quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Look Tiesto, Seventil was probably indoctrinated into this belief system when he was a child. He can't discard his upbringing at a drop of hat. Hopefully, one day he will reflect on the inconsistencies and exaggerations in the bible that we have pointed out, and come to his own conclusion that the scientific methods discussed reveal a far different history of the earth than is in the bible. I'm actually glad that I took the time to learn about the details in the bible that creations cling too. I never knew how absurd the bible is until now. I also have gained more respect for the achievements of the sciences. BTW, Seventil is going to have difficulty replying to questions that aren't answered by creationist sites, so don't get mad at him I think he's done an admiral job so far.

I was an atheist until 23 actually. Quite a fervent one. It's amazing what a few physchology and philosophy courses can enlighten you to. If you don't see the blatant lying and brainwashing in evoultionary theory... well, I pray that you will someday.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 I posted common sense arguements...forget intelligent ones, because no intelligent person in the year 2004 can actually stand with a straight face and say the bible has any validity...so before you call him ignorant why don't you TRY and dispute my arguments...

I've patiently gave you answers from mine and creationist's point of view. I have been mature and I have not attacked any of you personally (which, I might add, you have).

I am leaving for Venice in a couple days, and I'll be back to my normal life. It is doubtful (especially because of the current "crowd" that is posting here) that I will reply to anything else. If I find some though-out, mature and intelligent questions, I will answer when I can.

It's been real, thanks for everyone (occrider and Opus especially) for enlightening me on certain parts of evolution. You've made my time in Iraq go quite a bit faster.

Godspeed, and I hope that I have been worthy of such great minds in our debate here.

Seventil signing out.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I've patiently gave you answers from mine and creationist's point of view. I have been mature and I have not attacked any of you personally (which, I might add, you have). I am leaving for Venice in a couple days, and I'll be back to my normal life. It is doubtful (especially because of the current "crowd" that is posting here) that I will reply to anything else. If I find some though-out, mature and intelligent questions, I will answer when I can. It's been real, thanks for everyone (occrider and Opus especially) for enlightening me on certain parts of evolution. You've made my time in Iraq go quite a bit faster. Godspeed, and I hope that I have been worthy of such great minds in our debate here. Seventil signing out.

My mom always said to me and my brothers, never go to bed angry, so I hope you don't either. These type of arguments always end badly. You're in Iraq (the craddle of civilization) how ironic. Btw, I've heard there are more fire fights here than in iraq. I pray that you will "evolve" from a creationist into an evolutionist. But I warn you evolution is a slow process, so don't expect anything to happen over night.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Man... I replied to that. It's like 6 posts above, right after you said "I like how he skipped it!" or whatever. Grow the piss up and learn how to read, kid.

my mistake...i missed it...and i am no kid...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil "What did carnivores eat? Well the question presupposes that there WERE carnivores, which may or may not have been true. It also presupposes that carnivores MUST eat flesh. There are plenty of examples of carnivores today that can live quite healthily on vegetation. In fact, I'm unaware of any land animal that cannot survive on a vegetation diet (let me know if you are aware of any...BR).

will get back to you on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Still, with plenty of room to spare, there is no reason to believe that animals could not have been brought on board for food, or that quickly multiplying animals such as rabbits and mice did not provide some carnivorous snacks as well.).

There is no mention of that in Genesis...only 2 of each were brought.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil It's all educated guesswork, admittedly, but the IMPORTANT POINT is... that everything the Bible says happened , was EASILY within the realm of physical possibility, and doesn't even need a "miraculous" reason to believe even if it involves Dinosaurs.".).

Splitting the Red Seas is in the realm of physical possibility? Jesus walking on water is in the realm of physical possibility? Jesus coming back to life is in the realm of physical possibility?

Well then nothing is out of the realm of physical possibility for you.
Those things are not logical therefore not plausible.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil That's quite speculative to be used as justification of it never being built. .".).

Now is it really? A man without power tools, saws and many other building supplies that is needed to make a sailboat builds a ship large enough to withstand the flooding of the earth AND hold 2 of every land species?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I've mentioned this before... the world (as we see it today) definately did not look the same as the world before the Flood. We can speculate all we like on what it looked like, and what creatures were where. I agree that it would be tough to do what you mention, but you're using backwards logic. Try thinking of it as everything that Noah gathered spread across into the continents we see today. .".).

What about the hibernating animals? You think it would be tough? I guarantee no man living today could pull of such a challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Also, as far as interconnectivity of the continents, a post-Flood ice age explains it perfectly. If their are ginormous masses of ice being moved and melting, the water levels will be significantly lower, allowing for walking access to everywhere - from Galapagos to Australia, Russia to Canada, etc. .".).

Still an impossible walk with all those animals...many of which can be extremely hostile.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Part of your assertion is correct. However, take into consideration a pre-Flood world that people lived to be 900+, and also were "giants" by today's standards. .".).

LOL...even hardcore creationists don't take the high ages as literal...yet you do?

Living 900 years makes no sense...especially refering to Noah who came around less then 900 years after Adam and Eve...

Living that long is IMPOSSIBLE...like i said even hardcore creationists say so...i guess you are elite.

They were giants? So man started off as a giant, then shrunk after the flood, then steadily increased in size again? Same goes with age...we started off 900 years old then so on?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil A pre-Flood world was like living in a hyperbaric chamber, increased oxygen levels and blockage of harmful UV rays would allow people to be unfathomably stronger, healthier life. I don't see it out of the realm of reasonability that due to this, it was quite possible to build a ship of this size. .".).

Absurd...let me get this straight. You think man living back then survived to 900 years yet today with modern science we can barely cure cancer?...So there was no cancer then? No bacterial infections? etc etc etc...must not of been according to those ages. That or God listed them as dependents on his health care plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil There is empirical evidence for what I just stated. There are numerous findings of human skeletons over ten feet tall. I can post some references if you wish. .".).

Yes please do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I agree. Virtually all sea life was destroyed. However, just as some species can live in both salt and fresh water, I believe that creatures adapted and survived. .".).

You mean evolution????????????????

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Look up the biological reasons behind inbreeding, and take into consideration a pre-Flood world where the DNA and genes of humans were not mutated or harmed by harmful effects of the sun. Noah's family was still "pure" in a pre-Flood sense of the word. .".).

Semantics. Incest IS incest!

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil While I can't empirically answer your tree question, I would like to point out the oldest living tree ever found is around 4300 years old. .".).

No one can answer the tree question. Wanna know why? Because it is a logical question that can not be answered with impropable scenrios or scripture for the unholy book called the bible.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil While I sympathize with your harsh assertion, I disagree. I'm currently researching the topic of religion and it's effects on society, and we can discuss this if you wish..".).

More people in the the history of time have died in the name of God...nothing to discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil My personal view is that science and religion are compatible. ..".).

Science is facts...religion is bunk.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I believe science is the pursuit of truth, and should be kept that way. ..".).

Then why no matter what science tells you, you say it is wrong because the bible IMPLIES it is?...If science told you strawberries would kill you if eat 4 in a row..would you eat 4 in row? Of course not. But if science says the Universe is 15 billion years old you claim it is wrong becaue of the bible. Science completley debunks the bible and you still do not beleive. You do not want to know the truth because you fear if the bible is wrong then your life has less meaning and that scares you. Grow some balls and open your eyes. There may be a god...but there sure as shot was no Adam and Eve or any other bible tale. Might as well read Dr Sues and take that serious.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil A quote from Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" that I like: Science and religion are not at odds; Science is simply too young to understand.

Science is too young? Wrong science has been around since the Big Bang...it is man that is too young!

Look, Seventil, first of all I must say that I find it childish and insulting of you that you explicitely say that our posts (backed by facts) are absurd and rediculous, as well as insinuating that we are some sort of unintelectual mob, while you are accusing us of personally attacking you.

Anyway, to get back to the subject at matter, you keep attacking the theory of evolution solely on the bases of one mythological book, yet for your theory we would have to accept that:

1) There was a solid firmament around the Earth that held immense amounts of water around it (where did it go now?)

2) Prior to flood all land masses were connected, and every single land animal managed to go through inhospitable climates to get to Noah's ark. I guess they evolved as they were travelling, so that they could adapt to handling the new climates and eating all the different foods they found on the way

3) Flood resulted in an ice age.

4) Every single scientific methot of measuring age is false, although they all show the same results.

5) Species are now evolving much slower than they were in the past.

5) The age of the universe is much less than 15 billion years, although I have shown you that every explanation you posted about observed phenomena that don't match the theory is false.

6) Sediment layers and their bizzare correlation with fossiles (older ones lower, newer ones higher) is just a freakish odd occurance of nature.

7) Biology and shipbuilding were at a much higher level 5000 years ago than they are now, regardless of the fact that the best possible building material was wood. Noah had to fill his boat not only with animal species, but also with a supply of food, both for during the flood and for years afterwards, until the plants resprouted from the seeds dropped prior to flood.

8) Fresh water isn't harmful for saltwater animals.

9) There is a god. It's a christian god who has intentionally killed children and rewarded Israelis for killing people of other races, but then suddenly made a total switch in behaviour in 0AD and started loving everyone.

9) And finally, the most bizzare of all, the evolution is factual, and it is infact happening at a much faster rate than proposed by the evolution theory.

If you disagree that any of these premises are necessary for the acceptance of creationism, I would like you to elaborate.

On the other hand to accept the evolution theory, you would have to accept that:

1) Bible should not be taken literally

2) Hm....well....there is no 2) except perhaps accepting logic.

I would like you to do something else here. Instead of proposing more and more...esoteric explanations about how creationist theory is possible, I would like to see a single evidence against the theory of evolution that is not relying on Bible.

___________________
1+1=10

OWNED!

From his last post he appears to be a military soldier in iraq, so its not surprising he feels so strongly about god. You know the saying 'there are no atheiests in fox holes'. Fear of death is a great motivator of to become religious.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow From his last post he appears to be a military soldier in iraq, so its not surprising he feels so strongly about god. You know the saying 'there are no atheiests in fox holes'. Fear of death is a great motivator of to become religious.

*answering in reverse order*

I'm actually a comm guy in the Air Force. I don't carry a gun and I only get shot at in rare occasions.

I was atheist until I was 23. Nothing happened to me. There was no tragedy, no death, no sickness, no experience. I simply could not be an atheist anymore. On a trip to Egypt that year, I realized that the world didn't revolve around me, and I gave religion an honest look. I ended up "finding God" through Christianity.

Funny how you say fear is the great motivator to become religious... it's the one thing I didn't have as an atheist.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Look, Seventil, first of all I must say that I find it childish and insulting of you that you explicitely say that our posts (backed by facts) are absurd and rediculous, as well as insinuating that we are some sort of unintelectual mob, while you are accusing us of personally attacking you.

I believe you should read the entire argument we've been having here. You came in pretty late. If you have read it all, I think you took whatever I said out of context. Let me "sum up" what I've said before about evolutionary theory.

I have given nothing but respect to evolutionary theory and the advances it's made. I have never (except in igottaknow's case, where his questions were just downright silly) personally attacked anyone, or called anyone unintelligent. I have merely been exploring the differences between Creation and Evolution. I have been patient and I believe courteous in answering everyone (I'm quite outnumbered, as you can see). In the instances I have called your "facts" absurd or ridiculous it is because of exactly that; you believe they are "facts" and not open to interpretation.

I find it sad how defensive you are about your religion. I have not got upset about you attacking mine; yet I question yours and you throw a tantrem.

quote:

Anyway, to get back to the subject at matter, you keep attacking the theory of evolution solely on the bases of one mythological book, yet for your theory we would have to accept that:

I most certainly have not. If you believe this, you have seriously misunderstood what I have been doing here. I am NOT attacking evolution based on Biblical "facts" - I am, and have been (since about the middle of this thread) simply been stating that each theory deserves merit. I have never said my beliefs do not rely on faith.

quote:

1) There was a solid firmament around the Earth that held immense amounts of water around it (where did it go now?) 2) Prior to flood all land masses were connected, and every single land animal managed to go through inhospitable climates to get to Noah's ark. I guess they evolved as they were travelling, so that they could adapt to handling the new climates and eating all the different foods they found on the way 3) Flood resulted in an ice age. 4) Every single scientific methot of measuring age is false, although they all show the same results. 5) Species are now evolving much slower than they were in the past. 5) The age of the universe is much less than 15 billion years, although I have shown you that every explanation you posted about observed phenomena that don't match the theory is false. 6) Sediment layers and their bizzare correlation with fossiles (older ones lower, newer ones higher) is just a freakish odd occurance of nature. 7) Biology and shipbuilding were at a much higher level 5000 years ago than they are now, regardless of the fact that the best possible building material was wood. Noah had to fill his boat not only with animal species, but also with a supply of food, both for during the flood and for years afterwards, until the plants resprouted from the seeds dropped prior to flood. 8) Fresh water isn't harmful for saltwater animals. 9) There is a god. It's a christian god who has intentionally killed children and rewarded Israelis for killing people of other races, but then suddenly made a total switch in behaviour in 0AD and started loving everyone. 9) And finally, the most bizzare of all, the evolution is factual, and it is infact happening at a much faster rate than proposed by the evolution theory. If you disagree that any of these premises are necessary for the acceptance of creationism, I would like you to elaborate.

I've given logical and scientific evidence for everything possible here. If you wish for me to elaborate on one I haven't, I will. It's kind of a mute point though, isn't it? Since you've already discarded anything I have to say without even hearing it first.

The way you state these 9 "illogical Biblical facts"; clearly shows how open minded and mature you are. Your grasp for Creation theory is weak. I recommend you honestly and open mindedly research the topic more thoroughly before spouting off with rhetoric like you did here. You'll come off looking like an ignorant, pretentious asshole if you ever talk like that in "real life" to someone.

quote:

On the other hand to accept the evolution theory, you would have to accept that: 1) Bible should not be taken literally 2) Hm....well....there is no 2) except perhaps accepting logic.

Once again, I've never said that evolutionary theory can be proven wrong (even though many creationists will argue that it can.) I believe it is the best non-religious account of what we think happened as far as evolution in a non-Diest sort of way. I've stated this many times in the past, but you seem to have ignored this.

Your second comment scares me a bit... you call "evolutionary" theory logical; yet a Biblical creation illogical. Can you call yourself open minded? I'd say not. Both theories are just as logical... your open hostility toward Creation shows me how much you want to believe in evolution...

quote:

I would like you to do something else here. Instead of proposing more and more...esoteric explanations about how creationist theory is possible, I would like to see a single evidence against the theory of evolution that is not relying on Bible.

We've discussed these before. I'll list them again, however, since you obviously haven't been paying attention. For the record, I believe these are a bit open to interpretation, but many prominent scientists think these are the scientific proofs against evolution:

(from http://www.trueorigins.org)

1. Evolution has never been observed.

2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

3. There are no transitional fossils.

4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. (Abiogenesis)

5. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

You disprove my claims because of a priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences? And you're attacking my logic? The fact that you don't understand this clearly shows your ignorance on exactly what you believe and why you believe it.

I suggest you CLEARLY read http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp -- after that, go to:

http://www.talkorigins.org

And after that go to

http://www.trueorigin.org

And please, try to hide your defensive nature in the future... it's very unbecoming.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Funny how you say fear is the great motivator to become religious... it's the one thing I didn't have as an atheist.

So that means now you have fear being you found God?

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 will get back to you on this one. There is no mention of that in Genesis...only 2 of each were brought. Splitting the Red Seas is in the realm of physical possibility? Jesus walking on water is in the realm of physical possibility? Jesus coming back to life is in the realm of physical possibility? Well then nothing is out of the realm of physical possibility for you. Those things are not logical therefore not plausible. Now is it really? A man without power tools, saws and many other building supplies that is needed to make a sailboat builds a ship large enough to withstand the flooding of the earth AND hold 2 of every land species? What about the hibernating animals? You think it would be tough? I guarantee no man living today could pull of such a challenge. Still an impossible walk with all those animals...many of which can be extremely hostile. LOL...even hardcore creationists don't take the high ages as literal...yet you do? Living 900 years makes no sense...especially refering to Noah who came around less then 900 years after Adam and Eve... Living that long is IMPOSSIBLE...like i said even hardcore creationists say so...i guess you are elite. They were giants? So man started off as a giant, then shrunk after the flood, then steadily increased in size again? Same goes with age...we started off 900 years old then so on? Absurd...let me get this straight. You think man living back then survived to 900 years yet today with modern science we can barely cure cancer?...So there was no cancer then? No bacterial infections? etc etc etc...must not of been according to those ages. That or God listed them as dependents on his health care plan. Yes please do so. You mean evolution???????????????? Semantics. Incest IS incest! No one can answer the tree question. Wanna know why? Because it is a logical question that can not be answered with impropable scenrios or scripture for the unholy book called the bible. More people in the the history of time have died in the name of God...nothing to discuss. Science is facts...religion is bunk. Then why no matter what science tells you, you say it is wrong because the bible IMPLIES it is?...If science told you strawberries would kill you if eat 4 in a row..would you eat 4 in row? Of course not. But if science says the Universe is 15 billion years old you claim it is wrong becaue of the bible. Science completley debunks the bible and you still do not beleive. You do not want to know the truth because you fear if the bible is wrong then your life has less meaning and that scares you. Grow some balls and open your eyes. There may be a god...but there sure as shot was no Adam and Eve or any other bible tale. Might as well read Dr Sues and take that serious. Science is too young? Wrong science has been around since the Big Bang...it is man that is too young!

Due to the fact that your post is filled with rhetoric, personal attacks and ... yeah that about summed it up, I'm not justifying any of that with a response.

In conclusion, I respect what you believe, I urge you to do the same to others. Contempt for others beliefs is exactly why people have died for them in the past; people like you have filled the churches and crusaded not for God's cause, but for your own. I will hope and pray that one day you will realize there is a God; if not, I will hope that you find it in your heart to accept others beliefs without chastesizing them for it.