Dude, you saved me alot of time, I was gonna reply to that post. Although, regarding the following quote, I believe, this is due to rebellion within, and also outside, the Christian Church.
Finally, as for the verses about women, it is important to remember that these verses were written in a very different social setting, and they came from men rather than God. While they may have applied at the time, they were not specific messages from God, and rather were the ideas of Paul. As society changes, views on these issues may change, but God did not specifically endorse them for all people in all societies. And in the case of the verse from Ephesians, this too is taken slightly out of context, as Paul also mentions that men must take care and respect their wives. When you say these commands came from men rather than God, it's also important to remember that all Scripture is God-breathed. I just think we have to be careful with what we interperet as being relevant to the Church of the day and what is really relevant to the Church today.
I didn't see any verse pointed out by Shakrai that would imply that Christianity encourages extermination of non-believers. He/She didn't really provide an answer to the posed question:
If quotes from the quran don't define islam, then what does? The Bible defines what Christians believe and what example they are to follow. The only exterminating of non-Christians that I can think of that the Bible talks about, that is relevant to today, is done by our Creator at the second coming, not by individual Christians.
What does salvation have to do with it? You are the first to bring that up. The OP talked about what they are supposed to do, not what they are required to do for salvation. You are both in agreement. You are supposed to sell all your posessions and give to the poor to be perfect. I see nothing you wrote that indicate anything other than 100% support for his statement, despite your contrary tone. True, but the point I was making was that you don't _need_ to sell everything you have in order to be a Christian, that's not a requirement for salvation. The verse that he used points out that if you want to be perfect in God's eye's then you can sell everything you own. Christians are _allowed_ to sell everything they own, but they don't "have to".
1) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected by anyone who cares about learning the truth rather than denying it. There are multiple vectors by which genetic information in a specimen may increase, from failed mitosis to conquered viral infection. 2) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected with a little thought and structured consideration. Earliest life (give or take as noted in my previous post) had no genes. It was self replicating chemicals of a much simpler nature.
I fail to see how my statement was a factual inaccuracy according to your reply. Mitosis, the division of cells, replication, still doesn't explain where the self-replicating cell came from. Failed mitosis? The cells failure to divide? How does that support your argument? Self replication is hardly evidence for new life coming from non-living elements/materials, that's just blind ignorance of the evidence presented in this world.
3) Raw idiocy. The definition of species is variants of critters that can't viably interbreed. This occurs when populations of a species are separated long enough for differing mutations to accrue. Breeding of variants within a species however accelerates evolution significantly.
Raw idiocy on whose part? You're just emphasizing my point. As for your accrueing mutations, try proving that. I don't know where you pulled that one from, please, name a species that we can observe and research in this present day, that has mutated from one species to another. Variants within species may have evidence of mutation/adaption, but as far as evolution goes, there is no evidence of species, slowly or otherwise, evolving into other species.
4) Factual inaccuracy. Humans can breed with apes. Humans are apes, and can breed within their own species. Duh.
At which point in history was the last successful recorded mating and reproduction of a human and any type of ape or monkey? I would be very interested to know of any human that has "assumed the position" with any type of ape and successfully reproduced. As for remains of evolutionary species, from ape to human, if you actually look at both sides of the research, rather then suppressing any evidence opposing evolution, you'll find that the "missing link" specimens constructed from discovered remains (excluding the reconstruction from a pigs tooth, and the mixing of remains), the specimens are either true human, or true ape. There is no half way between the two species, humans and apes _are_ two different species.
6) Misrepresentation of sources. I am not opposed to the word of any deities. However given that there are no deities this does not affect me much. I am opposed to efforts to run modern societies and restrict peoples ability to think and act in a fit and free manner in accordance to the deranged scribblings of stoned shepherds.
I was referring to the theory of evolution (the big bang theory in particular) as being in opposition to the Word of God. Although I find it interesting that in your denial of opposition to your Creator, you would (supposedly) read his Word multiple times over, in an effort to cherry-pick parts you don't understand, and take them out of context, and then proceed to use these flimsy discoveries to assault Christians using words. Even the "stoned shepherds" reference indicates your opposition to the Inspired Word of God.
7) Misrepresentation of sources. Science is not "enforced" by anything or anyone except in a science classroom. It is also not a doctrinal dogma. I do not lean my understanding on anything. I build it in a sound structural form on the foundations of reality.
Your reality _is_ the reality laid out by former and present scientists, the research and studies continue to be built upon layer by layer, erroneous or not. Will scientists challenge original established studies if so many proceeding layers of research rely upon the original ones? Groups within governments have made it mandatory f
See, the level to which you deny reality rather than deal with it would almost make me feel sorry for you if you had any redeeming features. What is so terrible about being a Christian that the sky-daddies scribes had to include dire warnings about suicide just to stop the religion killing itself off? Now you're just being facetious. Which reality am I denying, the one that ends in death upon rejection of the Gospel, or your cloud nine version of reality, where everything is just fine and dandy, and there is no such thing as death, just null and void at the end. So why are humans so scared of dying? Being a Christian involves a lot of persecution, ridicule, and in past era's, execution. Living as a Christian, you come across the same difficulties, hardships, and temptations as anyone else in life, except you've got someone to help you through, someone that is above all things. You've done it again, I'm really doubting you've read the Bible even once over, where in the Bible does it warn against suicide? We are made in the image of God, and we are also commanded not to murder, but please, show me the warning against suicide, the part you've read more than six times.
I never suggested there was no reason to live. That's your own belief. Not mine. If there was no reason to live then I'd have offed myself long ago to leave more natural resources for cuter critters. So please, from your point of view, what is the reason for living?
You (generic you,...flightless parrot) can be saved. Again I ask, saved from what?
All you can do is live the single brief span of sentience you are granted. Granted by who, or what? Let me know so I can thank them.
Now, as you are getting repetitive, and your lies, straw men and deliberate ignorance are getting annoying I'm going to have to change our relationship a little. From now on, each time you lie, dissemble, make a false argument or use other standard fundie tactics I will use my position to teach another individual enough of Christianity to understand the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit and encourage them to do so. I have the time, resources and freedom to do so, and the knowledge that doing so will do no harm to these individuals whatsoever. That not only sounds like a cop out, but unfortantely for you, God can see what you're doing and what I'm doing, and anyone that falls victim to your poison, will not only be accountable for their own actions, but you will also be judged by your Creator for your actions. I'm not that whimsical that I fall for that kind of garbage.
Consider your further arguments carefully. You could cause dozens to stumble, and have to go through with your threatened suicide (millstone + abyss of the ocean) to atone. You sound like you have the mind of a terrorist, that's the sort of action they take, only they use guns instead of words. "Worship my god or I will kill these innocents". Dude, you're no different to the people in history who executed Christians, or the supposed christians that executed non-believers. I can't really call you a sheep following the flock of dogmatic evolutionsists, because you're up the front of the pack, leading the flock into deception that leads to eternal damnation. I will pray for you because you're gonna have a lot to answer for when your very limited time on this earth is up.
"The formation of life didn't come till well and truly after the big bang!"
...From there to the chance formation of the first self-replicating chemical strands (barely classifiable as life) is rather longer than anything you can grasp as well. I abbreviated the first part of the quote as there was nothing new stated in comparison with the big bang/new life statement.
The same points remain, whether they(new life/bigbang) were millions of years apart or in the same week, no matter which way you look at it, that rational, logical part of your brain should be telling you there must have been something before the big bang for it to have occurred... but where did those particles/elements, whatever you want to call them, come from? They obviously couldn't have been created by a creator, so where did these materials come from?!
And "new life", simple or complex, that same portion of your brain is asking, where from? There is no evidence to support the introduction of new genes/organisms from chance. Evidence for mutation of genes? Yes. _New_ genes? No. Science also shows us that breeding of different species doesn't work. Cat's can't breed with dogs, horses can't breed with fish, humans can't breed with apes. So how could so many different species evolve from one source, and what did that one source breed with in order to reproduce?
I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just here to keep showing you that you are in dire need of some real education. And yet, with your superior understanding and comprehension, far outweighing any other human living on this earth, you have failed to offer anything remotely "rational" or "logical" that I, or anyone else can use to deepen our understanding of this world. You're leaning your understanding on doctrinal dogma, contrived by, and enforced by fallible human scientists of this world in opposition to the Word of God.
Now what are you babbling on about? They had good architects and they piled carefully carved rocks atop each-other putting less on each level until they had a place for a pointy rock to sit. To answer your question, not only could they have, but they did. Duh. Sounds easy enough, although according to evolution, we are advancing and moving forward, and yet even today the most advanced technology and intelligent architects are not able to match the level of precision and architecture acheived so many thousands of years ago. I think your rational logic meter might be dropping out on you.
A part of becoming fully human is recognising your weaknesses and confronting them. Very insightful. If we're not fully human, please, tell me what we are.
Why are you so afraid of death? What is it about having a finite existence that scares you so much? Don't be confused, I have no reason to fear death with the knowledge of salvation and eternal life. If life was finite, I would have no qualms with doing myself in cause life is just too hard. If there's no reason to live, what's the point, really? Even if you learnt some interesting facts about this earth, what do you gain?
Is it that having wasted a goodly portion of your life on religious idiocy you are afraid to admit your mistake to yourself? Are you sure it's me that's afraid to admit my mistakes? It's a rhetorical question, not a yes or no question.
Don't worry. Many fine useful and productive people were once enmeshed, ensnared and mired in life destroying religious issues just as you are now. On the contrary, I've been set free. In living by the Holy Spirit, I don't need to worry about the wages of sin. I'm not perfect, but through God's Grace I'm forgiven for my sins, even if I slip up, I can repent and ask God for forgiveness.
You (generic you, for most religion victims, excluding the parent poster who has proven to have a non-human level of intelligence and complete inability to learn, observe or reason classifying it as a rather limited (and not very colorful) flightless parrot) can be saved. Saved from what? There is only one way to be saved from death, and that is through Jesus alone.
Sin is a part of his creation, the creation he chose to form in the full knowledge of the pain, suffering and alleged eternal torment he chooses to put his supposedly beloved children through. As far as "his supposedly beloved children" go, all those who choose to go through their whole life rejecting his Word, rejecting his son, who paid the ultimate penalty so that we can be saved from sin through Grace, not through our own works, had ample opportunity to accept Jesus, and failure to do so will end undesirably (i.e.: "eternal torment"). I question whether you actually have read the Bible (let alone several times). After reading all your posts, it is apparent that you have cherry-picked any passages that jumped out at you as bad without actually looking at the context of the words themselves or the time at which it was written, and just plain ignored the meaning and purpose.
Not that a word of it is true or anything but according to the bible sin, death, suffering, hate, torture, rape, murder... All are specifically created parts of his "perfect" creation. Sin is not an object or an entity, rather an act of disobedience, performed by man. Those other references are the fruits of mans sin. Because man chose to disobey God, death, suffering and decay was brought into this world, and the only way to overcome it was for God to sacrifice his one and only son, so that whoever chooses to believe will receive eternal life. Continuing in a life of sin (disobeying God's commands) and using your free choice to reject the Gospel will only lead to death.
Just to recap your post previous to the one I am replying to, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote:
There was no time after the abiogenetic event (an event in which abiogenesis occurred) when death did not occur as a regular part of life. There was no fall of man. And only the most specio-centric types consider man's development an ascent either. And the vast majority of fossils we find these days were formed tens and hundreds of millions of years before anything even the most generous of definitions can classify as human walked the earth. These are simple historical facts. To deny them is to show your own failings. Not that that's likely to worry you. -
As always you inanely chatter out rote-learned trite comments with little meaning and less relevance rather than actually read, comprehend and respond to what is presented to you. Neither the dictionary definition of science, nor that of abiogenesis are remotely relevant to anything in my post. Not that it would help you if they were, as you got them both wrong anyway. You're right!! How silly of me, the dictionary did get the definitions wrong! As for the reference to abiogenesis, I have included your reference to it in the beginning... of my post. With your open mind and broad understanding, you seem to only be looking at one side of the coin... your side. Just because my PoV does not particularly coincide with your belief system, doesn't make my observations and opinions invalid.
No-one other than creationists claim that complex life came from nothing in a magical spark. The claims that evolution means something comes from nothing, and that the world is at present decaying are both bald-faced lies. Told by you. A liar. Either you are grossly misinformed, or just ignorant to not only your own beliefs but also the beliefs of Creationists. If you don't believe the "big bang theory", that tags along with evolution, in which a chaotic explosion produced complex living organisms, then how do you, with your superior, godlike insight, believe the earth came to be?
As for the beginning of the world and the study of such, well, we weren't talking about the beginning of the world. We were talking about the fossils that formed hundreds of millions of years before man came into recognizable existence, and the process of development from the earliest lifeforms through to the fascinating biodiversity we see today. Oh, you were referring to that unproven theory in which is not observable for study... oops! Just to reiterate my point on that portion of the topic, for there to have been fossils that fossilised millions of years ago, there would have had to be death at that point in time. Unfortunately, death was only introduced, according to creation scientist studies and genealogical studies of the Bible, and the Bible itself (i.e.: Adam and Eve, fall of man) approximately several thousand years ago.
Not only can this development be theorized about, but the theories produced can be used to make predictions, and those predictions tested and measured against the existing evidence which is easily accessible to any who care to actually look. You however, cannot see this evidence. You cannot even accurately read a simple English post on Slashdot. All you can do is detect about 30 key words or phrases and respond with your pre-taught mindless "arguments". On the flipside, I haven't seen any compelling or convincing arguments coming from your posts, all I've seen is an attack on my posts and my beliefs, not using persausive opposing arguments, rather just ridicule and taunting.
On a more interesting note, I was watching a clip on youtube the other day and, following the theory of evolution, have you thought about the pyramids in Egypt? If man is slowly evolving, how did they manage to build a structure with such precision as we can barely achieve even today? Could the Egyptians have built it with their knowledge, man-power, resources, and tools?
Actually, according to your own biblical doctrines the almighty gawd is 100% responsible for sin as well. Sin is the lawlessness of man, disobedience to God's Will. Sin is not one of God's creations, rather it is through mans free choice that man can choose to sin, choose to reject Gods commands.
There was no time after the abiogenetic event (an event in which abiogenesis occurred) when death did not occur as a regular part of life. Is that so? Even the definition of the word "abiogenesis" implies it is not proven, and being the logical, rational thinking person that you are, would realise that it is untrue. You have all these colorful words for creationists (and Christians alike), and yet the logical, rational part of your brain tells you that something came from nothing, that complex life came from some magical explosion (sparked by absolute nothingness). If you step outside your basement and look around, you'll see that things in this world aren't evolving and getting better with each passing day, they're decaying, deteriorating, and dying.
And the vast majority of fossils we find these days were formed tens and hundreds of millions of years before anything even the most generous of definitions can classify as human walked the earth. If you choose to blindly follow the theories of the Old Earth dogma, that's up to you. You're allowed to put your faith in the few hundred year old doctrines of scientists. One thing to point out is that this compilation of guesswork that you put your beliefs in isn't even science, have a look at the definition from the Oxford Dictionary:
science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The beginning of the world that we live in cannot be feasibly and reliably studied in this day and age.
Painful childbirth was eve's punishment for eating the apple, I love pointing this out to pregnant Christians when they discuss epidurals. I once pointed it out to a Christian obstetrician, that was priceless. Sooo... how did the obstetrician respond?
Try it sometime, you'll see a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance Christians undergo when faced with some of the less savory aspects of The Bible. They've got prepared excuses for things like creation, but not childbirth pain. What sort of excuses are you looking for? The Bible says that birth pains are a result of the fall of man, I don't see what Christians would be disagreeing with.
In fact...most of my arguing with Christians works this way these days. I've long given up trying to educate them - it's futile. Now I just point out flaws in their "Christian" behavior. Question: What is it that drives you to correct Christians and to put them on the right path?
A good one is to point out the bit where they're not supposed to own cars or TV sets, that they have to give everything they own to the poor and let god provide for their basic needs (Matthew 19:21). Actually, methinks you have slightly misinterpreted that passage. There is only one way to receive salvation, and that is by believing and accepting Jesus and keeping his commands. Notice the "If you want to be perfect," in that verse, it doesn't say we have to get rid of all our worldy possessions in order to receive salvation, rather as the following verses point out, it is much harder to obey his commands when your focus is on your own wealth and well-being here on this earth.
Matthew 19:16-24 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
John 14:6-7 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Maybe that's because I find organized Christian religion to be too much like being a 4 year old. You ask the authority figure "Why?" and he tells you "Because that's the way it is, now stop asking questions and just believe me." Yup, those were the days all right. Completely led by the nose, and unable to find the answers for yourself. If by "authority figure", you mean the Bible, then yes, I believe they call it faith. Also, in the following verse, Jesus _says_ to be more like a child. We're saved by grace through accepting Jesus in faith, not by being hard-headed and rejecting the Gospel.
Matthew 18:2-4 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
So I gather you have found [some of] the answers by yourself? Answers that lead to eternal life? Please, enlighten me, I'm ever so keen to know.
I always find the creationists attitude that it was a "poof! and it existed" scenario over evolution highly amusing for one reason: It takes a lot of gall to ignore the possibility that evolution is simply how God chose to do the deed. Whoooah... you're getting into a whole other discussion here. I'll just let you think about: If there was no death before the fall of man, where did the fossils come from?
I don't remember even Mao or Stalin saying "kill these people because they aren't atheists". Both Mao and Stalin may have been atheists, but it wasn't atheism that drove their ideologies...
...Find me an atheist dictator who said "non-atheists are inferior people and we should take away their rights, their lives and their property". There is, of course, no such thing, because there is no philosophy of hatred of other people that comes bundled with atheism. These men didn't need an atheistic philosophy of hatred to execute their actions, somehow they managed to do it according to their own ideologies, which tells me that religion is not the basis, rather mankinds sinful nature.
But pick up a Bible or the Koran and you'll find it full of vitriol aimed at non-believers. (Though admittedly there are some sections of the New Testament aren't so bad on this score.) Some sections? Are you able to cite references from the New Testament of the Bible that incites vitriol against non-Christians? I believe the New Testament teaches contrary to what you have stated here. For example:
Luke 6:27-36 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
...I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited, well thought out debate on ethical issues, complete with people from all sides participating...
rucs_hack: "If there was a spirit, then it would be logical to assume it is the result of sentience." Just slightly out of context, but thats ok. I think you mean that sentience would be a result out of having a spirit/soul. And for a cloned human to possess a spirit, he would need to be given it by someone who is able to give life. Cloning is one thing, provision of New Life is something completely different.
Any idea to the contrary is little more than the standard religious doctrine of 'hate that which is different', achieved by the simple mechanism of asserting that the target of that hate does not posses something required for acceptance by the group doing the hating. That's an interesting, strong, and yet unclear statement. Although I did read a prior post, and they suggested that if, hypothetically, a clone had a soul/spirit, they would also have the same human rights as the next person. This would make harvesting body parts a very interesting feat.
Did you know that the catholics debated for centuries whether black people had souls? And look how we treated them.... Oh, yes, did we ever give those catholics a thorough treating.
I have gone far above and beyond all reasonable efforts trying to accommodate you in a reasonable rational discussion. I have specifically monitored myself and specifically made an effort to be polite and meet you more than half way trying to establish a productive discussion.
That's cool dude, I found this discussion enlightening, and for me, it reinforces what I believe. I'm sorry if my version of logic and rationale differs to yours, it appears as though your logic and rational thinking is based around scientific findings and research, whereas, although I am well aware of the the "evidence" and "proof" put forward by men in this world, I choose to view and interpret the things of this world through the revelation of God's Word.
You are a troll because you are impervious to any and all possible facts and evidence and rational argument. No... before you jump to the conclusion... NOT merely that you find flaw in *my* evidence and *my* reasoning... you are a troll because you are impervious to ALL facts and ALL evidence and ALL reason and ALL logic.
I'm still not so sure that that makes me a troll. Because I choose not to be mislead and taken away by theories constructed by men of this world, rather choose to interpret this world through the use of God's Word, which has withstood thousands of years of oppression and persecution, and is still around today, and continues to be opposed by men. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs in research and theories brought forward by men, but could it not also be said, by opposing and rejecting what the Scriptures teach and instead following these speculative theories concocted by men, you are contravening, or even invalidating your claim that it is I who is the troll?
You ADMIT this. You have CATEGORICALLY dismissed the entirety of material reality as a basis of productive rational discussion. "not the type of factual 'evidence' that I want to base my beliefs on".
You know well the points I have been making in all my posts. When I put the word evidence in quotes, I was referring to the "evidence" claimed by men, which in fact, and this is absolute fact, much of their theories are based on assumptions of history, and educated speculations. Let me make that statement a bit clearer, I will not base my beliefs on theories based on assumptions and speculations, rather, on the infallible Word of God.
Congratulations, you are the FIRST person I am using the Slashdot Foe system to tag. You are a Troll. You are a troll and you effectively admit you are a troll. You admit that you are pathologically unwilling or unable to participate in rational productive discussion, that you categorically ignore all facts and all evidence. I do not want across you again a year from now and accidentally attempt to engage in a reasonable rational discussion with someone who simply and admittedly ignores material reality.
Don't fall apart on me, this discussion has been not only productive for myself, but believe it or not, you will find it has also been productive for you. Whether you choose to use my objections to assist you in future discussions, or whether you actually choose to accept the Bible as the only truth in this world and believe that it contains the only answer that leads to eternal life. I've benefited greatly from this discussion, and for me, it has reinforced that what I believe is the truth. It's amazing the lengths that people will go to oppose the Word, and reject the Gospel.
Sure! You can find it in this post, your paragraphs 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and final paragraph 10. In fact each and every paragraph except paragraph 2 are, in whole or in substantial part, arguments against Galileo. You are just too blind to look in the mirror and see that you are replaying the Galileo witch trial argument-for-argument.
I see where you're coming from, but not only did I not refer to Galileo in that whole post except for the
A brief violent torrent of water will blatantly blast in straight lines, whereas millions of years of slow erosion by a gentle river will meander in U-turns and erode and weather rock in exactly the way we see in the grand canyon, yet you close your eyes and hope it will go away somehow.
The arctic ice blatantly shows hundreds of thousands of yearly layers, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.
As I explained the very mountains record millions of years of tectonic folding and uplift, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.
I mentioned that some bodies of water have tens of thousands of visible yearly cycle sediment deposits and glossed over about a half dozen similar examples, I haven't provided links but I absolutely could dig them up, but why should I bother when all you do is close your eyes and completely ignored them all. You didn't ask me about any of them, you didn't challenge any of them, you didn't doubt any of them, you didn't accuse me of lying about any of them, you just plain completely ignored them all.
Way-back-when at the start of this thread you were all eager to embrace Carbon dating when you thought it crapping-out at "several thousand years" might mean six thousand years. Yet you promptly closed your eyes and FORGOT it out of existence when it turned out that "several thousand years" meant documenting SIXTY thousand years of continuously documented carbon dated history.
Everything you have listed here is "evidence" that can have arguments for or against. In each case, it is a matter of how the "evidence" is interpreted, using fallible human logic and understanding. This is not the type of factual "evidence" that I want to base my beliefs on, I choose not to blindly follow the understanding of a few scientists who have had to use their fallible understanding and research to speculatively concoct theories based on assumptions on how historical events may have possibly occurred.
There is over 5000 years of written Egyptian history, yet you close your eyes and tell me to "investigate" because you simply do not WANT it to exist. Go investigate it yourself, here's a good starting link [wikipedia.org], or go to your local library and open any history book, or go visit any major museum.
I did actually read that link before you posted it. You stated, "...and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.", that was what I was refferring to when I said you should investigate it further. If you look at the wiki article on 'History of ancient Egypt', it starts out, "Archaeological evidence indicates that a distinct culture was developing in the Nile valley from before 5000 BC.". This is more of those speculations and assumptions I have been insisting on, archaeological evidence is not quite the same as historically documented evidence.
You accused me of insist[ing] that everyone should blindly accept an old earth. You are being willfully blind, ignoring the existence of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas of what should and should not exist. It is truly astounding logic to accuse me of asking people to blindly accept an old earth without evidence by the magic of you simply ignoring everything I've said out of existence.
Don't get me wrong, I am not blindly ignoring the existence of such things, I am well and truly aware of the battle going on in this world against the Truth, not the truth according to the world, but the Truth according to the Bible. These preconceived ideas you refer to, are not things I have constructed in my mind, rather they are recorded in the Inspired Word of God.
You are just plain closing your eyes. You are just plain ignoring blatant PROOF that doesn't happen to fit the answer you wanted.
I defy you to offer any intellectually honest justification to dismiss the ice c
The exercise was presumably planned, so all he had to do was sit by the bottom and wait for the fleet to go overhead. Good point, dude. A little smoke-and-mirrors can go a long way.
One would think that if they did infiltrate a tight security barrier, surely they wouldn't have revealed themselves. "We are so smart, S-M-R-T!!"
You agree that the Young Earth Creationists are wrong in trying to explain away the Grand Canyon as being carved by Noah's flood. You try to explain it away as some sort of collapsed underground tunnel. Setting aside the fact that you are making out trained expert geologists to all be blind as bats and mindbogglingly stupid, the Grand Canyon walls are littered with fossils. The Grand Canyon was carved down into the rock after the rock formed with embedded fossils. Geologists are not stupid. The Grand Canyon in every aspect bears the evidence of millions of years of slow erosion and weathering of solid rock.
Haha! Dude, I never said I don't agree with the theory that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood, I said "I don't particularly stand by the theory". I haven't looked at the evidence they've put forward to be able to judge for myself whether I think they may be right or wrong. Also, I explicitly used the words "speculative possibilty" when making that statement. Although, now that you mention that the Canyon walls are littered with fossils, that does make me lean towards the Creationist theory, seeing as there was no death before the fall of man, so it would have had to come sometime after Adam and Eve sinned.
The Egyptian civilization written history is continuous going back more than 5000 years, blowing a hole straight through any Young Earth Flood timeline, and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.
You may want to investigate this claim further. The "Egyptian civilization" could only have come about after the Tower of Babel, in which the original language was confused and the people were scattered over the earth, which was also after the flood. If it's worldly history and evidence you want, based on majorities, you may want to check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology). Quote:"A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.". If you have a look into it, you'll find many ancient cultures, for some reason or another, say that there was a "great flood" at some point in their history.
Genesis 11:1-9 The Tower of Babel Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel --because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
You keep assuming science doesn't know anything, and assuming that science has nothing to back up what it does know. There is a vast realm of science of which you are unfamiliar... If we really wanted to slog through it, and if it would make a difference, I could supply a link every single day for the next YEAR documenting different things that show the Earth is Old.
And yet the majority of the "evidence" would continue to be heavily based on speculations. I don't assume that science knows nothing, I don't know why you keep assuming that, science is good for trying to understand how the things aro
Dude, looking at that footage, I don't think you're far off. It so does look like CGI.
While watching the footage, I was waiting for the scary face to pop-up and start screaming at me. Although, that's not a bad idea... I wonder if I can download a copy of that footage.
Q: Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but why haven't I seen updated footage of dudes walking on the moon, preferably next to the flag that was placed there all those years ago?
You are insisting that if we do *not* blindly apply the Old Testament as literal physical science, entirely out of context, that that "opposes the Word of God".
The New Testament still has to be taken in context with the Old Testament, otherwise a lot of things in the New Testament wouldn't be clear. The New Testament also reinforces the Old Testament. I am not saying that we have to "blindly" accept the Old Testament as a science textbook, _but_ what I have been saying is that the Old Earth evolutionary theory does oppose the Bible. According to the Bible, death was a result of the fall of man into sin at the beginning of the earths creation. There was no death before the fall and thus, correct me if I'm wrong, fossils require death to become fossilized and could not have been fossilized before the fall of man.
Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Their eyes and ears and hearts and minds were closed to the Truth written in the world around us, they refused to allow the wondrous universe around us to complement and enlighten the their understanding of the Bible. They presumed themselves infallible, and their grasp of the Bible to be absolute and infallible. Rather than taking the Bible as an on-going pursuit of understanding and self improvement, they took the Bible as cold dead dogma. They presumed to *tell God* how He was and was not permitted to run His universe. They declared that Galileo's knowledge "opposes the Word of God".
The word truth that you're reffering to here is not the Truth of the Gospel but rather trivial scientific truths. I don't doubt that there would have been a portion of the Roman Catholic Church of that day that believed themselves and their understanding of the Bible to be infallible. There are still, to this day, different churches around the world deceiving many people, wittingly or unwittingly. Although, Galileo's theory proved to be true as far as science has discovered and as far as his theory went, old earth theories, on the other hand, have not been proven, and if you look at what is written in the Bible, it is explicitly contradictory to many writings in the Old and New Testament.
Which is impossible unless one's heart and mind are open to the full spectrum of the Light of Truth. Those who opposed Galileo believed they were doing what is right in order to receive salvation. By closing themselves to one portion of that light, they blinded themselves to all of the light. They placed themselves in darkness, and without realizing it led themselves away from that which is good right. With eyes closed, they led themselves to do evil. Their intent being good and doing what is right to receive salvation, but their pride and willful blindness made them responsible for their illdeeds nonetheless.
I have made it clear in my previous posts that, salvation is not received through knowledge, works/deeds, wisdom or anything through mans own strength, rather salvation comes through faith in Gods one and only Son Jesus who died and rose again so that we can be saved from sin, sin which was brought into this world through the fall of man at the beginning of this earth. According to the Bible, one _cannot_ receive salvation based on being and doing good.
No, not fair to say at all. Mountains *do* grow!
Fair enough, you can say that mountains do grow. I was referring to the conventional understanding of the term grow, as in a developing organism rather than the
Jesus often taught in allegory, and his message explicitly superseded the old testament. Yet there are many crusading today who ignore both of those facts. Many who insist that that explicitly obsoleted language must be blindly applied today, that it must be applied out of context without logic or understanding. Insisting that *not* blindly applying it as literal physical science today, entirely out of context, that that somehow invalidates everything Jesus said, that that denies God.
Not totally clear on the conclusion you drew there. When I reffered to the old and the new covenant, I wasn't inferring anything about the difference in languages, I was raising the point that under the new covenant we are no longer bound by the law written on stone, through our own works and efforts, but instead we are set free through Jesus. As the Bible tells us in the following passages:
Romans 8:2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
2 Corinthians 3:7-18 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
I agree Jesus brought much light. However light is composed of a spectrum of colors. White light can only exist as a balanced unit of component colors. To live in the light requires a balance of morality and wisdom and knowledge.
That's from a worldly scientific point-of-view. True, that is what scientists can gauge through research and experimentation, but it's a limited understanding of light, we can't really comprehend the inner workings of light. Taking my quote from my previous post, when you put it in context, it's not about "living in the light", as in being good and doing what is right in order to receive salvation, although those things are encased, it's about believing and having faith in the Son of God, asking Him to forgive you for your sinfulness and doing His Will.
Ecclesiastes 8:17 then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.
Morality fails just as totally without knowledge. With no knowledge there is no choice to make. With flawed or insufficient knowledge, even the most pure sincere morality will often make the wrong choice with disastrous consequences.
Actually, according to the Bible, morality didn't come into it before the fall of man. It was only after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they became aware of their sinfulness. Ever since that time man has been born with a sinful nature, something we all have to deal with (or choose not to deal with).
It's the former. I wanted to know God better than I already did. I wanted a stronger, deeper relationship with him. Wow, but had I been snowed. As I read I learned from God's own boasts about himself and his behaviour that he was a murderous, rapacious, misogynistic, unjust, cruel, irrational, lying, hate-filled, trickster, incapable of anything like justice, fairness or love. Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
You speak as though you are, not only wiser and more knowledgable than man, but superior to your Creator. Do you think your "rational", "logical" mind is more advanced than the one who created this universe and everything in it from scratch? How does a fallible human, who has been on this earth for such a short time, assume they are more moral and know better than the one who created him.
The creation can be superior to the creator it seemed, and it was clear that man was capable of being ethically and morally superior to the God who condoned and indeed ordered genocide, torture, mass rapes including rape of children, and eternal torment for anyone who never heard of it, along with torment for anyone capable of reason. Satan had a similar mindset right before he was cast out.
Isaiah 14:12-15 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.
If it were possible for me to be wrong on the existence of God, which thankfully it's not, then on the day were summoned before the throne to be judged on the crimes of rational thought, empathy for humans and seeking justice... well, God better be good at hand to hand combat or have some fast moving bailiffs. You sound so confident now. I think there is one main thing to point out with your view, and that is, you speak as though you were of an agnostic view, and yet if there were no God, why would you devote your life to rejecting and attacking His Word. Surely, if you were of the understanding that this world magically appeared out of thin-air, you wouldn't go to such an extent to oppose these writings which, according to you, are not God-breathed. Your opposition to God's Word only works against it's own cause, by opposing it just makes it evident that there is something to oppose.
I wouldn't bother with the "rational" and "logical" argument, cause if you think that this whole universe appeared out of absolute nothingness (and by that I mean, there had to be something, somewhere in the very beginning, in order for anything to have been created), then there must be some kind of mental block where rational and logical thought are supposed to come into it.
It's good to see more of a sensible reply post (unlike other slashdotting individuals).
I don't think the Bible was ever intended as a literal physical science textbook. I think the Bible is about lessons on human nature and how to live and love and be a good person. I do find it necessary to point out, yes the Bible does instruct us on what is right and what is not, but the underlying message is in the new testament, when the old covenant of the old testament was superseded by the new covenant.
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
The underlying message of the Bible can be found here:
John 3:16-21 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see any verse pointed out by Shakrai that would imply that Christianity encourages extermination of non-believers. He/She didn't really provide an answer to the posed question: If quotes from the quran don't define islam, then what does? The Bible defines what Christians believe and what example they are to follow.
The only exterminating of non-Christians that I can think of that the Bible talks about, that is relevant to today, is done by our Creator at the second coming, not by individual Christians.
The verse that he used points out that if you want to be perfect in God's eye's then you can sell everything you own. Christians are _allowed_ to sell everything they own, but they don't "have to".
1) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected by anyone who cares about learning the truth rather than denying it. There are multiple vectors by which genetic information in a specimen may increase, from failed mitosis to conquered viral infection.
2) Factual inaccuracy, easily self-corrected with a little thought and structured consideration. Earliest life (give or take as noted in my previous post) had no genes. It was self replicating chemicals of a much simpler nature.
I fail to see how my statement was a factual inaccuracy according to your reply. Mitosis, the division of cells, replication, still doesn't explain where the self-replicating cell came from. Failed mitosis? The cells failure to divide? How does that support your argument?
Self replication is hardly evidence for new life coming from non-living elements/materials, that's just blind ignorance of the evidence presented in this world.
3) Raw idiocy. The definition of species is variants of critters that can't viably interbreed. This occurs when populations of a species are separated long enough for differing mutations to accrue. Breeding of variants within a species however accelerates evolution significantly.
Raw idiocy on whose part? You're just emphasizing my point. As for your accrueing mutations, try proving that. I don't know where you pulled that one from, please, name a species that we can observe and research in this present day, that has mutated from one species to another.
Variants within species may have evidence of mutation/adaption, but as far as evolution goes, there is no evidence of species, slowly or otherwise, evolving into other species.
4) Factual inaccuracy. Humans can breed with apes. Humans are apes, and can breed within their own species. Duh.
At which point in history was the last successful recorded mating and reproduction of a human and any type of ape or monkey? I would be very interested to know of any human that has "assumed the position" with any type of ape and successfully reproduced.
As for remains of evolutionary species, from ape to human, if you actually look at both sides of the research, rather then suppressing any evidence opposing evolution, you'll find that the "missing link" specimens constructed from discovered remains (excluding the reconstruction from a pigs tooth, and the mixing of remains), the specimens are either true human, or true ape. There is no half way between the two species, humans and apes _are_ two different species.
6) Misrepresentation of sources. I am not opposed to the word of any deities. However given that there are no deities this does not affect me much. I am opposed to efforts to run modern societies and restrict peoples ability to think and act in a fit and free manner in accordance to the deranged scribblings of stoned shepherds.
I was referring to the theory of evolution (the big bang theory in particular) as being in opposition to the Word of God. Although I find it interesting that in your denial of opposition to your Creator, you would (supposedly) read his Word multiple times over, in an effort to cherry-pick parts you don't understand, and take them out of context, and then proceed to use these flimsy discoveries to assault Christians using words. Even the "stoned shepherds" reference indicates your opposition to the Inspired Word of God.
7) Misrepresentation of sources. Science is not "enforced" by anything or anyone except in a science classroom. It is also not a doctrinal dogma. I do not lean my understanding on anything. I build it in a sound structural form on the foundations of reality.
Your reality _is_ the reality laid out by former and present scientists, the research and studies continue to be built upon layer by layer, erroneous or not. Will scientists challenge original established studies if so many proceeding layers of research rely upon the original ones?
Groups within governments have made it mandatory f
Being a Christian involves a lot of persecution, ridicule, and in past era's, execution. Living as a Christian, you come across the same difficulties, hardships, and temptations as anyone else in life, except you've got someone to help you through, someone that is above all things.
You've done it again, I'm really doubting you've read the Bible even once over, where in the Bible does it warn against suicide? We are made in the image of God, and we are also commanded not to murder, but please, show me the warning against suicide, the part you've read more than six times. I never suggested there was no reason to live. That's your own belief. Not mine. If there was no reason to live then I'd have offed myself long ago to leave more natural resources for cuter critters. So please, from your point of view, what is the reason for living? You (generic you,
Dude, you're no different to the people in history who executed Christians, or the supposed christians that executed non-believers.
I can't really call you a sheep following the flock of dogmatic evolutionsists, because you're up the front of the pack, leading the flock into deception that leads to eternal damnation. I will pray for you because you're gonna have a lot to answer for when your very limited time on this earth is up.
...From there to the chance formation of the first self-replicating chemical strands (barely classifiable as life) is rather longer than anything you can grasp as well. I abbreviated the first part of the quote as there was nothing new stated in comparison with the big bang/new life statement.The same points remain, whether they(new life/bigbang) were millions of years apart or in the same week, no matter which way you look at it, that rational, logical part of your brain should be telling you there must have been something before the big bang for it to have occurred... but where did those particles/elements, whatever you want to call them, come from? They obviously couldn't have been created by a creator, so where did these materials come from?!
And "new life", simple or complex, that same portion of your brain is asking, where from? There is no evidence to support the introduction of new genes/organisms from chance. Evidence for mutation of genes? Yes. _New_ genes? No.
Science also shows us that breeding of different species doesn't work. Cat's can't breed with dogs, horses can't breed with fish, humans can't breed with apes. So how could so many different species evolve from one source, and what did that one source breed with in order to reproduce? I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just here to keep showing you that you are in dire need of some real education. And yet, with your superior understanding and comprehension, far outweighing any other human living on this earth, you have failed to offer anything remotely "rational" or "logical" that I, or anyone else can use to deepen our understanding of this world.
You're leaning your understanding on doctrinal dogma, contrived by, and enforced by fallible human scientists of this world in opposition to the Word of God. Now what are you babbling on about? They had good architects and they piled carefully carved rocks atop each-other putting less on each level until they had a place for a pointy rock to sit.
To answer your question, not only could they have, but they did. Duh. Sounds easy enough, although according to evolution, we are advancing and moving forward, and yet even today the most advanced technology and intelligent architects are not able to match the level of precision and architecture acheived so many thousands of years ago.
I think your rational logic meter might be dropping out on you.
I question whether you actually have read the Bible (let alone several times). After reading all your posts, it is apparent that you have cherry-picked any passages that jumped out at you as bad without actually looking at the context of the words themselves or the time at which it was written, and just plain ignored the meaning and purpose. Not that a word of it is true or anything but according to the bible sin, death, suffering, hate, torture, rape, murder... All are specifically created parts of his "perfect" creation. Sin is not an object or an entity, rather an act of disobedience, performed by man. Those other references are the fruits of mans sin. Because man chose to disobey God, death, suffering and decay was brought into this world, and the only way to overcome it was for God to sacrifice his one and only son, so that whoever chooses to believe will receive eternal life. Continuing in a life of sin (disobeying God's commands) and using your free choice to reject the Gospel will only lead to death.
There was no fall of man. And only the most specio-centric types consider man's development an ascent either.
And the vast majority of fossils we find these days were formed tens and hundreds of millions of years before anything even the most generous of definitions can classify as human walked the earth.
These are simple historical facts. To deny them is to show your own failings. Not that that's likely to worry you. - As always you inanely chatter out rote-learned trite comments with little meaning and less relevance rather than actually read, comprehend and respond to what is presented to you. Neither the dictionary definition of science, nor that of abiogenesis are remotely relevant to anything in my post. Not that it would help you if they were, as you got them both wrong anyway. You're right!! How silly of me, the dictionary did get the definitions wrong! As for the reference to abiogenesis, I have included your reference to it in the beginning... of my post.
With your open mind and broad understanding, you seem to only be looking at one side of the coin... your side. Just because my PoV does not particularly coincide with your belief system, doesn't make my observations and opinions invalid. No-one other than creationists claim that complex life came from nothing in a magical spark. The claims that evolution means something comes from nothing, and that the world is at present decaying are both bald-faced lies. Told by you. A liar. Either you are grossly misinformed, or just ignorant to not only your own beliefs but also the beliefs of Creationists. If you don't believe the "big bang theory", that tags along with evolution, in which a chaotic explosion produced complex living organisms, then how do you, with your superior, godlike insight, believe the earth came to be? As for the beginning of the world and the study of such, well, we weren't talking about the beginning of the world. We were talking about the fossils that formed hundreds of millions of years before man came into recognizable existence, and the process of development from the earliest lifeforms through to the fascinating biodiversity we see today. Oh, you were referring to that unproven theory in which is not observable for study... oops! Just to reiterate my point on that portion of the topic, for there to have been fossils that fossilised millions of years ago, there would have had to be death at that point in time. Unfortunately, death was only introduced, according to creation scientist studies and genealogical studies of the Bible, and the Bible itself (i.e.: Adam and Eve, fall of man) approximately several thousand years ago. Not only can this development be theorized about, but the theories produced can be used to make predictions, and those predictions tested and measured against the existing evidence which is easily accessible to any who care to actually look. You however, cannot see this evidence. You cannot even accurately read a simple English post on Slashdot. All you can do is detect about 30 key words or phrases and respond with your pre-taught mindless "arguments". On the flipside, I haven't seen any compelling or convincing arguments coming from your posts, all I've seen is an attack on my posts and my beliefs, not using persausive opposing arguments, rather just ridicule and taunting.
On a more interesting note, I was watching a clip on youtube the other day and, following the theory of evolution, have you thought about the pyramids in Egypt? If man is slowly evolving, how did they manage to build a structure with such precision as we can barely achieve even today? Could the Egyptians have built it with their knowledge, man-power, resources, and tools?
You have all these colorful words for creationists (and Christians alike), and yet the logical, rational part of your brain tells you that something came from nothing, that complex life came from some magical explosion (sparked by absolute nothingness).
If you step outside your basement and look around, you'll see that things in this world aren't evolving and getting better with each passing day, they're decaying, deteriorating, and dying. And the vast majority of fossils we find these days were formed tens and hundreds of millions of years before anything even the most generous of definitions can classify as human walked the earth. If you choose to blindly follow the theories of the Old Earth dogma, that's up to you. You're allowed to put your faith in the few hundred year old doctrines of scientists. One thing to point out is that this compilation of guesswork that you put your beliefs in isn't even science, have a look at the definition from the Oxford Dictionary:
science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The beginning of the world that we live in cannot be feasibly and reliably studied in this day and age.
Matthew 19:16-24
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
John 14:6-7
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Matthew 18:2-4
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
So I gather you have found [some of] the answers by yourself? Answers that lead to eternal life? Please, enlighten me, I'm ever so keen to know.
It takes a lot of gall to ignore the possibility that evolution is simply how God chose to do the deed. Whoooah... you're getting into a whole other discussion here. I'll just let you think about: If there was no death before the fall of man, where did the fossils come from?
...Find me an atheist dictator who said "non-atheists are inferior people and we should take away their rights, their lives and their property". There is, of course, no such thing, because there is no philosophy of hatred of other people that comes bundled with atheism. These men didn't need an atheistic philosophy of hatred to execute their actions, somehow they managed to do it according to their own ideologies, which tells me that religion is not the basis, rather mankinds sinful nature. But pick up a Bible or the Koran and you'll find it full of vitriol aimed at non-believers. (Though admittedly there are some sections of the New Testament aren't so bad on this score.) Some sections? Are you able to cite references from the New Testament of the Bible that incites vitriol against non-Christians? I believe the New Testament teaches contrary to what you have stated here. For example:Luke 6:27-36
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
...I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited, well thought out debate on ethical issues, complete with people from all sides participating... rucs_hack: "If there was a spirit, then it would be logical to assume it is the result of sentience." Just slightly out of context, but thats ok. I think you mean that sentience would be a result out of having a spirit/soul. And for a cloned human to possess a spirit, he would need to be given it by someone who is able to give life. Cloning is one thing, provision of New Life is something completely different. Any idea to the contrary is little more than the standard religious doctrine of 'hate that which is different', achieved by the simple mechanism of asserting that the target of that hate does not posses something required for acceptance by the group doing the hating. That's an interesting, strong, and yet unclear statement. Although I did read a prior post, and they suggested that if, hypothetically, a clone had a soul/spirit, they would also have the same human rights as the next person. This would make harvesting body parts a very interesting feat. Did you know that the catholics debated for centuries whether black people had souls? And look how we treated them.... Oh, yes, did we ever give those catholics a thorough treating.I have gone far above and beyond all reasonable efforts trying to accommodate you in a reasonable rational discussion. I have specifically monitored myself and specifically made an effort to be polite and meet you more than half way trying to establish a productive discussion.
That's cool dude, I found this discussion enlightening, and for me, it reinforces what I believe. I'm sorry if my version of logic and rationale differs to yours, it appears as though your logic and rational thinking is based around scientific findings and research, whereas, although I am well aware of the the "evidence" and "proof" put forward by men in this world, I choose to view and interpret the things of this world through the revelation of God's Word.
You are a troll because you are impervious to any and all possible facts and evidence and rational argument. No... before you jump to the conclusion... NOT merely that you find flaw in *my* evidence and *my* reasoning... you are a troll because you are impervious to ALL facts and ALL evidence and ALL reason and ALL logic.
I'm still not so sure that that makes me a troll. Because I choose not to be mislead and taken away by theories constructed by men of this world, rather choose to interpret this world through the use of God's Word, which has withstood thousands of years of oppression and persecution, and is still around today, and continues to be opposed by men.
You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs in research and theories brought forward by men, but could it not also be said, by opposing and rejecting what the Scriptures teach and instead following these speculative theories concocted by men, you are contravening, or even invalidating your claim that it is I who is the troll?
You ADMIT this. You have CATEGORICALLY dismissed the entirety of material reality as a basis of productive rational discussion. "not the type of factual 'evidence' that I want to base my beliefs on".
You know well the points I have been making in all my posts. When I put the word evidence in quotes, I was referring to the "evidence" claimed by men, which in fact, and this is absolute fact, much of their theories are based on assumptions of history, and educated speculations. Let me make that statement a bit clearer, I will not base my beliefs on theories based on assumptions and speculations, rather, on the infallible Word of God.
Congratulations, you are the FIRST person I am using the Slashdot Foe system to tag. You are a Troll. You are a troll and you effectively admit you are a troll. You admit that you are pathologically unwilling or unable to participate in rational productive discussion, that you categorically ignore all facts and all evidence. I do not want across you again a year from now and accidentally attempt to engage in a reasonable rational discussion with someone who simply and admittedly ignores material reality.
Don't fall apart on me, this discussion has been not only productive for myself, but believe it or not, you will find it has also been productive for you. Whether you choose to use my objections to assist you in future discussions, or whether you actually choose to accept the Bible as the only truth in this world and believe that it contains the only answer that leads to eternal life.
I've benefited greatly from this discussion, and for me, it has reinforced that what I believe is the truth.
It's amazing the lengths that people will go to oppose the Word, and reject the Gospel.
Sure! You can find it in this post, your paragraphs 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and final paragraph 10. In fact each and every paragraph except paragraph 2 are, in whole or in substantial part, arguments against Galileo. You are just too blind to look in the mirror and see that you are replaying the Galileo witch trial argument-for-argument.
I see where you're coming from, but not only did I not refer to Galileo in that whole post except for the
A brief violent torrent of water will blatantly blast in straight lines, whereas millions of years of slow erosion by a gentle river will meander in U-turns and erode and weather rock in exactly the way we see in the grand canyon, yet you close your eyes and hope it will go away somehow.
The arctic ice blatantly shows hundreds of thousands of yearly layers, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.
As I explained the very mountains record millions of years of tectonic folding and uplift, yet you close your eyes and just plain ignore it.
I mentioned that some bodies of water have tens of thousands of visible yearly cycle sediment deposits and glossed over about a half dozen similar examples, I haven't provided links but I absolutely could dig them up, but why should I bother when all you do is close your eyes and completely ignored them all. You didn't ask me about any of them, you didn't challenge any of them, you didn't doubt any of them, you didn't accuse me of lying about any of them, you just plain completely ignored them all.
Way-back-when at the start of this thread you were all eager to embrace Carbon dating when you thought it crapping-out at "several thousand years" might mean six thousand years. Yet you promptly closed your eyes and FORGOT it out of existence when it turned out that "several thousand years" meant documenting SIXTY thousand years of continuously documented carbon dated history.
Everything you have listed here is "evidence" that can have arguments for or against. In each case, it is a matter of how the "evidence" is interpreted, using fallible human logic and understanding. This is not the type of factual "evidence" that I want to base my beliefs on, I choose not to blindly follow the understanding of a few scientists who have had to use their fallible understanding and research to speculatively concoct theories based on assumptions on how historical events may have possibly occurred.
There is over 5000 years of written Egyptian history, yet you close your eyes and tell me to "investigate" because you simply do not WANT it to exist. Go investigate it yourself, here's a good starting link [wikipedia.org], or go to your local library and open any history book, or go visit any major museum.
I did actually read that link before you posted it. You stated, "...and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.", that was what I was refferring to when I said you should investigate it further. If you look at the wiki article on 'History of ancient Egypt', it starts out, "Archaeological evidence indicates that a distinct culture was developing in the Nile valley from before 5000 BC.". This is more of those speculations and assumptions I have been insisting on, archaeological evidence is not quite the same as historically documented evidence.
You accused me of insist[ing] that everyone should blindly accept an old earth. You are being willfully blind, ignoring the existence of anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas of what should and should not exist. It is truly astounding logic to accuse me of asking people to blindly accept an old earth without evidence by the magic of you simply ignoring everything I've said out of existence.
Don't get me wrong, I am not blindly ignoring the existence of such things, I am well and truly aware of the battle going on in this world against the Truth, not the truth according to the world, but the Truth according to the Bible. These preconceived ideas you refer to, are not things I have constructed in my mind, rather they are recorded in the Inspired Word of God.
You are just plain closing your eyes. You are just plain ignoring blatant PROOF that doesn't happen to fit the answer you wanted.
I defy you to offer any intellectually honest justification to dismiss the ice c
One would think that if they did infiltrate a tight security barrier, surely they wouldn't have revealed themselves. "We are so smart, S-M-R-T!!"
You agree that the Young Earth Creationists are wrong in trying to explain away the Grand Canyon as being carved by Noah's flood. You try to explain it away as some sort of collapsed underground tunnel. Setting aside the fact that you are making out trained expert geologists to all be blind as bats and mindbogglingly stupid, the Grand Canyon walls are littered with fossils. The Grand Canyon was carved down into the rock after the rock formed with embedded fossils. Geologists are not stupid. The Grand Canyon in every aspect bears the evidence of millions of years of slow erosion and weathering of solid rock.
Haha! Dude, I never said I don't agree with the theory that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood, I said "I don't particularly stand by the theory". I haven't looked at the evidence they've put forward to be able to judge for myself whether I think they may be right or wrong.
Also, I explicitly used the words "speculative possibilty" when making that statement. Although, now that you mention that the Canyon walls are littered with fossils, that does make me lean towards the Creationist theory, seeing as there was no death before the fall of man, so it would have had to come sometime after Adam and Eve sinned.
The Egyptian civilization written history is continuous going back more than 5000 years, blowing a hole straight through any Young Earth Flood timeline, and there's a hell of a lot more than 1,000 years of pre-written human civilization prior to the start of written Egyptian history.
You may want to investigate this claim further. The "Egyptian civilization" could only have come about after the Tower of Babel, in which the original language was confused and the people were scattered over the earth, which was also after the flood. If it's worldly history and evidence you want, based on majorities, you may want to check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology). Quote: "A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.". If you have a look into it, you'll find many ancient cultures, for some reason or another, say that there was a "great flood" at some point in their history.
Genesis 11:1-9
The Tower of Babel
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel --because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
You keep assuming science doesn't know anything, and assuming that science has nothing to back up what it does know. There is a vast realm of science of which you are unfamiliar... If we really wanted to slog through it, and if it would make a difference, I could supply a link every single day for the next YEAR documenting different things that show the Earth is Old.
And yet the majority of the "evidence" would continue to be heavily based on speculations. I don't assume that science knows nothing, I don't know why you keep assuming that, science is good for trying to understand how the things aro
Dude, looking at that footage, I don't think you're far off. It so does look like CGI.
While watching the footage, I was waiting for the scary face to pop-up and start screaming at me. Although, that's not a bad idea... I wonder if I can download a copy of that footage.
Q: Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but why haven't I seen updated footage of dudes walking on the moon, preferably next to the flag that was placed there all those years ago?
You are insisting that if we do *not* blindly apply the Old Testament as literal physical science, entirely out of context, that that "opposes the Word of God".
The New Testament still has to be taken in context with the Old Testament, otherwise a lot of things in the New Testament wouldn't be clear. The New Testament also reinforces the Old Testament. I am not saying that we have to "blindly" accept the Old Testament as a science textbook, _but_ what I have been saying is that the Old Earth evolutionary theory does oppose the Bible. According to the Bible, death was a result of the fall of man into sin at the beginning of the earths creation. There was no death before the fall and thus, correct me if I'm wrong, fossils require death to become fossilized and could not have been fossilized before the fall of man.
Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Their eyes and ears and hearts and minds were closed to the Truth written in the world around us, they refused to allow the wondrous universe around us to complement and enlighten the their understanding of the Bible. They presumed themselves infallible, and their grasp of the Bible to be absolute and infallible. Rather than taking the Bible as an on-going pursuit of understanding and self improvement, they took the Bible as cold dead dogma. They presumed to *tell God* how He was and was not permitted to run His universe. They declared that Galileo's knowledge "opposes the Word of God".
The word truth that you're reffering to here is not the Truth of the Gospel but rather trivial scientific truths. I don't doubt that there would have been a portion of the Roman Catholic Church of that day that believed themselves and their understanding of the Bible to be infallible. There are still, to this day, different churches around the world deceiving many people, wittingly or unwittingly. Although, Galileo's theory proved to be true as far as science has discovered and as far as his theory went, old earth theories, on the other hand, have not been proven, and if you look at what is written in the Bible, it is explicitly contradictory to many writings in the Old and New Testament.
Which is impossible unless one's heart and mind are open to the full spectrum of the Light of Truth. Those who opposed Galileo believed they were doing what is right in order to receive salvation. By closing themselves to one portion of that light, they blinded themselves to all of the light. They placed themselves in darkness, and without realizing it led themselves away from that which is good right. With eyes closed, they led themselves to do evil. Their intent being good and doing what is right to receive salvation, but their pride and willful blindness made them responsible for their illdeeds nonetheless.
I have made it clear in my previous posts that, salvation is not received through knowledge, works/deeds, wisdom or anything through mans own strength, rather salvation comes through faith in Gods one and only Son Jesus who died and rose again so that we can be saved from sin, sin which was brought into this world through the fall of man at the beginning of this earth. According to the Bible, one _cannot_ receive salvation based on being and doing good.
No, not fair to say at all.
Mountains *do* grow!
Fair enough, you can say that mountains do grow. I was referring to the conventional understanding of the term grow, as in a developing organism rather than the
Jesus often taught in allegory, and his message explicitly superseded the old testament. Yet there are many crusading today who ignore both of those facts. Many who insist that that explicitly obsoleted language must be blindly applied today, that it must be applied out of context without logic or understanding. Insisting that *not* blindly applying it as literal physical science today, entirely out of context, that that somehow invalidates everything Jesus said, that that denies God.
Not totally clear on the conclusion you drew there. When I reffered to the old and the new covenant, I wasn't inferring anything about the difference in languages, I was raising the point that under the new covenant we are no longer bound by the law written on stone, through our own works and efforts, but instead we are set free through Jesus. As the Bible tells us in the following passages:
Romans 8:2
because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
2 Corinthians 3:7-18
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
I agree Jesus brought much light. However light is composed of a spectrum of colors. White light can only exist as a balanced unit of component colors. To live in the light requires a balance of morality and wisdom and knowledge.
That's from a worldly scientific point-of-view. True, that is what scientists can gauge through research and experimentation, but it's a limited understanding of light, we can't really comprehend the inner workings of light. Taking my quote from my previous post, when you put it in context, it's not about "living in the light", as in being good and doing what is right in order to receive salvation, although those things are encased, it's about believing and having faith in the Son of God, asking Him to forgive you for your sinfulness and doing His Will.
Ecclesiastes 8:17
then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.
Morality fails just as totally without knowledge. With no knowledge there is no choice to make. With flawed or insufficient knowledge, even the most pure sincere morality will often make the wrong choice with disastrous consequences.
Actually, according to the Bible, morality didn't come into it before the fall of man. It was only after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they became aware of their sinfulness. Ever since that time man has been born with a sinful nature, something we all have to deal with (or choose not to deal with).
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
You speak as though you are, not only wiser and more knowledgable than man, but superior to your Creator. Do you think your "rational", "logical" mind is more advanced than the one who created this universe and everything in it from scratch? How does a fallible human, who has been on this earth for such a short time, assume they are more moral and know better than the one who created him. The creation can be superior to the creator it seemed, and it was clear that man was capable of being ethically and morally superior to the God who condoned and indeed ordered genocide, torture, mass rapes including rape of children, and eternal torment for anyone who never heard of it, along with torment for anyone capable of reason. Satan had a similar mindset right before he was cast out.
Isaiah 14:12-15
How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit. If it were possible for me to be wrong on the existence of God, which thankfully it's not, then on the day were summoned before the throne to be judged on the crimes of rational thought, empathy for humans and seeking justice... well, God better be good at hand to hand combat or have some fast moving bailiffs. You sound so confident now. I think there is one main thing to point out with your view, and that is, you speak as though you were of an agnostic view, and yet if there were no God, why would you devote your life to rejecting and attacking His Word. Surely, if you were of the understanding that this world magically appeared out of thin-air, you wouldn't go to such an extent to oppose these writings which, according to you, are not God-breathed. Your opposition to God's Word only works against it's own cause, by opposing it just makes it evident that there is something to oppose.
I wouldn't bother with the "rational" and "logical" argument, cause if you think that this whole universe appeared out of absolute nothingness (and by that I mean, there had to be something, somewhere in the very beginning, in order for anything to have been created), then there must be some kind of mental block where rational and logical thought are supposed to come into it.
Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
The underlying message of the Bible can be found here:
John 3:16-21
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."