|
This website is so ass-backwards it's funny (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
Have you listened to nothing about the council of nicaea??!! what of the thousands of contradictions in the bible? |
there are no bible contradictions. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
No,they haven't. I'm not a wall. But that's only your opinion,and it doesn't matter to me. |
So chuffed I read the quote without looking at the name of the poster and I thought it was someone taking the piss. Nellie just step back a second, go back to the time before you thought god was real, before you knew about the bible. And have a wee think two choices proof or proofless. You have four marbles then drop two do you have two marbles because you can see them in your hand or do you have four? Not a question of if the mables exist by the way just if you have four, just incase you tried to be cheeky. :tongue3 |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by nic01445
there are no bible contradictions. |
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
Killing
# Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
# Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs.
# Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
# I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
# I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
# Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
# Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
Stealing
# Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
# Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs.
# Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
# Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
# Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
etc etc etc, thats just a part of thousands of contradictions and errors found in the bible by scholars. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
So chuffed I read the quote without looking at the name of the poster and I thought it was someone taking the piss. Nellie just step back a second, go back to the time before you thought god was real, before you knew about the bible. And have a wee think two choices proof or proofless. You have four marbles then drop two do you have two marbles because you can see them in your hand or do you have four? Not a question of if the mables exist by the way just if you have four, just incase you tried to be cheeky. :tongue3 |
I've always had a belief in God. I've been raised around it,and I eventually had to make my own choice and I have. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
Tathi, I see no contradictions. All of it is perfectly understandable to me.
Mister Opus, Here is that food for thought I told you I would post.
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. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
linkage? evidence? the earths tectonic plates have moved so much in the last 100 million years that that isn't suprising. As for "great floods" they have been occuring for millions of years, ice age after ice age, fossils of sea dwelling creatures have been found in the middle of deserts dating back hundreds of thousands of years before creationists believe the earth was created.
|
You know the story of Noah,I'm sure. But, I read it in a focus on the family article somewhere. (Still trying to find the one I read about gay marriage..)
| quote: | | Frank Herbert Dune??? |
Yes,of course.
| quote: | | Scientists back then were naive, I saw a documentary in Israel where after an earthquake the "fire and brimstone" shot forth from the ground. Scientists discovered large fissures of flammable gasses including sulfur underneath the ground and theorised that this explained what happened in the bible (revelations?) |
No,they weren't naive. But, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,it was all over the world. Just as the darkness was.
| quote: | | a solar eclipse in south america could be used to validate the Cookie Monster God's existence, a hurricane in Asia could be used to prove that Shambola of the church of the unholy octopus' was angry so they needed to sacrifice more virgins. What people don't understand they attribute to some higher power, (you don't understand a GREAT deal :rolleyes: ) we have entered an age where any force majeure or natural phenomenon including something as trivial as an earthquake can be explained. |
You don't know how much or how little I understand,just as I don't know what you think or understand. But,just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
| quote: | | Have you listened to nothing about the council of nicaea??!! what of the thousands of contradictions in the bible? |
There aren't contradictions. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
So chuffed I read the quote without looking at the name of the poster and I thought it was someone taking the piss. Nellie just step back a second, go back to the time before you thought god was real, before you knew about the bible. And have a wee think two choices proof or proofless. You have four marbles then drop two do you have two marbles because you can see them in your hand or do you have four? Not a question of if the mables exist by the way just if you have four, just incase you tried to be cheeky. :tongue3 |
damn and I thought the Scottish folk just didn't make sense when they spoke on TV:eek:
;) |
|
|
| occrider |
It's quite rare when I'm at a loss for words ... but logic just bolted from the room and trampled me down into the ground on the way out.
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother? 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 Nellie, this is the second time you've done this and it's as equally ineffective as your first attempt. Generally, when presenting a thesis or a claim, the norm is to provide evidence to support your claim in order to establish credibility. Otherwise what is the point of you speaking? Are you trying to reassure your own beliefs? Because by no means are you either convincing anybody that you are correct or building up credibility for the case that you are arguing by refusing to provide your evidence. That entire line of reasoning escapes logical reasoning because if everybody is going to "ignore" it to begin with, what's the harm in posting your evidence to satiate our desires? Furthermore, not one single argument or source that you have posted HAS been ignored. Each and every one has been analyzed and criticized to expose the underlying weaknesses that detract from their credibility. If you disagree with the analysis we have provided, why don't you argue the EVIDENCE rather than baselessly reasserting your premise that "macroevolution is false", "creationism is correct", "God did it", etc., etc., etc.
Secondly instead of resorting to the jeuvenille argument that nothing he says can EVER convince you that macroevolution is true, why don't you attack the meat of his argument? You said that there are no transitional fossiles. MisterOpus then provided a long list of transitional fossils. So why don't you discredit his case by going over his list of transitional fossils and TELL us why they are not transitional fossils at all?
I don't know what kind of arguments you won in the past, but the "covering your ears and closing your eyes" defense is not one that will win you any arguments here unless you count utterly frustrating your opponent by being irrational as a win.
| 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. One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next.
|
Once again, MisterOpus provided a long list of transitional fossils. Please discredit them if you can. And you cannot make an argument by arguing backwards. The fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution is not false because the premise is "known" to be false. Show us the overwhelming evidence that establishes the falsehood of evolution on its own. The book you listed has been discredited, the links you provided have been discredited ... what is your evidence of the growing "holes" in the theory of evolution? So far not ONE of your sources has withstood peer review. Whether it's because you CAN'T defend your sources or because you simply choose not to, you cannot logically use them to support your case until you do so.
| quote: |
If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture.
I've already read this stuff.
|
Sigh ... if you had bothered to look at my original posts on page 2, I included all sorts of pretty pictures of the fossil remains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2684927.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2664541.stm
Dino Family Tree Shows Birds are Related
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2036458.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858574.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2089873.stm
Now spent about 5 minutes of googling finding these transitional fossils and news articles about them in laymen's terms. If you would like, I can go MUCH more in-depth with scientific journals so you can analyze the data in its entirety yourself. Somehow, I get the impression that you would be uninterested in me providing this data however.
| 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.
|
Sigh, it appears you don't understand evolution. Species do not automatically evolve in order to survive as a rule of law. Evolution is the process whereby species that DO NOT adapt to survive are killed off. One example of such are our cousins the neanderthals ...
| 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. |
If it's junk then demonstrate at how you arrived at that conclusion. And don't use the "it's junk because macro evolution is false" argument. If the theory is false, the evidence should point in that direction. So discredit the evidence ...
| 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?
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!
|
Of course they are all cats because they are all descendants from a common anscestral lineage that was feline. Let's just ignore the word "macro-evolution" for a second. You are not disputing that cats have "micro-evolved" from one species in the family to several correct? So there is a common ancestor correct? Well guess what, the Felidae common ancestor has been linked to the Miacis family of species some 20-30 million years ago. Therefore the Felidae family line "micro" evolved from the Miacis line (a tree climbing animal with retractable claws). Now the Miacidae family line had a number of species in it that had also "micro evolved" into a wide variety of species. Kind of like how lions, tigers, and tiny kitty cats all micro-evolved in the feline family right? Well it just so happens the Miacidae family had a wide variety of species of different sizes, and wouldn't you know it, but dogs, hyenas, weasels, etc., also "micro" evolved from that line as well. So now dogs and cats don't have an evolutionary link to each other but to the SAME COMMON ANCESTOR. I thought MisterOpus explained this already?
| quote: |
One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond. That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either.
|
So you, a mere mortal, knows what God would and would not do??? My, my, my, we must think very highly of ourselves to be able to tap into and understand the unlimited boundlessnes of what God would choose to do.
| quote: |
No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point.
|
The whole purpose of this forum is to criticize, debate, and argue. If you're looking to keep a journal of your thoughts you've come to the wrong place.
| 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.
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 remeber 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.
Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.
|
Sources please? I would very much like to see this "scientific" evidence.
| quote: |
Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man.
(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.
|
YOu've got to be kidding me ... unicorns??? Well, now I've heard it all. So if God took them off the Earth because man would covet their horns why didn't he take rhinos or elephants?
| quote: |
Impossible. God has always been and always will be.
|
"Me fail english? That's unpossible!"
| 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. (God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.)
|
Yup ... you see what happens when you get an education? What a tragedy.
| quote: |
Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now.
|
Oh? So what's their progress?
Essentially Nessa, your arguments have consisted of extremely basic refutations that carry almost no weight behind them. When provided with evidence to back a claim, you respond with a simplistic "No I know that that's false", "Macro-Evolution is false", "No it's not", etc. without backing up your claims in any way what's so ever. When prompted to show us your evidence you refuse to do so because we would "ignore" so what would be the point? Frankly it's a tactic that boggles the mind and belies your age/maturity. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
damn and I thought the Scottish folk just didn't make sense when they spoke on TV:eek:
;) |
You do realise that sentance is actually gramaticly incorrect? :tongue3 Besides I wrote that at 4am or something give me a little slack! While jacked up on Coke. Coca Cola that is. :eyespop: |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
I've always had a belief in God. I've been raised around it,and I eventually had to make my own choice and I have. |
Which is your choice and I think people should actually respect that. I know I kinda took the piss a bit too (if you could understand my ramblings).
# Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
Does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then.
Definatly not gonna be a whole lot of guys left then is there? :clown:
But in the end what the has this got to do with an ass backwards website??? |
|
|
| Dervish |
^^^^^^^^^^^^
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
Now THATS how to not make sence Yoepus. :D |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Which is your choice and I think people should actually respect that. I know I kinda took the piss a bit too (if you could understand my ramblings).
# Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
Does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then.
Definatly not gonna be a whole lot of guys left then is there? :clown:
|
Not to throw this thread even more offtopic, but ever heard of capital punishment? ;) |
|
|
|
|
