|
Jews Killed Jesus/Passion of the Christ (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
While I agree with the idea that theories arent necessarily imperfect, I dont think you can conclude "And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." from those premises hehe. |
What is your disagreeance with the premises given which would lead you to think otherwise?
And given the humongous amount of known fossil evidence that points to exactly that - humans evolving from ape-like ancestors, what other conclusion would one logically come to? What alternative conclusion would one have? Finally, what positive tested, repeated, observed, and falsifiable evidence would suggest another alternative theory/fact?
Ah hell, this thread was destined for doom anyway. May as well start hijacking now... |
|
|
| ASOT100 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
***falls to floor***
All Hail the Great Cookie Monster!
You Godless heathens, get on your knees and pray to thy Messy Monster right now!!!! |
I'm sold, apparently they found some evidence in the back yard of a trailer park that proves Cookie Monster is the REAL GOD.
All Hail the Great Cookie Monster! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ASOT100
I'm sold, apparently they found some evidence in the back yard of a trailer park that proves Cookie Monster is the REAL GOD.
All Hail the Great Cookie Monster! |
That's right. All who come and submit may worship! How can there be any other God?
***begins Great Cookie Monster gregorian chant*** |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What is your disagreeance with the premises given which would lead you to think otherwise?
And given the humongous amount of known fossil evidence that points to exactly that - humans evolving from ape-like ancestors, what other conclusion would one logically come to? What alternative conclusion would one have? Finally, what positive tested, repeated, observed, and falsifiable evidence would suggest another alternative theory/fact?
Ah hell, this thread was destined for doom anyway. May as well start hijacking now... |
technically with over 40 million complete fossil records there isnt a single transitional animal in there. Archeoptryx? please. Scales into feathers is ing a complicated and that isnt a transition.
also the mitochondrial DNA studies done on early "man" fossils pinpointed them being a different species. Youll ask for my references, then ill ask for yours, and well end up believing what we do right now ;)
**
my whole point was if you read the article that was linked to, after 2 paragraphs he concludes that man evolved. Trust me, it wasnt scientific. Somehow through a brief logic construct he reached that conclusion and THATS what I found ridiculous. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
technically with over 40 million complete fossil records there isnt a single transitional animal in there. |
Well what are all these suckers then?:
Here's a list of the known vertebrate fossil record:
| quote: | Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record
(We start off with primitive jawless fish.)
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
-Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
-Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
-Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
-Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
-Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
-Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.
Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified.
-Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
-Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
-Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
-Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
-Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the -Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!).
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.
-Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
-Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
-Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
-Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
-Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: --
-Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.
Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!
Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.
In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.
Transitions among amphibians
-Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
-Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
-Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
-Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
-Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
-Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:
-Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
-Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
-Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
Finally, here's a recently found fossil:
-Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma. |
Keep in mind this is just from jawless fish to amphibians. Want to keep going up the evolutionary ladder? Just ask.
I know it's hard for creationist minds to accept, but these are, in fact, transitions, acknowledged by all researchers. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply choosing to ignore evidence.
| quote: | | Archeoptryx? please. Scales into feathers is ing a complicated and that isnt a transition. |
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
This shows 18 features that are shared between reptiles and archeopteryx, most of which are not shared with extant bird species. It shares morphological features of that of a reptile and a bird. How much more transitional can you get?
But don't think that's just one mere example of a transitional fossil between dinosaur and bird, here's some others:
Intermediates between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds:
*Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with feathers over much of its body, particularly a feathery ridge along the back and tail, and an abdominal cavity indicating lungs consistent with theropod dinosaurs. [Pei-ji et al, 1998]
*Protarchaeopteryx [Ji et al., 1998]
*Caudipteryx, a dinosaur with feathers, known from two complete skeletons. [Normile, 2000; Ji et al., 1998]
*Microraptor, esp. M. gui [Xing et al., 2003]
*Confuciusornis, a primitive bird, known from hundreds of skeletons.
*Sinornis, an early bird with a mix of primitive and derived characters. [Sereno & Rao, 1992]
*Apsaravis ukhaana, a primitive Mesozoic ornithurine bird from *Mongolia [Norell & Clarke, 2001].
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
You seem to have a tone of skepticism. It kinda borders the Argumetum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.
| quote: | | also the mitochondrial DNA studies done on early "man" fossils pinpointed them being a different species. Youll ask for my references, then ill ask for yours, and well end up believing what we do right now ;) |
Actually I would like your references, if you could sir. Are you referring to Neanderthal man when you mention "early man"? If so, you are correct. I believe it was in '96 when we took samples from 3 different Neanderthals (Krings et al. 1997) , and the results indicated Neanderthals and modern humans represent deep and separate evolutionary lineages, which probably began to diverge in the Middle Pleistocene - a finding independent of, but consistent with, the fossil record. So how does this refute evolution? Strawmen argument.
If this is not what you're referring to, could you please clarify?
**
| quote: | | my whole point was if you read the article that was linked to, after 2 paragraphs he concludes that man evolved. Trust me, it wasnt scientific. Somehow through a brief logic construct he reached that conclusion and THATS what I found ridiculous. |
Well I understood your point, but I believe it to be incorrect and misplaced. The article was referring to the creationist argument of evolution being merely a "theory". That argument is more or less a game of semantics, and Gould's quote couldn't be any more clearer to indicate this. The rest of the article further explains this fact/theory concept. To conclude that man evolved is merely supplemental to the actual article, which given the weight of evidence is not an unsupported assertion, something which creationists tend to adhere to. |
|
|
| Orbax |
-Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
cool? that doesnt prove anything to me. and put all those together and it forms a picture of...a whole bunch of critters with different . I believe in micro evolution, I do. But I have yet to see anything that would make me believe that we had a common ancestor other than Adam.
And why do I believe in Adam? Because through life events I have come to believe that this world is too beautiful, complex, amazing, and God Blessed lucky the way things worked out to think that it was all some cosmic crap shoot. Not terribly logical, but once you make that leap and say to yourself "there must be a creator" you then devote your life to finding the best answer to how you feel the creator works in your life.
Thats it. Im really not going get into this evolution argument because I think it has no relation to wether or not one believes in God. The Christian Bible does say that God created the species immutable and distinct, but I leave that up to the evolutionary Christian to work out for himself.
It all boils down to something pretty simple. This world is too cool for us to be lucky enough to have grown on it. Some might say "it ISNT luck, youre right, its the only planet near here that had the proper elements and...." I chose to believe in a Spiritual answer to the problem of "How and Why are we here?"
And my life has been better for it in physical, emotional, and social ways. Ways that I could document. Most of it has been how deal with people on a day to day interaction. Lots of philosophies, without the spiritual (or at least not spiritual in the way religous types speak of it) part could help people better their lives, but i wasnt able to change into a nicer, better person without the acceptance of Christ. That was what I needed. The Spirit is something we all feel differently. On a spectrum of not-at-all to "God is part of me and I cant ignore it I have to devote my life to Him." and theyre happy either way.
Its your choice. Whatever Head Knowledge you gain or dont after you make the Emotional "heart" decision is only to make you feel better about what you "feel" is right.
I never said people were creatures of logic ;) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You're more than welcome to come join that can of worms:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=156468
I think it would be best not to stear this topic too far off, so come join in on the other thread if you so desire. |
Oh man that thread is a classic. People should at least go there to see the pretty pictures I posted on page 10.
Where are all the intelligent (no pun intended) IDers? Arguing with nessa was fun and all, but you could only be so logical with her before reason broke down. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| I liked Arctic's pic better than yours :( sorry Occ. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
I liked Arctic's pic better than yours :( sorry Occ. |
That bastard. Stole my idea by simply punctuating it with a picture :p. I claim intellectual property rights! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
-Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
cool? that doesnt prove anything to me. and put all those together and it forms a picture of...a whole bunch of critters with different . |
By itself, no, probably wouldn't prove much of anything, other than what you already said - "cool". Taken together with the rest of the list along with comparitive anatomy and physiology, cell and molecular genetics, and the rest of observed known fossil evidence, it's extremely difficult to conclude anything else but evolution.
But that's not what everyone tends to do - look at the observed, tested, repeated, and falsifiable phenomena.
| quote: | | I believe in micro evolution, I do. But I have yet to see anything that would make me believe that we had a common ancestor other than Adam. |
How does one differentiate between micro- and macro-? What's the separation point for you?
I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe the earth is 6,000 yrs. old, and that there was a singular homo sapiens species with the name "Adam", nor have I seen any evidence that another singular homo sapiens species derived from the rib of the first organism, and was optly named "Eve". Perhaps if I see that evidence a little better, I might be able to weigh it against the observed, tested, repeated, and falsifiable evidence of evolution.
| quote: | | And why do I believe in Adam? Because through life events I have come to believe that this world is too beautiful, complex, amazing, and God Blessed lucky the way things worked out to think that it was all some cosmic crap shoot. |
I tend to think how incredibly amazing our lives our because of this incredible cosmic crap shoot. I equally tend to believe that if God had something to do with it (i.e. starting the process in motion), that only goes to show just how truly incredible He really is (hence my personal theistic beliefs).
| quote: | | Not terribly logical, but once you make that leap and say to yourself "there must be a creator" you then devote your life to finding the best answer to how you feel the creator works in your life. |
Hence, the problem with creationists - having a conclusion, then attempting to fit the evidence in any manner possible to support that conclusion.
Fortunately, methodological naturalism (from which science is based) does not adhere to this flawed logic (from which you pointed out) - that is, gathering evidence, observations, tests, and then attempt to make dynamic conclusions based on such.
| quote: | | Thats it. Im really not going get into this evolution argument because I think it has no relation to wether or not one believes in God. The Christian Bible does say that God created the species immutable and distinct, but I leave that up to the evolutionary Christian to work out for himself. |
Fair enough. I would tend to agree with you about the fact that it has no relation to the existence of God. But for some reason, fundamentalist Christians tend to mix this reasoning up. They want so desperately to mold their God into a factual and historic God, yet they seemingly miss the entire point of "faith" in their ridiculous attempts in doing so. When "faith" in that of the supernatural tries to be explained with that of "facts" of the observed and tested natural world, creationists continue to run into problems. Keeping these two ideals separate can never be stressed enough IMO.
| quote: | | It all boils down to something pretty simple. This world is too cool for us to be lucky enough to have grown on it. Some might say "it ISNT luck, youre right, its the only planet near here that had the proper elements and...." I chose to believe in a Spiritual answer to the problem of "How and Why are we here?" |
Some may call this the "God of the gaps" fallacy. That which is not yet unexplainable does not necessitate filling in with "Godidit". Many gaps have been filled. Many more will continue to be filled in time with more knowledge and more discoveries. Science is truly remarkable in this sense.
| quote: | | And my life has been better for it in physical, emotional, and social ways. Ways that I could document. Most of it has been how deal with people on a day to day interaction. Lots of philosophies, without the spiritual (or at least not spiritual in the way religous types speak of it) part could help people better their lives, but i wasnt able to change into a nicer, better person without the acceptance of Christ. That was what I needed. The Spirit is something we all feel differently. On a spectrum of not-at-all to "God is part of me and I cant ignore it I have to devote my life to Him." and theyre happy either way. |
I am most certainly happy for you. Obviously your devotion of spirituality benefited your life.
[QUOTEIts your choice. Whatever Head Knowledge you gain or dont after you make the Emotional "heart" decision is only to make you feel better about what you "feel" is right.[/QUOTE]
"Feel" is definitely the operative word. One that is distinct from that of the observed, and again the differences seen between faith and fact.
| quote: | | I never said people were creatures of logic ;) |
Ain't that the truth. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
hmmm interesting points
my point with not believing in atheism was that they could never prove anything, I mean carbon dating is flawed, so no age of something is accurate. Then the scientists change the theory ever month it seems due to another find. I could start the flaws of darwin's theory but I won't for space and time's sake. I always viewed that the human body was far too complex to be the result of a big bang, the body works well and is completely complex. I don't tend to believe we were a by product of a monkey. People can believe whatever they want and I'll believe what i want. I'm not attacking anyway, I'm happy to argue in pm with orbax about this or with anyone. I like to converse with people with different views, so I can learn about them and they can learn about me. I think the movie was accurate in portraying the death of christ and that's how I thought it was, violent and brutal to the end. Mel Gibson should be given props for making it because he financed the darn thing himself when ppl said no, they would not finance it. It is getting people talking about things, which I feel is healthy. Now about the jewish people saying that it promotes hatred against them, that's wrong. I mean I've known since 1984 that Jesus himself was Jewish and that he died a violent death. It was the crowd of people, who I suspect were varied people who wanted him to die and it was the jewish leaders who got him executed. Now that part of history is confirmed by many sources now what comes next is debated among many, did jesus rise again or did he not, that's the fundamental argument here. That can be argued till the end of time in my opinion. The film is mel gibson's view of how christ died and I think it shows how the death was.....not a nice death. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| hehe. Opus, somehow I still vaguely feel the need to argue with you. At least we agreed on some stuff lol/. |
|
|
|
|
