TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- This website is so ass-backwards it's funny
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No, My mom has that book and "the case for faith". There's two books,I'm sure of it.

I haven't kept up with Strobel's works since I read that book a couple of years ago, so I stand corrected about "The
Case for Faith". It is his sequel somewhat to his "Case for Christ" book, and a more or less watered-down version for younger adults as it seems:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books

So you were correct, and I sincerely apologize for my misconception. Since it is the same material, however, my criticisms of the book stands, and you have yet to rebute those criticisms.

quote:

If I have very little skills for debating,how have I won 13 debates? ( Maybe not here,but I've debated elsewhere about politics and such. Let me tell you,these people weren't half as stubborn as you here,and these people were adults.)

Stubborn? You mean I ask for specific evidence to support your assertions, other than what you claim you believe in or claim you've read "somewhere"? If you debated in the same fashion with these other adults without any support for your assertions, my guess is they became just as frustrated as I with your lack of rationale and circular reasoning and most likely threw in the towel, just as I have. If you actually did "win" those arguments, I highly question the guidelines followed with those debates.

quote:

No, I didn't refuse to. I told you to go look it up in a history book,that's the easiest way to look it up.

Debate 101 rule:

-When the debator makes an assertion on a given subject, the onus is on the debator to support such claims with evidence, not his/her opponent. It was therefore up to you to support your assertion by presenting evidence to the similarities between the war, NOT up to me. Do you understand this simple rule? A yes or no will do.

quote:

That's a personal attack.I'm going to have to ask you to stop. I have no other choice but to homeschool.You don't understand,and I don't want you picking on that subject.

My intention was not meant as a personal attack, hence the part of a "personal note". It was meant as a personal reflection on how I personally feel on homeschooling with my brother's family. But I can see how this can be offensive, and it was also off topic, so I do extend my apologies again.

quote:

I used to attend public school,there's a reason I don't anymore. I don't believe in evolution,Macro evolution because it is false. No question asked.

Evolution will not be discussed further for the reasons mentioned previously. I stand by those reasons. But I will give you the following response:

I believe in the giant cookie monster from the planet Zoinks who created all life. I have a book that's been passed down for generations that says as much. Your Christian God whom you believe in is false, and my cookie monster beliefs are true. It's just what I believe, therefore it must be true, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Now, what's wrong with that statement (and don't play games, I know it's "not true", by why?)

quote:

My parents make the decision they think is correct. I wouldn't be pushing it on that subject if I were you. Right now, I'm not physically able to attend public anything, I'd rather not discuss why.

Actually I believe you've already discussed your physical ailment in another thread, and quite honestly it's not my concern. My statement was another personal feeling from experience, and I'll retract it as well, regardless if it pertains to you or not.

quote:

Nicaea? That doesn't have anything to do with Catholocism,does it?http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

Try again. Looking at the first or second hit on the Google search engine won't do. And as you may eventually notice, it has everything to do with Catholicism, as well as all of Christianity for that matter. Much was decided by Constantine's Council in 325 that shaped all Christian beliefs, as well as much was merged with other religious "holidays", and of course much was thrown out (ever heard of the Gnostics?).

So why do you think I'm asking that? My point in the question pertains to what you seem to believe as the "word of God" was merely a decision by a group of people (and an emperor) to be able to control a population, merging beliefs, adding words that make a religious doctrine more powerful (Jesus being the Son of God), and throwing out gospels that disagreed with the 4 gospels of the NT known today (i.e. Gnostics). In truth, it was a real stroke of pure genious by Constantine. You really should study the history of your beliefs a little more. You might find the history quite enlightening.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And that summarizes your whole argument, essentially. You've chosen to remain in complete ignorance because you just don't WANT to learn anything that might contradict your stubbornly backwards beliefs. You can't educate yourself properly, and you definitely can't debate. If you've won any debates in the past, it can only be because your opponents got so irritated with you that they started to get violent and ended up disqualified. When you decide that you "want" to learn about evolution, from a real source like a biology textbook, instead of from your daddy or a crackpot religious fanatic's web site or a book you haven't even read, then come back to debate the issue. Until then, nobody cares about your "contributions." Edit: to MisterOpus and occrider, a search on amazon does turn up a book called the Case for Faith, apparently written by the same nut who wrote the Case for Christianity. Discuss...

I choose not to follow it, My right. I don't believe in it because of the studying I've done. You all can go on about your missing links being found,but it's still not true. It's not physically possible. I've studied it. I have my proof,and you can believe what you want. But, I'm not about to follow a lie. I don't call him " daddy " Alright? I learn a lot from my parents. That's how every person should be,afterall they are your parents. Further more,my dad is an extremely intelligent man.

Lee Strobel(sp?) Isn't a nut. If you would give him a chance, you'd understand my point of view.

quote:

So you were correct, and I sincerely apologize for my misconception. Since it is the same material, however, my criticisms of the book stands, and you have yet to rebute those criticisms.

I understand, I don't always keep up with some authors.

quote:

Stubborn? You mean I ask for specific evidence to support your assertions, other than what you claim you believe in or claim you've read "somewhere"? If you debated in the same fashion with these other adults without any support for your assertions, my guess is they became just as frustrated as I with your lack of rationale and circular reasoning and most likely threw in the towel, just as I have. If you actually did "win" those arguments, I highly question the guidelines followed with those debates.

Yes, Stubborn. Example..Micro and macro. I've discussed it,I've shown links about what I was explaining.There is a difference between micro and macro, and you still refuse to see it.
Why would it be written in a science book if it weren't true? That isn't the only reason. I will go no further with this subject.

This forum was more in the style of politics. Not so much religious beliefs, we all understood each other when it came to that,and for that I was very thankful. Question all you like, It doesn't bother me.

quote:

Debate 101 rule: -When the debator makes an assertion on a given subject, the onus is on the debator to support such claims with evidence, not his/her opponent. It was therefore up to you to support your assertion by presenting evidence to the similarities between the war, NOT up to me. Do you understand this simple rule? A yes or no will do.

So, where'd you pull this up?

quote:

My intention was not meant as a personal attack, hence the part of a "personal note". It was meant as a personal reflection on how I personally feel on homeschooling with my brother's family. But I can see how this can be offensive, and it was also off topic, so I do extend my apologies again.

Even if it wasn't it still hurt. but, it's alright.

quote:

Evolution will not be discussed further for the reasons mentioned previously. I stand by those reasons. But I will give you the following response: I believe in the giant cookie monster from the planet Zoinks who created all life. I have a book that's been passed down for generations that says as much. Your Christian God whom you believe in is false, and my cookie monster beliefs are true. It's just what I believe, therefore it must be true, and you cannot prove otherwise. Now, what's wrong with that statement (and don't play games, I know it's "not true", by why?)

It's not logical, cookie monsters from the planet Zoinks. But,God is logical. So,really... there is no comparison.

quote:

Actually I believe you've already discussed your physical ailment in another thread, and quite honestly it's not my concern. My statement was another personal feeling from experience, and I'll retract it as well, regardless if it pertains to you or not.

Yea, well let me tell you.It's important to me.

quote:

Try again. Looking at the first or second hit on the Google search engine won't do. And as you may eventually notice, it has everything to do with Catholicism, as well as all of Christianity for that matter. Much was decided by Constantine's Council in 325 that shaped all Christian beliefs, as well as much was merged with other religious "holidays", and of course much was thrown out (ever heard of the Gnostics?). So why do you think I'm asking that? My point in the question pertains to what you seem to believe as the "word of God" was merely a decision by a group of people (and an emperor) to be able to control a population, merging beliefs, adding words that make a religious doctrine more powerful (Jesus being the Son of God), and throwing out gospels that disagreed with the 4 gospels of the NT known today (i.e. Gnostics). In truth, it was a real stroke of pure genious by Constantine. You really should study the history of your beliefs a little more. You might find the history quite enlightening.

I don't search with Google.(but I do know what you're saying.) But,when I searched it I saw something about catholocism so I assumed. But, I don't have much time to finish reading the rest of it.. ( But, let me repeat it once again. I don't believe in catholocism, I know you're saying it's about Christianity.But,when it comes to catholocism,I don't mess with it.)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 ... But I will give you the following response: I believe in the giant cookie monster from the planet Zoinks who created all life. I have a book that's been passed down for generations that says as much. Your Christian God whom you believe in is false, and my cookie monster beliefs are true. It's just what I believe, therefore it must be true, and you cannot prove otherwise. ....

Sing along kids :

If moon was cookie me think me would be
Happiest monster you ever see.
Me put on a space suit then up through the night
Me ride in a rocket to go take a bite.

Me take bite from here. Me take bite from there.
And pretty soon, me bite everywhere.
Me eat with both hands. No need fork or spoon.
Me chew it all up until there no moon.

If moon was cookie it wouldn't be fine
Because if me ate it then it wouldn't shine.
Me come to the window and look up at night
But no little moonbeams would give me their light.

So me not like to say it, but it clear to me
It lucky the moon is not a cookie.




MrS

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Why would it be written in a science book if it weren't true?

doesn't this contradict your whole argument?

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487

Nessa, you talk much, but say little. Take off your rose-tinted glasses and have a good look at all the new colours. You may find that life offers more to those who are less picky about what they'll accept.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Now how are Chapter 2 verses 5-7 contraditing each other? You,my friend aren't making any sense.

They are not, but they are contradicting verses 1:11 and 1:27.

quote:

They weren't " Mythological stories " They were historical happenings.

Well, how come fossil record and archeological findings portray a largely different picture? Besides, how can you expect a book that's been transcribed several times and mixed up over the centuries to still contain 100% unspoiled historical happenings? You can't. Every time it gets rewritten, something is lost and something new is added. It's simply how those things work.

quote:

Adam's first wife was not Lilith. Adam's wife was Eve. They weren't banned from the garden because "she" was so evil. They were banned from the garden because they had sinned. She never mated with demons,and she didn't become a demon herself. God can defeat anyone, so that's also very off. I don't know where you got that from,but that's not even in the Bible.

No, it is not in the bible because the biblical version contains only the shortened version of the creation, one where the part about Lilith was thrown out. I just mentioned this story as an example that the stories in bible are often not complete but are lacking some details. After looking up a bit, you're right that god could have defeated her but didn't. She fled the garden because she wanted equal rights with Adam, she didn't want to be his helper. God sent her 3 angels to get her back to the garden, but she refused. She mated with Samael and gave birth to a huge amount of demons. She agreed with god that she can stay in the outside world if he kills 100 of her demons each day, and if she's unable to attack circumcised children.

quote:

There is only one God.

Aside from the Genesis 3:22 I mentioned earlier, I'll add a few more to the list:

Exodus 12:12
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."

Exodus 23:32
"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."

Numbers 33:4
"Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments."

The list more or less goes on, but the christian god mentiones other gods quite often.

quote:

There aren't any contradictions in the Bible,at all. Believe what you will,but it's the truth.

Since you failed to read the verses I mentioned, I'll point out a contradiction for you. First it says god created plants before humans, and then later on it says god created humans before plants. I have plenty more of those if you are really interested. It would be easier to redirect you to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, but since you don't want to read it (or don't have time), than I'll keep bringing here contradiction after contradiction. This was the first one. Care for more?

quote:

I'm not lazy. I'm just busy.Huge difference.

I'm sorry if it offended you. The point was I presented a few key pages if you don't have time to read it all.

quote:

So,you'd put your faith in some Egyptian religion, that doesn't even make sense?

No, I don't believe in the cult of Osiris or Horus either. But they make as much sense as christianity itself. Infact they even make more sense since they are not a religion that is conjured up of several opposing philosophies.

quote:

Unlike the Egyptian "gods",we only have one God.

Yet the christian god often mentions other gods in the bible, and sometimes uses a plural form for himself (themselves?). Besides, there have been monotheistic periods in the egyptian history. Where all the faith was put into one god and the other god was declared as evil (hint satan, hint baal).

quote:

He sent his son, who died for our sins on the cross,he rose again. No competition there. Which Egyptian god died for everyones sins?

Osiris died and then rose again. After that happened, he ensured human passage into the afterlife. Sounds familiar? The dying on a cross part is basically an adaptation of the story for the more modern times under roman occupation. It is interesting to note, however, that at the Nicaea council some of the books thrown out of the bible suggest that the whole resurrection deal was a scheme staged in Lasarus's backyard and that Pontius Pilatus was a corrupt roman official who took part in that scheme and infact allowed it to happen. It is also interesting to note that the whole virgin birth story is false as well, because the greeks, from whom the bible was translated to other languages, used the same word for a virgin and for a young woman. In the original, Mary was just a young woman and not a virgin.

quote:

There is no comparison between Egyptian gods,and God.

It depends. In the old testament the jewish god is pretty similar to the egyptian ones. In the new testament it became a bit different, more like some sort of a vague entity, but his son, Jesus, had a hell of a lot in common with Horus and Osiris.

quote:

Eve was deceived,by Satan.

No she wasn't. She was decieved by a serpent. At a time serpents could walk and talk.

quote:

She ate the fruit,and brought it back to Adam..Adam knew that it was a sin to eat from the tree,but because he loved her so much he ate the fruit. thus the first sin. No, he didn't mean " Right after you eat it you will die! " He's talking about sin. You obviously don't understand.. God didn't lie. When he said " you will surely die " He's talking about the seperation from him. God didn't let them eat from the tree of life,because he didn't want them living forever in that state of Sin. Make sense now?

I thought the bible should be taken literally. Now I'm confused. Anyway, what you are saying are just vague speculations, because it isn't written in the bible. I guess it's because you're a woman. The bible clearly states women are men's helpers, not equal partners.

quote:

Adam and Eve sinned. God told them not to do it, Technically he told Adam not to do it. But,they both did it. They disobeyed.

It's interesting how god created a man in his own image yet didn't allow him the ability to separate good from evil. What was so special about men in the first place? If it was speech and intelligence, it is clear that the serpents had those abilities as well.

quote:

You didn't put the full verse. But,there aren't any contradictions there either.

Umm, it is a full verse. The very next letter is already verse 3:23. I never said there were any contradictions in that verse. I posted that verse to show that for some reason god did not want a man to become as powerful as he is and instead doomed him to a miserable short life. My first guess is fear.

quote:

Horses and Donkeys are related, That's micro evolution I do believe.

Yes, they are related. Yet they can't have any fertile offspring. It is only a step from being seperate species. Isn't it odd how they are just a tiny step away from becoming fully separate species? Isn't it odd how there are some related species who can have offspring, and yet there are some related ones that can't? Isn't it odd how the fossile evidence shows that related species diverged from the same ancestor and were able to procreate in the past?

quote:

I'm not catholic,and I don't follow religion.

Religion:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Are you saying that none of the above apllies to you?

quote:

But yes, God said he created birds,fish,land animals,plants,and humans. But, they cannot evolve,not the way you are thinking.

Why? Does it say so in the bible? No. Therefore it is possible. Even from your side of the argument, evolution is not impossible.

quote:

Even those who have an illness?

I suppose you have an illness that does not enable you to go to a public school, right? Well, in that case kids should be allowed to be taught at home, but the standards by which they are taught should be firmly set. This way pretty much every parent can impose his views upon his child.

quote:

They shouldn't be obligated. That would be denying one of our rights here. What if I didn't want to learn about homosexuality in schools? what if I didn't want to learn about evolution in schools? Home education is much better,because it's more in depth. It's just you,and the teacher..and the schooling is much easier on ones schedule.

Really, this is totally ignorant of you and it pretty much sums up your problems. If you don't want to accept something, it doesn't mean those things are not there. Schools should teach kids actual facts, not what the kids want to hear. Standardized public schooling is an institution whose purpose is to give young people equal chances in life and the knowledge necessary for future advancement. Now, don't take this as an attack on you personally, but when I see how flawed your views on established scientific theories and logic itself are, it is clear that some norms should be established even for kids who are attending "home schools".

Anyway, I must point out how you conviniently missed to respond on many of my points, especially the ones painted in red.

i know your argument is falling on deaf ears, but i'm learning a lot on the history of religion, thanks tito

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I choose not to follow it, My right. I don't believe in it because of the studying I've done. You all can go on about your missing links being found,but it's still not true. It's not physically possible. I've studied it. I have my proof,and you can believe what you want. But, I'm not about to follow a lie. I don't call him " daddy " Alright? I learn a lot from my parents. That's how every person should be,afterall they are your parents. Further more,my dad is an extremely intelligent man.

You keep saying that you have proof, yet you fail to present it. I'm sorry but that's simply not going to make us believe you.

quote:

Yes, Stubborn. Example..Micro and macro. I've discussed it,I've shown links about what I was explaining.There is a difference between micro and macro, and you still refuse to see it.

So basically what you are saying is that macro evolution is speciation? Well, if there was no fossil evidence and if there was no similar yet distinct species, then your point of view may be argued. That is not the case, however, and your point of view is flawed because it doesn't take into account all the variables.

quote:

Why would it be written in a science book if it weren't true?

LOL. As someone said earlier, this pretty much destroys your whole argument. Evolution is written in all serious biological science books. Creationism is not.

quote:

That isn't the only reason. I will go no further with this subject.

Hard to perpetuate an impossible theory, eh?

quote:

It's not logical, cookie monsters from the planet Zoinks. But,God is logical. So,really... there is no comparison.

You haven't proved anything. You have just shown that your dogmatic views don't allow you to think about the subject. Instead you immediately dismiss it as an illogical one. Now, about christian god being logical...he created day and night on the first day. Where's the logic in that?

quote:

I don't search with Google.(but I do know what you're saying.) But,when I searched it I saw something about catholocism so I assumed. But, I don't have much time to finish reading the rest of it.. ( But, let me repeat it once again. I don't believe in catholocism, I know you're saying it's about Christianity.But,when it comes to catholocism,I don't mess with it.)

During the Nicaea summits, christianity was a single faith. Basically the summit decided on which religious scriptures should be thrown out of the bible and which should be put in. So the bible you have in your home is basically dating back to that time. Some stories were thrown out, some were shortened. Something like what happened earlier, when the story of Lilith and many others were thrown out of the old testament.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I choose not to follow it, My right. I don't believe in it because of the studying I've done. You all can go on about your missing links being found,but it's still not true. It's not physically possible. I've studied it. I have my proof,and you can believe what you want. But, I'm not about to follow a lie.

Show your proof. Put up or shut up.

quote:

Lee Strobel(sp?) Isn't a nut. If you would give him a chance, you'd understand my point of view.

Is this your counterargument to my criticism as well as the other criticisms I posted? Like all your posts, your rebuttals merely come down to a "no it isin't because I say so" form.

Nessa, can you grasp the concept that this is not credible evidence to support your arguments? Just because you say so simply doesn't work. If you can understand this simple concept, you will have taken a big leap in debating.

quote:

Yes, Stubborn. Example..Micro and macro. I've discussed it,I've shown links about what I was explaining.There is a difference between micro and macro, and you still refuse to see it.

Incorrect, Nessa. I've shown you why there's no scientific difference between the two concepts by first explaining, then showing you credible evidence to support my assertions. That website link was also refuted earlier, but yet you say nothing. So since I've shown there's no difference between the two with my evidence given, do you have anything to show to refute that evidence which I presented? That is the next logical step in this debate, and I expect you to follow it if you wish to talk further about evolution. Otherwise, this conversation on this topic will continue to go nowhere at your expense.

So is this how you "win" your debates?

quote:

Why would it be written in a science book if it weren't true?

Do you not see the irony in your statement?

Besides, what is the science book you are reading? Please cite so I can study your source further.

quote:

That isn't the only reason.

Praytell what are the others?

quote:

I will go no further with this subject.

That is the wisest thing you've said so far.

quote:

This forum was more in the style of politics. Not so much religious beliefs, we all understood each other when it came to that,and for that I was very thankful. Question all you like, It doesn't bother me.

This forum is about beliefs. Those beliefs in politics are often related to other belief systems, which are often religious in nature. As you may have noticed, there are many religious threads here. If you do not wish to discuss religion, kindly cease posting in those given areas.

Otherwise, put up or shut up.

quote:

So, where'd you pull this up?

I made it up, of course. Does it not make logical sense in the context, however? Do you honestly want me to dig a source up to back this logical statement? Are you that desparate?

quote:

It's not logical, cookie monsters from the planet Zoinks. But,God is logical. So,really... there is no comparison.

Good, you see that my statement is not logical. Now we're getting somewhere. Next step - tell me the difference between what I said and what you said about God. What makes God logical?

quote:

I don't search with Google.(but I do know what you're saying.) But,when I searched it I saw something about catholocism so I assumed. But, I don't have much time to finish reading the rest of it.. ( But, let me repeat it once again. I don't believe in catholocism, I know you're saying it's about Christianity.But,when it comes to catholocism,I don't mess with it.)

I would like to ask you once again to read more on Council of Nicaea. It is quite fascinating.

Oh, BTW, please tell me which 13 debates you won here. I would like to see them.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Nessa, you talk much, but say little. Take off your rose-tinted glasses and have a good look at all the new colours. You may find that life offers more to those who are less picky about what they'll accept.

Who died and left you in charge? I know a lot more about life than you think I do. I don't like being demanded, I'm sure you feel the exact same way.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 They are not, but they are contradicting verses 1:11 and 1:27.

uhm,no they don't. You want to explain to me how they do? ( Or atleast how you think they will.)

quote:

Well, how come fossil record and archeological findings portray a largely different picture? Besides, how can you expect a book that's been transcribed several times and mixed up over the centuries to still contain 100% unspoiled historical happenings? You can't. Every time it gets rewritten, something is lost and something new is added. It's simply how those things work.

You got pictures? No, Read in Revelation ( I'm pretty sure it's in revelation) Those who take away from the Bible, blessings will be taken from them..and well you get the rest.

quote:

No, it is not in the bible because the biblical version contains only the shortened version of the creation, one where the part about Lilith was thrown out. I just mentioned this story as an example that the stories in bible are often not complete but are lacking some details. After looking up a bit, you're right that god could have defeated her but didn't. She fled the garden because she wanted equal rights with Adam, she didn't want to be his helper. God sent her 3 angels to get her back to the garden, but she refused. She mated with Samael and gave birth to a huge amount of demons. She agreed with god that she can stay in the outside world if he kills 100 of her demons each day, and if she's unable to attack circumcised children.

There is no Lilith. You are totally messing everything up. Adam,and Eve. Adam had only one wife,that's Eve. She didn't give birth to demons. What are you smoking,pal?

quote:

Aside from the Genesis 3:22 I mentioned earlier, I'll add a few more to the list: Exodus 12:12 "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment." Exodus 23:32 "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods." Numbers 33:4 "Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments." The list more or less goes on, but the christian god mentiones other gods quite often.

What the heck? There aren't any contradictions. You really must be having an off day.

quote:

Since you failed to read the verses I mentioned, I'll point out a contradiction for you. First it says god created plants before humans, and then later on it says god created humans before plants. I have plenty more of those if you are really interested. It would be easier to redirect you to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, but since you don't want to read it (or don't have time), than I'll keep bringing here contradiction after contradiction. This was the first one. Care for more?

No,I read them,and no it doesn't say that. I've been reading the verses you've been giving me. But, no there aren't any contradictions.

quote:

I'm sorry if it offended you. The point was I presented a few key pages if you don't have time to read it all.

Yea, I know I don't have much time. SAT's coming up, I have school,I have work..and that's enough for me.

quote:

No, I don't believe in the cult of Osiris or Horus either. But they make as much sense as christianity itself. Infact they even make more sense since they are not a religion that is conjured up of several opposing philosophies.

Glad to hear you don't.No,they don't make sense. I don't see how you can't understand Christianity.

quote:

Yet the christian god often mentions other gods in the bible, and sometimes uses a plural form for himself (themselves?). Besides, there have been monotheistic periods in the egyptian history. Where all the faith was put into one god and the other god was declared as evil (hint satan, hint baal).

again,there is only one God.

quote:

Osiris died and then rose again. After that happened, he ensured human passage into the afterlife. Sounds familiar? The dying on a cross part is basically an adaptation of the story for the more modern times under roman occupation. It is interesting to note, however, that at the Nicaea council some of the books thrown out of the bible suggest that the whole resurrection deal was a scheme staged in Lasarus's backyard and that Pontius Pilatus was a corrupt roman official who took part in that scheme and infact allowed it to happen. It is also interesting to note that the whole virgin birth story is false as well, because the greeks, from whom the bible was translated to other languages, used the same word for a virgin and for a young woman. In the original, Mary was just a young woman and not a virgin.

No, The virgin birth isn't false. It really happened.

quote:

It depends. In the old testament the jewish god is pretty similar to the egyptian ones. In the new testament it became a bit different, more like some sort of a vague entity, but his son, Jesus, had a hell of a lot in common with Horus and Osiris.

I don't see anything in common.

quote:

No she wasn't. She was decieved by a serpent. At a time serpents could walk and talk.

No,Satan was the serpent. Then after the first sin, God had made it to where they didn't have legs..to where they'd have to slither(sp?) around on their bellies. Thus,snakes.

quote:

I thought the bible should be taken literally. Now I'm confused. Anyway, what you are saying are just vague speculations, because it isn't written in the bible. I guess it's because you're a woman. The bible clearly states women are men's helpers, not equal partners.

That's not true. Both women,and men are equal. No gender is better than the other.
I've already had a few other people tell me that men in the Bible are superior to men and that the men did all the work,but that's not true. (One person also went as far as to say all women were evil,but I find it funny how he praises his girlfriend..heh.people..)

quote:

It's interesting how god created a man in his own image yet didn't allow him the ability to separate good from evil. What was so special about men in the first place? If it was speech and intelligence, it is clear that the serpents had those abilities as well.

Freewill,We make our own choices. We know good from evil,do we not?
The serpent,Satan...He was an angel,if you didn't know. His name was Lucifer,he was the angel of music. Angels don't have freewill. Humans do. God wanted companionship,that's why he made man.

quote:

Umm, it is a full verse. The very next letter is already verse 3:23. I never said there were any contradictions in that verse. I posted that verse to show that for some reason god did not want a man to become as powerful as he is and instead doomed him to a miserable short life. My first guess is fear.

No, that's not what happened.

quote:

Yes, they are related. Yet they can't have any fertile offspring. It is only a step from being seperate species. Isn't it odd how they are just a tiny step away from becoming fully separate species? Isn't it odd how there are some related species who can have offspring, and yet there are some related ones that can't? Isn't it odd how the fossile evidence shows that related species diverged from the same ancestor and were able to procreate in the past?

Then show me the fossile evidence.
We haven't come from an ape,but hey if you wanna believe you came from something like that you go ahead.

quote:

Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

quote:

Are you saying that none of the above apllies to you?

I've already had this discusion, you aren't getting my drift.

quote:

Why? Does it say so in the bible? No. Therefore it is possible. Even from your side of the argument, evolution is not impossible.

I believe in Micro evolution,but not macro. I told you already. Micro evolution is correct,Just not macro.

quote:

I suppose you have an illness that does not enable you to go to a public school, right? Well, in that case kids should be allowed to be taught at home, but the standards by which they are taught should be firmly set. This way pretty much every parent can impose his views upon his child.

Yes, I have an illness. I would miss way to much if I were to try and attempt to go to public school. I tried taking classes for a while, after being homeschooled. But, it never worked.

Homeschooling should be,and is allowed. It's one of our rights. I don't think anyone should try to trample on those.

quote:

Really, this is totally ignorant of you and it pretty much sums up your problems. If you don't want to accept something, it doesn't mean those things are not there. Schools should teach kids actual facts, not what the kids want to hear. Standardized public schooling is an institution whose purpose is to give young people equal chances in life and the knowledge necessary for future advancement. Now, don't take this as an attack on you personally, but when I see how flawed your views on established scientific theories and logic itself are, it is clear that some norms should be established even for kids who are attending "home schools".

Schools do teach actual facts,but they shouldn't tell a child what to believe. That's not a schools place. My views aren't flawed,they just don't match up with yours..but that doesn't make them flawed.

quote:

Anyway, I must point out how you conviniently missed to respond on many of my points, especially the ones painted in red.

Yes, But if you want an answer,you'll have to wait. Trying to think of a way to word it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Show your proof. Put up or shut up.

But you refuse to read the proof I have told you about. I gave you the title. Even you can't deny it, it's in a book and it's proof.

quote:

Is this your counterargument to my criticism as well as the other criticisms I posted? Like all your posts, your rebuttals merely come down to a "no it isin't because I say so" form. Nessa, can you grasp the concept that this is not credible evidence to support your arguments? Just because you say so simply doesn't work. If you can understand this simple concept, you will have taken a big leap in debating.

No,it's not a "because I say so"
It's in a book,I gave you the title. Either read it, or don't. But that's proof,it's just as liable as the internet.

quote:

Incorrect, Nessa. I've shown you why there's no scientific difference between the two concepts by first explaining, then showing you credible evidence to support my assertions. That website link was also refuted earlier, but yet you say nothing. So since I've shown there's no difference between the two with my evidence given, do you have anything to show to refute that evidence which I presented? That is the next logical step in this debate, and I expect you to follow it if you wish to talk further about evolution. Otherwise, this conversation on this topic will continue to go nowhere at your expense.

and I've shown there is a difference. You should know the difference... So tell me, Do you want your Microwave to be a MICROwave? Or a MACROwave? There's a huge difference between the two. Micro,and macro aren't the same.

micro- or micr-
pref.

Small: microcircuit.
Abnormally small: microcephaly.
Requiring or involving microscopy: microsurgery.
One-millionth (10-6): microampere.


macro- or macr-
pref.
Large: macronucleus.
Long: macrobiotics.
Inclusive: macroinstruction.


Get it?

quote:

Do you not see the irony in your statement? Besides, what is the science book you are reading? Please cite so I can study your source further.

It's just basic Biology. I don't have the author or anything,the book is in my sisters room ( 2 flights of stairs up. )

quote:

That is the wisest thing you've said so far.

In your opinion.

quote:

This forum is about beliefs. Those beliefs in politics are often related to other belief systems, which are often religious in nature. As you may have noticed, there are many religious threads here. If you do not wish to discuss religion, kindly cease posting in those given areas. Otherwise, put up or shut up.

Again,I'll do as I please,Just as you have and you will. I'm not here to be demanded,you aren't my authority,Alright?

quote:

I made it up, of course. Does it not make logical sense in the context, however? Do you honestly want me to dig a source up to back this logical statement? Are you that desparate?

God isn't made up,and nope I'm not desperate.

quote:

Good, you see that my statement is not logical. Now we're getting somewhere. Next step - tell me the difference between what I said and what you said about God. What makes God logical?

Again, I told you. God is logical,God isn't some made up thing. He's real, the real deal. I shouldn't have to explain myself,you know the answer already.

quote:

Oh, BTW, please tell me which 13 debates you won here. I would like to see them.

They aren't here, I told you they are on another board.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Who died and left you in charge? I know a lot more about life than you think I do. I don't like being demanded, I'm sure you feel the exact same way.

'Twas merely advice, which is something I'm always receptive to when people offer it to me.

Truly knowing life is knowing how little one knows; arrogance is ignorance, and while some people (like myself) use it as a tool to test the strength of new ideas in the pursuit of knowledge, one should never be so blind as to wallow in it, ruling out opposing ideas with a closed mind.

I disagree on many points with many members of this board, but despite that, we bring the issue to a close with modesty and mutual respect. You have a way of alienating people with your stubbornness, which is unfortunate. I have no reason to make "demands". I'm merely suggesting to you that an open mind and better communication skills would be a benefit to you.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 You keep saying that you have proof, yet you fail to present it. I'm sorry but that's simply not going to make us believe you.

I gave you the title of the book, you either read it and accept it or you don't. That's my proof,It's just as liable as the internet.

quote:

So basically what you are saying is that macro evolution is speciation? Well, if there was no fossil evidence and if there was no similar yet distinct species, then your point of view may be argued. That is not the case, however, and your point of view is flawed because it doesn't take into account all the variables.

Macro evolution is false. It's that simple,really.

quote:

LOL. As someone said earlier, this pretty much destroys your whole argument. Evolution is written in all serious biological science books. Creationism is not.

Micro evolution,that's true, unflawed. Macro evolution is the issue here.

quote:

Hard to perpetuate an impossible theory, eh?

Naw,no one is listening. So why chew on the same old fat?

quote:

You haven't proved anything. You have just shown that your dogmatic views don't allow you to think about the subject. Instead you immediately dismiss it as an illogical one. Now, about christian god being logical...he created day and night on the first day. Where's the logic in that?

Gosh you really can't comprehend can you?

quote:

During the Nicaea summits, christianity was a single faith. Basically the summit decided on which religious scriptures should be thrown out of the bible and which should be put in. So the bible you have in your home is basically dating back to that time. Some stories were thrown out, some were shortened. Something like what happened earlier, when the story of Lilith and many others were thrown out of the old testament.

There isn't any Lilith! Where are you pulling that bull up from? There isn't a Lilith.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 'Twas merely advice, which is something I'm always receptive to when people offer it to me.

Your advice sounded more as if it were a demand.

quote:

Truly knowing life is knowing how little one knows; arrogance is ignorance, and while some people (like myself) use it as a tool to test the strength of new ideas in the pursuit of knowledge, one should never be so blind as to wallow in it, ruling out opposing ideas with a closed mind.

Of course no one knows all about life. We all know different things about life,and we've all had different experiences. You're acting as if I've never dealt with life before,but of course I have. I'm not protected from the world,despite what a lot of people think. I've had some real hard,character building times. We all have.

quote:

I disagree on many points with many members of this board, but despite that, we bring the issue to a close with modesty and mutual respect. You have a way of alienating people with your stubbornness, which is unfortunate. I have no reason to make "demands". I'm merely suggesting to you that an open mind and better communication skills would be a benefit to you.

I'm stubborn to a point,but not like you're saying.
My mind isn't closed.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Your advice sounded more as if it were a demand. ... My mind isn't closed.

No need to get so defensive. The drive for self-improvement is one of the things that puts us above the animals. You have to realize that it's not a personal insult to be wrong about something, but it does become a personal embarrassment when one refuses to admit it.

I'm not here to instil new beliefs in you - none of us are. We merely ask that you let down your guard long enough to absorb some of the information that is being presented to you, rather than trying to fend it off with illogical rhetoric.

You also really need to learn to use the space bar properly.

Just to clarify a point being "debated" (I use that term lightly in this instance) in this ongoing trainwreck.

Dismissing the idea that "macro-" and "micro-" "whatever" can possibly be two words for the same thing because a dictionary says "micro means small, macro means big". Is both naive and unfounded.

There are many instances where general concepts are compartmentalized into "macro-" and "micro-" but are still parts of the same concept and cannot be really separated because the principles that govern one still govern the other. I am certain that occrider will agree with me that macroeconomics and microeconomics are, in reality, the same idea, just on a different scale. They may teach them as separate subjects but they are, when you get right down to it, conceptually inseparable. It can all be broken down to "Do you want fish for 5 dollars or steak for 20 dollars?"

It is kind of like a zoom lens on a camera. When you are looking at the big picture, you are in "macro" mode but when you zoom in, you see a much smaller, or "micro", part of the picture. But it is still the same picture.

Damn I am out of practice...that took me way to long to write. Time to find some Yoepus posts and heckle him

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut No need to get so defensive. The drive for self-improvement is one of the things that puts us above the animals. You have to realize that it's not a personal insult to be wrong about something, but it does become a personal embarrassment when one refuses to admit it. I'm not here to instil new beliefs in you - none of us are. We merely ask that you let down your guard long enough to absorb some of the information that is being presented to you, rather than trying to fend it off with illogical rhetoric. You also really need to learn to use the space bar properly.

It's my choice to improve or not,It's not yours. I'm wrong? Who is saying there is a woman named Lilith in the Bible,and some woman gave birth to demons? Eh. I'm not incorrect.

You aren't here to personally attack me,but you're trying to tell me how to type..Hmm,Sounds a bit fishy to me.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Just to clarify a point being "debated" (I use that term lightly in this instance) in this ongoing trainwreck. Dismissing the idea that "macro-" and "micro-" "whatever" can possibly be two words for the same thing because a dictionary says "micro means small, macro means big". Is both naive and unfounded. There are many instances where general concepts are compartmentalized into "macro-" and "micro-" but are still parts of the same concept and cannot be really separated because the principles that govern one still govern the other. I am certain that occrider will agree with me that macroeconomics and microeconomics are, in reality, the same idea, just on a different scale. They may teach them as separate subjects but they are, when you get right down to it, conceptually inseparable. It can all be broken down to "Do you want fish for 5 dollars or steak for 20 dollars?" It is kind of like a zoom lens on a camera. When you are looking at the big picture, you are in "macro" mode but when you zoom in, you see a much smaller, or "micro", part of the picture. But it is still the same picture. Damn I am out of practice...that took me way to long to write. Time to find some Yoepus posts and heckle him MrS

Micro and Macro,you can't mess that up. Micro means small,macro means big. Huge difference.

Next, you will be telling me, "That depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" , is.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Micro and Macro,you can't mess that up. Micro means small,macro means big. Huge difference. Next, you will be telling me, "That depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" , is.

What you are missing is the fact that "micro-" and "macro-" are modifiers to the word designating a "type" of said word. In the case of this thread it is "evolution" that the argument is over. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are both "evolution".

I am going to go back to my tree now, since it is obvious that occrider, MisterOpus, and myself (with our combined 75+ years of life experience, our college degrees, and our varying levels of post-graduate work) have neither the slightest concept of how to use the English language nor any grasp of the concepts of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" that apparently certaiin people have a monopoly on.



MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel What you are missing is the fact that "micro-" and "macro-" are modifiers to the word designating a "type" of said word. In the case of this thread it is "evolution" that the argument is over. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are both "evolution". I am going to go back to my tree now, since it is obvious that occrider, MisterOpus, and myself (with our combined 75+ years of life experience, our college degrees, and our varying levels of post-graduate work) have neither the slightest concept of how to use the English language nor any grasp of the concepts of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" that apparently certaiin people have a monopoly on. MrS

eh its been a long time coming - but its been quite clear (to at least myself) that Nellie is not accepting new ideas. she makes an interesting conversation piece, but until she backs up statements with something beyond ideology - well, i think its beyond arguement|

I think MrS is right, the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is the scope / timeframe.

MrOpus, when is macroevolution 'official'? After the bifurcation within a specie that forms two species that can no longer sexually reproduce, or completely verticle evolution, - invertebrates - amphibians

quote:

eh its been a long time coming - but its been quite clear (to at least myself) that Nellie is not accepting new ideas. she makes an interesting conversation piece, but until she backs up statements with something beyond ideology - well, i think its beyond arguement|

I think we can all assume how she won those 13 arguments, it's fascinating and very effective. I'd bet Nellie would win an argument on Astrophysics against Stephen Hawking, oh how i would pay to see that 'debate'

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Micro and Macro,you can't mess that up. Micro means small,macro means big. Huge difference. Next, you will be telling me, "That depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" , is.

That was a nice touch there with the Clinton attack.


We need to improve education in our country as you can plainly see.

Some funding might be nice for one thing.

quote:

FORD Discusses Education on CNN MEMPHIS, TENN. � Congressman Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) appeared on CNN Live Today this morning to discuss President Bush's visit to Knoxville and the "No Child Left Behind" education initiative, which has been underfunded by $15 billion. Below is the transcript of the interview: DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Well, we had to regroup here a little bit. We have the Democratic Congressman, Harold Ford, with us. We had planned to get him live on television to react to what we were listening to the woman from the White House, Margaret Spellings. The television set wasn't working so well, but we did want to hear from the Congressman so we're going to talk to him on the phone. Congressman Ford, good morning. REP. HAROLD FORD (D), TENNESSEE: Good morning, Daryn. Good morning to all your listeners. KAGAN: Thanks for going with the flow with us, and not just resorting to the phone. Let's get to some of the issues here. Hey, look who's coming to town or at least to your state today. That would be none other than President Bush, touting his No Child Left Behind policies. FORD: You know, we're excited to have him for a number of reasons. I know that he will come and talk about the success of No Child Left Behind. But I hope he's also willing to listen carefully to some of the educators and parents and superintendents and school board members who are living the reality of implementing No Child Left Behind. In theory, it's a great bill. I supported it and helped traffic it in the Congress. But in practice, we're not fully funding it. It's not allowing teachers and school districts the flexibility needed to teach kids, and it needs some tinkering. And one of things in Congress we proposed in a concrete way is to suspend all the punitive parts of No Child Left Behind until the president funds No Child Left Behind at the levels that he promised more than two years ago. KAGAN: Congressman, I'll ask you a political question, because I know... FORD: Sure. KAGAN: ...this is your life here. Look what the Republicans are doing. Look at some of the issues they're taking a hold of, education, prescription drug care. We can get to immigration in jut a moment. Are the Republicans being the Democrats at their own game? FORD: Yes, I think they're trying to deliver to the American people. The problem is, they're delivering more rhetoric than results. The prescription drug plan won't take place until 2006. The very confusing benefit that is offered to seniors and it's unclear if it will ever be implemented and if indeed seniors will realize the benefits the president promised. On education, I applaud the rhetoric that the president offers. But the reality doesn't match up or doesn't measure up to the rhetoric and he politicizing. You talk to any superintendent, any teacher across the country and they all agree that educators should be held accountable. But they also all agree that resources and flexibility have to accompany the bill. And frankly, that is not happening. And I think if the president listens, instead of talk the entire time in Knoxville and raises money which I know he's doing as well, he'll learn -- and I think in compelling ways -- that No Child Left Behind can work if we make some changes to it.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It's my choice to improve or not,It's not yours. I'm wrong? Who is saying there is a woman named Lilith in the Bible,and some woman gave birth to demons? Eh. I'm not incorrect. You aren't here to personally attack me,but you're trying to tell me how to type..Hmm,Sounds a bit fishy to me.

Ah, of course it's your choice Nessa, but the choice you make is a reflection of the kind of person you are, and I'm sorry to say that your present choices are reflecting rather poorly on you.

As for the story of Lilith, I don't believe that anybody said it was in the bible, but rather in the original mythology that Genesis was derived from. This is another great example of how you are just skimming over people's posts without absorbing any of the content.

And as for the typing comment, you're grasping at straws. I made that suggestion because your punctuation is attrocious - are you going to tell me that you believe your punctuation is correct and nobody can tell you otherwise?

You need to learn more respect toward people who think differently. Don't just assume that everybody else is a pessimist or a cynic.

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 uhm,no they don't. You want to explain to me how they do? ( Or atleast how you think they will.) I posted that later in my post. First it says god created plants before humans, and then it says he created humans when there were still no plants around. Clear? [quote]You got pictures? No, Read in Revelation ( I'm pretty sure it's in revelation) Those who take away from the Bible, blessings will be taken from them..and well you get the rest.

The council of Nicaea was a political gathering whose purpose was to modify christianity to be acceptable to larger masses of people. Some things were thrown out of the bible, regardless of whether you think god's blessings will be taken away from the people who did it or not.

quote:

There is no Lilith. You are totally messing everything up. Adam,and Eve. Adam had only one wife,that's Eve. She didn't give birth to demons. What are you smoking,pal?

The story about Lilith is the full version of the jewish myth. Bible contains the shortened version of the creation in which Lilith has been thrown out. Eve didn't give birth to demons, she gave birth to Abel and Seth. If you examine some jewish folk traditions, especially ones related to childbirth, you will see that the name of Lilith often appears with that of Adam and Eve.

quote:

What the heck? There aren't any contradictions. You really must be having an off day.

Who said anything about contradictions here? Can't you read the whole post? This was a response to when you said there are no other gods. Yet in the bible said god will execute judgement upon other gods. If they don't exist, who the hell is he going to execute his judgment upon. Or maybe he's paranoid so he's imagining other gods.

quote:

No,I read them,and no it doesn't say that. I've been reading the verses you've been giving me. But, no there aren't any contradictions.

Gen 1:11 Then god said "let the land produce vegetation...
Gen 1:13 ...on the third day

Gen 1:26 Then god said, "let us make man in our image...
Gen 1:27 God created man in his own image...
Gen 1:31 ...the sixth day

So, here it says god created plants on the 3rd day and humans on the 6th. But, later on the story is a bit different

Gen 2:4,2:5 When the lord god made the earth and the heavens - [b]and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up...
Gen 2:7 ...the lord god formed the man...

So here god created man before plants. See the contradiction?

quote:

Glad to hear you don't.No,they don't make sense. I don't see how you can't understand Christianity.

I understand christianity, both how it originated and what it taught through history. That's exactly why I don't believe in it.

quote:

again,there is only one God.

Yet other gods are so often mentioned in the bible.

quote:

No, The virgin birth isn't false. It really happened.

Here's a little example which may help you realize how the mistake occured. In english, the word hot means both warm and spicy. So you tell me "A soup is hot". You wanted to say it's spicy. Yet I translate it into croatian as "Juha je vruca". Then someone else translates it back to english and says "A soup is warm". Get it? Sometimes a single word can mean two different things, and the virgin birth was an unfortunate accident of such a flawed translation.

quote:

I don't see anything in common.

Then obviously you are not familiar with either of those gods. Let me spell it out for you again. Osiris was resurrected. Osiris allowed humans to reach the heavenly afterlife. Osiris was solar god. Jesus's birth is right after the winter equinox, the december 25th. The 12 apostols symbolize 4 seasons and 3 stages of life/day. Jesus symbolizes the sun. The council of Nicaea modified christianity to be closely related to pagan cults in order to absorb their holidays as it's own. Easter was the pagan celbration of fertility. Jesus' resurrection was set to be on the very same day. Coincidence? Hardly. Do you know why there are all those easter bunnies symbolize? Fertility, as they multiply rapidly. Bunnies are remnants of the pagan holiday. So are easter eggs, as they symbolize birth.

quote:

No,Satan was the serpent. Then after the first sin, God had made it to where they didn't have legs..to where they'd have to slither(sp?) around on their bellies. Thus,snakes.

So are you saying that my backyard is full of satans, cause I think there's a snake lair in the vicinity?

quote:

That's not true. Both women,and men are equal. No gender is better than the other. I've already had a few other people tell me that men in the Bible are superior to men and that the men did all the work,but that's not true. (One person also went as far as to say all women were evil,but I find it funny how he praises his girlfriend..heh.people..)

Well, the bible clearly states a woman is Adam's helper, not partner/friend/whatever. Yet another reason why I don't agree with the bible. Have you ever noticed how the old testament condones slavery, poligamy, and incest? Oh, while we're at it, could you explain to me where Cain got his wife from after he was banished from the garden of eden? Well, guess what, you can't because the bible is lacking on that detail. It was most likely Lilith or one of her offspring.

quote:

Freewill,We make our own choices. We know good from evil,do we not?

Yes, but god did not want us to know that.

quote:

The serpent,Satan...He was an angel,if you didn't know. His name was Lucifer,he was the angel of music. Angels don't have freewill. Humans do. God wanted companionship,that's why he made man.

I know that satan was god's prime angel and that his name was Lucifer. However, Lucifer was not a walking talking serpent. He was an angel with fluffy wings that led a rebellion against god.

quote:

No, that's not what happened.

Obviously it didn't because most of the things in bible didn't really happen. But if we for a second consider bible a worthy historical document, then it says there it did.

quote:

Then show me the fossile evidence.

What, do you want me to dig out some skeletons and send them to you via mail? Turn on the discovery channel.

quote:

We haven't come from an ape,but hey if you wanna believe you came from something like that you go ahead.

So how do you explain such fossiles as Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, etc.? Especially since the older ones bear more resemblence to the chimpanzees, while the newer ones generally resemble modern humans? What happened to all the creatures from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html? Did they simply die out after Noah brought them back to land? How come they're so similar to modern humans?

quote:

I've already had this discusion, you aren't getting my drift.

Well, say all you want but the your "relationship" with god is pretty much defined as religion.

quote:

I believe in Micro evolution,but not macro. I told you already. Micro evolution is correct,Just not macro.

But how do you differentiate between the two? By saying that once creatures of the same species reach the point where they can no longer mate, micro-evolution has become macro-evolution? God, the point of view you are defending has been valid somewhere around the middle of 19th century.

quote:

Homeschooling should be,and is allowed. It's one of our rights. I don't think anyone should try to trample on those.

I'm sorry but I believe a child's right to be taught non-biased actual facts is more important than a parent's right to educate his children in whichever way they desire. Now, as for home schooling, I accept that in cases such as yours it is the only way possible, but it unfortunately brings around a huge amount of problems, as the obvious bias of the parents who then teach their children in any way they desire.

quote:

Schools do teach actual facts,but they shouldn't tell a child what to believe. That's not a schools place. My views aren't flawed,they just don't match up with yours..but that doesn't make them flawed.

Well, if you look at it that way, everything is based upon believing. You can say that you believe that 2+2=5 and that it's not the school's right to order you to believe otherwise. In a way you are right. Schools are there to teach you valid facts and theories. If you don't want to believe them, regardless of the evidence which supports them, but want to believe some bogus theories instead, well the school can't force you to do otherwise.

quote:

I gave you the title of the book, you either read it and accept it or you don't. That's my proof,It's just as liable as the internet.

Heh, so I'll have to go and find myself a book. You might at least post some short contents which defend your point. You can't really expect that everytime someone disagrees with you he should buy a book that explains your points. And yes, the book may be as liable as the internet, but it is more liable than established peer-reviewed scientific books.

quote:

Macro evolution is false. It's that simple,really.

No, it is not. Again, your stance is "I say it so it must be true".

quote:

Micro evolution,that's true, unflawed. Macro evolution is the issue here.

Well, "macro" evolution is written in a huge amount of scientific journals and books as well. Therefore, using your arguments, it is true.

quote:

Naw,no one is listening. So why chew on the same old fat?

Because the evidence against you is overwhelming while the evidence that supports you is quite shaky.

quote:

Gosh you really can't comprehend can you?

You still haven't explained how the day was created on the first day.

quote:

There isn't any Lilith! Where are you pulling that bull up from? There isn't a Lilith.

Aaargh, for 50th time already, that story was in the old testament and it was thrown out later on.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.