TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were merged?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: good one

Thanks

quote:

blah blah Lucy skeleton. blah blah. im going to throw out the creationist view, i know everyone doesnt believe the bible, but creationism can be proven scientifically valid. adam and eve were created perfect. they had a perfect DNA code, and there was a moisture firmament above the earth. it never rained, but water came in through streams, and great fountains under the earth. under this firmament, they were protected from the rays of the sun, and the oxygen density was much higher than todays. and so, that is why in the bible, most of the early people lived several hundred years. adam lived to over 900 years old and noah and all in between.

Dr. Dino?

quote:

but, being forced to reproduce between brother and sister, the DNA code became more and more flawed. and then after noah's flood, when this firmament over the earth came down and all the springs under the earth burst forth, the oxygen density became less dense, the sun now came through the atmosphere stronger. all this, causes mutations. so now, our life expectancy has dropped from several hundred years, to less than a 100.

Only the wise will understand.

quote:

blah blah animals have had homosexual relations blah blah

I'm sure someone is going to come up with some article of gay animals. Needless to say that Pavlov had his dog salivate. I am sure someone may have made an animal have same sex ( homosexual denotes human) relations with another animal by conditioning them. Like the same way you get aroused when you watch a porno. Or when you salivate when you see something good to eat on tv.

quote:

Originally posted by x-filer religion is very stupid. Don't people know aliens created us? Come on we can't call them "god or Allah" when their probable goal is to harvest us like corn.

Sounds like them Scientologists have gotten to you already.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 To elaborate further: Exodus 3:13-14 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. I AM is Strongs' number 01961 (hayah)

Ok, so Moses speaks to god... your point?

quote:

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

This is nonsense...

Either (a) there is a "begining" and something created god, or (b) there was no "begining" and god is infinite. Which is it?

EDIT: Please argue with your own words instead of just quoting the bible.

What do you think it is?

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 What do you think it is?

(c) religion is shite and there is no god.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. Ok, so Moses speaks to god... your point? This is nonsense... Either (a) there is a "begining" and something created god, or (b) there was no "begining" and god is infinite. Which is it? EDIT: Please argue with your own words instead of just quoting the bible.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. (c) religion is shite and there is no god.

You could have easily ignored this thread and passed it by without any reply.

But you chose to click on reply and this is the way you argue.

You are not helping atheists with this kind of banter. Either you argue correctly and prove a point or just move on.



Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were merged?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Where did the hebrews or isrealites come from?? You are right...he may not be arab, but he was middle eastern. I still think arabs and modern day middle eastern people are desendents of either israelites caanatiesm arabs or persians. either way. we came fromthe same tribes... and jesus was probably was closer to arab than any other tribe. He probably looked arab too. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/s.../25/face.jesus/

ive seen that face before on the discovery channel. that face is really just their attempt to show what jesus MIGHT have looked like based on skulls from that time.

remember that jesus did not have joseph's DNA, he had mary's and whatever image i think he had in heaven. truth is, they are of middle eastern heritage, but certainly not arab, (600's AD), or persians, etc. i would say they are of mesopotamian descent, as abraham lived in the land of Ur which is in mesopotamia before he moved to canaan.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. Ok, so Moses speaks to god... your point? This is nonsense... Either (a) there is a "begining" and something created god, or (b) there was no "begining" and god is infinite. Which is it? EDIT: Please argue with your own words instead of just quoting the bible.

the point is, when god said, "i am that i am", he was replying to mose's question of "who are you". because god is infinite and cannot be comprehended by us(finite), to show us his "everything, glory, power, etc.", he simply said, I am that I am. he just is. im not sure youll understand, moving on..
------------------

if u knew what the contect of this passage was instead of taking it at face value, there would be no questions. jesus it the word. jesus was here in the beginning, he was with god, he was god, and he is the same today as he was in then, and forever. the beginning is the beginning of creation.
------------------

just because u dont believe or understand doesnt make it not true.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You could have easily ignored this thread and passed it by without any reply.

That wouldn't be much fun would it?

quote:

But you chose to click on reply and this is the way you argue. You are not helping atheists with this kind of banter.

Helping atheists... WTF? I'm just trying to have a discussion, which you are deffering for some reason. My personal beliefs are not relevant to the topic at hand.

quote:

Either you argue correctly and prove a point or just move on.

Likewise. All you ever do is list websites and quotes...

quote:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt. Abraham Lincoln

This is the Political Debate/Disscussion board no?

"Shit or get off the pot." ~ Dante Hicks

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. ...I'm just trying to have a discussion, which you are deffering for some reason...

You asked about whether God was infinite or not without quoting the Bible. I did as you asked.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. (c) religion is shite and there is no god.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. Helping atheists... WTF?

Answer:

quote:

Originally posted by dictionary.com on the definition of the word ATHEIST: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. ..All you ever do is list websites and quotes...

Seems like it bothers you to read.

Or you have trouble reading:

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. This is nonsense... Either (a) there is a "begining" and something created god, or (b) there was no "begining" and god is infinite. Which is it?

Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.
Frederick Douglass

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You asked about whether God was infinite or not without quoting the Bible. I did as you asked.

I said use your own words. You did nothing of the sort.

quote:

Seems like it bothers you to read.

Not at all. Does it bother you to compose your own thoughts? If I wanted a list of websites I could Google them myself.

"Some men are just as sure of the truth of their opinions as are others of what they know." ~Aristotle

"Men are four: He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool--shun him; He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple--teach him; He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep--wake him; He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise--follow him!" ~Lady Burton

"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind." ~William Blake

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." ~Confucius

"We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, but we cannot be wise with other men's wisdom." ~Michel de Montaigne

"I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." ~Samuel Johnson

You seem to like quotes so I thought I'd throw some in there for you. Merry Christmas!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: ive seen that face before on the discovery channel. that face is really just their attempt to show what jesus MIGHT have looked like based on skulls from that time. remember that jesus did not have joseph's DNA, he had mary's and whatever image i think he had in heaven. truth is, they are of middle eastern heritage, but certainly not arab, (600's AD), or persians, etc. i would say they are of mesopotamian descent, as abraham lived in the land of Ur which is in mesopotamia before he moved to canaan.

The mesopotamians are ancestors of modern day IRaqi's and Persians. Althought there has been some mixing fromthe arab crusades and greek conqured era's.. these people have relatively been the same. nevertheless... Jesus was of middle eastern origin. He was indeginous to that land.

The west likes to beleive or actually WANTS to beleive that the man they call jesus couldnt look like an arab or soemone fromt he middle east becuase afterall... peopl from that land are barbaric.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: creationism can be proven scientifically valid.

No it can't.

quote:

adam and eve were created perfect. they had a perfect DNA code, and there was a moisture firmament above the earth. it never rained, but water came in through streams, and great fountains under the earth. under this firmament, they were protected from the rays of the sun, and the oxygen density was much higher than todays. and so, that is why in the bible, most of the early people lived several hundred years. adam lived to over 900 years old and noah and all in between. but, being forced to reproduce between brother and sister, the DNA code became more and more flawed. and then after noah's flood, when this firmament over the earth came down and all the springs under the earth burst forth, the oxygen density became less dense, the sun now came through the atmosphere stronger. all this, causes mutations. so now, our life expectancy has dropped from several hundred years, to less than a 100.

See.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The mesopotamians are ancestors of modern day IRaqi's and Persians. Althought there has been some mixing fromthe arab crusades and greek conqured era's.. these people have relatively been the same. nevertheless... Jesus was of middle eastern origin. He was indeginous to that land. The west likes to beleive or actually WANTS to beleive that the man they call jesus couldnt look like an arab or soemone fromt he middle east becuase afterall... peopl from that land are barbaric.

he was of middle eastern origon, im not doubting that, but that face u posted cant really show u what jesus really looks like.

your somewhat right that the west does symbolize jesus in the liking of culture, such as his complextion, etc.
------------------------

quote:

No it can't.

Source
How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?

Figure 136: Causes and Effects. Each arrow�s tail represents a cause, and each yellow circle represents an effect. The arrow itself is the cause-to-effect relationship. Yellow circles also represent scientific evidence that to most people suggests a creation and a global flood. All of us, including students, should be free to reach our own conclusions about origins after learning the evidence and all reasonable explanations. Withholding that information in schools or misrepresenting it in the media is inexcusable.

The first cause appears to be supernatural, or beyond the natural (blue area). Evolutionists often say the yellow circles and their scientific implications cannot be presented in science classrooms, because the first cause (red circle) is supernatural. Subjects outside the natural (including biblical descriptions of creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical evidence) are inappropriate for publicly financed science education. However, excluding what is observable and verifiable in nature, along with possible causes, is bad science, misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of this scientific evidence.
---------------------------------

Let me define science.

science(n.) - A field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments.

Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide considerable insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. [See Items 53 and 55 beginning on page 27.]

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.

scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.

All evidence in Part I of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. [See Part II.]

Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists� refusal to debate this subject (see page 333) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, �Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.� Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred�how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. [See Figure 152 on page 326 and the paragraph preceding that figure.] Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible�a document they wish to discredit�speaks of the flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 107), but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, �What best explains all the evidence?�

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekul� discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekul�s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let�s teach all the science.

Good morning everyone! Did I actually miss this religious conversation? Jesus I've been too asleep at the wheel!

quote:

Originally posted by Reverend_Trance It is not forcing Christianity but a single principle of their beliefs.

What's the difference? There are many sweeping "principles" in Christianity that can be enforced in law that would wholly appear to be of a Christian nature. The balance and beauty of our laws, however, is that they do not adhere to a one particular religion. Otherwise, we'd likely see a few more Commandments in our laws by now, wouldn't we?

quote:

Men and women have been married for thousands of years. Polygamy was once common and now society has adjusted for a single marriage between 2 people.

There are a number of instances where homosexuality relationships have been clearly recognized. Surely you remember our conversation a while back on thisold thread

quote:

Gay marriage shakes this foundation.

Whose foundation? Yours? Other fundamentalist Christians? Who else? For many others, and I do mean, MANY others, gay marriage causes no harm to anyone. And what kind of "foundation" are you referring to? Straight marriage? Statistics prove you quite wrong. Don't you find it a bit strange how the state of Mass. has the lowest divorce rate, yet is one of the only states that allow gay marriage? Or by "foundation" you mean morality and ethics? Well considering that children coming from gay marriages tend to show a higher tolerance towards other minority groups, I'd tend to find that a bit on "shaky" ground.

quote:

The key here is change.

Bingo. You might practice what you preach a bit more here.

quote:

They believe that marriage is a basic and funimental union between a man and a woman.

Whose "they"? The majority? Well "they" also believed slavery was right, women have no right to vote, children have no constitutional rights and can work ridiculously long hours in factories, and interracial marriage is an abomination, among other beliefs. But as you so aptly stated:

quote:

The key here is change.

I simply couldn't agree more. But what makes you think that this applies only to Christian doctrine?

quote:

Marriage was an institution created by God amd then adapted to by secular authorities.

Oh please. Until you can demonstrate with verifiable evidence that God had anything to do with writing the Bible, your beginning premise here doesn't hold water very well at all.

quote:

God said that this is an indecent act.

Bullshit, especially when taken in full context of the biblical writing. Are you talking Old or New Testament? Leviticus or Corinthians? I'm more than willing to discuss what Moses supposedly wrote in Leviticus or what Paul states in full context anytime you are. My contention is that NOTHING stated in the Bible in context gives any full conclusion against homosexual marriage.

Don't you find it a bit strange how Jesus, the Son of God said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality?

quote:

They do not want this to go public. Becuase the secular authorities are approving something that the majority does not want. (The average 70-75% in favor in the states it did pass.)

The "secular authorities" are only trying to follow Constitutional civil rights, and are trying to grant everyone, including minorities, full rights. Please keep in mind that the Constitution was not written solely for the majority.

quote:

For them male/female relations are normal. For them peg A goes into slot B instead of in the ass.

Well, quite true. But please don't tell all those heterosexuals who like to fuck their girlfriends in the ass either, okay? Oh yeah, I suppose "peg A" doesn't "naturally" into "mouth B" of their girlfriends or wives either (though I tend to find it does personally). I mean really, you think you're gonna make babies with that kind of fit? No? Well then why are you doing it? It's not natural, is it? And BTW, doesn't the Bible say something about that kind of lewd behavior anyway?

quote:

Since homosexuality is not natural it is a sin.

Well since those folks back in those Biblical times knew next to nothing about the modern day complexities of the biological natural world, I think we should cut them a break.

But as for those modern day Christians who still adhere to the Bible verbatum and those days of old without at least trying to comprehend the modern day natural world, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever:

http://www.androphile.org/preview/L...Werner20.24.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Contrary to that old darn Christian indoctrination, homosexuality behavior is quite common in nature.

quote:

Considering how liberal many people are in this board, it is hard to be a hick.

Oh cry me a river, will you? I'm from Kansas for Christ's sakes! Does that entail that I should necessarily be a hick too? Granted, I still like beer from a can every now and then, and I'd prefer a mean BBQ over a fancy Italian restaurant any day of the week, but I've managed to "evolve" into a Progressive with time. Who knows, it may actually happen to you too!

quote:

In my opinion, they should have a civil union but not a full blown marriage,

I would go with you on that, provided that all the rights and benefits granted in heterosexual marriages are given to homosexual civil unions.

quote:

because marriage is mainly controlled by the Church or other religious authority and I want to respect that.

That's fine by me too, but I hope you do not make the distinction between the concepts of "marriage" and "civil unions" based on sex (male or female that is). Otherwise, it gets a bit confusing when referring to secular heterosexual civil unions that are allowed today.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: prove to you homosexuality isnt natural? your not serious are you? homosexuals arent being discriminated against at all. we have laws protecting them against that. but what they want is elevated status over single individuals and to that of a married couple. and thats where the moral issue lies. is it right for them to marry or not.

Wrong, quite wrong, as I'll explain below.

quote:

the traditional morality says that it is wrong for homosexuals to marry, and its wrong to live the homosexual lifestyle itself.

I didn't realize that we were to follow "traditional morality"? And what is "traditional morality", BTW? Is it that African Americans have inferior status? Is it that it is morally justified that they are slaves? Is it that women should have inferior status and do not have a right to vote? Or is it perhaps that interracial marriages are immoral and wrong?

These traditions were set in stone at one time or another, and were as ethical as it was to not commit adultery. In fact, some such as slavery were as ethical as it was to not commit homocide. Traditions were made to be modified as we become more tolerant of minority groups.

quote:

i think everyone knows homosexuality is wrong whether they admit it or not.

I don't. Man, what's wrong with me?

quote:

the states did have racial laws of discrimination in place, but they did not base it on morality. they based on their angry sentiment over the conclusion of the civil war and of centuries of slavery under white people which over the years created a sentiment that whites were superior to blacks. that was not right.

Damn right it wasn't right, but there was plenty of Christian justification on slavery too. How the hell do you think they were able to justify it in the first place?

quote:

but homosexuals have no such laws in place of outright, blatant discrimination. they have all the basic rights of all americans, but they are trying to get a right that has been reserved for specific individuals, and has been since the beginning of the human race.

You mean "basic rights" like these?:

quote:

Marriage Rights and Benefits Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life. Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes: Tax Benefits *Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. *Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits *Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. *Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. *Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. *Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse�s behalf. Government Benefits *Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. *Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. *Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits *Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. *Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. *Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. *Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse�s close relatives dies. Medical Benefits *Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. *Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits *Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. *Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits *Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. *Applying for joint foster care rights. *Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. *Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits *Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." *Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits *Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. *Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. *Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections *Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). *Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). *Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can�t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. *Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. *Obtaining domestic violence protection orders. *Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. *Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. http://www.eriposte.com/civil_right.../gay_rights.htm

I'm sorry, you were saying that homosexuals have all the same rights, weren't you? Look the other way, Christian, nothing to see here.
-------------

quote:

it should be either civil unions or nothing at all. to have the same rights as a married couple was essentially mean the same status as a married male and female.

*GASP!*

Oh the misery!!!!

quote:

im sorry, but there are just some things that each one of us just cant do. i cant walk in a buy a beer from a gas station. but im not crying about it calling it age discrimination.

It is age discrimination, and if you can make a sound, logical case on the matter supported by evidence and research that you should be allowed to do this, I am fully in your corner. Unfortunately for you, our government has some pretty good statistics that demonstrate that youngins on alcohol are a bit dangerous to society. Are you so willing to boldly state that homosexual behavior is a danger to society too? Please be prepared to support your statement with evidence if you do.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Yup mutations are just a freak occurance by nature. Just think of transgender folk, what are they a man or woman, or maybe a moman...?

On average you have about 40-50 mutations in your body. So does that imply that you are a freak of nature?

Mutations are not a freak of nature - they are nature.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: in the theory of evolution, where are the cross-link species?? the missing link??there have been "missing links discovered" like the so-called Lucy skeleton.

Oh there's quite a few more "missing links discovered" than that. Here's just a few:

Old Thread Link

The "missing links" and "gaps" just keep getting filled as we progress further into time, and you'll just have to forgive those darn scientists who've given up filling those gaps with "godidit" anymore. I guess they kinda got burnt out on that.

quote:

but, there great skeptism against its validity to the point where the bones could not even be that of an ape or human.

Discuss this skepticism to me. Is this your skepticism? Is there skepticism among PhD anthropologists? I wasn't aware of any myself.

quote:

there are examples of species adapting, but there has not been one example observed or discovered of an animal jumping species.

Really? Interesting. Where would you like me to start? Are you willing to acknowledge this "jumping" if I can verifiably demonstrate it to you, or will you simply stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't exist?

quote:

im going to throw out the creationist view, i know everyone doesnt believe the bible, but creationism can be proven scientifically valid. adam and eve were created perfect. they had a perfect DNA code, and there was a moisture firmament above the earth. it never rained, but water came in through streams, and great fountains under the earth. under this firmament, they were protected from the rays of the sun, and the oxygen density was much higher than todays. and so, that is why in the bible, most of the early people lived several hundred years. adam lived to over 900 years old and noah and all in between. but, being forced to reproduce between brother and sister, the DNA code became more and more flawed. and then after noah's flood, when this firmament over the earth came down and all the springs under the earth burst forth, the oxygen density became less dense, the sun now came through the atmosphere stronger. all this, causes mutations. so now, our life expectancy has dropped from several hundred years, to less than a 100.

You seemed to have thrown the words "scientifically valid" into this story. I'm trying to find where you have the validity in this. For some reason, I can't seem to find anything scientifically valid in your story. Could you cite a source in the primary literature for this, please?

quote:

then it is not natural. if u cant reproduce, its not natural. show me a case where two animals have had homosexual relations for their entire lives.

Then I hope you're all for telling each and every Christian to stop asking their girlfriends/wives for acts of sodomy while you're at it. It just simply won't do - no reproduction, no good.

quote:

animals dont do it. show one case that would prove its natural. now show me dozens, because one incident doesnt mean the entire animal kingdom is doing the same thing.

http://www.androphile.org/preview/L...Werner20.24.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


Since you've thrown around the words "scientifically valid", I can only assume that you're a bit more with the times of scientific research. Since you've seemingly overlooked such instances, you have no excuse whatsoever to claim this doesn't occur in nature.

quote:

ive thrown myself back into the malee

Indeed you have. Welcome to the mosh pit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were merged?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: um, no he was 100% hebrew. his genealogy is in the book of luke. from jesus, all the way down to adam. Luke 3: 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e] the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

This geneology doesn't match up at all with Matthew, and there are a slew of problems with both geneologies matching up with geneologies in the OT, i.e. 1Chronicles. How can you continue to justify this to yourself? Don't you study your Bible with scrutiny? What seems more plausible is the writers of the NT were simply trying to justify Jesus being a King, thus trying to attach him to the geneology of King David.

crap, i thought we moved away from the same-sex marraige and into evolution. i wished u joined the debate earlier OPUS!!

oh well, this is going to take a couple hours to respond to, give me a couple days.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would the consequences be if Christianity and Islam were

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Figure 136: Causes and Effects. Each arrow�s tail represents a cause, and each yellow circle represents an effect. The arrow itself is the cause-to-effect relationship. Yellow circles also represent scientific evidence that to most people suggests a creation and a global flood.

Most people? Does that include scientists that actually study such evidence with scrutiny and have concluded with sound reasoning that a "creation and global flood", at least that which is depicted in the Bible, is pure fantasy?

quote:

All of us, including students, should be free to reach our own conclusions about origins after learning the evidence and all reasonable explanations.

I wholeheartedly agree, and your operative word there is "reasonable". The creationists have not given any verifiable, testable, observable "reasonable" scientific theory at all, so why on earth would you entail it to be taught along side of that which does have all the met criterion of a sound theory?

quote:

Withholding that information in schools or misrepresenting it in the media is inexcusable.

Explain. Be specific.

quote:

The first cause appears to be supernatural, or beyond the natural (blue area).

Was there ever testable, observable, verifiable evidence to state that the first cause was supernatural? Why would one conclude as such without supporting evidence?

The difference between creationists and what you call "evolutionists" is that the latter simply says, "I don't know", because at present we simply do not know. The former inserts God when they do not know without verifiable evidence to support it.

And BTW, you do realize that evolution does not involve abiogenesis theories, don't you? So calling "evolutionists" in this context is misleading and incorrect.

quote:

Evolutionists often say the yellow circles and their scientific implications cannot be presented in science classrooms, because the first cause (red circle) is supernatural.

How on earth does your premise follow such a conclusion? That's about as non sequitur as you can get!

quote:

Subjects outside the natural (including biblical descriptions of creation and the flood that are so consistent with the physical evidence) are inappropriate for publicly financed science education.

Oh boy.

There's inappropriate because they're so easily struck down without any evidence to support their assertions. This is a science class, you know.

quote:

However, excluding what is observable and verifiable in nature, along with possible causes, is bad science, misleading, and censorship. Creation science, then, is the study of this scientific evidence.

*scratches head*

Are they being serious here?

quote:

Let me define science. science(n.) - A field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments. Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

The "relationships" have nothing to do with scientific "laws" per se. The only thing the so called "laws" of science pertain to are verifiable "truths" through mathmatical formulas. Everything else outside of that falls upon postulations, hypothesis, observation, and theories supported by verifiable, tested, retested evidence.

quote:

Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event.

True, but the problem with this statement is that science could give two shits as to what "caused" the first event. In fact, science could give two shits on whether an event is natural or supernatural. The problem with the supernatural, however, is that it has never been verifiably demonstrated with observation testing, retesting, etc. Therefore, without verifiable demonstration, scientists simply cannot arbitrarily "insert" supernatural phenomena within verifiable natural phenomena whenever or whereever they darn well choose - ESPECIALLY in those areas that they currently cannot explain. Instead, they simply say "we don't know yet".

Basic Science 101 - learn to say "we don't know" when you damn well don't know.

quote:

Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide considerable insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. [See Items 53 and 55 beginning on page 27.]

Scienctists don't deny that at all. They simply do NOT like to insert "godidit" in areas where they currently have no knowledge or technological capability to understand an event. This includes the "first cause", the second cause, the 1000th cause, the nth cause, it doesn't matter.

quote:

Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence. scientific evidence: Something that has been observed with instruments or our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible explanations for phenomena.

Uh, yeah. And?

quote:

All evidence in Part I of this book is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a creation and a global flood. This does not mean the Creator (The First Cause) can be studied scientifically or that the Bible should be read in public-school science classes. (I have always opposed that.) Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong.

Such martyrdom. How original. How silly.

quote:

Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. [See Part II.]

Oh, that should be good. "The global flood theory is full of holes and thus supports evolution, but don't believe what evolutionists say about it, just continue to believe this swiss cheese theory no matter what they say!"

Did I ever tell you how much I love creationists?

quote:

Explanations other than creation or a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific. Evolutionists� refusal to debate this subject (see page 333) and their speculations on cause-and-effect phenomena that cannot be demonstrated is also poor science, especially when much evidence opposes those speculations.

It's funny when creationists say that evolutionists refuse to debate with them, yet I see evos confront creationists every single day. Hell, our group, the Kansas Citizens for Science confront creationists and IDers and their postulations at will, yet for some reason creationists seem to be in denial of these confrontations and debates.

Why is that, exactly?

quote:

Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, �Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation.�

Jesus, where the hell do they get this stuff? I've never heard one evo state anything remotely along these lines. In fact, most evos such as myself are quite comfortable with a supernatural theory of the primary causal event. Why is it that creationists continue to confuse the concept of abiogenesis with evolution?

quote:

Of course, no one understands scientifically how the creation occurred�how space, time, matter, and the laws of physics began. [See Figure 152 on page 326 and the paragraph preceding that figure.] Others, not disputing that the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible�a document they wish to discredit�speaks of the flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood (given on page 107), but in science, all starting points are available. The key question must always be, �What best explains all the evidence?�

Who are these heathen men who defy God? STRIKE THEM DOWN STRAIGHT TO HELL, I say!

quote:

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived.

That makes sense.

quote:

For example, Friedrich Kekul� discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekul�s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry.

Hmmm, I suppose some great scientist farted loudly and came up with the idea that electrons are not moving in circles around the nucleus, but are in a spacious gas cloud instead.

It matters not HOW a postulation or hypothesis is derived. One would certainly hope that they are derived by previous scientific research, however. In fact, nearly all sound theories were derived from previous scientific research. It logically follows that such new postulations would be a bit more scientifically sound if they stood on previous work, rather than a fart blowing out of my ass or a fuzzy wet dream. But those types of works no doubt occur - they are truly the exception and not the rule, however.

quote:

Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation.

Well why the hell would you say anything about the "source of the idea" in the first place then?

quote:

Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let�s teach all the science.

Yes, let's. And no, science is not the "search for truth", which implies some endpoint with the study. It is merely a means of best explaining the natural world around us, nothing else.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: crap, i thought we moved away from the same-sex marraige and into evolution. i wished u joined the debate earlier OPUS!! oh well, this is going to take a couple hours to respond to, give me a couple days.

No problem. I'm game with evolution too when you're ready.

God, TVD, where do you come up with this stuff???

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: in the theory of evolution, where are the cross-link species?? the missing link?? there have been "missing links discovered" like the so-called Lucy skeleton. but, there great skeptism against its validity to the point where the bones could not even be that of an ape or human. there are examples of species adapting, but there has not been one example observed or discovered of an animal jumping species.

What exact missing links are you talking about? There are enough fossils to portray a pretty clear picture of how humans evolved. It's pretty hard to find skeletons that have been lying around for millions of years, and it's therefore understandable that some shorter periods of time will be unaccounted for. But considering that evolution is a slow process, there's not a single significant evolutionary jump that has been unaccounted for. Whenever you find two fossils you can always claim that there's a period of time missing between them, so I don't know what would satisfy you. Maybe finding every single hominid skeleton that appeared in the last 3 million years?

quote:

im going to throw out the creationist view, i know everyone doesnt believe the bible, but creationism can be proven scientifically valid.

How can it be proven? By that pretty little picture you posted? The whole article is such a great display of charlatanism that's kinda along the lines of Dr. Nick's expertese from the Simpsons.

quote:

adam and eve were created perfect. they had a perfect DNA code,

Umm, proof?

quote:

and there was a moisture firmament above the earth.

So where's the firmament now? Did the belief maybe have something to do with the possibility of primitive people concluding something like: water is blue->sky is blue->sky is made of water? Nooo, it can't be!

quote:

it never rained, but water came in through streams, and great fountains under the earth. under this firmament, they were protected from the rays of the sun, and the oxygen density was much higher than todays.

Again, where's your proof for that? And what exactly held all those waters up high from falling down? Nevertheless, if we suppose such a firmament existed, not only were people protected from the sun rays but they were pretty much living in a sort of nuclear winter environment. Hell, if few cubic acres of dust thrown up by meteors can cause mini ice ages, what would a huge sphere of water around the earth do? And where did you get that stuff about oxygen density??? Yes, there were times when oxygen densities were different, but that was not the case in biblical times.

quote:

and so, that is why in the bible, most of the early people lived several hundred years. adam lived to over 900 years old and noah and all in between.

Because of the higher oxygen level and protection from sun rays? So if I wear an oxygen mask and don't get out of my house I'll live 900 years?

quote:

but, being forced to reproduce between brother and sister, the DNA code became more and more flawed.

Soo, why did god not create a few more people, and now we'd all be perfect? Oh, wait, he did. Cain went out into the world and found himself a wife. Wonder where she came from? And where did Set get his wife from? Hmm, missing links between the verses?

quote:

and then after noah's flood, when this firmament over the earth came down and all the springs under the earth burst forth, the oxygen density became less dense, the sun now came through the atmosphere stronger.

How exactly did an influx of water reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere? The two don't really chemically interact between each other. Well, at least the ice age was over.

quote:

all this, causes mutations. so now, our life expectancy has dropped from several hundred years, to less than a 100.

What? Solar rays? Inbreeding? And why did the people in the past have average life expectancy of 20-30 years? Are our genes improving again? Or did the atmosphere start gaining more oxygen? Or maybe the sun is shining less brightly?

quote:

then it is not natural. if u cant reproduce, its not natural.

So what are gays then? Supernatural beings? Genetic and other defects people possess are as natural as healthy genes and individuals. It's just that some aren't as prone to die out as others.

quote:

show me a case where two animals have had homosexual relations for their entire lives.

There's a gay penguin couple living in NY zoo if I'm not mistaken.

quote:

animals dont do it. show one case that would prove its natural. now show me dozens, because one incident doesnt mean the entire animal kingdom is doing the same thing.

Well, if it were a very common practice in the animal kingdom, the earth would soon be a pretty barren planet. However, such cases do occur, and they're as natural as animals born with other defects, like blindness. You can't say a blind person is not natural, can you?

quote:

What exact missing links are you talking about? There are enough fossils to portray a pretty clear picture of how humans evolved. It's pretty hard to find skeletons that have been lying around for millions of years, and it's therefore understandable that some shorter periods of time will be unaccounted for. But considering that evolution is a slow process, there's not a single significant evolutionary jump that has been unaccounted for. Whenever you find two fossils you can always claim that there's a period of time missing between them, so I don't know what would satisfy you. Maybe finding every single hominid skeleton that appeared in the last 3 million years?

every single one that has been supposed discovered. with the complexity of the number of species on this earth, there should be millions of examples of inter-species transition, but all there are, are just a few questionable discoveries. what significant evolutionary jumps have been accounted for?? ide like to know, because i cant see how a dinosaur can evolve into birds, and i cant see how reproduction could have evolved from bacteria that simply copy themselves over and over again, and how bacteria can evolve into animals with specialized organs that have specific functions and with none serves no function at all, with every part of its body serving some form of specific function, and all this coming about by chance.

when u find two fossils, they are either the same animal, a different breed of the same animal, or a different species altogether. if chihuahua's were extinct many years ago, and so were pitbulls. they are both dogs. u find their fossils. they seem very much alike. but they have different skull shapes, different sized skeletons, longer teeth on the pitbull, bigger bones on the pitbull, etc. the evolutionist would immediatly assume the chihuahua a different species and the pitbull another and that one evolved from the other. but no, they are just different breeds of the same species. apply this to our so-called ape relationship. there are many drawings, etc., but where are the hundreds of skeletons of our half-ape, half-human breathren??

quote:

How can it be proven? By that pretty little picture you posted? The whole article is such a great display of charlatanism that's kinda along the lines of Dr. Nick's expertese from the Simpsons.

by historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence. someone asked, maybe by you, how can creationism be scienctific. i provided an article that explained it. now your going to just cast it aside because your worldview doesnt allow for the existance of a god or creator. really, that's why i think this debate is useless, because our presuppositions are so opposite each other, we can only go back and forth, back and forth.

here is the best link i can provide for my arguement against evolution. dont just put it off as religion and say its false. put up some evidence yourself debunking the information this link provides.
http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

quote:

Umm, proof?

have u ever heard of the mitochondrial adam and eve??

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGdna.htm

quote:

So where's the firmament now? Did the belief maybe have something to do with the possibility of primitive people concluding something like: water is blue->sky is blue->sky is made of water? Nooo, it can't be!

no, because water can be brown, green, and other colors than blue. but here's an answer to your firmament question. skip the first section-THE DARWINIAN FISH.

http://home.gowyo.com/creation/FtB4.htm

quote:

Again, where's your proof for that? And what exactly held all those waters up high from falling down? Nevertheless, if we suppose such a firmament existed, not only were people protected from the sun rays but they were pretty much living in a sort of nuclear winter environment. Hell, if few cubic acres of dust thrown up by meteors can cause mini ice ages, what would a huge sphere of water around the earth do? And where did you get that stuff about oxygen density??? Yes, there were times when oxygen densities were different, but that was not the case in biblical times.

well, the firmament was out in space. so thats what held it up. but what kept it from going astray was the earth's gravity. and ill also say god held it up, but u wouldnt believe that. there would be no nucleur winter because heat can travel through water, and so can light. and the layer of water would have a greenhouse effect, not a nucleur winter effect. that is why all the earth had very mild, pleasant temperatures, and no bad weather, until the firmament fell.

oxygen density - lets see, no deserts + no massive deforestation + no bad weather + no habitat destruction = would mean much much more vegetation(which creates oxygen) than today, and with it plenty of water, and with a greenhouse effect on the planet, the oxygen density would be much higher. measure the oxygen density outside, and then go inside a greenhouse, and measure the oxygen density inside the greenhouse. there's a scientific analysis right there supporting firmament. it was the case in biblical times because that is what was described in the bible, and historically.

quote:

Because of the higher oxygen level and protection from sun rays? So if I wear an oxygen mask and don't get out of my house I'll live 900 years?

u may live longer, but your DNA has too many mutations, and your enviroment has too many contaminants for you to live longer than 120 years of age. back then, there was no industry, pollutants, etc. oxygen is whats needed to carry out all the chemical reactions in your body, so the more of it you have, the more chemical reactions can take place in your body(more energy, more everything), which means longer life. protected from radiation and a very healthy diet of natural foods(no preservatives or additives), and a very pure enviroment, yes, u can live much longer than 100 years.

quote:

Soo, why did god not create a few more people, and now we'd all be perfect? Oh, wait, he did. Cain went out into the world and found himself a wife. Wonder where she came from? And where did Set get his wife from? Hmm, missing links between the verses?

There's your answer. skip to the section THE FIRST MAN.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../cains_wife.asp

quote:

How exactly did an influx of water reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere? The two don't really chemically interact between each other. Well, at least the ice age was over.

less water = less vegetation = less oxygen.

quote:

What? Solar rays? Inbreeding? And why did the people in the past have average life expectancy of 20-30 years? Are our genes improving again? Or did the atmosphere start gaining more oxygen? Or maybe the sun is shining less brightly?

rarely was life-expectancy ever 20-30 years, except in some parts of time in specific places such as ancient egypt, nomadic tribes, etc. there are still places today with such life expectancies, in africa, and remote jungles. solar radiation is known to cause mutations and cancer. cancer is a mutation. inbreeding causes mutations. its like trying to put two +sides of a magnet together. it's just hard for them to come together, hence inbreeding would cause bad genes.

with the advent of automobiles, and technology, especially medically-wise, our lives are much easier than they used to be, and our health is helped greatly by our gained knowledge of health and of medicine. so no, we are not getting more oxygen and yes the sun is shining brighter, less ozone.

quote:

So what are gays then? Supernatural beings? Genetic and other defects people possess are as natural as healthy genes and individuals. It's just that some aren't as prone to die out as others.

quote:

Well, if it were a very common practice in the animal kingdom, the earth would soon be a pretty barren planet. However, such cases do occur, and they're as natural as animals born with other defects, like blindness. You can't say a blind person is not natural, can you?

after researching some, i have found that homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom. i do concede to that. and finally i will say this. though i am against gay marraige and homosexuality, if they are able to get married then, great for them, its bad in my mind, but they have that freedom to obtain whatever rights they want. the purpose of procreation is to have offspring. homosexual sex cannot rear offspring. in your your own law of natural selection. only the strongest survive. how can u survive if u cant reproduce. but extinction is also a part of nature...
-----------------------------

im not debating with both of you

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 On average you have about 40-50 mutations in your body. So does that imply that you are a freak of nature? Mutations are not a freak of nature - they are nature.

Very well said.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 On average you have about 40-50 mutations in your body. So does that imply that you are a freak of nature? Mutations are not a freak of nature - they are nature.

actually, its in the hundreds.

http://the_human_genome.tripod.com/mutations.html

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