickly find out that much more religious people who are extremely well versed in the Talmud have already conducted this research and shown that much of the Bible is apocryphal. There is even a museum dedicated to this research in Israel (where you can imagine it is considered very important).
Sorry, but the translations don’t even remotely agree with each other. Common, you can figure this out yourself. Just find several English translations and you’ll find that even those disagree despite being derived from the same version (which isn’t the original either).
563 BCE to 483 BCE: Budda’s life. I don’t know where you got that he heard of Jesus, but sure why not: afterall, the Italians had heard of several Chinese emperors a thousand years before any expedition there.
*facepalm* Leprosy is a non-genetic disease. Evolution has no motive-there is no “forwards” and humans aren’t the end “goal” because there is no goal. We are an egotistical species that’s for sure. Glad you can’t read by the way, otherwise you’d have realized the mountain of evidence there. I see that you have dropped your “plank of the arc” idea now: glad you realized that was never evidence. That paragraph is so full of ignorance that I will not even discuss it. Do royalty look different than you or me? Take a basic genetics course and get back to me, because while you don’t have the same basis in biology, there is no point discussing anything related to genomics with you. Thank you for bastardizing genetic research.
Glad you agree it was us that wrote down the history: however, for some reason you seem to think that these people were infallible at writing and translating their oral history. I mean, the oldest complete version of the Bible is only 1700 years old, and the oldest incomplete version is about 3000 years old (so that means that for supposed several hundred million years they must have orally passed down the stories according to you). Even assuming that those people never lied or embellished the stories, that leaves several more thousand years for people to make mistakes copying and translating so that the Bible we have is nothing like the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. In relation to your “we can’t prove” you obviously haven’t been reading anything I have written. Perhaps you’d care to read my last post again. However, it would be nice if you could also answer the questions I leveled at you which you keep on ignoring.
It’s also called the theory of gravity. I suggest once again that you read what a theory is, because you have provided NONE, only conjecture (which doesn’t even rate to a hypothesis because there is not one iota of supporting evidence). If it could have been disproven, it would not be called a theory . As I said, modern geology and physics disproved the flood. As you seem fond of saying, that is a fact. The flood is disproven by your very existence: the fact that you are not an incredibly inbred being should be proof enough by your own standards. Unless of course you really like the idea of a single man and woman giving birth to the human race (oh poor Lilith, where did she go) and wish to ignore the evidence.
Actually yes, Darwin is somewhat outdated, but it has nothing to do with biblical figures and philosophers (of which Darwin was neither). Biblical figures and philosophers have nothing to with scientific reasoning: all they may come up with interesting postulates (or with religions) they didn’t invent your car or your anti-viral medicine. By the way, there is no such thing as Darwinism (I should have told you earlier)—that’s just something it seems the religious right has come up with.
So much for keeping your promise. And yes, you said that we cannot tell the age of things in the Universe. So Anywho, it doesn’t matter if the speed of light is constant or not in a small defined space (such as in a water bath): in a vacuum it is and over the scale of the Universe it is. Not sure what your point is there, because it still doesn’t change the fact that we use the same laws to calculate where our manmade objects are as to calculate where the stars are
Maybe you should read that paragraph again, because you obviously missed something important. The Qu’ran is about as contradictory to the Bible as the New Testament. One just claims superiority over the other: just as the New Testament claims superiority over the Old. In fact, the Qu’ran is more faithful to the Old Testament then is the New. Perhaps you should read the Qu’ran to understand what I am saying (or just read something about the Qu’ran and the Old Testatment for that matter… or at least understand what inspired the Qu’ran). By archaeology and by surrounding civilization’s accounts Saul and David were minor kings who were considered more of nuisance to the other rulers than anything else. Their “kingdom” was teeny tiny.
Oh, one last thing. You never answered my previous accusations/questions (for instance, about the physics of things thrown from one central location). Just get back to me when you can, I’ll be waiting
Unfortunately you are not alone. There are plenty of other people who believe similar things to you, and still make use of the technology and knowledge that has been accumulated only to decry the very foundation on which that knowledge was learned. In some ways, your life has been made easier for you because you do not need to know why your computer works, only that it works. However, if you knew why any of the machines, buildings and medicines (heck, civilization for that matter) around you worked and how that knowledge plays integrally into all other scientific theories, I fear that you would not be able to cope.
Throughout this argument you seem insistent on brushing aside any scientific theory that conflicts with your own beliefs, but then you readily accept any which seem to support those misguided thoughts.
Contrary to your belief, we are definitely getting somewhere: you have shown ignorance on every topic we have discussed as well as sidestepping every accusation I have made against you because you said “you’ve put it to rest” even though you only decide to say that after the question has been posed.
So let’s start at the beginning:
Clearly you have absolutely no conception of what Pangaea was, nor any intention of learning. I’m not even sure where to begin with your completely erroneous idea. First you state that the “water was underground”. Pangaea is all of our current continents smashed together—no need for “hidden” water, when the oceans were still around (by the way, you can see that by tectonic movement, fossil evidence, and dating of the basalt). Where is this “theory” of water underground becoming rain mentioned anyway? I know I’ve never heard of it, and I’ve read a lot of geology books (and heck, my gf studies this stuff as part of her major). This would completely screw with how modern tectonics work, or for that matter how life exists on earth (it wouldn’t be able to, if what you described happened—going against any laws of physics).
Because most Christans believe we came from Dirt. That is soo much better than Poop.
Great argument, you still haven’t resolved the issue. Just like the Big Bang, or your strange ideas of physics when objects thrown from a center, or communication satellites or… yes, there are a lot of things you haven’t responded to and are unlikely to because you can’t make up more stuff that quickly it seems.
It is the Oldest Acruate form of history. weather you believe in God or not, it is undeniable that it presents true events, such as wars, and real People. Now where as we cannot translate it correctally is wrong too. If all the trans ations, where even in other languages have the same meaning, and the same measure ments. And last I said You obviously won't accept the Bible as a valid source, not that I wouldn't.
Actually, it very deniably presents “real history”. If you read any of the other texts around the same time, or for that matter look at the archeological leftovers, you’ll find that many things were simply made up. For instance, the exodus of the Jews from Eqypt, and wandering in the desert for 40 years. Never happened. In fact, if you know anything of biblical history, you’d quickly find out that much more religious people who are extremely well versed in the Talmud have already conducted this research and shown that much of the Bible is apocryphal. There is even a museum dedicated to this research in Israel (where you can imagine it is considered very important).
If all the trans ations, where even in other languages have the same meaning, and the same measure ments.
Sorry, but the translations don’t even remotely agree with each other. Common, you can figure this out yourself. Just find several English translations and you’ll find that even those disagree despite being derived from the same version (which isn’t the original either).
563 BCE to 483 BCE: Budda’s life. I don’t know where you got that he heard of Jesus, but sure why not: afterall, the Italians had heard of several Chinese emperors a thousand years before any expedition there.
Even it there were hundres of the same looking Neanderthals, I could easly explain that. In breeding. Not to long ago, royalty only married into ther own family. Lepers were set aside with other lepers. People with deformities were set aside and banished.
*facepalm* Leprosy is a non-genetic disease. Evolution has no motive-there is no “forwards” and humans aren’t the end “goal” because there is no goal. We are an egotistical species that’s for sure
. Glad you can’t read by the way, otherwise you’d have realized the mountain of evidence there. I see that you have dropped your “plank of the arc” idea now: glad you realized that was never evidence. That paragraph is so full of ignorance that I will not even discuss it. Do royalty look different than you or me? Take a basic genetics course and get back to me, because while you don’t have the same basis in biology, there is no point discussing anything related to genomics with you. Thank you for bastardizing genetic research.Exactally. You can't prove evolution, because we haven't recorded any evolution in our last 6 -4 thousand years of human history. And A deity did not write the bible and say it was absolute truth, nor hand it to any one. That was the Normal people that wrote down the facts, and history.
Glad you agree it was us that wrote down the history: however, for some reason you seem to think that these people were infallible at writing and translating their oral history. I mean, the oldest complete version of the Bible is only 1700 years old, and the oldest incomplete version is about 3000 years old (so that means that for supposed several hundred million years they must have orally passed down the stories according to you). Even assuming that those people never lied or embellished the stories, that leaves several more thousand years for people to make mistakes copying and translating so that the Bible we have is nothing like the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. In relation to your “we can’t prove” you obviously haven’t been reading anything I have written. Perhaps you’d care to read my last post again. However, it would be nice if you could also answer the questions I leveled at you which you keep on ignoring.
If it could have been Prooven, it wouldn't still be called the Theory of evolution. Noy unless you think you are smarter than the leading Scientific experts. And I haven't seen you dis prove the flood.
It’s also called the theory of gravity
. I suggest once again that you read what a theory is, because you have provided NONE, only conjecture (which doesn’t even rate to a hypothesis because there is not one iota of supporting evidence). If it could have been disproven, it would not be called a theory . As I said, modern geology and physics disproved the flood. As you seem fond of saying, that is a fact. The flood is disproven by your very existence: the fact that you are not an incredibly inbred being should be proof enough by your own standards. Unless of course you really like the idea of a single man and woman giving birth to the human race (oh poor Lilith, where did she go) and wish to ignore the evidence. So biblical Figures and philosophers were dumb Liers? And Does that make Darwins work out dadted, compared to Modern study?
Actually yes, Darwin is somewhat outdated, but it has nothing to do with biblical figures and philosophers (of which Darwin was neither). Biblical figures and philosophers have nothing to with scientific reasoning: all they may come up with interesting postulates (or with religions) they didn’t invent your car or your anti-viral medicine. By the way, there is no such thing as Darwinism (I should have told you earlier)—that’s just something it seems the religious right has come up with.
When did they say they were wrong? This is from an earlier dropped Argument so I will keep my promise. But any way the speed of light is not consistent. You may look it up but it is a known fact.
So much for keeping your promise. And yes, you said that we cannot tell the age of things in the Universe. So Anywho, it doesn’t matter if the speed of light is constant or not in a small defined space (such as in a water bath): in a vacuum it is and over the scale of the Universe it is. Not sure what your point is there, because it still doesn’t change the fact that we use the same laws to calculate where our manmade objects are as to calculate where the stars are
You are silly Dom, The Aztecs are nowhere near Israel. Ok, but seriously. Even something as contradictory to the bible as the Koran talks about biblical figures. Budah, In an Asian country knew who Jesus was. Saul and David were Great kings, and I do not believe that the Historic record would forget them.
Maybe you should read that paragraph again, because you obviously missed something important
. The Qu’ran is about as contradictory to the Bible as the New Testament. One just claims superiority over the other: just as the New Testament claims superiority over the Old. In fact, the Qu’ran is more faithful to the Old Testament then is the New. Perhaps you should read the Qu’ran to understand what I am saying (or just read something about the Qu’ran and the Old Testatment for that matter… or at least understand what inspired the Qu’ran). By archaeology and by surrounding civilization’s accounts Saul and David were minor kings who were considered more of nuisance to the other rulers than anything else. Their “kingdom” was teeny tiny.Oh, one last thing. You never answered my previous accusations/questions (for instance, about the physics of things thrown from one central location). Just get back to me when you can, I’ll be waiting
As I promised, I will stay away from Big bang theory, and now I am Growing tired of Debating any thing bur Armada in general, becaus it is taking more time than I can spare, and I really don't care what you believe. If neither of us are going to change our minds, then Debate is useless, arguement is pointless when there is no resolve. Heck we can't even agree on an solid source of truth. I an (most likely) going to stop even trying to change your mind, and Really School has ended, and this is not my favorite subject. I Was enjoying it in the begining, but now I see that I am alone in this debate, and I canont give any proof that you would believe, I resign from this Debate. Tho is was kinda fun this is not the reason I come to this site. Not to Talk about religion, or origin Theorys. i'm here to help FO to get better, and play an awsome game. Gool luck, with what ever you plan on doing with your self, and I hope you find your own truth and are satisfied with a ( no offense it is just what you believe atm) meaning less life.
Unfortunately you are not alone. There are plenty of other people who believe similar things to you, and still make use of the technology and knowledge that has been accumulated only to decry the very foundation on which that knowledge was learned. In some ways, your life has been made easier for you because you do not need to know why your computer works, only that it works. However, if you knew why any of the machines, buildings and medicines (heck, civilization for that matter) around you worked and how that knowledge plays integrally into all other scientific theories, I fear that you would not be able to cope.
Throughout this argument you seem insistent on brushing aside any scientific theory that conflicts with your own beliefs, but then you readily accept any which seem to support those misguided thoughts.
posted on June 13th, 2009, 5:07 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on June 13th, 2009, 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dominus_Noctis wrote: The Qu’ran is about as contradictory to the Bible as the New Testament. One just claims superiority over the other: just as the New Testament claims superiority over the Old. In fact, the Qu’ran is more faithful to the Old Testament then is the New. Perhaps you should read the Qu’ran to understand what I am saying (or just read something about the Qu’ran and the Old Testatment for that matter… or at least understand what inspired the Qu’ran). By archaeology and by surrounding civilization’s accounts Saul and David were minor kings who were considered more of nuisance to the other rulers than anything else. Their “kingdom” was teeny tiny.
I would recommend that you actually read and cite contradictions. You have tried it in several threads and ended up falling flat on your face.
Youtube is replete with similar videos and they too fall flat on their faces.
If your entire set of contentions here are based solely on incomplete knowledge that is left incomplete by virtue of your arrogant unwillingness to expand your 19ish horizons, I would suggest you spare this entire forum a waste of GB usage with these self-centered rants that are merely cyclical.
You find something is not fir you, hence you try to prove it is not for you, but that it is not for you is used as proof.
It's an old dance with particular types as we have all seen.
But from these volumes that you are trying to post here, one thing comes to the fore.
More than simply getting bugged with asinine attacks on faith which prompts most of Zaxx's and my remarks, we would like to ask ourselves why the so called pragmatists are hellbent on speaking of religion and the right.
The answer seems to be that you NEED to. The religious speak and try to proselytize feeling it is a duty prescribed by God. Atheists have no such higher allegiance. What then is the necessity of Dawkins and the rest to actually spout the rhetoric.
THE VOID OF INSECURITY.
Atheists do not believe in faith. Yet the entire rant above is based on the unquestioning faith in the material you cite. Yet as has amply be seen, nothing proves evolution today, nor any of the scientific hypotheses used to describe and explain black holes and the like.
Stands to reason as all we have is telemetry and calculations.
Take for example this statement about "archaeology - as if the quoter himself has gone out to corroborate those claims, when those claims themselves are disputed withing the archaeological community....
A salad bar approach. take what you want and leave the rest...
But that is just the surface.
An atheist needs ratification eacch day, that indeed his rejection of what has been passed down is not a flawed error arising from arrogance. At the same time his own human fallacies of arrogance, implacability and sheer primal "Im the best above all the rest" have to also be assuaged.
It is this toxic mix that makes and atheist try to ratify himself and calm his own self - a rather pathetic conflict, as the atheist claims allegiance to pragmatism and fact, et bases ALL his assumptions, and particularly the one of NO GOD, on his FAITH in HIMSELF.
Does science prove or disprove God. no. Does science prove or disprove the Quran NO. IF anything it is ripping off from the verse "the heavens and the earth were as a single point and we drove them asunder" to speak of its big bang.
It rips off from the verse that mentions plants and animals are created in sexes to try to describe androceum and gynaecium.
At the end of the day an atheist has nothing to use against any religion. Hinduism and the VEdas are spelling out the principles of Evolution in its text on Reincarnation.
The hindus take it differently based on the puranas written by sages. But the original vedas speak of it in a differnt light.
So what does an atheist have or a scientist have that is unique?
nothing.
Just his desperate desire to stand apart, and the need to find gratification through his attacks.
On his own he actually knows nothing. He just believes the texts and theories that he is taught to "learn by heart" and vomit on his term papers.
Armed only with that to pet his ego, he attacks anything that may burst his self-centered bubble.
The dedication of those atheists in coming forward with volumes that prove nothing, just attack "god" in of itself betrays their motivation and complete dissatisfaction with their lives.
Think of it - as I mentioned earlier, when neither is able to conclusively prove or disprove - some of us felt the absolute urge to post oodles on their hypotheses merely with A TONE of surety that is based again on their faith in the sources they cite.
As we see above
So give this ignominious debate a rest.
Also, I have noticed that EWM does not post once he gets other ppl into an argument. Then once the argument ends on "agree to disagree" he comes back with something to fan the flames... interesting proclivity.
Zaxx, give this a rest. They are going to have yet another ignorant post to share, that misses the point of reconciliation completely. That is the nature of an atheist brought on by his insecurity and the void left by the incompleteness of the facts he claims to relish. They call u snide when in fact they are the ones ranting on about how their unproven view on things is the absolute truth on everything.
The difference between a believer and atheist is the former feels for his faith and his God and speaks to defend that, while the latter feels for his insecurity and incompleteness and speaks to assuage it.
Let;s leave it at that.
posted on June 14th, 2009, 10:07 am
Last edited by mimesot on June 14th, 2009, 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
posted on June 14th, 2009, 11:05 am
posted on June 14th, 2009, 1:03 pm
posted on June 14th, 2009, 1:50 pm
Last edited by mimesot on June 14th, 2009, 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hey mate!
Please exclude me from 'everyone' as I share dominus opinion!!!
In my opinion the bible is right, but only under severe restrictions. In my personal view these are following: The bible is a social codex, not a scientifical lecture. History is described in a symbolic manner, not aiming for correctness but for carrying a message. A massage 'bout the glory of solidarity, trust and truth, hope, peace, forgiveness and finally unconditional love. (If one reads closly, we find these in ALL holy scripts, not only the bible). Reading the bible that way, the bible is a book that can claim to be right.
In contrast scientifical theories can never be right, they can just be asymptotically right, better words would be most realistic or simply the best theory we have. Scientifical theories are, as I said supportable, but not provable, but they can be proven wrong.
From this, many statements of the bible can surly be proven wrong. We can observe the past of the universe and see stars dying (in this past), we know that they eject heavy elements, elements that formed the earth and later the plants (no matter if there was an ark or evolution
). So the stars came first and then the plants. The bible tells us it's the other way round.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
So how can the bible still be right?
First, one is blind when he just looks as single lines and not at the whole context. The message of the whole context is, that nature and our existence is something we have to admire, we have to honour, and we should use but also beware for use. We even are encouraged to use up a whole day to praise this work.
So what do we praise?
What can we honestly praise, if we know how many things works, and therefore we take as granted? Well, at least the things that are not self-evident and this is something different for everyday. For an everyday-citizan it might be the green in the park, that fascinates him, for the nomad the sudden rain, and for the bio-chemist, the fact, that he still takes delight in love, though he knows about the hormone's work. But even the allmighty laplace demon has to deal with the situation that the space of definition for his calculations are limited to the universe, and the source of the calculation rules, the physical laws, are possibly not part of it. Thus also this entity has got something left to marvel at. This is something one may call divine.
And why shall one praise?
I think this is a question of personal believe. It is quite equivalent of just being pleased about someting and thank somebody for something you are delighted by. Anyway one might obtain happieness. As we can assume god as everything outside spacetime, the proposition of god's existance cannot be proven wrong, which means it is right for those who care for a god. When these people see someone smiling, even an atheist, they may even interpret this as a reason for god, to be content with his work. Everyones smile makes the lord's seventh day.
Have a nice day guys
Please exclude me from 'everyone' as I share dominus opinion!!!
In my opinion the bible is right, but only under severe restrictions. In my personal view these are following: The bible is a social codex, not a scientifical lecture. History is described in a symbolic manner, not aiming for correctness but for carrying a message. A massage 'bout the glory of solidarity, trust and truth, hope, peace, forgiveness and finally unconditional love. (If one reads closly, we find these in ALL holy scripts, not only the bible). Reading the bible that way, the bible is a book that can claim to be right.
In contrast scientifical theories can never be right, they can just be asymptotically right, better words would be most realistic or simply the best theory we have. Scientifical theories are, as I said supportable, but not provable, but they can be proven wrong.
From this, many statements of the bible can surly be proven wrong. We can observe the past of the universe and see stars dying (in this past), we know that they eject heavy elements, elements that formed the earth and later the plants (no matter if there was an ark or evolution
). So the stars came first and then the plants. The bible tells us it's the other way round. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
So how can the bible still be right?
First, one is blind when he just looks as single lines and not at the whole context. The message of the whole context is, that nature and our existence is something we have to admire, we have to honour, and we should use but also beware for use. We even are encouraged to use up a whole day to praise this work.
So what do we praise?
What can we honestly praise, if we know how many things works, and therefore we take as granted? Well, at least the things that are not self-evident and this is something different for everyday. For an everyday-citizan it might be the green in the park, that fascinates him, for the nomad the sudden rain, and for the bio-chemist, the fact, that he still takes delight in love, though he knows about the hormone's work. But even the allmighty laplace demon has to deal with the situation that the space of definition for his calculations are limited to the universe, and the source of the calculation rules, the physical laws, are possibly not part of it. Thus also this entity has got something left to marvel at. This is something one may call divine.
And why shall one praise?
I think this is a question of personal believe. It is quite equivalent of just being pleased about someting and thank somebody for something you are delighted by. Anyway one might obtain happieness. As we can assume god as everything outside spacetime, the proposition of god's existance cannot be proven wrong, which means it is right for those who care for a god. When these people see someone smiling, even an atheist, they may even interpret this as a reason for god, to be content with his work. Everyones smile makes the lord's seventh day.
Have a nice day guys
posted on June 14th, 2009, 1:56 pm
posted on June 14th, 2009, 4:11 pm
posted on June 14th, 2009, 4:29 pm
Last edited by ewm90 on June 14th, 2009, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
posted on June 14th, 2009, 4:37 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests