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 DrUg_Tit0 Now, about Noah's ark. It was a ship with a volume of 140*23*13.5 meters (43470m^3). Now, god told Noah to put a pair of every species on board. Well, guess what, even if you took only 1 member of each land-dwelling creature that is not capable to survive the 40 day flood, the volume would be vastly greater. Also, you might note that considering the amount of time it took Noah to upload the species and the amount of species currently living on earth, the influx of creatures should be about 100 species/second. And what about the dinosaurs? Were they on the ship? The fossile record shows they existed, so most likely he had to put them aboard. Yet there are none living around now. Well, since the fossile record shows millions of different extinct species, and Noah's ark story took place several thousand years ago, it seems like species have been dying off by thousands each year without being replaced by new ones! Now why the hell would god create something like that? And just imagine how the world was crowded back then! Oh and another thing, how did Noah get the Kangaroos, Koalas, Jaguars...? Did he sail to America and Australia prior to the flood? Damn, we should get the designs for that ship. In only a few months it managed to be built, to sail all around the world, and it's cargo capacity was unimaginable! Bye-bye oil tankers and aircraft carriers. Wooden arks are a way to go!

if Santa Claus can do it, why not Noah? come on its in the bible

Damn I love yankin� people�s chains!

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother?

I have not ignored one thing you�ve said up to this point. Quite the contrary � I�ve read and researched every source you�ve given thus far. So I would only ask the same favor from you in return, okay? So please read and try to understand the material I�ve given you.

quote:

No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)

Then what is the point of our conversation if you continue to refuse to consider the scientists� point of view? Those links explain what scientists know of the observed, tested, and falsifiable evidence, which conclusively points to evolutionary processes taking place. If the evidence of the observed, tested, and falsified pointed towards a creationist theory, then it would show as much. This is not the case. But since you are unwilling to listen to anything that the vast majority of researchers all around the globe agree on, I guess there�s really very little point on trying to talk logic with you then.

That�s quite unfortunate.

quote:

I was hoping maybe you'd get get it through your thick skull.^_^

I tell you what will get through my thick skull better � evidence of creationism. Observed, tested, and falsified evidence that creationism explains biological nature much better than the existing evolutionary �idea�. So no, repetition does little to convince me, an empiricist.

quote:

I'm not the one having the issue here. I'm not referring to any particular link, what I'm talking about is this theory is so full of holes that it's ridiulous. They aren't getting smaller,and they aren't getting found because Macro evolution is completely false.

Remember what I said about repetition, dear? Please cease from this habit now. You haven�t proved �macro-evolution� to be false yet with any supportive evidence, and the evidence you�ve given so far has been disputed and debunked quite easily by myself and others. So stop repeating that which you have not claimed with supporting evidence.

And once again, the fact that there are holes in the fossil record is undisputed. It�s incredibly physically difficult to be able to have preserved specimens of critters hundreds of millions of years old. It�s just a darn problem with organic chemistry. It�s also a darn problem with predation during that given period for that given organism. But what we do have so far has filled those �gaps� quite nicely, with more and more �gaps� continuing to be filled. Here�s some more �gaps�:

quote:

Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles) The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988) �Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count. �Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches. �Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though. �Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles. The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs. The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals. Some transitions among reptiles I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988) �Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids. Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs: �Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell. �Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993) �Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc.. �Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described. Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info) �Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above �Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum. �Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991) GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian. �Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds). �Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones. �Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though. �Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur. �Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs. Some species-to-species transitions: �De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria. �Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include: 1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus 2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus. 3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus 4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus. All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)

The same reference link can be used from my previous post. These references came from scientific journals, with nice juicy pictures for the slow-learning folk like yourself. I highly suggest you go to your nearest college library and look up a few for yourself.
I reiterate: according to Creationist Theory (or the one you adhere to, I�m assuming it�s Young Earth Creationism, or YEC), there should be NO fossil transitions. NONE whatsoever. But with these obvious physiological and genetic confirmations of transitions, we see conclusively that there are, in fact, transitions.

This is why a great many YECs have turned into OECs (Old Earth Creationists), because the facts are simply undeniable when they finally look at the data with a little maturity.

quote:

One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next.

I�ve just shown otherwise with the above �missing links�. Genetics have also proven this to be true as well. Care to discuss genetics with me now?

quote:

If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture. I've already read this stuff.

Now Occrider has shown you a few pictures already, and yet you continue to ignore him. So let me ask you something for the sake of brevity (and my own sake of sanity): If I show you some pictures of this stuff, would that honestly convince you any more? Considering the fact that you started this post out with the following statement:

quote:

No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)

Now why would I post any pictures of what is quite obvious to everyone else but you, when you simply refuse to be convinced? Why would I waste my time then?

If, however, you honestly want to be convinced, I�ll be happy to oblige with some examples. Fair enough?

quote:

No, That's not my entire case.But, what I'm saying is Finches will throughout the future only be finches, they aren't going to evolve into something else.

Exactly. Nice rationalization, and you�ve just proven one of the tenets of evolution that I just gave. Here it is again:

quote:

the short answer is an organism that is successful in a given niche has very little selective pressures to evolve any further. Only under selective pressures will an organism evolve in order to survive.

So a finch will always be a finch. A bacteria will always be a bacteria. An alligator will always be an alligator. An ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist will always be an ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist, unless there�s selective pressures for that organism to evolve further. This is all about survival and competition. If the finch species has to compete with other organisms to survive, it may possibly evolve adaptive features that will entail it�s survival. Then again, it may not, depending on whether or not it�s species adapts well enough to survive. There are plenty of species that didn�t adapt well enough � hence extinction.

Now if you understood evolution as well as you say you have, you would have understood this tenet as well. Are you being dishonest again?

quote:

I have a question for you later tonight(it isn't because I don't understand, It's food for thought.)but, I'm trying to find the correct way to word it so you understand.

Let me skip over and post your question here:

quote:

If a fish were to evolve into a bird,at one point the fins will turn into wings,at some point the fins will not be good fins,and the wings will not be good wings. The fish will not be a good swimmer,or flyer,There it will be easy prey,or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can't be used here, because it's not fit as a fish,or even as a bird.

Let me ask an alternative, parallel question, and you tell me if it makes any sense:

If a lemur were to evolve into a giraffe, at one point the neck will be stretched waaaay long, and at some point the rest of his body will be disproportionate to his loooong neck. The lemur will not be able to jump tree to tree with such a long neck, and the giraffe will not be able to eat leaves at the top of the tree, because among other things like falling off the tree with such a heavy neck (and probably dying from the impact), he won�t be able to reach the leaves because the rest of his body is too small down on the canopy. Therefore, it will be easy prey, or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can�t be used here, because it not fit as a lemur, or even as a giraffe.

Now let�s take your example aside for a moment, and I want you to examine closely what might be wrong with my example.

(I�ll give you a hint: something to do with missing a few steps in the evolutionary ladder, misunderstanding natural selection entirely, missing completely what the fossil record shows us, etc. ).
Now apply this to your example. I am glad though, that you are finally asking questions.

quote:

No it's not like a belief in God,that's not what I'm saying. It's not like I have faith in it.

Good enough. But I hope you understand that evolutionists don�t hold a �belief� system in their research in a similar manner of religious faith. That�s the difference I was getting across.

quote:

Me? Unfair? Naw. Who said I didn't read it? I've already read most the junk you've posted. I know what it's saying. ( there you go again with your condescending attitude. >_< ) I don't need to ask you questions,why would I? I'm not being dishonest. I can assure you.

It certainly appears to the layman that you are being dishonest. You commented only ONCE on the material I�ve posted, and what�s worse, you either completely misinterpreted the article, or you didn't read further on down past the introduction. So please, try again.

quote:

You'll have to wait your turn.

Why? You haven�t given anything else for me to look at thus far, why are you having me wait? Stop playing games � play fair and allow your opponent to examine your �evidence� for Creationism.

quote:

Sure,that's your opinion. Keep thinking that,maybe one day it will come true.

I propose an idea: let�s take a poll here for readers who consider your version of life versus the evolutionary version I�ve shown thus far. If you wish, you can create another thread for this very purpose. I�d be very interested in who agrees with your interpretation so far. The ball�s in your court.

quote:

No more than you,my friend.^_^

Tit for tat. It�s becoming tedious.

quote:

Oh,I didn't see it. Just a heads up, If I don't reply to a post, I either don't see it,or I don't have anything to say at the time.

Mmkay, now you see it. So be a �grown-up� and answer it, please. If you don�t have anything to say about it, I�ll assume that means you either must agree with your opposition or you aren�t knowledgable enough to refute it. Either case, your source has been refuted, and you need to come with more sources.

quote:

Then lets drop it.

Okie-dokie.

quote:

The whole " Get it? " post was yours, I just realized I messed up the quote thing. But, What I was saying was... (Let me see if I can find it.) -Micro evolution small changes within the species. Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next. I just pulled that from a link you sent me.

I noticed you dodged my evidence of new species creation with the polychaete worms. It demonstrates clearly a new species evolving within a mere period of 40 years (i.e. it can no longer reproduce successfully with the original polychaete species). Your response, please.

Second: okay, I found what you might be referring to here:

quote:

Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

from http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Is this is what you are referring to? If it is, then this is the last time I�m going to do the homework for you. In the future, please cite on your own the specific quotes.

Okay, so the article lays out from the very beginning what the �criticisms� are from creationists. But I wonder, did you by chance read any further? It distinctly shows step by step all the observed evidence for what you call �macro-evolution�. Could you please comment on that? I�m glad we finally got past the first paragraph of my source. Let�s go a little further now, please.

quote:

I told you,I'm not playing games here. It's not just the difference between the words. Do I have to explain it once again?

If I didn�t explain what you mean above, then yes, you�re going to have to explain it again. If I did explain it correctly, disregard this statement and let�s move on.

quote:

No no no, that's not what I'm talking about. Micro evolution, I already explain it but you aren't listening to me. Take your pinky...ok? Lick it...now,both ears! okies?

What a cute gesture. I�ve got a better idea where to put my pinkie, but I�ll reserve that thought for the future.

quote:

Micro evolution is completely different than macro,and I guess I have to explain it once again. Lions,tigers,leppards,domestic cats, they are allllll a part of the feline family. All animals within the feline family are an example of micro evolution. They are all different kinds of cats,but they are all cats!

Nessa, guess what? You just described �macro-evolution�. They are all different species within a family.

And as always, Occrider did a nice job down the post road explaining this as well. Do you have any rebuttal to his answer?

Define �kinds� for me, please. I have yet to see a good answer from a Creationist whenever they use the word �kinds�.

quote:

No,it doesn't. I don't pick and choose what I want to hear, despite what you might think. It was a very good source.

Considering your arguments so far, it�s pretty easy to conclude the contrary.

quote:

One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond.

Where in the Bible does it say he didn�t say that to me? What are you talking about? Be specific.

quote:

That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either.

You misunderstand me. This is not mocking. It is a logic test to see how you can prove to me logically whether or not God told me that �it was the wisest thing you said so far.� Show me logically how God couldn�t have told me that.

quote:

Yes, the bible says respect your elders,BUT you also have to show respect to deserve respect, It's a two way street my friend. (thought you had me there,eh?)

Then why not �turn the other cheek�, and take a little banter like a good Christian?

quote:

No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point.

Then you�re missing the point of this entire forum.

de�bate (d -b t )
v. de�bat�ed, de�bat�ing, de�bates
v. intr.

n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.
Now this directly implies the right to criticize one�s opposing viewpoints when you are in disagreement with those specific viewpoints. I disagree strongly with your viewpoints, as you are mine, and we are thus having a debate about them.
And as Occrider mentioned, if you want to write down a diary for your thoughts, this is not the appropriate forum. You might try the Chillout Forum in the future for such random thoughts. You have a controversial viewpoint on things, and you�ve shared us that viewpoint in the DEBATE forum. Kindly debate or leave.

quote:

I didn't come here to jump on your case,totally not my intentions. But,I'm also not going to let someone sit there and tell me things I know aren't true.(And I'm sure you're thinking the same thing.)

Exactly. Hence the point of debate.

quote:

I'm defending what I understand to be the truth,and I do have evidence and I have presented it. I haven't failed.

Other than 1 website that�s already been refuted, a book which I already went over (and showed other criticisms), and a couple of badly worded claims about finches and we�ll soon get to the Flood, what else have you given as evidence? Please, I�m absolutely begging you for something new. Please be honest and present newer material that hasn�t already been refuted so far.

BTW, please respond once again to the refutations on the website you gave, as well as my refutations to Strobel�s books.

quote:

You don't get it...ugh, I'm telling you. It's not that hard to understand. I'm not saying just because I exist God exists, but that's evidence enough for me.

How is that evidence? Please explain. How does that satisfy you? Be specific with details.

quote:

I guess not for you,seeing as you are completely ignoring faith here.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!

Show the lady what�s she�s won!!!!!!

Wow. It only took 11 pages for you to finally understand this simple concept: science does not use faith, i.e. the supernatural, whatsoever. Now I told you earlier what methodological naturalism is, and why it is used in science. But here, have a look at it�s definition:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...letic/ntse.html

Now keep in mind, MN does NOT by definition entail the supernatural�s (i.e. God for you, Great Cookie Monster for me) nonexistence. However, it simply cannot test and observe the supernatural, so it is therefore discarded. Science implicitly entails testing, observing, and falsifying natural phenomena. Anything outside of this does not fall into the scientific realm.

In essence, it was how we came from understanding that women who were called �witches� did not give diseases to others. It is how we came to understand that the world was not flat. It was how we came to understand that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that the earth does indeed revolve around a star (you did know this, right? Just checking). It deductively cuts away from all those �powers� that have some supernatural force on nature, and concisely explains the actual phenomena around us. Thus has been the case for evolution: decisively cutting away all those �supernatural� powers that have supposedly shaped our natural world, and deducing down to observed phenomena which explains nature in the most simplistic manner (i.e. Occam�s Razor).

Until a Creationist theory comes around that can decisively do the same and has observed, tested, and falsifiable data to support itself, evolution will continue to be the best explanation for understanding the natural world.

quote:

Just read the Bible,it explains it all. Start to finish, heck who knows you might actually learn something from it! It can't hurt you-you know.

Again, logical fallacy: leap of logic. The burden is on you to show me direct evidence how I am living proof that God exists. And if your answer is, �because the Bible says so�, then it simply won�t do. You have to believe in the Bible for it to be true � I am no longer a follower of the Christian Bible, so how can this philosophically be true for my case?

Furthermore, show me direct PHYSICAL evidence that God made me. Simply showing me passages that are man-made that show �God said so� is not enough. I want direct actual evidence that Goditit. Is there a nametag on my molecules that say, �Made from God�. Give me actual physical evidence, and I�ll consider it.

Stop playing games and tell me specifically how this is possible.

And finally, I already mentioned that I read the Bible, a great many number of times throughout my life. I�m willing to bet you that I know it a little better than yourself. But I don�t want to sway too far off topic, so if you want to start a Bible debate, I suggest you start another thread and we�ll take it from there. Again, the ball�s in your court.

quote:

Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood.

Okay, I�m going to assume this is your means of more evidence. Nessa, do you understand Geology well enough to go into a discussion about this? Do you understand plate tectonics very well? Judging by this statement, I have my serious doubts. It would do you more credit to study the field first before trying to refute it.

Are you claiming that animals ran to the mountains to avoid the flood? Are you claiming that they then all died together, WAY WAY up there on the mountain, and that all their bones have been found together? Just out of curiosity, why wouldn�t their bones wash down the mountain when the flood water receded?

Amazing. Just simply amazing how far you�re trying to go with this. I suggest you either reword what you are asking, or post a link to support your stance, because I simply cannot understand the logic you are using here. In the meantime, I do want to post a link for you that may answer somewhat the strange question you are referring to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH570.html

Note it also gives you a reference to look up more information on the bottom. Again, I suggest you do a little more research before you ask any further. But seriously, I can�t wait to hear more of your Flood Theory. I anticipate a great discourse here soon!

quote:

I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.) But, Sampson..you do know the story of Sampson and Delilah(sp?) Right? Well, when Sampson pushed over the pillars, they found the area that happened. The pillars are pushed over.

You�re actually referring to this? So how can it be proved that Sampson�s strength was his hair? I seriously thought God was his strength? Did they find evidence of Sampson�s hair strength in the excavation? Oh yeah, he then killed 3,000 men AND WOMEN by knocking down the pillars, thanks be to God. Nice guy you chose as an example.

quote:

You remember when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too.

I see the sky darken all the time. Here in Kansas between March and July, the weather can seemingly change instantaneously when wall clouds roll through. Is that supernatural magic? Nope, just a bad thunderstorm coming. And I think you can talk to a Californian about a great earthquake.

And as Tathi pointed out, science has come quite a long ways in explaining events of �fire and brimstone�. So besides the fact that the events can be easily explained by today�s standards, do you have any other documentation outside the Bible that shows these events occurring?

quote:

Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.

Try again.

quote:

Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man.

Please provide evidence that God was behind it all. Stop playing games and show me that God was the culprit.

quote:

(actually unicorns existed,but God took them off the earth because he knew man would covet their horn,Just like a rhino,or the Narwhal).) I can't remeber where it was said... They weren't all magical and junk like fairytales say though. The Bible is not the weakest source known to show that God exists.

I�m going to leave this one out there for all to see. It really doesn�t need a comment from me at all���..



Okay, I lied:

HOLY SHIT!!! THAT�S F$CKING SENSATIONAL!!!!! FAN-F$CKING-TASTIC!!!!!!! WHAT IN THE FUCK?!?!?!?!? UNF$CKING BELIEVABLE!!!!!

*****gets off the floor*****

Okay, I�m done now. Just had to get that off my chest. Aside of that, I have no further comment.

quote:

Muslims follow the same God Christians follow.

You haven�t read the Koran, have you? Not too many Muslims would agree with that assessment.

quote:

Don't know much about Buddha.

It would do you some good to study other religions.

quote:

Impossible. God has always been and always will be.

I reiterate: It would do you some good to study other religions. And you didn�t answer my question: What is the evidence to support your God over the Hindu God? Simply answering, �Impossible�, does not support your case very well. Please respond.

quote:

Tisk tisk, God said and you shall judge them by their fruits. I know many people who read the Bible,just to try and proove it wrong,and the way you've been speaking sounds like you'd be that kind of person.

Again you are presumptuous, and again you are being quite ignorant of what I write. I told you I was an avid devout Christian for the first 19 years of my life. You imply that I wasn�t devout, and that my beliefs weren�t steadfast. Who are you to know how strong my beliefs were? How would you know? I will tell you that much of what you�ve argued so far was the very same arguments I�ve held with researchers in my own right. I really didn�t have to try to prove anything wrong with the Bible. It really kinda did that all on it�s own, once I started understanding the natural world a little better through an education, and once I began listening and UNDERSTANDING those researchers that were arguing against me. Things fell into place quite well after that.

quote:

ooh,Methodist,So strict. :/ so it's college that did it to you then? That happens to a lot of people. :/ Infact,I know a few friends that happened to.

You mean that they received a higher education? Wow, I guess that is scary, isn�t it? Those poor souls.

By all means, you should avoid learning at all costs too!!!!! Be careful, we certainly don�t want your bubble world to burst!!!

quote:

(God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.)

Please refer to my statement above about the Koran.

quote:

Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now.

Please cite sources. All the creation �scientists� I�ve seen so far have been easily refuted. Strangely, many of the creationist evidence doesn�t even come from scientists. I wonder why that is? If you have any new sources, please show them. And you still haven�t answered the following question:

If creation science is actual science, why is there not one peer-reviewed creationist paper in any science journals? Please respond.

quote:

You must really enjoy my name,you use it quite often. I'm not ignorant, no more than you are my friend.

Indeed you are, Nessa.

quote:

I'm not playing games, must I remind you so often?

Yes you are. Please stop it and answer my questions directly with specific evidence. Anything less at this point is a waste of my time.

quote:

Yea, well if he still had the posts up I would show you..but the webmaster can't keep that many posts from the past, He's trying to keep his space down so he doesn't have to pay for the forum he is hosting. But, most debates were political.

I reiterate once again:

quote:

And if you can�t post the links about your past �wins�, it would do you credit not to mention them at all. If I can�t see you �winning� any arguments, I can just as easily conclude that you are lying. So please be careful not to post anything in the future you cannot support with evidence. You�re just better off sticking to the topic at hand and not trying to draw upon past �wins� to support your stance. Quite frankly it is completely irrelevant anyway.

No evidence = nothing to support your stance.

Are we having fun yet, folks?!?!?!? YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh wow, I just came across another article by this David Skjaerlund guy, one of many sources from Nessa:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunne..._Evolution.html

Wow. All I can say is wow. Evolution and abortion? That's just wonderful. I think my favorite blatant false statement is the following:

quote:

Abortion has been justified as a natural part of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. Evolution propagates the notion that the world is overpopulated and that one must struggle to exist and compete against others.

That's quite an impressive deduction. Simply impressive.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I have not ignored one thing you�ve said up to this point. Quite the contrary � I�ve read and researched every source you�ve given thus far. So I would only ask the same favor from you in return, okay? So please read and try to understand the material I�ve given you.

I haven't ignored everything. I've read what you've posted,but that doesn't mean I believe in it.

quote:

Then what is the point of our conversation if you continue to refuse to consider the scientists� point of view? Those links explain what scientists know of the observed, tested, and falsifiable evidence, which conclusively points to evolutionary processes taking place. If the evidence of the observed, tested, and falsified pointed towards a creationist theory, then it would show as much. This is not the case. But since you are unwilling to listen to anything that the vast majority of researchers all around the globe agree on, I guess there�s really very little point on trying to talk logic with you then.

I listen to broadcasts from Focus on the family, I watch Fox news, I watch the 700 club, I read my biology,and physical creation book. I read articles in magazines and books my mother gets. That's where I find my scientific views.

quote:

I tell you what will get through my thick skull better � evidence of creationism. Observed, tested, and falsified evidence that creationism explains biological nature much better than the existing evolutionary �idea�. So no, repetition does little to convince me, an empiricist.

Even if I posted it, I know you wouldn't care. I've seen how you people act. Just have faith, that's all you need.

quote:

Remember what I said about repetition, dear? Please cease from this habit now. You haven�t proved �macro-evolution� to be false yet with any supportive evidence, and the evidence you�ve given so far has been disputed and debunked quite easily by myself and others. So stop repeating that which you have not claimed with supporting evidence.

Yes, I remeber what you said about repetition,Dear. You aren't listening, I have no other choice except to repeat.

quote:

The same reference link can be used from my previous post. These references came from scientific journals, with nice juicy pictures for the slow-learning folk like yourself. I highly suggest you go to your nearest college library and look up a few for yourself. I reiterate: according to Creationist Theory (or the one you adhere to, I�m assuming it�s Young Earth Creationism, or YEC), there should be NO fossil transitions. NONE whatsoever. But with these obvious physiological and genetic confirmations of transitions, we see conclusively that there are, in fact, transitions.

I'm not a slow learner. If I were, how else would I be doing what I do now? ( Musician producing/teaching.)

quote:

I�ve just shown otherwise with the above �missing links�. Genetics have also proven this to be true as well. Care to discuss genetics with me now?

Nope,because I've been reading up on evolution for a while now. There aren't any missing links that have been discovered, because I've read it in articles coming from scientists. There are missing links,and they will always be missing links.

quote:

Now Occrider has shown you a few pictures already, and yet you continue to ignore him. So let me ask you something for the sake of brevity (and my own sake of sanity): If I show you some pictures of this stuff, would that honestly convince you any more? Considering the fact that you started this post out with the following statement:

Yea, I look at them right after I posted back to your reply.

quote:

Now why would I post any pictures of what is quite obvious to everyone else but you, when you simply refuse to be convinced? Why would I waste my time then?

If you don't want to,that's your choice.

quote:

So a finch will always be a finch. A bacteria will always be a bacteria. An alligator will always be an alligator. An ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist will always be an ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist, unless there�s selective pressures for that organism to evolve further. This is all about survival and competition. If the finch species has to compete with other organisms to survive, it may possibly evolve adaptive features that will entail it�s survival. Then again, it may not, depending on whether or not it�s species adapts well enough to survive. There are plenty of species that didn�t adapt well enough � hence extinction.

You were 16 yourself,my friend. Anyway,age doesn't always matter. But,I'm not ignorant, you want to keep this a clean debate? Then quit with the personal insults.

quote:

Now if you understood evolution as well as you say you have, you would have understood this tenet as well. Are you being dishonest again?

Totally honest here.

quote:

Let me ask an alternative, parallel question, and you tell me if it makes any sense: If a lemur were to evolve into a giraffe, at one point the neck will be stretched waaaay long, and at some point the rest of his body will be disproportionate to his loooong neck. The lemur will not be able to jump tree to tree with such a long neck, and the giraffe will not be able to eat leaves at the top of the tree, because among other things like falling off the tree with such a heavy neck (and probably dying from the impact), he won�t be able to reach the leaves because the rest of his body is too small down on the canopy. Therefore, it will be easy prey, or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can�t be used here, because it not fit as a lemur, or even as a giraffe.

How did I know you were going to ignore it? Mine isn't incorrect in any way, That's a perfect example of how it would happen. Proving it's not possible for an animal to survive.[/quote]

quote:

Good enough. But I hope you understand that evolutionists don�t hold a �belief� system in their research in a similar manner of religious faith. That�s the difference I was getting across.

I know they don't have a belief in evolution.

quote:

It certainly appears to the layman that you are being dishonest. You commented only ONCE on the material I�ve posted, and what�s worse, you either completely misinterpreted the article, or you didn't read further on down past the introduction. So please, try again.

That's not true, I've read everything you've sent. sometimes I don't have anything to say.

quote:

I propose an idea: let�s take a poll here for readers who consider your version of life versus the evolutionary version I�ve shown thus far. If you wish, you can create another thread for this very purpose. I�d be very interested in who agrees with your interpretation so far. The ball�s in your court.

I don't want to create another topic for a debate, That's to much to follow.

quote:

Tit for tat. It�s becoming tedious.

Then again,Let's drop it.

quote:

Mmkay, now you see it. So be a �grown-up� and answer it, please. If you don�t have anything to say about it, I�ll assume that means you either must agree with your opposition or you aren�t knowledgable enough to refute it. Either case, your source has been refuted, and you need to come with more sources.

If I don't have anything to say, I'm not going to answer. I have no comments to make.That is being mature.

quote:

I noticed you dodged my evidence of new species creation with the polychaete worms. It demonstrates clearly a new species evolving within a mere period of 40 years (i.e. it can no longer reproduce successfully with the original polychaete species). Your response, please.

Again, If I have nothing to say,I don't say anything. I have no comments to make.

quote:

Is this is what you are referring to? If it is, then this is the last time I�m going to do the homework for you. In the future, please cite on your own the specific quotes.

Do as much work as you please, It's no skin off my nose.

quote:

Okay, so the article lays out from the very beginning what the �criticisms� are from creationists. But I wonder, did you by chance read any further? It distinctly shows step by step all the observed evidence for what you call �macro-evolution�. Could you please comment on that? I�m glad we finally got past the first paragraph of my source. Let�s go a little further now, please.

I've already read all that bull on the page friend,lol I'm tired of reading it.

quote:

What a cute gesture. I�ve got a better idea where to put my pinkie, but I�ll reserve that thought for the future.

Yes, I learned it while in band class. Yea, you can keep that comment to yourself,I'm sure many of us would prefer it to be that way.

quote:

Nessa, guess what? You just described �macro-evolution�. They are all different species within a family.

::nods:: that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. They are alllllll felines! Feline is a "species",ya following me? They are ALL felines, I will repeat that. That's MICRO not MACRO, MACRO is like cat to dog, THAT's TWO different species.

quote:

Where in the Bible does it say he didn�t say that to me? What are you talking about? Be specific.

Oh just drop it.

quote:

You misunderstand me. This is not mocking. It is a logic test to see how you can prove to me logically whether or not God told me that �it was the wisest thing you said so far.� Show me logically how God couldn�t have told me that.

I don't misunderstand you.

quote:

Then why not �turn the other cheek�, and take a little banter like a good Christian?

To receive respect,you must show it. That's the rule. God says love your enimies, But don't be a doormat.

quote:

Then you�re missing the point of this entire forum. de�bate (d -b t ) v. de�bat�ed, de�bat�ing, de�bates v. intr. n. Exactly. Hence the point of debate.

Personal insults are not part of a debate. If you think I'm ignorant,THat's your beef but keep it to yourself because your " repetition " isn't getting you anywhere. ( Hmm,sound familiar? )

quote:

BTW, please respond once again to the refutations on the website you gave, as well as my refutations to Strobel�s books.

^Read above.

quote:

BINGO!!!!!!!!! Show the lady what�s she�s won!!!!!! Wow. It only took 11 pages for you to finally understand this simple concept: science does not use faith, i.e. the supernatural, whatsoever. Now I told you earlier what methodological naturalism is, and why it is used in science. But here, have a look at it�s definition:

And you think I didn't know what you wanted from me the whole time? Wow, you must not be sleeping enough.:/ But, I don't agree with what you've just said.

quote:

Okay, I�m going to assume this is your means of more evidence. Nessa, do you understand Geology well enough to go into a discussion about this? Do you understand plate tectonics very well? Judging by this statement, I have my serious doubts. It would do you more credit to study the field first before trying to refute it.

Yes I do, Have your doubts I don't care.

quote:

Are you claiming that animals ran to the mountains to avoid the flood? Are you claiming that they then all died together, WAY WAY up there on the mountain, and that all their bones have been found together? Just out of curiosity, why wouldn�t their bones wash down the mountain when the flood water receded?

No the bones didn't wash away. They are still up there, frozen I do believe. Yes,they died together.

quote:

You�re actually referring to this? So how can it be proved that Sampson�s strength was his hair? I seriously thought God was his strength? Did they find evidence of Sampson�s hair strength in the excavation? Oh yeah, he then killed 3,000 men AND WOMEN by knocking down the pillars, thanks be to God. Nice guy you chose as an example.

Sampson's strength wasn't his hair, It was God. God didn't murder anyone through him.
Sampson asked for God's strength one more time, and God gave him strength.

quote:

I see the sky darken all the time. Here in Kansas between March and July, the weather can seemingly change instantaneously when wall clouds roll through. Is that supernatural magic? Nope, just a bad thunderstorm coming. And I think you can talk to a Californian about a great earthquake.

No thanks,I've already had an earthquake here in VA. This wasn't a "thunderstorm " or just a "night time dark " I was speaking of. It was the middle of the day and it got dark, like really dark. It wasn't just a bunch of clouds gearing up for a storm. (Trust me,I know thunderstorms aswell,I spent 5 years in Florida.)

quote:

And as Tathi pointed out, science has come quite a long ways in explaining events of �fire and brimstone�. So besides the fact that the events can be easily explained by today�s standards, do you have any other documentation outside the Bible that shows these events occurring?

Again, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,It was all over the world.

quote:

You haven�t read the Koran, have you? Not too many Muslims would agree with that assessment.

Muslims believe in the God of Isaac and Abraham. Christians believe in the God of Isaac an Abraham. It's the same God.

quote:

Again you are presumptuous, and again you are being quite ignorant of what I write. I told you I was an avid devout Christian for the first 19 years of my life. You imply that I wasn�t devout, and that my beliefs weren�t steadfast. Who are you to know how strong my beliefs were? How would you know? I will tell you that much of what you�ve argued so far was the very same arguments I�ve held with researchers in my own right. I really didn�t have to try to prove anything wrong with the Bible. It really kinda did that all on it�s own, once I started understanding the natural world a little better through an education, and once I began listening and UNDERSTANDING those researchers that were arguing against me. Things fell into place quite well after that.

Again,knock it off with the personal insults they don't get you anywhere. But hey,If you'd like I can be immature like you and go about insulting you back?

Who are you to judge my beliefs then? who are you to tell me I'm ignorant? Who are you to tell me I'm incorrect? You see, it's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot. But,God says to judge them by your fruits,and pal that's what I'm doing.

quote:

You mean that they received a higher education? Wow, I guess that is scary, isn�t it? Those poor souls. By all means, you should avoid learning at all costs too!!!!! Be careful, we certainly don�t want your bubble world to burst!!!

My education is much higher than a normal public schools is. When I tested at the end of the school year last year, My test came back and on the top it said that I had test 69% higher than the average people in my grade do. (My younger sister tested 72% higher.)

quote:

Indeed you are, Nessa.

Such immaturity,and you said you were how old?

Nellie, so your theory is that god created all the families and micro evolution did go from that point?

you haven't thought of that the longer back in time you go the more close the families get? and once upon a time there was a even a micro evolution that did the difference between the different families? it wasn't like a bird enveloped to an elephant!

Once again nellie.. you have no coherent arguments... all you do is reply back with meaningless responses that dont have to do with the argument at hand. But im not surprised, creationists dont have an argument...its a bunch of bullshit.

I'm not gonna say anything more in this thread apart from:

Why is it so fucking hard for certain people to post links or excerpts to back up their arguments?!!?!?!?!?!?!

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Even if I posted it, I know you wouldn't care. I've seen how you people act. Just have faith, that's all you need.

Actually we act this way only because your arguments are not really solid. If you'd put something believable or coherent, we'd have a much harder time disputing it.

quote:

Nope,because I've been reading up on evolution for a while now. There aren't any missing links that have been discovered, because I've read it in articles coming from scientists. There are missing links,and they will always be missing links.

Well, of course there will be missing links, since it's pretty hard to preserve a skeleton for millions of years. However, new fossile species are discovered every once in a while. Please, could you just say to which specific missing links you are refering to? In other words, where is the transitional leap so great that it's not obvious two species had a common ancestor?

quote:

How did I know you were going to ignore it? Mine isn't incorrect in any way, That's a perfect example of how it would happen. Proving it's not possible for an animal to survive.

Well, then how about my exampe of a possible fish->fish with wings evolution? Mind you, that is just an example of "micro"evolution, so I don't see what's the big deal with it anyway.

quote:

That's not true, I've read everything you've sent. sometimes I don't have anything to say.

Yes, but you're systematically ignoring the key arguments which destroy your thesis.

quote:

If I don't have anything to say, I'm not going to answer. I have no comments to make.That is being mature.

Yet you keep perpetuating your theory like it hasn't been refuted by those arguments. Ignoring them will not make them go away.

quote:

::nods:: that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. They are alllllll felines! Feline is a "species",ya following me? They are ALL felines, I will repeat that. That's MICRO not MACRO, MACRO is like cat to dog, THAT's TWO different species.

So all the felines belong to the same branch of animals. So we agree that they evolved from a common ancestor. Dogs, wolves, and bears did too. But guess what, when you go back through time, you'll see that the common ancestors of cats and wolves/dogs/bears had much more in common than current species have. So much infact, that they could be traced to another common ancestor. You see, "macro" evolution is a sequence of "micro"-evolutionary adaptations. Species don't evolve into other species in an instant. It takes many generations to do that.

quote:

To receive respect,you must show it. That's the rule. God says love your enimies, But don't be a doormat.

No he didn't. First he said something along the lines of smite your enemies, but later on he changed the stance to love your enemies, even beyond the doormat part. Don't forget that many christians were killed without any resistance whatsoever.

quote:

No the bones didn't wash away. They are still up there, frozen I do believe. Yes,they died together.

Well, obviously you didn't get Opus's point. If the bones were there as a cause of the flood, they would be washed away. Since they aren't washed away, it means there wasn't a flood. Get it now? Besides, if you find two corpses from a same geological period, it doesn't mean they died the very same minute. Hell, the time interval could have been hundreds of years. Ever heard of tar pits? You'll find numerous fossiles of predators and prey in them. Once they dry out, it will look like they died together.

But while we're at it, could you perhaps explain to me all the difficulties I mentioned about Noah's ark? Again, ignoring them will not make them go away

quote:

Sampson's strength wasn't his hair, It was God. God didn't murder anyone through him. Sampson asked for God's strength one more time, and God gave him strength.

Yet he lost his strength when he was shaved. So it was in the hair. And he did kill all the innocent people there, and god enabled him to do it. It's not like god didn't know what were his plans.

But let's get back to the beginning of this argument. Scientists found a ruined temple with broken down pillars. So what? It doesn't mean a person with superhuman powers did it, does it? To think so would be illogical.

quote:

No thanks,I've already had an earthquake here in VA. This wasn't a "thunderstorm " or just a "night time dark " I was speaking of. It was the middle of the day and it got dark, like really dark. It wasn't just a bunch of clouds gearing up for a storm. (Trust me,I know thunderstorms aswell,I spent 5 years in Florida.) Again, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,It was all over the world.

So, what are your sources for this (except the bible, of course)?

quote:

Who are you to judge my beliefs then? who are you to tell me I'm ignorant? Who are you to tell me I'm incorrect? You see, it's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot. But,God says to judge them by your fruits,and pal that's what I'm doing.

You are being ignorant since you are ignoring the presented evidence and are reiterating your point of view which is obviously contradictory to the aforementioned evidence. To prove your theory, you have to prove our arguments are false. so far you have not achieved it.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I haven't ignored everything. I've read what you've posted,but that doesn't mean I believe in it.

It matters little that you believe in it. It's a fact. I guess you don't have to believe that the sun is a star, or that your body is mostly comprised of water, or that the moon effects the tides, but they are all facts nonetheless.

Hence, your complete utter ignorance.

quote:

I listen to broadcasts from Focus on the family

Do they have scientists that refute evolution? Weblink or book source, please.

quote:

I watch Fox news

Did they ever promote creationism? Weblink source, please.

quote:

I watch the 700 club

So you're willing to listen to a guy that agreed with another nutbag (Falwell) that the reason 9/11 occurred was because of homosexuals? You'd rather listen to a guy that states the cause of natural disasters is because of unnatural acts?:

http://www.gendersanity.com/orlando.shtml

You're going to listen to a non-scientist talk about science? Why not listen to a scientist instead?

quote:

I read my biology,and physical creation book. I read articles in magazines and books my mother gets. That's where I find my scientific views.

Last time: cite sources damnit. I want sources so I can view them myself. You're lack of evidence babbling is becoming annoying. Give me an actual reference, or kindly shut the f$ck up.

quote:

Even if I posted it, I know you wouldn't care. I've seen how you people act. Just have faith, that's all you need.

But as I've said, I do care - I need to see your evidence in order to believe it. So again, give me specific evidence, or kindly move on and preach to someone else.

Can faith predict future research and future hypothesis? If, according to you, all I needed was faith, then all research conducted will have the same conclusion: Godidit. What good would science be, then? By this logic, there would be no point in having science at all. Would that make you happy?

Show me tested, observed, falsifiable evidence that faith is needed in the scientific realm, and I'll consider it. Otherwise, it has no place in science. Do you understand this basic tenet of science?

quote:

Yes, I remeber what you said about repetition,Dear. You aren't listening, I have no other choice except to repeat.

Wrong, Nessa. Your other choice is to give me evidence that hasn't already been refuted yet. Please do so, once again.

quote:

I'm not a slow learner. If I were, how else would I be doing what I do now? ( Musician producing/teaching.)

I am specifically referring to you willfully ignoring my questions about showing observed Creationist phenomena. Please do so now.

You also blatantly ignored my post in regards to Creationist Theory stating that no fossil transitions exist. Please respond now.

quote:

Nope,because I've been reading up on evolution for a while now. There aren't any missing links that have been discovered, because I've read it in articles coming from scientists. There are missing links,and they will always be missing links.

So what the hell did I just post on fossil transitions, then? Did all of those scientists just make it up, according to you? Is this a gigantic conspiracy, according to you?

And once again, who are these scientists you keep referring to? Where are the web sources? I'm getting quite tired of asking the same damn question, and having you evade me over and over. Kindly post a source, or go away. Put up or shut up.

quote:

Yea, I look at them right after I posted back to your reply.

And do you have a response in regards to them? Stop playing games and respond.

quote:

If you don't want to,that's your choice.

No, it is your choice, with the following statement you made once again:

quote:

No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)

So if I can't convince you to understand speciation, why would I even bother trying? Please respond.

quote:

You were 16 yourself,my friend. Anyway,age doesn't always matter. But,I'm not ignorant, you want to keep this a clean debate? Then quit with the personal insults.

Indeed I was, and indeed I took the challenge of debating with others that new the material much better than myself. So perhaps I see a similar pattern with you here.

You dodged my response about finches. Please respond now.

quote:

Totally honest here.

Then you would have understood the basic tenet of evolution I outlined for you. Why did you not know that then?

quote:

How did I know you were going to ignore it? Mine isn't incorrect in any way, That's a perfect example of how it would happen. Proving it's not possible for an animal to survive.

Ignore? I was providing a similar parallel example to demonstrate how ridiculous your example was. It is virtually identical in absence of logic. If you don't have a good answer to my example, chances are there's not a good answer to your example.

Now, do you honestly want to know why? Please note my hints, they refer to your example:

quote:

(I�ll give you a hint: something to do with missing a few steps in the evolutionary ladder, misunderstanding natural selection entirely, missing completely what the fossil record shows us, etc. ).

There is no evidence whatsoever that shows it would make plausible sense for there to be a humongous jump up the evolutionary ladder from a fish to a bird. You missed about 20 different steps along the way, including amphibians, reptiles, and THEN birds. Again, have a look at the transitional fossil record evidence and see why there's no evidence for a jump from a fish to a bird:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...art1a.html#fish

This partially why your statement made little sense. The rest was complete misunderstanding of natural selection. Do you need me to explain that as well, or do you already understand why you're way off the mark by now?

quote:

That's not true, I've read everything you've sent. sometimes I don't have anything to say.

But why? Everything I've given you refutes your ideas about evolution. Why don't you have anything else to say about them then if they show your beliefs against evolution are false?

quote:

I don't want to create another topic for a debate, That's to much to follow.

Too late. In my defense, I didn't start the thread.

quote:

If I don't have anything to say, I'm not going to answer. I have no comments to make.That is being mature.

Why don't you have comments?

quote:

Again, If I have nothing to say,I don't say anything. I have no comments to make.

Why?

quote:

Do as much work as you please, It's no skin off my nose.

Then kindly be more courteous and specifically post correctly so I can follow your arguments better, okay?

quote:

I've already read all that bull on the page friend,lol I'm tired of reading it.

I'm sorry the bull from scientists about science isn't good enough for you. Pat Robertson has much more insight on science, considering he isn't a scientist or researcher for that matter.

And besides, you dodged yet again the information I posted on that given link. Please respond to it now.

quote:

Yes, I learned it while in band class. Yea, you can keep that comment to yourself,I'm sure many of us would prefer it to be that way.

An even cuter response.

Just out of curiousity, are there home-school bands? I'm actually being serious. I myself was a band-geek (trombone), and my father is a high school band teacher. I just never heard of any home schooled bands, so I thought I'd ask.

quote:

::nods:: that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. They are alllllll felines! Feline is a "species",ya following me? They are ALL felines, I will repeat that. That's MICRO not MACRO, MACRO is like cat to dog, THAT's TWO different species.

Nessa, now I thought that you might actually be willingly ignorant until now. Rather, you simply have no freakin' idea what you're talking about, do you?

Feline is most certainly not a species. Feline, or the latin term Felidae, is a "Family" in the taxonomic system.

Let's do a quick review of taxonomy:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
genus
species

Now, since Felidae is a family, and NOT a species, they are therefore a different species. Here's an example:

1. Common Name: housecat:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
species: domesticus

2. Common Name: Lion:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
species: leo

Now do you finally understand that they are most certainly NOT the same species? If not, please explain.

quote:

Oh just drop it.

But why?

quote:

I don't misunderstand you.

Then you understand my point then. Good. Now please show me logically how God couldn't have told me that about you.

quote:

To receive respect,you must show it. That's the rule. God says love your enimies, But don't be a doormat.

Where's the scripture quote about not being a doormat? Your enemies do not have to show respect for you to be able to turn the other cheek and allow them to walk all over you. Didn't you read your Bible?

quote:

Personal insults are not part of a debate. If you think I'm ignorant,THat's your beef but keep it to yourself because your " repetition " isn't getting you anywhere. ( Hmm,sound familiar? )

Neither does ignorance or lack of understanding the other side's arguments. All are bad form for a debate, would you not agree?

quote:

^Read above.

Where above do you respond to the refutations on your website you gave as well as my response to Strobel's book? Please show me.

quote:

And you think I didn't know what you wanted from me the whole time? Wow, you must not be sleeping enough.:/ But, I don't agree with what you've just said.

Whether or not you agree that is how science is performed via methodological naturalism. If you want to perform a more perverted form of science, feel free to do so. Just understand that dunking witches until they drown will not cause the Bubonic Plague to disappear.

quote:

Yes I do, Have your doubts I don't care.

Alrighty. Let's see what you've got:

quote:

No the bones didn't wash away. They are still up there, frozen I do believe. Yes,they died together.

But didn't the flood reach over the mountain tops? Why wouldn't they be washed away then?

And if it didn't reach the mountain tops, are you inferring that they starved to death up there? It was only 40 days and nights, many could have survived on a strict adkins diet alone here, including eating one another (since their prey was up there too).

And you dodged once again the link I gave you. If the link addressed your concern, a response from you is necessary.

quote:

Sampson's strength wasn't his hair, It was God.

Judges 16:17
"That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man."

Sounds like his hair was his strength to me. How could you interpret this any other way?

quote:

God didn't murder anyone through him. Sampson asked for God's strength one more time, and God gave him strength.

Judges 16:29
And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.

Judges 16:30
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.

So he didn't kill anyone? If God was his strength, like you claim, why did he appeal to God to knock down the pillars, killing himself and all who were inside (including Philistine WOMEN).

BTW, isn't suicide wrong?

quote:

No thanks,I've already had an earthquake here in VA. This wasn't a "thunderstorm " or just a "night time dark " I was speaking of. It was the middle of the day and it got dark, like really dark. It wasn't just a bunch of clouds gearing up for a storm. (Trust me,I know thunderstorms aswell,I spent 5 years in Florida.) Again, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,It was all over the world.

So they were able to ask the Incas in Mexico? What about the Chinese? How 'bout the native American Indians? Is there any documentation anywhere else this event occured "all over the world?"

Did they have cell phones back then?

quote:

Muslims believe in the God of Isaac and Abraham. Christians believe in the God of Isaac an Abraham. It's the same God.

I thought you knew your Christianity. Do Christians not also believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God, and that they are one of the same?

What does the Koran say of Jesus?

quote:

Again,knock it off with the personal insults they don't get you anywhere. But hey,If you'd like I can be immature like you and go about insulting you back? Who are you to judge my beliefs then? who are you to tell me I'm ignorant? Who are you to tell me I'm incorrect? You see, it's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot. But,God says to judge them by your fruits,and pal that's what I'm doing.

What part of my statement was a personal insult to you? I was explaining my personal journey from being a devout Christian to an empiricist (well, I'm still somewhat a deist, but that's where my faith pretty much ends). I can't understand how that would insult you, unless of course you have some personal spiritual issues that are reflecting out onto others here. But really, I honestly don't care.

And I'm not telling you anything about your faith and beliefs. I AM telling you, however, that when you bring those beliefs into the realm of scientific inquiry, they simply do not hold up because they cannot be observed, tested, and falsified. Now please tell me you finally understand this.

quote:

My education is much higher than a normal public schools is. When I tested at the end of the school year last year, My test came back and on the top it said that I had test 69% higher than the average people in my grade do. (My younger sister tested 72% higher.)

Congratulations. I'm sorry, I thought we were referring to higher education, i.e. college, were we not?

quote:

Such immaturity,and you said you were how old?

29. I'm just giving a little of the same that you are giving. I actually think it's quite fun. I guess I'll always be a kid at heart.




Now I have a quick question for you. Do you enjoy dance music? How did you learn about this website? Is it very Christian to enjoy music that's being played at raves and nightclubs? You know there's a very strict fundamental Christian belief that's against dancing, right? They didn't make the movie Footloose out of ficticious ideas, you know. So I'm just curious as to whether or not you have a conflict with this type of music with your beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 i was kidding but thanks for the verses

Haha, i'm embarrassed, i thought you were just another fundamentalist, i keep on thinking Nessa will turn around and say, "i was being sarcastic"

anyway respect

edit: MrOpus reminds me of a cat toying with a battered mouse

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It matters little that you believe in it. It's a fact. I guess you don't have to believe that the sun is a star, or that your body is mostly comprised of water, or that the moon effects the tides, but they are all facts nonetheless. Hence, your complete utter ignorance.

Let me just say I won't be replying to a lot,I'm not in the mood.
Because I'm dropping half of it.

quote:

Do they have scientists that refute evolution? Weblink or book source, please.

If so it will be on their webpage,and I don't know their url.

quote:

Did they ever promote creationism? Weblink source, please.

I'm sure they have. Otherwise it'll be on foxnews.com

quote:

http://www.gendersanity.com/orlando.shtml You're going to listen to a non-scientist talk about science? Why not listen to a scientist instead?

No I do listen to scientists,I also read from my school books.

quote:

Last time: cite sources damnit. I want sources so I can view them myself. You're lack of evidence babbling is becoming annoying. Give me an actual reference, or kindly shut the f$ck up.

Getting testy are we?

quote:

Can faith predict future research and future hypothesis? If, according to you, all I needed was faith, then all research conducted will have the same conclusion: Godidit. What good would science be, then? By this logic, there would be no point in having science at all. Would that make you happy?

Science can back up God,the tape I'm watching in biology right now prooves it. I wish I could remeber the name of it, But I can't remeber right now.

quote:

I am specifically referring to you willfully ignoring my questions about showing observed Creationist phenomena. Please do so now. You also blatantly ignored my post in regards to Creationist Theory stating that no fossil transitions exist. Please respond now.

I have nothin to say.

quote:

And do you have a response in regards to them? Stop playing games and respond.

I'm not to be demanded. Not everything is on the internet you know.

quote:

Indeed I was, and indeed I took the challenge of debating with others that new the material much better than myself. So perhaps I see a similar pattern with you here.

No, I doubt it.

quote:

Ignore? I was providing a similar parallel example to demonstrate how ridiculous your example was. It is virtually identical in absence of logic. If you don't have a good answer to my example, chances are there's not a good answer to your example.

It's not ridiculous. It's correct.

quote:

There is no evidence whatsoever that shows it would make plausible sense for there to be a humongous jump up the evolutionary ladder from a fish to a bird. You missed about 20 different steps along the way, including amphibians, reptiles, and THEN birds. Again, have a look at the transitional fossil record evidence and see why there's no evidence for a jump from a fish to a bird: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...art1a.html#fish This partially why your statement made little sense. The rest was complete misunderstanding of natural selection. Do you need me to explain that as well, or do you already understand why you're way off the mark by now?

No, I'm not way off the mark.You aren't understanding me.

quote:

Too late. In my defense, I didn't start the thread.

Oh well ::shrugs:: no biggie.

quote:

Why don't you have comments?

Simple,just because I don't.

quote:

I'm sorry the bull from scientists about science isn't good enough for you. Pat Robertson has much more insight on science, considering he isn't a scientist or researcher for that matter.

I didn't say I got all my sources from 700 Club, the fact of the matter is the 700 club has guests that explain this. (I saw a broadcast a while back, but it's been like a LONG time ago.:/)

quote:

And besides, you dodged yet again the information I posted on that given link. Please respond to it now.

I didn't dodge it, I just don't have comments to make on it. If I don't, you shouldn't force me to make comments on it.

quote:

Just out of curiousity, are there home-school bands? I'm actually being serious. I myself was a band-geek (trombone), and my father is a high school band teacher. I just never heard of any home schooled bands, so I thought I'd ask.

Nope,no homeschool bands I know of. homeschoolers are allowed to classes in the public school system ( after all,my parents are tax payers. ) Before I was diagnosed, I took classes for band. (yes, Band geek here to, except Clarinetest and bass clarinetest.) Really? I'm not a highschool band teacher BUT, I do teach Violin and Clarinet ( Private lessons.)

quote:

Nessa, now I thought that you might actually be willingly ignorant until now. Rather, you simply have no freakin' idea what you're talking about, do you?

::rolls eyes:: Let's not even start.I'm willing to drop it if you will.

quote:

Feline is most certainly not a species. Feline, or the latin term Felidae, is a "Family" in the taxonomic system. Let's do a quick review of taxonomy: Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family genus species Now, since Felidae is a family, and NOT a species, they are therefore a different species. Here's an example: 1. Common Name: housecat: Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Felidae Genus: Felis species: domesticus 2. Common Name: Lion: Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Felidae Genus: Felis species: leo Now do you finally understand that they are most certainly NOT the same species? If not, please explain.

And you think I didn't know the order? Please.. I had a test on it.

quote:

Where's the scripture quote about not being a doormat? Your enemies do not have to show respect for you to be able to turn the other cheek and allow them to walk all over you. Didn't you read your Bible?

Of course those aren't the exact words, But that's the general idea. Yes, turn the other cheek. But, you aren't supposed to let people walk all over you,I had a class about that in Sunday school. ( If only I could remeber what verse!)Why would anyone in their right mind do that anyway?

quote:

Neither does ignorance or lack of understanding the other side's arguments. All are bad form for a debate, would you not agree?

No comments.

quote:

Where above do you respond to the refutations on your website you gave as well as my response to Strobel's book? Please show me.

I have no comments on this.

quote:

Whether or not you agree that is how science is performed via methodological naturalism. If you want to perform a more perverted form of science, feel free to do so.

quote:

Just understand that dunking witches until they drown will not cause the Bubonic Plague to disappear.

No one said it would.

quote:

But didn't the flood reach over the mountain tops? Why wouldn't they be washed away then? And if it didn't reach the mountain tops, are you inferring that they starved to death up there? It was only 40 days and nights, many could have survived on a strict adkins diet alone here, including eating one another (since their prey was up there too).

No, they animal and prey were laying together trying to avoid the flood.

quote:

Judges 16:17 "That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man." Sounds like his hair was his strength to me. How could you interpret this any other way?

One word " Symbolism"

quote:

Judges 16:29 And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.

Yes, I know that.

quote:

Judges 16:30 And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.

quote:

So he didn't kill anyone? If God was his strength, like you claim, why did he appeal to God to knock down the pillars, killing himself and all who were inside (including Philistine WOMEN). BTW, isn't suicide wrong?

Physically,yes there were people killed. but,I'm thinking we're skipping over some key verses here.
Do you have any idea what the Philistines did to Israelies?(I'm pretty sure it was the philistines,Looking it up now.)

quote:

So they were able to ask the Incas in Mexico? What about the Chinese? How 'bout the native American Indians? Is there any documentation anywhere else this event occured "all over the world?" Did they have cell phones back then?

One of my youth pastors in 8th grade was explaining this. Scientists all over the world had recorded this, and they brought all the evidence together and found the dates and such.
Sorry to disappoint, No cell phones.

quote:

I thought you knew your Christianity. Do Christians not also believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God, and that they are one of the same? What does the Koran say of Jesus?

I had someone I knew that is Muslim. He told me they believe in The God of Abraham and Isaac, Christians also believe in the same God. They just don't believe Jesus is God's son,they don't believe he died. They just think he was a prophet. Their religion is different,but we both believe in the same God.

quote:

What part of my statement was a personal insult to you? I was explaining my personal journey from being a devout Christian to an empiricist (well, I'm still somewhat a deist, but that's where my faith pretty much ends). I can't understand how that would insult you, unless of course you have some personal spiritual issues that are reflecting out onto others here. But really, I honestly don't care.

If you don't care,then why are we still conversing about this?

quote:

Congratulations. I'm sorry, I thought we were referring to higher education, i.e. college, were we not?

I'm not in college,why would we be speaking about it? ( One year to go,and I'll finally be out of highschool! Although I'm not sure if that's good or bad just yet.)

quote:

Now I have a quick question for you. Do you enjoy dance music? How did you learn about this website? Is it very Christian to enjoy music that's being played at raves and nightclubs? You know there's a very strict fundamental Christian belief that's against dancing, right? They didn't make the movie Footloose out of ficticious ideas, you know. So I'm just curious as to whether or not you have a conflict with this type of music with your beliefs.

Of course I enjoy dance music, I produce/compose happy hardcore/rave and hardcore music,I have for years. I listen to pretty much nothing but music within the dance genre.
Friend of mine told me about this forum.

The only time I have an issue with music is if the lyrics are filled with nothing but swear words, sex talk, things about drugs and murdering people... Things that shouldn't be talked about pretty much.

So,what's the matter with dance music? Nothing at all. It's just music, and the fact of the matter is, being serious isn't being a good Christian. ( I hate when people think that. :/ ) God wasn't boring, so why should we be?

I'm not a " strict " Christian. I don't follow that religion stuff,and that's what makes a lot of Christians strict. ( I just believe in God's saving grace,and believe Jesus died on the cross to save our sins,and then I got saved. )

But,nope. It's music, and I don't see why any Christian would have a problem with this kind of music.

quote:

http://www.gendersanity.com/orlando.shtml

Wanted to pull this one out seperatly.

First of all,God does not stand neutral on sexuality.
If you look up Leviticus 18:22 it clearly states the following.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
This isn't the only verse,I will search for others.


This doesn't mean God HATES homosexuals. God loves all people, this is true. But, he doesn't condone the lifestyle. A lot of people get this confused.

I don't believe God is going to send tornados,and junk like that to "wipe out" homosexuality. But, I know for each sin there is a consequence. Everyone sins,and everyone has to deal with the consequence afterward.

Point, Game, Set, Match. I must say I've been in a lot of arguments, but I've never seen an argument reduced to the point where a person is refusing to comment on the basis that they don't feel like it, or where they are unwilling to give any evidence for the reason that people would ignore it.


My personal favorites: Unicorns, Noah's ark, animals living on the peak of a mountain for 40 days while not eating each other, How we can go from this:




to this





In a few thousand years of man-influenced "micro" evolution is a fact, yet going from this:




to this




In millions of years of "macro" evolution is a blatant falsehood.

Hmmmm I also really liked how Sampson's specific pillars were found (and proved to be genuine no doubt), how scientists all across the world (even in the undiscovered parts) crossed the seven seas to have a convention proving the exact cocurrence and timing of world-wide catastrophes, the denials and refutations of bible contradictions, how the bible is "symbolic" when it suits creationists yet "fact" when they are trying to make a case against science, and how I was able to work in a simpson's reference ... hmmm I think that's it, I hope I'm not leaving anything out, there was a lot of good stuff. On that ending note, I shall graciously exit with another simpsons reference.





"I've followed every part of the Bible--even the parts that contradict the other parts."




btw, while looking up pictures for transitonal fossils I stumbled upon several new stories that I didn't know about and were somewhat interesting:

rapid changes from simple mutations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1806757.stm

major breakthrough in theory of evolutionary divergence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1418794.stm

Figured I would share with fellow believers in evolution who might comment and with creationists whose non-comment I most certainly look forward to as well.

you crack me up occrider

edit: science is a conspiracy created by mustard eating communists to put christianity into disrepute

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1418794.stm

quote:

Monotremes, which lay eggs and are represented now only by the duck-billed platypus and the spiny anteater

its an Echidna not a spiny anteater

i think you will also find Australias 'megafauna' interesting, including marsupial herbivores, ancestores of the kangaroo and the wombat which were around the size of elephants

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewss...12091/story.htm

i have to go to work so i can't find any decent pics but they're out there

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Let me just say I won't be replying to a lot,I'm not in the mood. Because I'm dropping half of it.

Unfortunately, you keep dropping key issues and responding only to the parts which don't directly contradict your theory.

quote:

Science can back up God,the tape I'm watching in biology right now prooves it. I wish I could remeber the name of it, But I can't remeber right now.

Well, if you can't remember the name of the tape, you could at least present us with information it contained. Just saying that there is a tape, but you don't know what it's called, as well as not telling us the contents is not gonna do.

quote:

I have nothin to say.

Then we must take it that you agree with what he posted. Interesting, as it obviously contradicts your theory.

quote:

It's not ridiculous. It's correct.

Why didn't you answer to my example then?

quote:

Simple,just because I don't.

Again, if you don't comment on it, it will be taken as your silent approval. The things he mentioned are impossible if creationist theory is correct.

quote:

I didn't dodge it, I just don't have comments to make on it. If I don't, you shouldn't force me to make comments on it.

Actually he should because you reiterate a theory that has been shattered by that evidence. It's like me saying the sky is blue. Then you say, no the sky is green. Then I show you the encyclopedia where it says it's blue. Then you say again no, it's green. Then I measure the color of the sky with a spectrometer and it shows it's blue. Then again you say no, it's green. If you keep perpetuating a thesis without any solid backup against a very solid theory, then it's perfectly normal for others to demand evidence for your claims.

quote:

Of course those aren't the exact words, But that's the general idea. Yes, turn the other cheek. But, you aren't supposed to let people walk all over you,I had a class about that in Sunday school. ( If only I could remeber what verse!)

It's pretty convinient how the bible contains so much contradictory elements that you can basically defend any point of view using bible verses as a reference

quote:

Why would anyone in their right mind do that anyway?

Well, according to the bible, Jesus did it

quote:

No one said it would.

Well, again you seem to not know the history of your religion. Do you know who was accused of the plague? Cats and witches. Someone derived from the bible that since cats are mostly nocturnal, and since god (in the new testament) has many solar references (hint, Osiris, hint, Horus), cats are the cause of the plague. In accordance with witches, of course. So, aside from dunking witches (if they managed to swim out, satan helped them and they were killed, if they drowned, then they were not witches and, well, life sucks) cats were also murdered. However, rats were largely responsible for the spread of the plague. So when cats were killed off, rats multiplied greatly and caused the plague to spread faster.

quote:

No, they animal and prey were laying together trying to avoid the flood.

Hmm, here you again failed to respond to my explanation. Again, if they reached the mountain top, the flood would most likely wash them away. Also, if the skeletons are from the same geological period, it doesn't mean they died in the same day. Again, I refer you to the tar pits example I mentioned, a place where you'll find a huge amount of different skeletons. And they aren't on any mountain top. It's like visiting an old graveyard and saying that a slaughter took place there because there are so many dead bodies on the same place.

quote:

One word " Symbolism"

No, you said bible should be taken literally. Samson's strength relied in his hair, and in his hair alone.

quote:

Physically,yes there were people killed. but,I'm thinking we're skipping over some key verses here.

Oh, so he only killed them physically? How nice of him!

quote:

Do you have any idea what the Philistines did to Israelies?(I'm pretty sure it was the philistines,Looking it up now.)

Well, they should have turned the other cheek, right? Besides, even if they slaughtered off many israelis, it just shows the tribal mentality present in the early bible. Us against them. Well, what about judging people individually? Besides, what did the israelis do to other nations? They did conquer Canaan, right? Well, they had to slaughter off some canaanites to do that.

quote:

One of my youth pastors in 8th grade was explaining this. Scientists all over the world had recorded this, and they brought all the evidence together and found the dates and such. Sorry to disappoint, No cell phones.

0AD scientists? Interesting. Besides, the calendars of that period are so unreliable. We really don't know if Jesus existed, let alone when he died. So we can't pinpoint such an occurance to the same exact day. Besides, where's your evidence for this?

quote:

I had someone I knew that is Muslim. He told me they believe in The God of Abraham and Isaac, Christians also believe in the same God. They just don't believe Jesus is God's son,they don't believe he died. They just think he was a prophet. Their religion is different,but we both believe in the same God.

No, you believe in a similar god. Christians infact believe in a dual god (polytheism?), god on the heaven and his son Jesus.

quote:

Of course I enjoy dance music, I produce/compose happy hardcore/rave and hardcore music,I have for years. I listen to pretty much nothing but music within the dance genre.

Heh, while we're at it, I'm wondering how Opus got into dance music scene, since he's coming from a similar environment?

quote:

I'm not a " strict " Christian. I don't follow that religion stuff,and that's what makes a lot of Christians strict. ( I just believe in God's saving grace,and believe Jesus died on the cross to save our sins,and then I got saved. )

No, you're not a stict catholic, but you are a strict protestant.

quote:

But,nope. It's music, and I don't see why any Christian would have a problem with this kind of music.

Well, because some christians consider music to be evil only if it's not about god.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Point, Game, Set, Match. I must say I've been in a lot of arguments, but I've never seen an argument reduced to the point where a person is refusing to comment on the basis that they don't feel like it, or where they are unwilling to give any evidence for the reason that people would ignore it.

This is why I love these debates with Creationists. It almost always ends up the same. I seriously had a helluva lot of fun this past week. I put off so much crap at work, and it was worth every damn minute of procrastination! Seriously, there are simply no better debates than those pertaining to life and nature.

quote:

"I've followed every part of the Bible--even the parts that contradict the other parts."

I love that quote! That's coming damn close to being stuck in my sig.!

Heh, Nellie, you might be interested in this:

Human:
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Hominae
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens

Chimpanzee:
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Pongidae
Subfamily: Ponginae
Genus: Pan
Species: Troglodytes

So, we and the chimps are the members of a single superfamily. So we could have micro-evolved from each other, right?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, Nellie, you might be interested in this: Human: Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Superfamily: Hominoidea Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Hominae Genus: Homo Species: Sapiens Chimpanzee: Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Superfamily: Hominoidea Family: Pongidae Subfamily: Ponginae Genus: Pan Species: Troglodytes So, we and the chimps are the members of a single superfamily. So we could have micro-evolved from each other, right?

Puh-lease . Haven't you read the bible???

Human:
Phylum: Dust
Class: Adam
Order: Rib
Superfamily: Abel
Family: Moses
Subfamily: Flood
Genus: Jesus
Species: Bible

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Wanted to pull this one out seperatly. First of all,God does not stand neutral on sexuality. If you look up Leviticus 18:22 it clearly states the following. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This isn't the only verse,I will search for others. This doesn't mean God HATES homosexuals. God loves all people, this is true. But, he doesn't condone the lifestyle. A lot of people get this confused. I don't believe God is going to send tornados,and junk like that to "wipe out" homosexuality. But, I know for each sin there is a consequence. Everyone sins,and everyone has to deal with the consequence afterward.

Oh goody! Leviticus is definitely one of my favorite OT books. Here's some of my favorites:

11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11:11
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Translation: shellfish are offlimits! They are a complete abomination of God! Don't even think of eatin' them!!!

---------------
14:2-52 - God's treatment for leprosy:

In summary- Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it.

Pretty scientific stuff huh? God sure knows his medical treatments well!

-----------

Let's see, what other goodies do we have,

20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Translation: those who disrespect their parents, off with ye head!

20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Translation: cheatin' bastards need some rat poison as well.

20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Hey Nessa, why did you leave this one out? Doesn't this say to kill all the gays? I guess God does hate fags after all. Wow, Phelps was right I guess.

19:18 "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Great line, one of the best messages in the Bible. Doesn't it contradict a little bit with the above killings? Would it not contradict with God encouraging the Israelites to kill their neighbors here: Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15?

------------------------------

Lev.20:23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

I thought God loved everyone?

-----------------------------
19:20
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

19:21
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

19:22
And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Translation: a guy can have sex with a slave woman and get away with it. But the slave woman should be scourged. Wow, that's really fair now isin't it?
---------------------------

And I thought that the next lines might apply to you, Nessa. You did mention that you have a physical disability, right?:

21:16
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

21:17
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

21:18
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

21:19
Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

21:20
Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21:21
No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

21:22
He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

21:23
Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

So those with handicaps cannot approach the alter of God because they would "profane" it.
------------
24:10-23
A guy gets stoned to death for using the Lord's name in vain.

24:16

Same as above. Nice advice God sure gave them.

--------------------------

And one of my all time favorites, let's hear it for slavery!!!:

25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

So go, Israelites, make slaves out of your neighbors. They are your possessions forever!
------------------------

So perhaps it would be best suited not to pick and choose those passages which fit your cause. Because if homosexuality is wrong in Leviticus, then we need to consider the rest of these passages just as much, including murdering all the gays as well.

And you certainly did not read the passage very well I gave, because it's clear that Robertson believes natural disasters are caused by unnatural acts (i.e. sin). The evidence supporting that notion, however, is quite weak. In fact, it's downright hilarious.

^^ And it's even more enjoyable in Lego form:

http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament



'Yahweh will send wild animals to attack you.' - Leviticus 26:22

The "When to Stone Your Children" section is particularly interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi mustard eating communists

that is yoepus, right? oh damn him...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh goody! Leviticus is definitely one of my favorite OT books. Here's some of my favorites: 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Translation: shellfish are offlimits! They are a complete abomination of God! Don't even think of eatin' them!!! --------------- 14:2-52 - God's treatment for leprosy: In summary- Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it. Pretty scientific stuff huh? God sure knows his medical treatments well! ----------- Let's see, what other goodies do we have, 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Translation: those who disrespect their parents, off with ye head! 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Translation: cheatin' bastards need some rat poison as well. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Hey Nessa, why did you leave this one out? Doesn't this say to kill all the gays? I guess God does hate fags after all. Wow, Phelps was right I guess. 19:18 "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Great line, one of the best messages in the Bible. Doesn't it contradict a little bit with the above killings? Would it not contradict with God encouraging the Israelites to kill their neighbors here: Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15? ------------------------------ Lev.20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. I thought God loved everyone? ----------------------------- 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. Translation: a guy can have sex with a slave woman and get away with it. But the slave woman should be scourged. Wow, that's really fair now isin't it? --------------------------- And I thought that the next lines might apply to you, Nessa. You did mention that you have a physical disability, right?: 21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. So those with handicaps cannot approach the alter of God because they would "profane" it. ------------ 24:10-23 A guy gets stoned to death for using the Lord's name in vain. 24:16 Same as above. Nice advice God sure gave them. -------------------------- And one of my all time favorites, let's hear it for slavery!!!: 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. So go, Israelites, make slaves out of your neighbors. They are your possessions forever! ------------------------ So perhaps it would be best suited not to pick and choose those passages which fit your cause. Because if homosexuality is wrong in Leviticus, then we need to consider the rest of these passages just as much, including murdering all the gays as well. And you certainly did not read the passage very well I gave, because it's clear that Robertson believes natural disasters are caused by unnatural acts (i.e. sin). The evidence supporting that notion, however, is quite weak. In fact, it's downright hilarious.

Symbolism!!! ... no wait Fact!! ... Symbolism!!! Sym ... err fact! Fa ... bolism .... ARRGGGHHHHH!!!!

Hehe I actually feel sorry for the poor girl. This is a lot to take in all at once. From the past 12 or so pages however, it seems to me that Nessa was not quite abreast of all the facts and arguments of evolution NOR the arguments of creationism as evidenced by her lack of scientific argumeents and reasoning to support her cause (such as irreducible complexity). Furthermore, it seems that she lacks an understanding of the history of the church, which should be taken into consideration when reading the bible. Here's a short history lesson of the bible you are reading Nessa:

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

So unless you are reading the bible in hebrew or old arameic, I suggest you take note of the number of versions and translatios there are of the bible.

quote:

And I thought that the next lines might apply to you, Nessa. You did mention that you have a physical disability, right?: 21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. So those with handicaps cannot approach the alter of God because they would "profane" it. ------------ 24:10-23 A guy gets stoned to death for using the Lord's name in vain. 24:16 Same as above. Nice advice God sure gave them.

First of all,you have no idea how much the illnesses I deal with hurt me,and I hope you never have to know. I'm serious about this.
It's not just physically painful,it's emotionally painful too. You also have no idea how much what you said offends me.
I went from being perfectly healthy, to being extremely ill in a very very short time. God has NOT once turned his back on me. He's always given me the strength to pull through everytime I've had an attack,or everytime I'd be in public and nearly break down. He's helped me over come some of these problems.
He's been there for me through every hard time,and especially through this. I think you've stepped just a little to far..
Just think about it for a while.

Psalms 41:3 The LORD will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness.

I don't have anything else to add.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 First of all,you have no idea how much the illnesses I deal with hurt me,and I hope you never have to know. I'm serious about this. It's not just physically painful,it's emotionally painful too. You also have no idea how much what you said offends me. I went from being perfectly healthy, to being extremely ill in a very very short time. God has NOT once turned his back on me. He's always given me the strength to pull through everytime I've had an attack,or everytime I'd be in public and nearly break down. He's helped me over come some of these problems. He's been there for me through every hard time,and especially through this. I think you've stepped just a little to far.. Just think about it for a while. Psalms 41:3 The LORD will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness. I don't have anything else to add.

Sigh ... Nessa, Nessa, Nessa. If you could understand the point MisterOpus is saying you would realise that he's not saying that God is against you. He just proved, with your unwitting help, that by taking those passages from Leviticus and by taking your passage from Psalms that the bible has CONTRADICTIONS. It cannot be made any clearer than that. If you are hurt by MisterOpus's references from the bible, why are you taking offense to him? He's only quoting the good book therefore you should take offense to the bible, the bible ... the bible! THE BIBLE! THHHHEEEEE BBBIIIIBBLLLEEE! BIIIIIBBBLLLLLEEEEE!!!

Hopefully that's enough repetitions.

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