quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: by psuedo-god, i meant, i want to make up my own diety. it will be my cat. i will worship my cat. that makes the cat a psuedo-god.

So what makes the cat any more pseudo-god than the good ol' christian god?

quote:

by saying we evolved from apes and this was all from god's setting into motion of evolution, you're contracdicting yourself.

How? We are contradicting bible at best. What makes it impossible that a god did such a thing?

quote:

the bible states there was no death before adam and eve sinned.

Well, considering that all the beings fruitfully and generally exponentially multiplied, I wonder how the earth looked like then.

quote:

does an ape have the capacity to know right from wrong?

Generally yes, in a very primitive sense. Apes who start beating up their companions from the herd usually get beaten up and killed by the rest. Same things happen in human small communities.

quote:

Are they able to talk?

Well, they are able to learn sign language and do have the ability to make somewhere about 50 different voice signs with specific meanings.

quote:

apes are not capable of transgression because they are animals. they follow their instincts, while humans have the strange freedom to think outside of our instincts.

You're pretty much wrong on both accounts. People generally do follow their instincts, and animals can be taught to avoid following some of their instincts.

quote:

genesis states we were created in the "image of god". god's image cant change. are you going to tell me he is an ape?

Umm, I hardly think that it was the physical image that was the main point of the quote, because there really isn't any special feature that makes our physical image so extravagant in comparison to other creatures. The quote was reffering to human psychology and intellectual capacity which is a great deal ahead of that of other animals.

quote:

the evolutionary timeline of the earth and the biblical one are totally different. you cant put your belief in both.

Ok, let's get a few things straight here. The timeline you mentioned has not been adopted to fit evolution into scientific schemes, it was primarily adopted because of geologic and cosmologic evidence that showed the age of the earth. The theory of evolution happened to independently converge on the same timeline. And when you see all the evidence pointing to the "evolutionary" timeline you really can't believe in the biblical one unless you're mentally retarded.

quote:

creation: everything was there at the time of creation, humans lived hundreds of years, humans were very tall, firmament above the earth, richly abundant earth, more oxygen, no rain, pleasant climate, flood, climate change, extinction of many species, shorter life spans, earth is thousands of years old, etc.

For which there is absolutely 0 evidence.

quote:

evolution: continual climate changes, continual changing of species, mass extinctions, the earth is billions of years old, no supernatural beginning,

Ok, continual climate changes and no supernatural beginning have nothing to do with evolution. Stop being so retarded and read what people actually say. As for the changing of species and the age of the earth, there has been observed evidence which we presented to you like a 100 times already.

quote:

humans are just another part of nature; nothing more different than a house flies DNA.

Well, yeah, we are just another part of nature, what are we made of, divine etherial substance? Don't you have DNA? Isn't your DNA 99% compatible with that of a chimpanzee? Don't you eat plants and animals and don't they sometimes eat people? Well?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: genesis states we were created in the "image of god". god's image cant change. are you going to tell me he is an ape?

are you gonna tell me god's image can't change yet still hold the belief that 'he' is omnipotent?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by GRinLoCK Science is not Based on Belief therefore it cannot discard the existance or non-existance of a creator being. Making this particular argument useless rhetoric. Atheism means you believe there is no God. Which translates to believing something. Making the argument useless in the scientific eye. A true Scientist would be something like an agnostic: Either you seriously doubt there is a god or you seriously doubt that there isn't. BTW these are important concepts in a philosophy which you failed to take into account which is Daoism. Its not Atheistic, its not Pantheistic, its not Monotheistic, or Dualistic, or Animistic (which the thread starter also forgot to mention).

i agree with you on your interpretation of a true scientist.

science is based on belief. it is the central foundation of science. before you ever discover something, an idea, you first have to believe in that idea. upon that belief, you research and experiment to see if that idea is correct. isaac newton started with an apple falling to the ground. he asked, "what if confuscious and aristotle are wrong about why that apple fell to the ground?" he doubted the mainstream explanations and believed in his own idea that something different was happening.

___________________

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
So what makes the cat any more pseudo-god than the good ol' christian god?

the christian church perhaps?

How? We are contradicting bible at best. What makes it impossible that a god did such a thing?

it's impossible because a large large portion of the old testament is devoted to the history of the earth. show me where the old testament supports evolution??

Well, considering that all the beings fruitfully and generally exponentially multiplied, I wonder how the earth looked like then.

think about a world, where reproducing wasn't the focus of carrying on your genes so your species could survive. no worry from predators, no death. reproduction then, is not so much of an important thing. according to creation(whether u believe in it or not), the earth had a much more larger surface area, and much much more habital land than there is now. plenty of room for animals that never die, and for huge animals such as dinosaurs to roam as they pleased.

Generally yes, in a very primitive sense. Apes who start beating up their companions from the herd usually get beaten up and killed by the rest. Same things happen in human small communities.

oh really? its usually those apes that start pushing their dominance on others than become the leader of the group. your mistaken.

Well, they are able to learn sign language and do have the ability to make somewhere about 50 different voice signs with specific meanings.

can they write a symphony? can they carry on a conversation with you? can they play instruments? can they discover the secrets to the universe?

You're pretty much wrong on both accounts. People generally do follow their instincts, and animals can be taught to avoid following some of their instincts.

predators kills for food. are you telling me, they can be trained to not kill for food? in captivity, they need not worry about being fed, but in the wild, they will always kill for food. thats their instinct. humans have instincts. but, we are perfectly capable of not following them. if im understanding your rationale correctly, a rapist can just say, "i have this instinct to mate, i was just following my instincts." a murderer can just say, "natural selection sir, i was the stronger of my rival, i just had to take him out."

Umm, I hardly think that it was the physical image that was the main point of the quote, because there really isn't any special feature that makes our physical image so extravagant in comparison to other creatures. The quote was reffering to human psychology and intellectual capacity which is a great deal ahead of that of other animals.

hey, i agree with something here. it was more than the physical aspects. here's the full quote here.

"Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

our likeness. the ability to reason. to make art. to make music. to build vast empires of civilization. dont tell me musical lyrics, and art mean nothing!! music and art are expressions of the soul. if we have no soul, then they mean nothing. why have museums and concerts??

Ok, let's get a few things straight here. The timeline you mentioned has not been adopted to fit evolution into scientific schemes, it was primarily adopted because of geologic and cosmologic evidence that showed the age of the earth. The theory of evolution happened to independently converge on the same timeline. And when you see all the evidence pointing to the "evolutionary" timeline you really can't believe in the biblical one unless you're mentally retarded.

the age of the earth in evolutionary terms has changed way too many times to count. everybody has the same evidence, so to call someone who interprets it differently than in evolutionary terms "retarded" is not a good arguement. i largely didnt exactly get what you were trying to say here.

For which there is absolutely 0 evidence.

i love how you guys claim "open-mindedness", and objective interpretation. but have you ever looked at the evidence?? your going on nothing but pressuppositional arguements here. im no professor, but hopefully you can do objective research on your own to really get the take on the two sides. its a shame how evoluionists dont even want to take an unbiased view of the other.

this page is good to get some take on the evidence, and logic of creationism. just frequently asked questions that a lot of you are asking and i cant answer from the top of my head. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartIII.html

Ok, continual climate changes and no supernatural beginning have nothing to do with evolution. Stop being so retarded and read what people actually say. As for the changing of species and the age of the earth, there has been observed evidence which we presented to you like a 100 times already.

what are you trying to say?? you guys are telling me a hundred million things at the same time. compact it for me.

Well, yeah, we are just another part of nature, what are we made of, divine etherial substance? Don't you have DNA? Isn't your DNA 99% compatible with that of a chimpanzee? Don't you eat plants and animals and don't they sometimes eat people? Well?

logically, wouldnt be better to make organic substances with the a lot of the same material?? nature shows logic. i dont see any random events going on. everything is there for a purpose. eyes to see, within the eye, a lense to focus, a cornea to protect, a retina to register, a nerve to send and recieve the signal, etc.

no animal has dominion over another. i dont see lions setting up a circus of gazelles or elephants herding sheep and cattle. humans are the only creatures that have this power, this dominion over the earth. what other creature has made such an adverse effect on the earth. we have the power to completly destroy this planet. i think its much more than coincidence that we have the dominance over everything on this planet. im sorry if you dont.

quote:

originally posted by psy-t are you gonna tell me god's image can't change yet still hold the belief that 'he' is omnipotent?

god is logical, and perfect. he says one thing, and he does it. is he omnipotent if he's changing his mind??

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

___________________

Christianity does not = religion

You keep going on about the nature of "God" but how does your interpretation of "God" apply to the Hindu gods?

i believe at the moment we were talking about the judeo-christian god. but what are you refering too?

___________________

it's impossible because a large large portion of the old testament is devoted to the history of the earth. show me where the old testament supports evolution??

what the bible says is completely irrelevant im afraid. it says the world was created in seven days. now explain to me the radical difference between the age of dinosaurs and the age of man. im pretty sure theres more than a couple of days between their respective eras.

the age of the earth in evolutionary terms has changed way too many times to count. everybody has the same evidence, so to call someone who interprets it differently than in evolutionary terms \"retarded\" is not a good arguement. i largely didnt exactly get what you were trying to say here.

is not an answer. the EXACT age might differ depending on how it is assessed, but thats not really the point. theres a bloody huge gap between 7 days and 100 odd million years.

logically, wouldnt be better to make organic substances with the a lot of the same material?? nature shows logic. i dont see any random events going on. everything is there for a purpose. eyes to see, within the eye, a lense to focus, a cornea to protect, a retina to register, a nerve to send and recieve the signal, etc.

and that is a far cry from any evidence of god. what creationists seem to miss is that a world as glorious and meaningful as ours would HAVE TO exist logically, deity or not. a world without a logical system of organisation and existence could never come into being. that does not provide any evidence of a higher power. our existence does not, in and of itself, prove anything beyond the fact that we are here.

quoting the bible to justify your points is a fruitless exercise. youre trying to base what is essentially a belief structure relying on faith on words written 1000s of years ago, without an understanding of the context it was written in. i can quote star wars even better than you can quote the bible, it doesnt mean it makes any sense. just look at the radical difference between the jehovah of the old versus the new testaments. youre saying how perfect and unchangeable god is, yet the word of god evolved rapidly between the two books. wheres the perfection there??

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So what makes the cat any more pseudo-god than the good ol' christian god? the christian church perhaps?

But every religion throughout history has had a central institution of some kind. Unless you can reveal to the rest of us why we should assume that the church has an absolute authority on matters of metaphysics, epistemology, ontology and morality, then the Christian god is every bit as much a "psuedo-god" as the Gods of the ancient Romans, Greeks or Tito's feline deity.

quote:

How? We are contradicting bible at best. What makes it impossible that a god did such a thing? it's impossible because a large large portion of the old testament is devoted to the history of the earth. show me where the old testament supports evolution??

Based on modern human knowledge, the Bible cannot be taken literally in virtually any of the historical accounts it presents. It details events that are archeologically unfounded, chronologically inaccurate and scientifically ignorant. Of all the "historical" books in the Bible, virtually none of the major events depicted are likely to have happened. In short, if the Bible can be so wrong about events that were supposed to have occurred only a few generations before they were written down, how can we possibly say it has any authority on an event as far back as the creation of the Earth?

The Genesis account was an account divised by a tribe of people living 3,000 years ago, made to fit in with their emerging world-view. In this regard, it is no more trustworthy than the creation myths of any other religion you care to name. I can understand the rationale behind believing in a creator-god - perhaps even in the Judeo-Christian creator-god - but to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible is, well, pretty damn silly to be honest.

quote:

Well, considering that all the beings fruitfully and generally exponentially multiplied, I wonder how the earth looked like then. think about a world, where reproducing wasn't the focus of carrying on your genes so your species could survive. no worry from predators, no death. reproduction then, is not so much of an important thing.

So if we had stayed in Eden, we wouldn't have reproduced at all? Meaning that neither you, or I, nor anyone else we know would have existed? Gee, I'm kind of glad Eve subverted God's authority now...

quote:

according to creation(whether u believe in it or not), the earth had a much more larger surface area, and much much more habital land than there is now.

I've read Genesis - where does it mention anything about the Earth being "larger" than it is now?

quote:

plenty of room for animals that never die, and for huge animals such as dinosaurs to roam as they pleased.

So animals suffered as a result of Eve's original sin too? That doesn't seem fair...

quote:

Generally yes, in a very primitive sense. Apes who start beating up their companions from the herd usually get beaten up and killed by the rest. Same things happen in human small communities. oh really? its usually those apes that start pushing their dominance on others than become the leader of the group. your mistaken.

Actually, inclinations towards moral behaviour can be identified in most of the higher primates. If you have the time, look up the work being done by scientists like Frans de Vaal into the similarities between humans and other primates and how this might provide an insight into how humans came about evolving such complex, memetic moral systems:

quote:

Flack and de Waal argue that the universality of human morality suggests that it is part of human nature. If it is innate in us, however, we ought to expect to find its ‘building blocks’ in our close relatives, especially the chimpanzees. And in fact we find that the higher primates do indeed exhibit methods of managing intragroup conflicts which parallel our own. Monkeys and apes are concerned that their groups be relatively harmonious, because such harmony is usually in each member’s interests. For this reason, they engage in activities designed to forestall and resolve conflicts. Flack and de Waal identify several mechanisms which work to this end: food sharing, reconciliation of combatants, direct intervention in conflicts, and others besides.

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/levy.html

quote:

Well, they are able to learn sign language and do have the ability to make somewhere about 50 different voice signs with specific meanings. can they write a symphony? can they carry on a conversation with you? can they play instruments? can they discover the secrets to the universe?

Could you write a symphony? Could you carry a conversation with someone who doesn't speak your language? Do you have a means by which you could discover all the "secrets" of the universe?

quote:

You're pretty much wrong on both accounts. People generally do follow their instincts, and animals can be taught to avoid following some of their instincts. predators kills for food. are you telling me, they can be trained to not kill for food?

You've never seen a dog that can be instructed, against its more "primal" instincts, to not eat food sitting right in front of its nose?

quote:

in captivity, they need not worry about being fed, but in the wild, they will always kill for food. thats their instinct.

It would be our instinct to kill for food in the wild as well. Besides, the issue is not about the nature of primal instincts, it's about whether they can be altered and suppressed. The answer, both within humans and animals, is yes, they can. While we cannot completely sever ourselves from our biological instincts nor instruct animals to do so, we can, to a degree, take measures to alter and suppress them.

quote:

humans have instincts. but, we are perfectly capable of not following them. if im understanding your rationale correctly, a rapist can just say, "i have this instinct to mate, i was just following my instincts." a murderer can just say, "natural selection sir, i was the stronger of my rival, i just had to take him out."

Firstly, there is nothing instictive about rape or murder. These are immoral actions that subvert the order of the society in which we live, so we're biologically inclined to be repulsed by such activities. Secondly, it is the very fact that rape and murder are conscious undertakings not instinctive undertakings that would make those defences invalid. Even if one did have the inclination to commit rape or murder, it is still well within one's power (with the exception of genuine sociopaths, presuming such people actually exist) to make a conscious decision not to commit these activities. Thirdly, if you want evidence of people generally acting instinctively, just ask yourself, of all possibly millions of tiny actions you've committed today, how many can you say you committed only after careful conscious deliberation? If you consider this question sincerely, you'll realise not very many.

quote:

Umm, I hardly think that it was the physical image that was the main point of the quote, because there really isn't any special feature that makes our physical image so extravagant in comparison to other creatures. The quote was reffering to human psychology and intellectual capacity which is a great deal ahead of that of other animals. hey, i agree with something here. it was more than the physical aspects. here's the full quote here. "Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." our likeness. the ability to reason. to make art. to make music. to build vast empires of civilization.

Consciousness isn't a fixed absolute, it's a varying degree of awareness. Some animals possess what we might call a "rudimentary" consciousness for instance. They are inherently more capable than others at solving complex problems, at communicating, at "learning" things and at being "self-aware". Throughout the animal kingdom, each of these attributes can be found, if not to the same degree that they can be found in human beings, at least in some rudimentary form. Most primates, for instance, are capable of solving problems, of learning new things, of communicting amongst themselves and to human beings and also seem to have a definite concept of the "self" (i.e. a relational awareness between themselves and other objects, which may sound fairly insignificant, but self-awareness is probably the most important attribute of what we call "consciousness").

Amongst human beings, too, there are varying degrees of consciousness. I, for instance, as a 22 year old, am demonstrably more "conscious" - if we accept that degrees of consciousness can be determined by the attributes I named above - than the average 2 year-old (where the neurological structures necessary for these attributes have not yet formed) and the average 82 year-old (where these neurological structures have, quite literally, begun to fall-apart). Even amongst people of the same age, there are varying degrees of consciousness. By your definition, the capacity to reason, the capacity to function within a civilization and the capacity to appreciate art and music differ widely between different people. Similarly, people with neurological disorders or disorders of the senses (those who are blind, deaf etc.) must necessarily, in some sense, be less "conscious" (by both our definitions) than people like you or I who have our full faculties about us in this regard.

In other words, perceiving consciousness as an entity that is "fixed", "real" or "absolute" flies in the face of everything we can ascertain (scientifically or philosophically) about its nature. Consciousness is a matter of degree, not a simple matter of "you have it" or "you don't".

quote:

dont tell me musical lyrics, and art mean nothing!! music and art are expressions of the soul. if we have no soul, then they mean nothing. why have museums and concerts??

What is "the soul"? Do those who cannot appreciate art or music just not have a one? Have those who have suffered a massive neurological injury that permanently changes their personality (see Phineas Gage) lost their soul somehow?

The notion of the soul rests on the assumption that there is some part of our nature - some part of the "self" - that is permanent and which transcends our physical nature. Absolutely nothing we know about the human physiology suggests that such a "part" of the self could possibly exist. Everything we do - everything about who we are - can, in some way, be identified within our physical nature. If you can identify a part of the human condition that somehow transcends our physical facticity, then I'd like to hear it.

quote:

Ok, let's get a few things straight here. The timeline you mentioned has not been adopted to fit evolution into scientific schemes, it was primarily adopted because of geologic and cosmologic evidence that showed the age of the earth. The theory of evolution happened to independently converge on the same timeline. And when you see all the evidence pointing to the "evolutionary" timeline you really can't believe in the biblical one unless you're mentally retarded. the age of the earth in evolutionary terms has changed way too many times to count. everybody has the same evidence, so to call someone who interprets it differently than in evolutionary terms "retarded" is not a good arguement. i largely didnt exactly get what you were trying to say here.

The scientifically deduced age of the Earth has only changed so much in the past, because the means by which we can currently ascertain the age of the Earth (and therefore the rock and fossils within its crust) have only been developed comparitively recently. Now that we do have a reliable means by which these ages can be tested, however, we can posit a fairly certain account of the history of the Earth and of the life on it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

His argument here was that the evolutionary account of life on Earth complies with the geological evidence available to us, the Genesis account does not. Got it?

quote:

For which there is absolutely 0 evidence. i love how you guys claim "open-mindedness", and objective interpretation. but have you ever looked at the evidence?? your going on nothing but pressuppositional arguements here. im no professor, but hopefully you can do objective research on your own to really get the take on the two sides. its a shame how evoluionists dont even want to take an unbiased view of the other.

"Open-mindedness" isn't about accepting the legitimacy of any theory, regardless of how stupid it is, it's about being willing to look at contrasting view-points objectively. Any objective analysis of the history of the Earth will tell us that the evolutionary account is both well supported by and consistent with the evidence available to us and that the YEC account is not. It's that simple.

The only way you could end up with the conclusion that the YEC account of the Earth is accurate, is if you had the intent to reach that conclusion in the first place, distorting the evidence which supports your theory and ignoring the evidence that doesn't along the way. Not all opinions are equal and some are inherently more valuable than others, depending on the logical and empirical evidence that supports them. In this regard, the Genesis account is not, in any way, a legitimate theory concerning the emergence and speciation of life on this planet.

quote:

this page is good to get some take on the evidence, and logic of creationism. just frequently asked questions that a lot of you are asking and i cant answer from the top of my head. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartIII.html

The trouble with most creation "science" articles, is that much of the evidence they use to support their positions is either fraudulent or distorted evidence that originates from other Christian scientists. Go back and read that page again and tell me how many of the sources they link to come from respectable science journals. From what I could see, very few.

Here's a much better link about the age of the Earth, that shows much of the "evidence" presented in creation science literature to be - either intentionally or unintentionally - completely wrong and / or misguided:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

quote:

Ok, continual climate changes and no supernatural beginning have nothing to do with evolution. Stop being so retarded and read what people actually say. As for the changing of species and the age of the earth, there has been observed evidence which we presented to you like a 100 times already. what are you trying to say?? you guys are telling me a hundred million things at the same time. compact it for me.

Evidence and explanations are pretty easy to find in this digital age, so long as you have the inclination to look for them. Part of our frustration, I think, is that you just don't seem to understand what evolution is. Read this "Introduction to Evolution" and don't post again until you feel you understand it:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosi...01/IIntro.shtml

There will be a test on this btw, so learn it good.

quote:

Well, yeah, we are just another part of nature, what are we made of, divine etherial substance? Don't you have DNA? Isn't your DNA 99% compatible with that of a chimpanzee? Don't you eat plants and animals and don't they sometimes eat people? Well? logically, wouldnt be better to make organic substances with the a lot of the same material?? nature shows logic. i dont see any random events going on. everything is there for a purpose. eyes to see, within the eye, a lense to focus, a cornea to protect, a retina to register, a nerve to send and recieve the signal, etc.

Logically it would make more sense for the creator god to make us more perfectly than he seems to have done. Many parts of our body are either redundant or unnecessary (our coxyx, appendix etc.) or flawed (our eyes, our spine etc.):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
http://www.geocities.com/hammihanir.../humanbody.html

Why would a God decide to design us so imperfectly and without any particularly special physcial characteristics when compared to other animals? Why are we so biologically unremarkable and subject to exactly the same biological functions and limitations as all other life on this planet? What part of the human physiology can only be explained by invoking the interference of a sentient, all-powerful being?

quote:

no animal has dominion over another. i dont see lions setting up a circus of gazelles or elephants herding sheep and cattle. humans are the only creatures that have this power, this dominion over the earth. what other creature has made such an adverse effect on the earth. we have the power to completly destroy this planet. i think its much more than coincidence that we have the dominance over everything on this planet. im sorry if you dont.

The same intelligence that allowed us to become agricultural beings (i.e. have dominion over cattle and other animals) also allowed us to create fanciful myths about how we came to be agricultural beings in the first place. It isn't a "coincidence" that we have (superficial, anyway) dominion over all other life on the planet just as it says we should in the Bible, because this is only written in the Bible because we were already agricultural beings when we wrote it. When the men who wrote the Bible saw that they were more intelligent that the sheep they were herding, it was only natural that they should take the anthropocentric position of assuming that this was only the state of affairs because they were blessed with a right to "dominion" over the rest of the animal kingdom by some deity. There is absolutely no biological evidence, however, to suggest that we were "designed" to have dominion over the animal kingdom or that the animal kingdom was "designed" to submit to us. If this was the case, why aren't more animals easier to control? Why are biologically so much weaker than most animals? Surely, if God had intended for us to dominate the animal kingdom, there would be a positive disparity in biological attributes between human beings and animals?

quote:

god is logical, and perfect. he says one thing, and he does it. is he omnipotent if he's changing his mind?? Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

He says one thing and does it? He promises and fulfills?

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.." - Luke 21:31-32.

2000 years later and we're still waiting for him to come back. Jeez god, get a move on will ya?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Aug-22-2005 at 05:14

Renegade summed up everything pretty nicely, but I would like to add a just one thing here. The idea that no animal has dominion over other lifeforms is essentially not correct. Some species of ants grow mushrooms in their lairs, and those mushrooms need special attention, so the worker ants supply them with water and nutrients. Although instinct-based, that is a form of agriculture.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Renegade summed up everything pretty nicely,

yeah, im pretty sure that if i were actually god, renegade could convince me otherwise

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 but I would like to add a just one thing here. The idea that no animal has dominion over other lifeforms is essentially not correct. Some species of ants grow mushrooms in their lairs, and those mushrooms need special attention, so the worker ants supply them with water and nutrients. Although instinct-based, that is a form of agriculture.

seriously? thats fvcking cool. i really dont think a divine being could think of something just that very cool. i guess at the end of the day i just dont think a deity has enough imagination to create this wonderous plane of existance

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: god is logical, and perfect. he says one thing, and he does it. is he omnipotent if he's changing his mind??

more likely than if he can not.

quote:

omnipotent adj : having unlimited power [syn: almighty, all-powerful] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

if he can not lie, he is not omnipotent.
if he can not change his mind, he is not omnipotent.
if he can not X, he is not omnipotent.


this shows that you are either deriving the wrong conclusions from the scriptures, or that you have a false definition of omnipotence in mind.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)