# Religion Has Done More Bad Than Good



## grape swisha (Aug 4, 2009)

so i was thinkin and i honestly think that religion has done more bad than good in the world. anyways i would like some opinions and why.


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 4, 2009)

For the past 2000 years 95% of the worlds wars were about religon..

Your completly right.


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 4, 2009)

Johnny Retro said:


> For the past 2000 years 95% of the worlds wars were about religon..
> 
> Your completly right.


exactly my thoughts. it seems most wars are religion based.


----------



## ~MoE~ (Aug 4, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> exactly my thoughts. it seems most wars are religion based.


you know i fully agree, like look at the police raids over in aus with all the terrorist and all that planning to take out a army base all be cos of there religion beliefe over in there contry, just makes me so pissed off,


----------



## wm2009 (Aug 5, 2009)

Do you really believe this war is for religion ?


----------



## dpjones (Aug 5, 2009)

Religion is used as an excuse to have wars. People like fighting esp if its not their own race.


----------



## 001 (Aug 5, 2009)

a man who stands for nothing will stand for anything


----------



## DaBeatGoezOn (Aug 5, 2009)

It's not exactly religion that's to be blamed here, it's the fact that most people hate to see someone have a different opinion on their religion, or belief. They just don't want to accept the fact that others have different opinions for themselves. You disagree with them, and they think you're the "enemy" or some bullshit.

That's why I think some of the best people in the world, who can respect other people's beliefs and accept people for what they believe in, are atheists.Religion isn't bad itself, its the fact that the followers of the religion don't want to understand and accept other people's beliefs and practices. 

The day humans learn to accept people and respect their beliefs, will be the day when the world won't be as bad as it is. It'll never become perfect, we all know that, but at least we can frown upon the people who fight and wage wars just to prove to the other guy that his "religion" rules. 


Cheers


----------



## Bud Frosty (Aug 5, 2009)

*My Grandfather was in Brazil around 1926 on a National Geographic expedition to find an expedition that had disappeared the year before. He told me of the 'Christian' missionaries that were also in the area at the time. He said they always had both hands full; their bible in one and a sack for the gold they would pilfer along the way in the other. Oh yeah, the missionary position is what they would use when some poor,young,heathen,native girl needed some 'DEMONS' driven out of her. And they always convinced their deciples to shun or kill the nonbelievers.*

*P.S.- Some of the natives weren't as dumb as they looked though. A few of these missionaries would be skinned alive and left for the insects and other local critters to finish off.*


----------



## wm2009 (Aug 5, 2009)

Bud Frosty said:


> *My Grandfather was in Brazil around 1926 on a National Geographic expedition to find an expedition that had disappeared the year before. He told me of the 'Christian' missionaries that were also in the area at the time. He said they always had both hands full; their bible in one and a sack for the gold they would pilfer along the way in the other. Oh yeah, the missionary position is what they would use when some poor,young,heathen,native girl needed some 'DEMONS' driven out of her. And they always convinced their deciples to shun or kill the nonbelievers.*
> 
> *P.S.- Some of the natives weren't as dumb as they looked though. A few of these missionaries would be skinned alive and left for the insects and other local critters to finish off.*


Uhhh that wasn't actually the message of Jesus.
Damn priests.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

Religion is simply a pre science view of a mysterious world. The world was VERY mysterious in the times of antiquity. Man has always felt a need to explain his surroundings, and without the foundational benefit of science, simply made it up to fit as he went along. 

Today, we are faced with a great population who cling to the old way of explaining things, even AFTER being shown most of the assumptions made by religion are dead wrong.

People LIKE to be superstitious.....but at the same time we have TWO religions (Islam & Christianity) which are CULT based. They NEED and WANT you to believe. There in lies the problem.

That's why I have a soft spot for some religions. I've never had a Buddhist or a Jew knock on my door and try to convert me.


----------



## Bud Frosty (Aug 5, 2009)

wm2009 said:


> Uhhh that wasn't actually the message of Jesus.
> Damn priests.


*These missionaries would give the natives an ultimatum; *

*Believe all (good christian,go to HEAVEN)*

*or*

*Believe nothing (dirty heathen,burn in the fiery pits of hell)*

*And people wonder why white folk aren't trusted in third world countries. It's not necessarily our politics.*


----------



## growthspurt (Aug 5, 2009)

I just recently in my life decided that I would choose to believe in facts and science. I have been happy, but have realized one thing, you need to be a stronger person once you give up your beliefs as you now have NOONE to blame for bad things... do you get my drift.. its been a hard transition...


----------



## dpjones (Aug 5, 2009)

growthspurt said:


> I just recently in my life decided that I would choose to believe in facts and science. I have been happy, but have realized one thing, you need to be a stronger person once you give up your beliefs as you now have NOONE to blame for bad things... do you get my drift.. its been a hard transition...


So true man.

Also the biggest unknown, death, is made easier with a religion.

Many people cling to the hope they will see family/friends in an after life. Without that hope death for some people would be a lot worse i think.

Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

growthspurt said:


> I just recently in my life decided that I would choose to believe in facts and science. I have been happy, but have realized one thing, you need to be a stronger person once you give up your beliefs as you now have NOONE to blame for bad things... do you get my drift.. its been a hard transition...


Yes, religion is the EASY way out. It takes a certain mental discipline to live without myth. I commend you....it will pay dividends to you.


----------



## Bud Frosty (Aug 5, 2009)

*Remember "The Churchlady" on SNL ?*
*I went to church with her, she was a real TWAT. Going camping and fishing with your dad instead of going to church was SATANS work. ( SATAN NTASA SANTA-same guy by the way)*


----------



## 001 (Aug 5, 2009)

religions have been infiltrated


----------



## pillarize (Aug 5, 2009)

As long as people follow the carnal...religion will be created.


----------



## Bud Frosty (Aug 5, 2009)

pillarize said:


> As long as people follow the carnal...religion will be created.


 *What's the carnival got to do with it?*


----------



## Bud Frosty (Aug 5, 2009)

*I like the carnival.*


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

He means uptight nutjobs who like to think about what other ppl are doing in their own bedrooms....


But yes, the carnival is a great place to be carnal. Gotta love the Ferris wheel.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 5, 2009)

wm2009 said:


> Do you really believe this war is for religion ?


Sure Vietnam, WW II, North Korea... wait none of these wars were about religion WTF? 

People believe what they have been taught by liberal teachers?

Oh and those darn Rastafarian's making war with everyone!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

You are naming wars fought for non religious purposes (yes, they exist of course). Let's talk about the previous 2000 years and see how it shakes out. You know when the church was in charge much more than today.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You are naming wars fought for non religious purposes (yes, they exist of course). Let's talk about the previous 2000 years and see how it shakes out. You know when the church was in charge much more than today.


So the original poster is concerned with the role religion has played in historical events (war). Fascinating

Iraq war was over oil right? Or do you believe Islam is to blame?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

Actually the OP didn't bring up the war aspect. The OP merely points out (correctly) that religion is more bad than good.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Actually the OP didn't bring up the war aspect. The OP merely points out (correctly) that religion is more bad than good.


Is there an organization that has done more to feed hungry children than the Catholic church? I'm not Catholic BTW 

Secular humanism being taught in the American public school system certainly accounts for much of the misconception, that Religion does more bad than good, because it's apposed to their believe system (religion).


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

Are you even being serious? 

Let's see, first the church goes in with the European powers and strips the third world of assets and wealth, then feeds the following swells of the poor. 

Hey that's friggin fantastic!!! Take a bow!!! 

Guess who turned it into the third world....


----------



## dpjones (Aug 5, 2009)

Why did the US get involved with the Vietnam war?


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Are you even being serious?
> 
> Let's see, first the church goes in with the European powers and strips the third world of assets and wealth, then feeds the following swells of the poor.
> 
> ...


Way to miss the point

Who feeds more hungry children each year than any other organization? 


*Catholic Charities*

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


Jump to: navigation, search
 
Catholic Charities official logo


*Catholic Charities* is a worldwide network of charities whose aim is to "reduce poverty, support families, and empower communities."[1] It is one of the largest and most respected charities.[2] Catholic Charities traces its origin to an orphanage founded in 1727 in New Orleans, Louisiana by the French Ursulines Sisters.
*Catholic Charities, USA* (CCUSA), with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, is recognized as one of the nation's largest voluntary social service networks. It was founded in 1910 as the _National Conference of Catholic Charities_. More than 1,700 agencies, institutions and organizations make up the Catholic Charities network - including individual organizations of the dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Chicago. Nearly 90 cents of every dollar donated to Catholic Charities agencies goes directly to programs and services.[3]
Together, with the local, diocesan Catholic Charities affiliates, Catholic Charities is the second largest social service provider in the United States and it is only surpassed by the US Federal Government. Often, this means that the CCUSA network is able to provide assistance which other agencies are simply unable to provide or in circumstances where the other assistance is insufficient to provide the necessary aid.


When was the last time you did some charity work, and what are your qualifications? 

And would you rather be treated in a Catholic Hospital, or a government hospital?


----------



## dpjones (Aug 5, 2009)

Do you have any idea how much money the catholic church has?


----------



## Bud Frosty (Aug 5, 2009)

*All of their charitable donations are paid for by the parishoners. The Catholic church never takes a loss. Unless they are paying sexual abuse reparations. And since doing that they have cut money to all of the diocese in the area accounting for the closing of many churches, unless the parishoners wanted to pay their own way.*


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Way to miss the point
> 
> Who feeds more hungry children each year than any other organization?
> 
> ...


You missed the time line! 

The Catholic church is RESPONSIBLE for much of the poverty...... so they should feed them. Maybe they should actually liquidate their unbelievable amount of assets and REALLY feed them...


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You missed the time line!
> 
> The Catholic church is RESPONSIBLE for much of the poverty...... so they should feed them. Maybe they should actually liquidate their unbelievable amount of assets and REALLY feed them...


They really are feeding "them", are you?

Isn't religion the basis for much of what we take for granted. Most religions teach peace hope and charity. Are these bad things? 

If Darwinism is your molar compass then you're far more likely to only care about self preservation right?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

The church simply runs a slick carny scheme, nothing more. Hope in a bottle....after you die. Think about it. It's the ultimate mind control trick. Once you get ppl to swallow that whopper, anything is possible. Once you get the govt.s to give you a pass on taxes...well the money just rolls in ...and builds. Some of it downright stolen at the point of a sword, and some of it given willingly by the desperate of mind or body, or ppl just keeping an insurance policy open, ...just in case  

Have I fed the poor? Most certainly I have, and no nudge from a church was needed. So you just keep feeding them.... you helped create them after all.


----------



## doped909 (Aug 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> They really are feeding "them", are you?
> 
> Isn't religion the basis for much of what we take for granted. Most religions teach peace hope and charity. Are these bad things?
> 
> If Darwinism is your molar compass then you're far more likely to only care about self preservation right?


All human's only care about self-preservation. Even Mother Teresaonly cared about that. Altruism isn't possible for human beings. 

e.g: the only reason anyone helps a child in Africa is because they feel/would feel guilty by not helping them. 

Even with a daughter or son to love them above all else is because they are an extension of one's self. They are the continuation of your genes, name and culture. 

It'd be nice to believe that altruism is possible for human beings, thinking that out there the world is full of people who will do anything for you but it's not and never has been. 

No animal on this planet would ever do anything altruistic. Competition is what has made life on this planet a reality.



> Sure Vietnam, WW II, North Korea... wait none of these wars were about religion WTF?
> 
> People believe what they have been taught by liberal teachers?
> 
> Oh and those darn Rastafarian's making war with everyone!


We think that:

World War 2 was fought due to the fact that Hitler decided the arian race was better than all the others, and that he decided on world domination. I don't exactly know much about Vietnam only that it's regarded as a failure for the American side. The Korean war was being fought on both sides of the border, I am sure a lot of Koreans are insulted to think that people believe only the North was affected. That war was to halt the progression of Communism, a modified version of Marxism, in the world. The communists were portrayed as godless evil doers, and the North Americans were the Christians riding in to save them from there evil ways. 

Religions or beliefs are constantly being used as reasons to go to war. Bush would use god for convincing people the Iraq war was justified.

And finally this isn't to say that religion is innocent. The old testament particularly Deuteronomy 22:28-29 shows just how idiotic the beliefs in this book are. Three apostles writing about the resurrection of Jesus all have different accounts of what happened. Funny how the gospel (an unquestionable truth) can't even decide on what happened.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> They really are feeding "them", are you?
> 
> Isn't religion the basis for much of what we take for granted. Most religions teach peace hope and charity. Are these bad things?
> 
> If Darwinism is your molar compass then you're far more likely to only care about self preservation right?


You arn't really proving anything by saying that, just attacking other peoples saying they don't do shit so why criticize. Its a diversion technique which in the end wont solve any debate.

The bible is full of mostly good morales but arguably based upon a lie. 

The point of whether its better in the long run to believe the lie is a different matter.

The point is the church in most of its history has had anyone who doesn't believe killed. They spread the religion through fear, sugar coating it with eternal happiness once you die.

Its only relatively recently that people have been able to express their personal opinions and not get hung for it that has allowed this new culture to form.

The main problem I think is that Churches are run by man, and man is inherently greedy.

Is it not, for example, hypocrisy for the church to ask working classes to donate money for its causes, yet it sits on goldmines?

Don't get me wrong though. There are people, genuinely good people, who go out of their way to help others less fortunate than themselves. But there is a larger portion who don't. People who call themselves faithful Christians.


----------



## wm2009 (Aug 5, 2009)

The church has made many good things, just look at the thousands of beautiful monuments around Europe and Russia... that without the church they would not exist.


----------



## wm2009 (Aug 5, 2009)

Green Cross I don't blame the liberal media, because anyone can choose what to see, I blame repression in any way.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

It would be nice to think that the church earned all that money to pay for those monuments wouldn't it? Yah, it'd be nice to think that.....but it wouldn't be true. What percentage of monies collected has been dispersed to ease the suffering? If the mythical man named Jesus came back, he would be appalled sir.... simply appalled to see what has been done in his name. 

Of course no one would believe him and we would all end up putting his arse back up on the cross...


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Sure Vietnam, WW II, North Korea... wait none of these wars were about religion WTF?
> 
> People believe what they have been taught by liberal teachers?
> 
> Oh and those darn Rastafarian's making war with everyone!


yea WWII actually started because hitler didnt like jews so in a way it was from religion.


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Is there an organization that has done more to feed hungry children than the Catholic church? I'm not Catholic BTW
> 
> Secular humanism being taught in the American public school system certainly accounts for much of the misconception, that Religion does more bad than good, because it's apposed to their believe system (religion).


feeding the hungry children is a way to spread the religion.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 6, 2009)

Yes, the church uses butter instead of guns now.....different methodology for a different time. The goal is still the same... to spread the cult and set up the coffers. Religion no doubt is a comfort to some, but the price is far too high.


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 6, 2009)

001 said:


> a man who stands for nothing will stand for anything


Don't you mean "a man who stands for nothing will fall for everything?

I take it you've watched The Arrivals


----------



## cbtwohundread (Aug 8, 2009)

no,.,.,.but evil man has done more bad then go0d,government has done more bad than go0d,science has done more bad than go0d,systems have done more bad than go0d,lies have done more bad than go0d,greed has also done the same,until we change our habits and cleanse our minds of illusion we will do more bad then go0d


----------



## dpjones (Aug 9, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> no,.,.,.but evil man has done more bad then go0d,government has done more bad than go0d,science has done more bad than go0d,systems have done more bad than go0d,lies have done more bad than go0d,greed has also done the same,until we change our habits and cleanse our minds of illusion we will do more bad then go0d


Are you mocking someone with 'go0d' or is that just a ocd thing?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 9, 2009)

Biting my tongue!!!!


----------



## GeeHaych (Aug 10, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Do you have any idea how much money the catholic church has?


 Originally Posted by *CrackerJax*  
_Are you even being serious? 

Let's see, first the church goes in with the European powers and strips the third world of assets and wealth, then feeds the following swells of the poor. 

Hey that's friggin fantastic!!! Take a bow!!! 

Guess who turned it into the third world.... _
Way to miss the point

Who feeds more hungry children each year than any other organization? 


I think the focus of this thread is going slightly off topic, understandable this is a very complex subject-

Imo however, feeding hungry children is great I'm glad the catholic church is being productive with (to my knowledge) the large amount of money it has-

Regardless, when religion is involved in the political realm major problems arise-

If politicians and world leaders could set their personal beliefs aside, work together for the betterment of humanity the world would be a much better place- (I think this would also allow more clearity of voting, less for some politicians to hide behind)

What people wish to do in their private lives, as long as it is not harming others is no problem by me-

Therefore, As long as religion is allowed in political arena's and ideals, I would have to say that Imo yes religion is in this day and in the past (documented history) causing more harm then it is good-

I would love to see a large scale seperation of "Church and State"


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 10, 2009)

geehaych made a good point


----------



## caliboy80 (Aug 10, 2009)

even if there was'nt religion i think ppl would have fought war's for some other reason its human/animal nature to fight... but ya religion is bs, im sure in a few hundread years religion willl prob b gone


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 10, 2009)

Sure did and points out the hypocrisy of the Church who WALLOWS in EVERYONE'S politics. 

I have said that repeatedly....I have no problems with religions which keep to themselves.


----------



## phatlip (Aug 10, 2009)

I feel that many of the most horrible things in the history of mankind has been done in the name of religion. I think the reason is, for instance, people take the stories in the bible way too literally. The bible is a book with stories that help people live their lives better, The message of the bible is fantastic if used for its ideas, not to be taken literally. I also feel that religion gives people the oportunity to place all blame, good or bad, on something other than themselves. For isnatnce, When a drunk driver kills a family, its the devil or "gods will." WRONG! Some ass hole made a desicion to get hammered and drive, THAT IS IT! 

Going back to Taking the bible to literally... Think about this... A man comes across a burning bush, and "talks to god"... Wouldnt it make sense that the plant was marijuana, the dude got stoned and had some minor hallucinations... How would this have been described back then? Science? There was no science! the only option for that time would have been a higher power or god... Really think about that!

Remember, religion isnt always a bad thing. if used to live your life in a better way, like using the bible as a guide and a book of life lessons, that ALL!!

The Fact of the Matter is, humans need a guide! people are afraid to make their own desicions

YOU'RE NOT TRULY FREE UNTIL YOUR FREE OF RELIGION!!


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 10, 2009)

thats what my thoughts are


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 10, 2009)

Historically, tons of folks walked around back then with Vitamin B deficiencies, which can cause hallucinations.

Hallucinations were COMMON back then, and without science to define what it was.... mysticism was the accepted answer. Totally incorrect but it was all they had to go on.

Either way, all of the stories have been highly edited and compiled by the very ppl who profit by it, so how can it be trusted? It cannot.


----------



## Jack747 (Aug 10, 2009)

Religion has given lots of people hope and happiness. Without it the world would not be the same. Human nature needs something to live for. I think a world leader is the suggestion...


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 10, 2009)

Religion does bring hope. A FALSE hope however. I've said this before and am quite aware of how primitive we still are as a species despite the technological prowess. Why does religion still exist? Because man wants it to. Man needs the comfort. That doesn't make religion correct nor does it make religion the best choice.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 11, 2009)

Judging someone else's religion, or attacking religion in general, is a form of bigotry every bit as bad as racism.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 11, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> Judging someone else's religion, or attacking religion in general, is a form of bigotry every bit as bad as racism.


You sir are incorrect. Taken from wikipedia:

"A *bigot* is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.[1] *Bigotry* is the corresponding mindset or action.
The term *bigot* is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animus toward those of differing devotion."


The key word is irrationality. Here we are doing nothing of the such and are discussing it in a civil and very rational manner.


You have just attached a personal meaning to the word bigotry, that of hate or as you said racism.


Since you made such statement would i be correct in guessing that you yourself are religious in one form of another. And are seeing this thread as a personal attack on yourself and have come running to your religions defence?


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 11, 2009)

dpjones said:


> You sir are incorrect. Taken from wikipedia:
> 
> "A *bigot* is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.[1] *Bigotry* is the corresponding mindset or action.
> The term *bigot* is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animus toward those of differing devotion."
> ...


In fact, I am totally non-religious, but I know a bigot when I see one and you're a bigot. As for irrational - attempting to discuss religion without doing it from all points of view is just that. More like uneducated and sophomoric. When this thread gets around to Kierkegaard and Sartre in its "rational" discussion of religion I'll take notice.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 11, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> In fact, I am totally non-religious, but I know a bigot when I see one and you're a bigot. As for irrational - attempting to discuss religion without doing it from all points of view is just that. More like uneducated and sophomoric. When this thread gets around to Kierkegaard and Sartre in its "rational" discussion of religion I'll take notice.


Well now you have just insulted me. Congratulations.

What would we have to discuss to look at all points of view? Its true we have mainly focused on Christianity but that should not matter to much in regards to the topic at hand.

And why must we discuss famous philosophers to make our discussions valid?

I was not aware one must have a degree in philosophy and an in depth knowledge of all the previous philosophers and arguments to be allowed to discuss these things.

I must also add that you are not required to take notice of this thread.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 11, 2009)

This is what debates of religion always end up as.... if you debate it well on the "other side" (logic and historical perspective), someone always cries foul. 

If religion cannot be disseminated to address the errors, we get back to a standstill where ppl don't like to have beliefs actually examined. This is precisely what is wrong with Religion. if religion had its way, any scientific discovery would have been squashed and technological advancements would have slowed to a crawl. the church would in the end be not too different from the modern day islamic Mullahs, who are about 500 years behind us in modern thought and acceptance. the church accepts it ONLY because it has to. Don't think the church hasn't fought tooth and nail in the past to have science repressed. religion is for the lazy minded.


----------



## phatlip (Aug 11, 2009)

illegal Smile: This is a thread on a forum... the title asked for an opinion... you say were not covering all the facts n shit... then tell us please, give your opinion and "The facts" the rest of us dont know... please enlighten us!

And Crackerjx ur absolutely right! The church has tried crushing many scientific projects... For instances when Darwin wrote The origin of Species, the Church was in primary control over scientific discovery... Darwins theories werent accepted until real scientists were able to examine it some 40 years later? (could be wrong on how long it was until it was an accepted scientific theory)
And now its the basis for eveolutionay biology and many other scientific fields


----------



## wm2009 (Aug 11, 2009)

It's not 'bigot', i'ts just supid, The atheist will be more atheist, the believer will be more believer


----------



## NyneBKASky (Aug 11, 2009)

real talk
religion is a mass of BULLSHIT
i just hate those religious zealots 
i mean it teaches good ways 
but you got these fanatics that just
take it way too far


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 11, 2009)

Want a book to take you through life?


Get "The Cat In The Hat".


----------



## fish601 (Aug 11, 2009)

in the beginning there was nothing then poof 15billion years later here i am typing this message. I think i will believe another story hmm, hmm wut else is there?...religion? In the begining God created... sounds better than nothing created everything we were all athiest before we started believing in god



*Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare.*
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/war_and_religion.html


*War and Religion*

A slew of books by "evangelical" atheists have claimed that most of the world's suffering (including most wars) are the direct result of religious differences and the discord that it fosters. Such statements are seldom backed up by real evidence (other than citing a handful of wars that seem to be the result of religious differences).Does religion really lead to war?

Rich Deem


----------



## cbtwohundread (Aug 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Sure did and points out the hypocrisy of the Church who WALLOWS in EVERYONE'S politics.
> 
> I have said that repeatedly....I have no problems with religions which keep to themselves.


 and i have no problem with idiots that ke3p to themselves.,.,ure point of view is very obscured in my opinion,.but some say im crazy,so wat do we kno,


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 11, 2009)

excellent post fish601!

I have no problem with people who believe in God/Allah/YHWH/The Creator, but atheists are just *lame*.

As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

The Big Bang was mentioned in the Quran; along with many other scientific facts for those with open eyes, mind and heart. Such scriptures could not have been made up by
desert dwellers, since many of the miracles and marvels of the Quran were only confirmed by science in the last 100 years.

If one believes that religion has done more bad than good, then just look at what mankind has done to his abode (i.e. planet Earth) regardless of religion.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

We can quote Einstein all day, that's no problem, but suffice it to say he was more religious in the beginning, than towards the end of his life, which is quite natural. He examined Religion and found it wanting, as do I. As do many others.

by the way, did you guys catch the meteor shower last night? That would have been BIG MEDICINE back 2000 years ago.  Pre science explanations.......that's religion. 

So Fish, in the beginning. Was it the beginning? No way of knowing that. Why wait 15 Billion years by the way. Why go through the earth being here a few Billion years before us? Why go through 200 million years of Dinos? Insect age? Megafauna age? Practice?

It simply makes no sense and on just about every scientific frontier, the church, and the Bible have been wrong.

Should science replace religion? NO, there's nothing there to replace. Just let it go and let's get down to some serious investigation and head, wherever it leads us. No more distractions......


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 12, 2009)

Some of you folks seem to begin by examining religion and deciding it isn't for you. But you don't stop there. You then have a slightly creepy need to make religion wrong for everyone, and to judge the religious. As I said in the other thread, religion is the synthetic apriori and it's a part of human nature. You all have some variation of the same psychological orientation that leads people to religion. Assuming you are human.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

Religion is what it is. A crutch for answers unknown. That's fine, but when ppl take the unknown and try to throw a backward book at everybody and say this is the answer, I must speak up. It's quite ridiculous.

Again, I'd have no problem if Christianity wasn't a cult, but it is, and has gone on far too long, and is holding us back!


----------



## dpjones (Aug 12, 2009)

fish601 said:


> in the beginning there was nothing then poof 15billion years later here i am typing this message. I think i will believe another story hmm, hmm wut else is there?...religion? In the begining God created... sounds better than nothing created everything we were all athiest before we started believing in god
> 
> Rich Deem


The answer is, i think, something to do with quantum physics (complicated physics which isn't fully understood yet). Just because we do not fully understand it does not mean it cant be true. There was a time when every human being believed the Earth to be flat. Also that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything orbited around it. Anybody who disagreed was hung by the church.

You could also use your argument against you, there was nothing and then poof God made everything?

Also i object to you just labelling anyone who is not a Christian as an atheist.

What is your take on all the other big religions? Are they all wrong?



Illegal Smile said:


> Some of you folks seem to begin by examining religion and deciding it isn't for you. But you don't stop there. You then have a slightly creepy need to make religion wrong for everyone, and to judge the religious. As I said in the other thread, religion is the synthetic apriori and it's a part of human nature. You all have some variation of the same psychological orientation that leads people to religion. Assuming you are human.


First off I was a Christian for 10 years of my life before I started questioning it. All my family are Christians. I would never try and persuade them that their beliefs are wrong as it is a terrible thing to take away a persons hope.

When you talk a bout a 'creepy' need to judge everyone else based on their religions, isn't that what Christians do everyday.

The whole if you do not repent your sins and ask God into your life you WILL go to hell and burn for eternity seems kinda hypocritical imo.

Could you expand on "As I said in the other thread, religion is the synthetic apriori and it's a part of human nature. You all have some variation of the same psychological orientation that leads people to religion."

Apart from using some terms I am not familiar with, and I think you knew most people wouldn't be, I don't understand where you are going with it.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 12, 2009)

dpjones said:


> The answer is, i think, something to do with quantum physics (complicated physics which isn't fully understood yet). Just because we do not fully understand it does not mean it cant be true. There was a time when every human being believed the Earth to be flat. Also that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything orbited around it. Anybody who disagreed was hung by the church.
> 
> You could also use your argument against you, there was nothing and then poof God made everything?
> 
> ...


Of course I knew most people wouldn't be familiar with it and my purpose was to point out that all of this has been discussed at great length hundreds of years ago and none of us have anything to add. The discussion here is very low level. Anyone seriously undertaking a discussion of god and religion should know exactly what synthetic apriori is before starting. Most of you quite literally don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

Well, hundreds of years ago, we had an entirely different church than we do today, so a lot has changed. at least ppl aren't killed for resisting the church anymore... that's good.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 12, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> Of course I knew most people wouldn't be familiar with it and my purpose was to point out that all of this has been discussed at great length hundreds of years ago and none of us have anything to add. The discussion here is very low level. Anyone seriously undertaking a discussion of god and religion should know exactly what synthetic apriori is before starting. Most of you quite literally don't know what you are talking about.


If you had wanted to you could of put what you said into laymen terms and everybody would of understood.

I don't agree that people don't have a right to discuss these things unless they know the ins and outs. That seems to be a superior perspective and could be construed as being almost arrogant.

If these things are never discussed, even on a very basic level then surely the majority's would remain ignorant? Or would that be better?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

For the most part in society, only one side is told. Many variations but still...one side.


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 12, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Sure Vietnam, WW II, North Korea... wait none of these wars were about religion WTF?
> 
> People believe what they have been taught by liberal teachers?
> 
> Oh and those darn Rastafarian's making war with everyone!


Maybe WW2 wasnt started by religon But it sure played a huge role..


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 12, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> Some of you folks seem to begin by examining religion and deciding it isn't for you. But you don't stop there. *You then have a slightly creepy need to make religion wrong for everyone*, and to judge the religious. As I said in the other thread, religion is the synthetic apriori and it's a part of human nature. You all have some variation of the same psychological orientation that leads people to religion. Assuming you are human.


You want to talk about creepy?
My 11 year old son having a bible pushed in his face while waiting for his bus after school by some random guy.
Trying to convert 11 year olds? common


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

Gee, how did I miss that one? Darn right religion had a lot to do with WW2. Go ask the Vatican who was in bed with Hitler. 

Just imagine if Hitler had actually won the war? Hitler takes control of the strategic points of the globe and grows Germany to be a super nation that would dwarf the modern US today. 

The church would've thrown in with the winner of WW2, whomever it might have been......hands down. Hands down!!



Check this story out... Church caught in "rewrite" GOSH!!!! That's not possible!! The Bible is the word......word of the church......which rewrites faster than a flying eraser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5314338/Dont-mention-the-Popes-Hitler-Youth-past-says-the-Vatican.html


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 12, 2009)

The Vatican is evil. Pope Benedict looks like a demon.


----------



## phatlip (Aug 12, 2009)

Ok so as far as the big bang theory goes, dont bash it until u understand it... Most people dont understand spacestime, not time & space, but spacetime... The easiest way to explain space time to those of u who dont know would be that the universe and everything in the universe are not traveling through time and into the future, however, evrything happens within spacetime... a simple project to represent this would be to take two pieces of stretchy fabrics and lay them on top of each other. Now there is no space in between the two fabrics, representing the time before the big bang. now suspend some marbles in the middle of the two fabrics while keeping the edges pinched together. the area inside the two sheets of fabric represent spacetime. Look at these tow links... maybe they will halp u to understand,

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/Einstein/Einstein.html

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

as far as god, just making evrything appear or whatever is absolutley absurd... My favorite example of this is in an episode of family guy. Some of u may have seen it. It has a scene with peter doing a flashback to eveolution and has him walking out of the water and evolving legs, then into a dinosaur, then whatever else, which is obviuosly not exactly correct. but then it shows " the churches alternative to the theory of evolution" and they have the girl from "I Dream Of Jeanie" walk out of the water, she does her little nose wiggle/ head bob, and a cat, mail man, car, alligator, etc... just appear with each nose twitch/ head bob.. Ha ha ha which is essentially how it would have happened if god just created everything.

Also how could the earth only be 4000 years old or whatever you religious folks believe in... which is cool... it must have really been hard living with dinosaurs dont u think? and then we survived the crater that killed all the dinosaurs... but not us... nothing can kill us cuz were made in the image of the lord right... Humans are the best and everything else on the planet is to further the agenda of god and the human race... what do u think his plan is? cuz why would he want a bunch of people worshiping him? maybe he is planning a interstellar attack on a far off planet... makes sense right?


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 12, 2009)

What created the first seed, or did it happen by accident? LOL 

But getting make on point, 99% of the world is religious, and I'm unaware of religion doing many bad things. Well except human sacrifice and stuff, but that's ancient news. 

what is the fascination with trying to find fault with religion? This is being taught by liberal professors in liberal colleges right? Don't believe everything you hear a liberal say


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 12, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> The Vatican is evil. Pope Benedict looks like a demon.


Yes he is, that dirty lil' Nazi


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 12, 2009)

CrackerJax, without the help of your former president's grandpa Hitler could have never risen to such a point.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 12, 2009)

has atheism done more bad or good? I know Adolf Hitler called religion a fairytale, and the godless commies did everything they could to destroy the peoples faith in anything more powerful than government - kind of like they are doing today - obama says we're not a christian nation, so what are we?


----------



## zorkan (Aug 12, 2009)

fish601 said:


> in the beginning there was nothing then poof 15billion years later here i am typing this message. I think i will believe another story hmm, hmm wut else is there?...religion? In the begining God created... sounds better than nothing created everything we were all athiest before we started believing in god
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

anyone know if this is true?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 12, 2009)

dpjones said:


> You could also use your argument against you, there was nothing and then poof God made everything?
> 
> Also i object to you just labelling anyone who is not a Christian as an atheist.
> 
> What is your take on all the other big religions? Are they all wrong?


1. yes, if god was created he wouldnt be god

2. I didnt not lable anyone who is not a christian as an atheist. 

3. Yes all other religions are wrong. if they were right i would join them


----------



## chitownsmoking (Aug 12, 2009)

religion is good. everyone needs something to beleave in or this world would just be too unbearable.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 12, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Why wait 15 Billion years by the way.
> 
> It simply makes no sense and on just about every scientific frontier, the church, and the Bible have been wrong.
> ....


 does it matter what year i put

will you list 1 time the bible has been wrong on the scientific frontier? I believe you i would just like to see it for myself


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 12, 2009)

If the Bible was so correct then why would they have to revise and edit it every once in a while?


----------



## HarvestFest2010 (Aug 12, 2009)

The belief in God is so important. You can't really believe in evolution. We are all too young, our ancestry can only go back so far. Think about calculating the population backwards. There is no way we have been around for millions of years. Carbon dating is BS, carbon is stable but i am sure that it degrades exponentially, and different than how scientists say. I think that dinosaurs ate there way into extinction, and whatever was left we ate. A dinosaur had to be easier to kill than a wolly. And that ice age also probly killed a bunch more. There are not alot of places where non hyranating lizards live in the present day. I am sure that crusaders probly killed the rest of them. 

The key thing is there has to be some sort of god, and the messages passed through religious books are GOOD! Its when people who are just genetically bad, raised wrong, what have you get a hold of that same info and twist it around to control others. To a point we must be controlled. I think that alot of religious teachings are purely good. The problem comes when religious folks raise money to ensure that i cannot have religious and medicinal freedom in my natural born country. Thats whats messed up. And, oh , how they hate gays. Why, well cause the church and its ways often lead people to being gay just to piss of thier folks. What a joke. Another instance is when they have gay kids, the born gay kind. Yea thats a mess. Anyways I would suggest we all find god, because there is just no way that someone, or something did not have something to do with our existance. We are like a mix between a monkey, a pig, and a reptile. And when i say reptile take a good close look at the skin on your hands and legs. Smooth as they may be, still the pattern is there. And the pig, well there are no other animals that are more like us besides monkeys. Pigs have our skin color. Pigs can only have colors just like Human race colors. And that is also dictated in the dermis, just like humans. And of course monkeys cause they are the closest thing to our shape and nasal structure and flat face. So we were not evolved we were genetically engineered. And the Nazis figured it out, The US has known for quite a while. Why do you think that we stopped stem cell research. Its not for lack of aborted fetuses. Its cause like in out past history some things can only be explored so far until things that change mankind as we know it are discovered. Imagine all the people that already know these things from.........anyways, there is a god. And god must be respected, and if some want to prey. Let them prey. If we have done so in one way or another for thousands of years there must be more than comfort and control. A sence of purpose, and a reason for being is always nice to have in life. 

But if you want to go around life in one dimension, or i guess three then ok. But just think of how much better heaven would be then eternal nothingness. Like the time between when you fall asleep and wawke up, no dreams. Like those times when you wake up and it was like you were asleep for minutes, yet it was hours. You must understand gods time. 7 days could be 70,000 years. And that flood, yea it could have been so bad that people never forgot. It could have been a little glacial meltdown from the emmission we put off! I am willing to be our asses put out more emmissions leaving a buffett than the car does on the way home. Methan is really bad for the ozone. Burt up its ok i think. Anyways take a good look around, people are a little bit more than super monkeys!


----------



## fish601 (Aug 12, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> If the Bible was so correct then why would they have to revise and edit it every once in a while?


well if you printed and sold books wouldnt you want to make money off it? 
there are some bibles that i would not buy because "they" added and deleted words and some have entire scriptures left out


----------



## HarvestFest2010 (Aug 12, 2009)

I like the ideas of islam. Its like christianity and judism and a bit of acceptance of budism. The problem is it is too harsh to women. I know they are a pain in the ass at work, but it doesn't take long to hit a snag that only a woman can do right. Or better a man could give a crap. I think in reality we all were women once and a dick attached to us. Kind of like the angler fish. The male is not much more that a dick with fins. There is a better chance of this voodoo dick rushing a womens vagina, then with little pinchers pulled the ovalries and pulled so hard they fell in a sack. The vagina like the powerful feeling of manhood and sqeezed down on the dick inside here. With the avalires now balls the dick tried to escape. Ah, but the dick ran out the wrong hole. That is why we urinate throght the dick and no under it. So now this women will no longer need breasts, but mussle...and the mad was created.

This is a story i made up with picture in a college presentation. I was stopped three times, it was pres. for a religion & mythology class. With my pictures and ellaborate explanation they started to shut up and listen. I believe there is a couple of african cultures that believe something like this. The stange thin is there is no way they ever say an archer fish. They are in the bottom of the ocean. 

Thats the problem with islam, they have all sorts of these kind of explanations. I really hate how there creation is with the chewed up start. I think like so many other that we are all wrong, and all right at the same problem. That this contradiction is what we need to ever get to the truth.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 12, 2009)

Look at all the greedy, evil people in the world, do you think they would have left the bible unblemished, or preached in a way you could understand? The truth is out there, you just need to find it. The bible is in history, just study it to find out why, when, where and who. Look at how many leaders crusade around as religious people, yet they commit crimes against humanity. Why do all of these "great", "religious" nations eventually fall throughout history?

Look at the big picture.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 12, 2009)

bad preachers doesnt mean a bad God


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

fish601 said:


> well if you printed and sold books wouldnt you want to make money off it?
> there are some bibles that i would not buy because "they" added and deleted words and some have entire scriptures left out


But the fact remains that you don't know which version is truer than the other, if at all. You don't know until you are told. Told by whom? Who told them? It's all quite silly.


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 12, 2009)

fish601 said:


> there are some bibles that i would not buy because "they" added and deleted words and some have entire scriptures left out


Yes, which is why we Muslims believe your Bible is not (or at least no longer) the word of God. It is the word of man. There was no Bible when Jesus was on earth!

At least the Quran has remained exactly as it was when revealed to Muhammad. Not one letter has been altered!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

fish601 said:


> does it matter what year i put
> 
> will you list 1 time the bible has been wrong on the scientific frontier? I believe you i would just like to see it for myself




Uhhhh, how about the fact that for CENTURIES the church INSISTED that the sun revolves around the earth. Kind of a biggie, and yet.... absolutely wrong. Ppl had to hide from the church because of this nonsense!


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 12, 2009)

HarvestFest2010 said:


> I like the ideas of islam. Its like christianity and judism and a bit of acceptance of budism. The problem is it is too harsh to women.
> 
> Thats the problem with islam, they have all sorts of these kind of explanations. I really hate how there creation is with the chewed up start. I think like so many other that we are all wrong, and all right at the same problem. That this contradiction is what we need to ever get to the truth.


I don't think the true teachings of Islam are so harsh on women. Politics as always have abused this and do treat our women like crap, but the way I see it true Muslims respect women way more than mainstream society. We don't look at women as pieces of meat. At least we don't breed whores and generations of bastards. Don't forget that the first martyr of Islam was a woman...

And I don't see how we can all be right and wrong at the same time. It really is black and white, positive and negative, light and dark, good and evil, etc. But unlike Christianity we believe that a soul is innocent until it knowingly does wrong. We believe that the soul is judged on intentions and not actions, and that truly "no soul shall bear the burden of another"; Jesus included


----------



## dpjones (Aug 13, 2009)

fish601 said:


> 1. yes, if god was created he wouldnt be god
> 
> 2. I didnt not lable anyone who is not a christian as an atheist.
> 
> 3. Yes all other religions are wrong. if they were right i would join them


1) Why would God suddenly make man one day after spending so long chilling?

Why has God not shown himself to mankind? He could appear before the world and being all powerfull he could make everyone know he is real. There would be no questions of is he real or is he fake because he is God.

Why did God create man? So they could worship him?

Why does God let innocent people die? And you better not start spouting original sin bullshit at me.

How can you possibly say that you are 100% right in your belief when its very obvious from history that man knows little about the world we live in.

Surely the only real truth is that we know nothing at all.


2) My point was not everyone who isnt religious is Atheist.

3) How could you possibly know if these religions are right or wrong when you would never seriously consider them.

That last statement of yours is so full of ignorance that I am a little shocked someone even considered it and then said it.

Also to all the people that have written down scientific facts 'proving' religion. Just because no one is correcting or questioning you do not consider yourself right. 

If you are one of the people who has stated a fact then please go back and read up on it. Because most of the things i saw where grossly incorrect, according to general scientific beliefs.

I stopped reading one persons post when they said "Its when people who are just genetically bad"


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> I don't think the true teachings of Islam are so harsh on women. Politics as always have abused this and do treat our women like crap, but the way I see it true Muslims respect women way more than mainstream society. We don't look at women as pieces of meat. At least we don't breed whores and generations of bastards. Don't forget that the first martyr of Islam was a woman...
> 
> And I don't see how we can all be right and wrong at the same time. It really is black and white, positive and negative, light and dark, good and evil, etc. But unlike Christianity we believe that a soul is innocent until it knowingly does wrong. We believe that the soul is judged on intentions and not actions, and that truly "no soul shall bear the burden of another"; Jesus included


I will say this about Islam. It was the first "modern" (<---very loose word) religion to put women up more as equals and not chattel. Islam suffers from the same symptoms as Christianity, but at least has a measurable origin point with Mohammad actually being a clear historical and real man.


----------



## phatlip (Aug 13, 2009)

HarvestFest2010 said:


> The belief in God is so important. You can't really believe in evolution. We are all too young, our ancestry can only go back so far. Think about calculating the population backwards. There is no way we have been around for millions of years. Carbon dating is BS, carbon is stable but i am sure that it degrades exponentially, and different than how scientists say. I think that dinosaurs ate there way into extinction, and whatever was left we ate. A dinosaur had to be easier to kill than a wolly. And that ice age also probly killed a bunch more. There are not alot of places where non hyranating lizards live in the present day. I am sure that crusaders probly killed the rest of them.
> 
> The key thing is there has to be some sort of god, and the messages passed through religious books are GOOD! Its when people who are just genetically bad, raised wrong, what have you get a hold of that same info and twist it around to control others. To a point we must be controlled. I think that alot of religious teachings are purely good. The problem comes when religious folks raise money to ensure that i cannot have religious and medicinal freedom in my natural born country. Thats whats messed up. And, oh , how they hate gays. Why, well cause the church and its ways often lead people to being gay just to piss of thier folks. What a joke. Another instance is when they have gay kids, the born gay kind. Yea thats a mess. Anyways I would suggest we all find god, because there is just no way that someone, or something did not have something to do with our existance. We are like a mix between a monkey, a pig, and a reptile. And when i say reptile take a good close look at the skin on your hands and legs. Smooth as they may be, still the pattern is there. And the pig, well there are no other animals that are more like us besides monkeys. Pigs have our skin color. Pigs can only have colors just like Human race colors. And that is also dictated in the dermis, just like humans. And of course monkeys cause they are the closest thing to our shape and nasal structure and flat face. So we were not evolved we were genetically engineered. And the Nazis figured it out, The US has known for quite a while. Why do you think that we stopped stem cell research. Its not for lack of aborted fetuses. Its cause like in out past history some things can only be explored so far until things that change mankind as we know it are discovered. Imagine all the people that already know these things from.........anyways, there is a god. And god must be respected, and if some want to prey. Let them prey. If we have done so in one way or another for thousands of years there must be more than comfort and control. A sence of purpose, and a reason for being is always nice to have in life.
> 
> But if you want to go around life in one dimension, or i guess three then ok. But just think of how much better heaven would be then eternal nothingness. Like the time between when you fall asleep and wawke up, no dreams. Like those times when you wake up and it was like you were asleep for minutes, yet it was hours. You must understand gods time. 7 days could be 70,000 years. And that flood, yea it could have been so bad that people never forgot. It could have been a little glacial meltdown from the emmission we put off! I am willing to be our asses put out more emmissions leaving a buffett than the car does on the way home. Methan is really bad for the ozone. Burt up its ok i think. Anyways take a good look around, people are a little bit more than super monkeys!


Ok so u just have no idea what u are talking about... ok so they dont use carbon dating for dinosaurs because it only works up to 60,000 years... so right there that tells us dinosaurs are def older than 60,000 years old... they would use other methods like potassium-argon dating... and Carbon-14 dating is a proven scientific method... unlike u religious folks whose only "proof" of god is... oh wait there is no proof, you got have "Faith"... i will take fact over faith any day of the week. before u go on blabbing like ur some sort of theological scientist or some shit cuz u dont even know what carbon dating really is... and u honeslty think it would be easier to kill a pack of raptors or a 35 foot tall tyrannasaurus with a long stick... dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and to think otherwise is absolutely proposterous!

please explain to me how god just plopped everything onto the earth! oh wait i know ur answer "faith"

and as far as ur people being good and bad speeech, evil is taught! no person is born evil.

many people in here need to look up the difference between religion and philosophy... example/ Christianity, catholics, scientoligists, etc.. are religions... buddhism, confushism, are philosphies... read up on it


----------



## sunshine1754 (Aug 13, 2009)

I AM sure that GOD exists.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

That's called faulty logic. Many suffer from it.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Uhhhh, how about the fact that for CENTURIES the church INSISTED that the sun revolves around the earth. Kind of a biggie, and yet.... absolutely wrong. Ppl had to hide from the church because of this nonsense!


 
a "church" can say anything they want to... i was asking about the bible


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

phatlip said:


> Ok so u just have no idea what u are talking about... ok so they dont use carbon dating for dinosaurs because it only works up to 60,000 years... so right there that tells us dinosaurs are def older than 60,000 years old... they would use other methods like potassium-argon dating... and Carbon-14 dating is a proven scientific method... unlike u religious folks whose only "proof" of god is... oh wait there is no proof, you got have "Faith"... i will take fact over faith any day of the week. before u go on blabbing like ur some sort of theological scientist or some shit cuz u dont even know what carbon dating really is... and u honeslty think it would be easier to kill a pack of raptors or a 35 foot tall tyrannasaurus with a long stick... dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and to think otherwise is absolutely proposterous!
> 
> please explain to me how god just plopped everything onto the earth! oh wait i know ur answer "faith"
> 
> ...


 
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.


Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> Yes, which is why we Muslims believe your Bible is not (or at least no longer) the word of God. It is the word of man. There was no Bible when Jesus was on earth!
> 
> At least the Quran has remained exactly as it was when revealed to Muhammad. Not one letter has been altered!


thats a dumb argument.. i can print the Quran and change every other word in it if i wanted to.. 

the original text of of the bible isnt changing its just money hungry people that print the "new" bibles


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

dpjones said:


> 1) Why would God suddenly make man one day after spending so long chilling?
> 
> Why has God not shown himself to mankind?
> 
> ...


 
*1a*. how would i know?
*1b* he has and some (you) still dont believe
*1c *i dont know
*1d* is dieing bad? maybe u mean suffer
He assures us that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). So even suffering is part of the all things that God is using to accomplish His good purposes. His plan is perfect, His character is flawless, and those who trust Him will not be disappointed.

2......
3 i didnt just stumble onto christianity i looked at alot of religions. if you look at prophecies, other historical documents, and really good answers to all the supposed contradictions, you would be a christian also. remember i wasnt born a christian.

if you really want to know some good christian answers check out gotquestions.org in my sig


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Mohammad actually being a clear historical and real man.


That is all true, do u believe jesus was a real man?


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 13, 2009)

On analysis, the evidence for the existence of god and the evidence that Obama was born in the US are equal - zero in both cases.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> On analysis, the evidence for the existence of god and the evidence that Obama was born in the US are equal - zero in both cases.


 
evidence for *A* god just look around


----------



## dpjones (Aug 13, 2009)

fish601 said:


> *1a*. how would i know?
> *1b* he has and some (you) still dont believe
> *1c *i dont know
> *1d* is dieing bad? maybe u mean suffer
> ...


We've come to a point in this discussion where we both start questioning each others source of information reliability and it becomes pointless to continue.

I would say I dont believe the bible to be true and thus its teachings mean fuck all. Then you could say the same about all scientific research.

I would have to know you a lot better to find something with which i could relate my arguments. Something to get through to you. And the same goes for you. Neither do i really want to persuade you out of your faith.

One thing though. Where you raised in a Christian family or was there a strong Christian influence in your life when you where at a young age? < 20 say.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

dpjones said:


> We've come to a point in this discussion where we both start questioning each others source of information reliability and it becomes pointless to continue.
> 
> I would say I dont believe the bible to be true and thus its teachings mean fuck all. Then you could say the same about all scientific research.
> 
> ...


I am not questioning your source of info because you havent given me any.

Alot of people dont believe the bible but have they really given it a chance? i have given alot of religions a chance. christianity is the only one that i have found that holds up to the test

Yes my parents are christians i was raised in church. I HATED the church and everything about it, the way they ask for tithes, prayed for healing, fell on the ground acting like they were filled with the holy spirit, speaking in toungs, falling down when someone touched them or waved a hand accrose the croud like benny hinn does, how those tv preachers ask for money saying you will recieve a blessing I HATED IT ALL and still do hate all that!!!
all that is B/S that is not the real church
heres my story...
oneday i realized man did not create plants,air,earth and sence nothing can't creat something i was faced with: there must be *A* god years later i figured i would give god a chance so the search begain. I reluctantly ended up finding out christianity was real. during my search i ask myself if my parents friends and family were mormon, muslim ext. would i pick that religion. The answer is no, i picked christianity because its real the bible is real. altho some churches are fake that does not mean all churches are.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 13, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> On analysis, the evidence for the existence of god and the evidence that Obama was born in the US are equal - zero in both cases.


The similarity goes deeper. In both cases the lack of evidence is made up for by making it an article of faith. If you doubt god in the face of no evidence, you are a heathen. If you doubt Obama's birthplace in the face of no evidence, you are a conspiracy nut.

The difference is that in the former case, they don't have any evidence, and in the second case they do but are hiding it.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> The similarity goes deeper. In both cases the lack of evidence is made up for by making it an article of faith. If you doubt god in the face of no evidence, you are a heathen. If you doubt Obama's birthplace in the face of no evidence, you are a conspiracy nut.
> 
> The difference is that in the former case, they don't have any evidence, and in the second case they do but are hiding it.


how do you know god does not exist?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

fish601 said:


> a "church" can say anything they want to... i was asking about the bible



They are one in the same and inseperable. Without the church, there would be no Bible.



fish601 said:


> That is all true, do u believe jesus was a real man?



No I don't. For someone to do all the things said of him, he would have left a big footprint. Jesus left none.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> They are one in the same and inseperable. Without the church, there would be no Bible.


I dont think we are on the same page when talking about "the church"
you talking about the pope? b/c i am not

You could start a church and say stars are real diamonds but that doesnt mean the bible states that. Then i could turn around and say the church said blah blah...

So i am asking about the bible but you dont have to answer


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 13, 2009)

fish601 said:


> thats a dumb argument.. i can print the Quran and change every other word in it if i wanted to..
> 
> the original text of of the bible isnt changing its just money hungry people that print the "new" bibles


Again, you're wrong because every Quran printed (in the original Arabic) for the last 1400 years has been EXACTLY the same. Can you say the same about your scripture? 

I highly recommend you download and watch this:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/2627530


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> Again, you're wrong because every Quran printed (in the original Arabic) for the last 1400 years has been EXACTLY the same. Can you say the same about your scripture?
> 
> I highly recommend you download and watch this:
> 
> http://www.mininova.org/tor/2627530


 
wow, you dont get it? I can print the quran and change words in it. do you understand that I can do that?
well if i can do that someone else can do that to the bible.. you get it right?

the original text of the bible is the same it does not change only thing that changes is someones interpretation of it and they then print a "new bible"

you right now get a quran and copy it the way you think it would be easier for people to read then print it i will then say the quran has changed.. if you dont understand what i am trying to say just forget it end of conversation


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 13, 2009)

It's you who doesn't "get it". How do you explain all the missing books in your Bible then???


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> It's you who doesn't "get it". How do you explain all the missing books in your Bible then???


just another attack against the bible
google it you dont have to ask me maybe this? http://www.gotquestions.org/lost-books-Bible.html


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> It's you who doesn't "get it". How do you explain all the missing books in your Bible then???


the "get it" part is about the bible

If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) - you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible? 

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bibles doctrinesJesus death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only the way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

Never has so much been based on so little.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

you are important


----------



## phatlip (Aug 13, 2009)

Fish dude come on... the reason why Carbon 14 dating isnt used on objects older that 60,000 years old because the Element known as Carbon, exists in all living things... Now Carbon 14 is the elemnt in us right now... the half life (please look up the word half life) of Carbon 14 is something like 5700 years... so after that half of the isotope known as carbon 14 is now Carbon 13 is in its place... and this continues to happen, and after a certain amount of time there is nothign left to measure... but u just fucked yourself becuase all that link says... Wait here is the link u provided me to look at... 
This next part is a quote from the site listed below that fish06 provided when he said carbon dating is a friend to christianity... lol here goes...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible



"When a scientists interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word day always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase evening and morning further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:
Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?
Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?
Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?
Answer to # 4 i will let u do the reaserch on the others... as a matter of fact carbon 14 dating is accepted by the scientific community just as much as they accept gravity... we do believe in gravity right?

I love how that last part states that even if carbon dating says the earth is over 6000 years old... u cant question in cuz "God knew what he meant"... so that brings us back to "Have faith" dont believe fact! its unreal how naive people are...

and as far as That post a few up when u say that people just left things out cuz they didnt think it was correct or whatever... who are they to decide i thought it was the word of god and he knew what he meant! why would it ever need to be changed?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

phatlip said:


> I love how that last part states that even if carbon dating says the earth is over 6000 years old... u cant question in cuz "God knew what he meant"... so that brings us back to "Have faith" dont believe fact!
> 
> and as far as That post a few up when u say that people just left things out cuz they didnt think it was correct or whatever... who are they to decide i thought it was the word of god and he knew what he meant! why would it ever need to be changed?


sorry i will look again later but i dont see where it says if carbon dating says the earth is over 6000 years old... u cant question in cuz ...

you all messing with my head or something? I know you understand what i am saying. I can sit down right now and write the bible changing words around as i see fit i can even get it published. That does not mean the original text has been changed..THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE BOOK I WROTE IS RIGHT Please tell me you understand that..


----------



## snowmanexpress (Aug 13, 2009)

I guess it is a small world after all.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 14, 2009)

As soon as the Church decreed that the Bible was the "Absolute word of G*D" , the religion was corrupted and finished.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> As soon as the Church decreed that the Bible was the "Absolute word of G*D" , the religion was corrupted and finished.


If there was a god do you think he would give us something to go by something like a book.. hmm what would you do if you were god?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 14, 2009)

First of all, why would a G*D need to give us a book....... Something to go by? 

I think science is the book.... something to go by. Something that can be examined, tested, verified. Something real. No need to worship anything, certainly not science.

Hold that head up, meet the future with eyes OPEN, even if it's good news or bad.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> First of all, why would a G*D need to give us a book....... Something to go by?
> 
> I think science is the book.... something to go by. Something that can be examined, tested, verified. Something real. No need to worship anything, certainly not science.
> 
> Hold that head up, meet the future with eyes OPEN, even if it's good news or bad.


 
maybe because G*D (why dont u put the O) put us here and limited our understanding of things, it would of been pretty nice to give us something to go by.

the bible is a book that can be examined, tested, verified you just havent gaven it a honest look. oneday find any bible phrophecy and investigate find out what people from both sides say about it


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 14, 2009)

Like I said.... we can go by science. It has arrived, have no fears or superstitions. cast off the myth and be amazed!!

Mainstream religion came from a pre-science era. It's okay to let go.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> cast off the myth and be amazed!!
> 
> .


 
i have



























































































































































































































hi


----------



## dpjones (Aug 14, 2009)

fish do you believe that evolution is not true?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

dpjones said:


> fish do you believe that evolution is not true?


 
not that we come from slime pool


----------



## phatlip (Aug 14, 2009)

fish601 said:


> sorry i will look again later but i dont see where it says if carbon dating says the earth is over 6000 years old... u cant question in cuz ...
> 
> you all messing with my head or something? I know you understand what i am saying. I can sit down right now and write the bible changing words around as i see fit i can even get it published. That does not mean the original text has been changed..THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE BOOK I WROTE IS RIGHT Please tell me you understand that..


I do understand but like u said god knew what he meant when he wrote it... so why is it even an option to change it... if even one word is changed its not "gods word" right? cuz if u say no then u are contradicting urself big time... yet if u agree then u are saying that u dont know if u are actually reading gods words becuase u dont know how many times its really been changed... u have only been here for a shotr time and no absolute proof when those were written or "altered"... Now the most important part is the bible was not written in english or anyhting close to it... now even today when u translate something from one language to another... the meaning changes sometimes... now it may not be much of a difference from one translation to the next but over many translations the meaning could be chnged drastically... Am i wrong on that? please answer these questions specifically!!


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

phatlip said:


> I do understand but like u said god knew what he meant when he wrote it... so why is it even an option to change it... if even one word is changed its not "gods word" right? cuz if u say no then u are contradicting urself big time... yet if u agree then u are saying that u dont know if u are actually reading gods words becuase u dont know how many times its really been changed... u have only been here for a shotr time and no absolute proof when those were written or "altered"... Now the most important part is the bible was not written in english or anyhting close to it... now even today when u translate something from one language to another... the meaning changes sometimes... now it may not be much of a difference from one translation to the next but over many translations the meaning could be chnged drastically... Am i wrong on that? please answer these questions specifically!!


 
FORGET IT


----------



## phatlip (Aug 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Like I said.... we can go by science. It has arrived, have no fears or superstitions. cast off the myth and be amazed!!
> 
> Mainstream religion came from a pre-science era. It's okay to let go.


 
Fantastic!! its true! today we have science to explain much of todays phenomena. so we dont have to explain things with supernatural events! The problem is that religious folks dont want to do research and learn about science becuase they are afraid of what it will tell them... they are told in church not to pay attention to science because it will 100% contradict the whole "God" theory... and dont get me wrong when the bible is used for its lessons and not taken literally it has great lessons to help people better their own lives and those around them... Come on did a senior citizen really build a huge boat and collect two of every animal... and if he had the help of god why didnt god help a senior citizen build a boat to save all the people in Hurrican Catrina... I dont understand why that back in the biblical days god interviened with human life all the time... yet now we never see jack shit, Why? cause we have science to explain natural phenomena! Do real research from renowned scientists that arent theologists and all that... real Phd scientists not biased by religion... It will all make sense... u owe yourself the favor to at least see what its about... right?


----------



## phatlip (Aug 14, 2009)

fish601 said:


> FORGET IT


were u gonna answer my questions?


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 14, 2009)

fish601 said:


> FORGET IT


LOL What good have atheists done? I Perhaps I can be persuaded to their cause.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

phatlip said:


> were u gonna answer my questions?


lets talk about something different please


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

phatlip said:


> Ok so u just have no idea what u are talking about... ok so they dont use carbon dating for dinosaurs because it only works up to 60,000 years... so right there that tells us dinosaurs are def older than 60,000 years old... they would use other methods like potassium-argon dating... and Carbon-14 dating is a proven scientific method... unlike u religious folks whose only "proof" of god is... oh wait there is no proof, you got have "Faith"... i will take fact over faith any day of the week. before u go on blabbing like ur some sort of theological scientist or some shit cuz u dont even know what carbon dating really is... and u honeslty think it would be easier to kill a pack of raptors or a 35 foot tall tyrannasaurus with a long stick... dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and to think otherwise is absolutely proposterous!
> 
> please explain to me how god just plopped everything onto the earth! oh wait i know ur answer "faith"
> 
> ...


 

There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute!http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp


Different dating methods often give quite different results. 
If this was a reliable means of determining ages, then they should all agree. 
In Australia some wood was found that had been buried in a lava flow which had formed into basalt. 
The wood was &#8220;dated&#8221; by radiocarbon (carbon 14) analysis at about 45,000 years old. 
But the basalt was &#8220;dated&#8221; by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! [8] 
A sample of wood dated 33,720 years old (+ or - 430 yrs) by the carbon 14 method was found in &#8220;middle Triassic&#8221; rock dated at 230 million years old! http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/fossil_dating_2.html

Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day. Well, guess what. He died not finding them. Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they announce finding one it is later proven to be false. http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm









.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 14, 2009)

Fish you really need to stop talking about complicated scientific theories which you do not understand and the only research you have done is from that website answersingenesis.

The other info you are referring to is from Christian websites and to be honest I question the reliability of that info. You should as well if you want to be taken seriously.

Just skimming over that page you linked I can see that every argument you have used is written almost word for word there. Stop reading and think for yourself. 

Or go look on wikipedia. I reckon that's one of the most impartial websites on the internet.

Btw wasn't the Bible written, and I mean that literally, by man. As in a man's hand was used to write down the words? Where the words came from being not the point in this question.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Fish you really need to stop talking about complicated scientific theories which you do not understand and the only research you have done is from that website answersingenesis.
> 
> The other info you are referring to is from Christian websites and to be honest I question the reliability of that info. You should as well if you want to be taken seriously.
> 
> ...


i have heard alot of debates on that subject, its not like i just believe it because that guy said it altho your right i dont fully understand it and i did copy and paste it i have heard great arguments from both sides


----------



## FrontaLobotomy (Aug 14, 2009)

I don't think it's being religious that has done more bad than good. It's just easy to use religion as an excuse to justify doing bad things, as history proves. The whole thing is still a grey area, as there are just so many factors. Not just the philosophical ones that are easy to come up with either. I personally think organised religion, and the belief systems they preach hold back our progression as a society, but that isn't to say that it hasn't been significant up until the last two centuries or so. Without the publication of the King James Bible in the 1600s, for instance, the whole concept of mass produced literature may never have happened. While what was inside of that bible is archaic nonsense, it still was hugely significant in both our history and our future. Books are important. And that was just one of the many many factors. It's too easy to argue religion, everyone manages to be both right and wrong at the same time, which in it self breeds conflict and perpetuates the cycle.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 14, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Or go look on wikipedia. I reckon that's one of the most impartial websites on the internet.


alright then "Many independent archeologists have had good results with OCR dating but some others have experinced erroneous age measurements."

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


----------



## phatlip (Aug 15, 2009)

Dude fish u just straight up do niot understand carbon dating... Let me explain it as simple as i possibly can... ok so we know that we are all carbon based life forms right? we agree on that at least... we know that carbon 14 has a half life of just over 5700 years... now after that time Half of half of Carbon 14 is now the isotope Carbon 13... now this process continues until there is not a whole lot of any carbon 14 left and it cant be used to date, anything over 60,000 years. now dont get me wrong there are outside variables that can play a role in the date but when they are discovered they either work around it or use anothyer method of dating... remeber carbon 14 dating can only be used on carbon based life forms, not rocks and shit. And Carbon dating is an excepted scientific practice just like gravity... so if u beleive in gravity why dont u beleive in other science, do u get to pick and choose what u beleive... Why doesnt the bible say anything about what keeps us from floating around our planet like the moon? Why? U do beleive in gravity right? Do u beleive in gravity? do u beleive in gravity? do u beleive in gravity? i really want u to answerr that question... i have asked it like 3 times


----------



## fish601 (Aug 15, 2009)

phatlip said:


> Dude fish u just straight up do niot understand carbon dating... Let me explain it as simple as i possibly can... ok so we know that we are all carbon based life forms right? we agree on that at least... we know that carbon 14 has a half life of just over 5700 years... now after that time Half of half of Carbon 14 is now the isotope Carbon 13... now this process continues until there is not a whole lot of any carbon 14 left and it cant be used to date, anything over 60,000 years. now dont get me wrong there are outside variables that can play a role in the date but when they are discovered they either work around it or use anothyer method of dating... remeber carbon 14 dating can only be used on carbon based life forms, not rocks and shit. And Carbon dating is an excepted scientific practice just like gravity... so if u beleive in gravity why dont u beleive in other science, do u get to pick and choose what u beleive... Why doesnt the bible say anything about what keeps us from floating around our planet like the moon? Why? U do beleive in gravity right? Do u beleive in gravity? do u beleive in gravity? do u beleive in gravity? i really want u to answerr that question... i have asked it like 3 times


they assume that halflife has allways been just over 5700 years.. if i have a 1 gallon bucket and let water drip in it i can caculate how long it will take to fill the bucket up but if for some reason i turn the water up just for a few seconds it will drastically change the time it takes to fill up... is it possable halflife has changed in the last umpteen billion years?


----------



## dpjones (Aug 15, 2009)

The hubble telescope has done masses towards proof of the big bang i believe.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 15, 2009)

dpjones said:


> The hubble telescope has done masses towards proof of the big bang i believe.


showed me how awsome god is


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 15, 2009)

i didnt know this thread was now about your thoughts on creation or evolution


----------



## dpjones (Aug 15, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> i didnt know this thread was now about your thoughts on creation or evolution


Well it hasn't been about the original topic for some time.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 15, 2009)

Also don't Christians make an assumption that Christianity is the truth based on what they are told and read? Because there is no *material *proof that God is real. Thus faith.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 15, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Also don't Christians make an assumption that Christianity is the truth based on what they are told and read? Because there is no *material *proof that God is real. Thus faith.


could say the same thing about atheist


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 15, 2009)

dpjones said:


> The hubble telescope has done masses towards proof of the big bang i believe.


The Big Bang and expanding universe was mentioned in the Quran over 1400 years ago... So God is way ahead of man-made science


----------



## dpjones (Aug 15, 2009)

fish601 said:


> could say the same thing about atheist


Yeah but you are using that argument to say that carbon dating etc is not true. Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself?

I don't really know enough about the Quran to comment, but I don't think there is a god at all. Or if there is he ain't bothered with what we do.


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 15, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Well it hasn't been about the original topic for some time.


lol true....


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 15, 2009)

fish601 said:


> could say the same thing about atheist


how is that when they believe in science which actually has material and proof to back it up.. with christianity there is nothing but the bible which has been and can be interpreted in different ways. and there is no evidence behind the bible to prove anything about how shit was created.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 15, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> how is that when they believe in science which actually has material and proof to back it up.. with christianity there is nothing but the bible which has been and can be interpreted in different ways. and there is no evidence behind the bible to prove anything about how shit was created.


nothing but the bible? prove it wrong




The Bible is 98% textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.
The 1 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.
The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.
Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are:
John Rylands MS written around 130 A.D., the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John.
Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.)
Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.) contains major portions of the NT.
Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) contains nearly all the Bible.
Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT.


----------



## GratefulDance (Aug 15, 2009)

Not all religion is bad. Religion is just us trying to get a grip on reality. Most religion these days is out-dated and misguided I think though. I'm not a fan of any mono-theistic relgision.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 16, 2009)

Well in Genesis God made the world in 6 days, that is impossible.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 16, 2009)

When young people hate on religion in general it's usually a psychological displacement of their adolescent rebellion toward parental authority.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 16, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Well in Genesis God made the world in 6 days, that is impossible.


 
LOL maybe i am reading this wrong but just because it only took 6 days its impossible? if it would of taken him 8days would that be more reasonable?
Look if god made the world he could of done it as quick or took as long as he wanted he is god ya know


----------



## phatlip (Aug 16, 2009)

fish601 said:


> they assume that halflife has allways been just over 5700 years.. if i have a 1 gallon bucket and let water drip in it i can caculate how long it will take to fill the bucket up but if for some reason i turn the water up just for a few seconds it will drastically change the time it takes to fill up... is it possable halflife has changed in the last umpteen billion years?


 
egggghhhhh! (think of the most ubnoxious wrong buzzer sound from a game show u can think of, that what egggghhh is supposed to mean) Wrong again my friend... Actually yes they do know the half life has always been that long because that IS the half life of Carbon 14... if the half life on a carbon isotope is not 5700 years then it isnt Carbon 14... any more genius shit to say? u really shouldnt get into an argument that u cant understand...

And let me tell u something... my grandfather is the best man that i will ever know... he was a philanthropist that never spent money on himself... he was born and raised a devoted jewish child... he decided to go to college and study physics... he got his Phd in astrophysics at the university of John hopkins... he finally saw what the universe really is... now dont get me wrong he still practiced hanukah and said his prayers, but he didnt take all the stories literally... he used the life lessons in the jewish religion to be the best man he could... he was the type of man that would take his shirt off in a snow storm just tto make u a little warmer... he was offered a job working with the federal govmt and he declined it because he wanted to teach and the university of New mexico, even tho he wasnt gonna be making nearly what he could have... he gave thousands of dollars to charities every year! Now he passed away last thursday at 82 years old... RIP... there was not one person that didnt like my grandfather... the point is that if u open your eyes to the world around u, u will see that it is more that just a man placing life forms on a rock as he so desires... im not saying that u need to give up your religion... but u owe yourself the favor to see the truly amazing phenomena of our planet and solar system... 

as a side note... as far as the solar system being infinate and forever lasting... its actually now an accepted scientific theory that the universe is always getting bigger and expanding... proving that there had to be a moment of creation, i.e. The Big Bang... before u go on saying anything else... really research the BIG BANG, and carbon 14 dating... not on your religious websites...

oh and ur water dripping thing is not a valid comparison... sorry


----------



## phatlip (Aug 16, 2009)

fish601 said:


> LOL maybe i am reading this wrong but just because it only took 6 days its impossible? if it would of taken him 8days would that be more reasonable?
> Look if god made the world he could of done it as quick or took as long as he wanted he is god ya know


wrong again pal... cuz we know from a little thing called science... the full formation of the earth did not happen in six days


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 16, 2009)

fish601 said:


> LOL maybe i am reading this wrong but just because it only took 6 days its impossible? if it would of taken him 8days would that be more reasonable?
> Look if god made the world he could of done it as quick or took as long as he wanted he is god ya know



so one day was spent making the Earth? And the REST of the cosmos which is INFINITELY BIGGER took how long? 

Even that math doesn't add up....


----------



## fish601 (Aug 16, 2009)

so IF there was a god you all dont think God can creat 2 cosmos in one second? or 50 in a half a sec
i mean if God can create earth why does he have to have a time limit?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

You don't think it's a bit suspicious that by their own time line the earth took an entire day? You don't think it's a bit suspicious that the Bible concentrates on G*D creating the SUN, when G*D would obviously have to create Trillions more of the same complexity?

Or perhaps it shows quite clearly that the authors (men) had no idea that there were Trillions of suns out there........ certainly they did not have this knowledge, else they would have come up with a larger timetable or changed the increments.

What the primitive genesis stories tell us is that the authors thought the Earth was ALONE and the CENTER. Both ideas are 100% incorrect and the Genesis story illustrates that nicely.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 17, 2009)

Well my point was we know from a fact nothing happened that quickly.

I studied Geology at College and although I cant remember all of it I remember that was prity solid evidence to prove that it took millions of years for all this shit to happen.

It wasn't like poof land, poof sea, poof animals.

The Himalayas for example have been forming for 70 million years and are still growing I believe. They are also considered young.

All the continents were once one big super continent that got split up due to tectonic plate movement. Look at the globe you can roughly see how they all join up.

I just read this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

It is so annoyingly frustrating I am pretty pissed. I don't usually get annoyed by other peoples ignorance but this is getting to me. If you got 10 minutes read this and write what ya think.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

Well the author loses the wheels on his cart pretty early in this article. Again, as with most religions, the first lie is the whopper. Once that lie is accepted, the rest gets a lot easier.

The author states that BOTH sides (religion and science) have built in presuppositions. This is untrue. only religion starts with a presupposition and all info which follows must first pass through this filter. Science has no filter other than can the "new" hypothesis stand up to scrutiny. If I could prove suddenly that indeed science has it wrong and the sun does indeed revolve around the Earth, science would test my new theory and if I am correct, it can and will be verified.

Global warming is a great way to look at how science would be if religion was in charge. No REAL data supports the "belief" that man causes global warming to any measurable degree, but ppl WANT it to be true, so it gets traction. Not a good sign for long term CLEAR science. Global warming got politicized. Global warming got religion.


----------



## Brazko (Aug 17, 2009)

It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet. These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of human culture, in different times or different cultural enviroments or different religious traditions: hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least as so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments may follow.

Werner Heisenberg


----------



## phatlip (Aug 17, 2009)

correct me if im wrong but wasnt gallaleo placed on house arrest for his theories that went against the word of the church? it just goes to show that the church is far out gunned when it comes to modern science and religion... and that was almost 400 years ago... please read on...


quote from wikipedia: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrism publicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[8] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it&#8212;which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 17, 2009)

phatlip said:


> correct me if im wrong but wasnt gallaleo placed on house arrest for his theories that went against the word of the church? it just goes to show that the church is far out gunned when it comes to modern science and religion... and that was almost 400 years ago... please read on...
> 
> 
> quote from wikipedia:
> ...


You are not wrong. The argument here would be though that it was man who punished him not God. People who interpreted the bible incorrectly.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

It is that very church which MADE the Bible. How could they misinterpret it? They were FOLLOWING it. 

So who really follows the Bible? The answer of course is not many at all. If any one religion truly followed the teachings of the Bible, they would be OUTCASTS from society very very quickly. 

What does this tell us about the Bible? Think hard......


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It is that very church which MADE the Bible. How could they misinterpret it? They were FOLLOWING it.
> 
> So who really follows the Bible? The answer of course is not many at all. If any one religion truly followed the teachings of the Bible, they would be OUTCASTS from society very very quickly.
> 
> What does this tell us about the Bible? Think hard......


sometimes i think you are very smart other times i think you dont have a clue what your talking about. 
Have you ever read the bible?
Have you really every looked in to how the bible came to be?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You don't think it's a bit suspicious that by their own time line the earth took an entire day? You don't think it's a bit suspicious that the Bible concentrates on G*D creating the SUN, when G*D would obviously have to create Trillions more of the same complexity?
> 
> Or perhaps it shows quite clearly that the authors (men) had no idea that there were Trillions of suns out there........ certainly they did not have this knowledge, else they would have come up with a larger timetable or changed the increments.
> 
> What the primitive genesis stories tell us is that the authors thought the Earth was ALONE and the CENTER. Both ideas are 100% incorrect and the Genesis story illustrates that nicely.


I think you missed the point on creating the sun. Reread the story


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

phatlip said:


> oh and ur water dripping thing is not a valid comparison... sorry


 
oh? why not?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Well the author loses the wheels on his cart pretty early in this article. Again, as with most religions, the first lie is the whopper. Once that lie is accepted, the rest gets a lot easier.
> 
> The author states that BOTH sides (religion and science) have built in presuppositions. This is untrue. only religion starts with a presupposition and all info which follows must first pass through this filter. Science has no filter other than can the "new" hypothesis stand up to scrutiny.


you dont think scientist have presupposition?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

fish601 said:


> you dont think scientist have presupposition?


No, science has no presupposition, only verifiable data. the more verified, the more it is accepted. If you can walk up and show Newton is wrong, and can prove it over and over, it will be accepted.

Religion works in the opposite direction.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

phatlip said:


> wrong again pal... cuz we know from a little thing called science... the full formation of the earth did not happen in six days


 
Different dating methods often give quite different results. 
If this was a reliable means of determining ages, then they should all agree. 
In Australia some wood was found that had been buried in a lava flow which had formed into basalt. 
The wood was dated by radiocarbon (carbon 14) analysis at about 45,000 years old. 
But the basalt was dated by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! [8] 
A sample of wood dated 33,720 years old (+ or - 430 yrs) by the carbon 14 method was found in middle Triassic rock dated at 230 million years old!


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No, science has no presupposition, only verifiable data. the more verified, the more it is accepted. If you can walk up and show Newton is wrong, and can prove it over and over, it will be accepted.
> 
> Religion works in the opposite direction.


 
ok religion does work in opposite direction but Dont put the Christian religion in the same catagory as all other religion because all other religions are wrong


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No, science has no presupposition, only verifiable data. .


i have searched alot about dating methods and i am here to say they do not know how old something really is (past a few thousand years).
and that is NOT verifiable data


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i have searched alot about dating methods and i am here to say they do not know how old something really is (past a few thousand years).
> and that is NOT verifiable data



Well this is pretty simple really. Just because you aren't satisfied with the Exactness of the "estimate", doesn't invalidate it. It's a good starting point and its accuracy is improving all the time.

But we needn't wait for fine tuning of carbon dating (or the next better method), this is very simple indeed.

The Bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old. Since 100% of geologists would laugh at this number, I think that should be a tip off that the Bible is incorrect. 

So, the exactness of carbon dating is not relevant to the Bible. The Bible is off by such a wide margin, that there is no need to demand Exact proof otherwise. It's like saying science is off by an inch, so the Bible being off by a mile is ...okay. it's not.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The Bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old. Since 100% of geologists would laugh at this number, I think that should be a tip off that the Bible is incorrect.
> 
> .


what verse does the bible state earth is 6000 years old you really have never read the bible have you


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm just going by church doctrine....... don't worry.... you live by it, not me.

The bible also says nothing about the world itself. Think G*D might have mentioned that the world wasn't flat? By the way, those lights up in the sky are actually suns!! Nope... nothing.....

Primitive book for a primitive time of a primitive ppl.


----------



## phatlip (Aug 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> oh? why not?


 
becuase u fucking idiot how many times do i have to say it... 
*SCIENTISTS KNOW THE HALF LIFE FOR CARBON 14... AND THEY KNOW ITS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME... JUST BECUASE UR BIBLE DOESNT SAY THAT CARBON 14 has a half life of "Half-Life*: 5,730 ± 40 Years" so u turning ur water up and down is not valid because u are releasing different amounts... now the plus or minus 40 leaves some room for error in case of outside variables that may affect decompasition... becuase no one ever said that caarbon 14 dating knows the age on the day... its a very accurate estimate... and when a scientists tells u the age of an artifact they most likely have already calculated outside variables... really bro u just dont understand all these theories from the scientific perspective... so until u do u CANNOT provide a valid argument


----------



## phatlip (Aug 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm just going by church doctrine....... don't worry.... you live by it, not me.
> 
> The bible also says nothing about the world itself. Think G*D might have mentioned that the world wasn't flat? By the way, those lights up in the sky are actually suns!! Nope... nothing.....
> 
> Primitive book for a primitive time of a primitive ppl.


right! and why would he have even created all the suns and pulsar stars and what not in the universe? so that humans have something pretty to look at at night?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

The bible contains a complete genealogical record. Add them up, and add 1976 years (since death of Christ) you come up with roughly 6000 years.


It is in your book. Feel free to verify. It requires research in the first book, which typically makes people stop reading to begin with... but it is all right there.


----------



## phatlip (Aug 18, 2009)

fish i have a question for u! as far as the adam and eve story goes... now, so all the garden of eden stuff happens, they have to leave... ok so i get that... but my question is when their chidren go out to find spouses, who the hell would their be on earth if Adam and Eve were the first? and they were their kids? was god having an affair with another adam and Eve and another garden of Eden... playing some tricks? dont take this the wrong way i am actaully asking i would like u to explain please!


----------



## phatlip (Aug 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i have searched alot about dating methods and i am here to say they do not know how old something really is (past a few thousand years).
> and that is NOT verifiable data


u still have yet to explain why they are NOT valid! and u cant just say we have to have faith cuz its obviuos we all want proof


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

phatlip said:


> fish i have a question for u! as far as the adam and eve story goes... now, so all the garden of eden stuff happens, they have to leave... ok so i get that... but my question is when their chidren go out to find spouses, who the hell would their be on earth if Adam and Eve were the first? and they were their kids? was god having an affair with another adam and Eve and another garden of Eden... playing some tricks? dont take this the wrong way i am actaully asking i would like u to explain please!



Some say Lilith...

But at the end of the day, it was all inbreeding.

The great flood means all animals are inbred too. All animals which Adam named on the 6th day... many of which are now extinct.

Hebrew is also the language of creation... and the Hebrew names for many animals translate to their violent nature... which Adam would have had to have observed... before the creation of Eve... and the fall which begat violence unto the world.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 18, 2009)

There is no reason for this discussion to turn sour with name calling and angry talk. Remember anger makes people act stupid.

One thing i noticed as well fish, you keep falling back on the argument that because not all dating methods add up and because some people have found anomolies then they cant be true. That is not necessarily the case in science. There are often mistakes or minor errors which pop up but you have to look at percentages. I.e if 99.99% of the tests say the same thing and a 0.01% say something else then odds are the 0.01 is a fault in the test or a variable is involved which has been overlooked.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

phatlip said:


> fish i have a question for u! as far as the adam and eve story goes... now, so all the garden of eden stuff happens, they have to leave... ok so i get that... but my question is when their chidren go out to find spouses, who the hell would their be on earth if Adam and Eve were the first? and they were their kids? was god having an affair with another adam and Eve and another garden of Eden... playing some tricks? dont take this the wrong way i am actaully asking i would like u to explain please!


 
If you believe the adam and eve story and we all came from 2 people then you would realize that we still in a way marry our brothers and sisters for maybe a better answer http://www.gotquestions.org/Cains-wife.html


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

dpjones said:


> There is no reason for this discussion to turn sour with name calling and angry talk. Remember anger makes people act stupid.
> 
> One thing i noticed as well fish, you keep falling back on the argument that because not all dating methods add up and because some people have found anomolies then they cant be true. That is not necessarily the case in science. There are often mistakes or minor errors which pop up but you have to look at percentages. I.e if 99.99% of the tests say the same thing and a 0.01% say something else then odds are the 0.01 is a fault in the test or a variable is involved which has been overlooked.


 
they are not accurate look it up


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

phatlip said:


> u still have yet to explain why they are NOT valid! and u cant just say we have to have faith cuz its obviuos we all want proof


Different dating methods often give quite different results. 
If this was a reliable means of determining ages, then they should all agree. 
In Australia some wood was found that had been buried in a lava flow which had formed into basalt. 
The wood was dated by radiocarbon (carbon 14) analysis at about 45,000 years old. 
But the basalt was dated by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! [8] 
A sample of wood dated 33,720 years old (+ or - 430 yrs) by the carbon 14 method was found in middle Triassic rock dated at 230 million years old!


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> they are not accurate look it up


why dont you look it up. everytime you talk to a christian about evolution they always say some dumb shit like you just have to believe....and they has no evidence that disproves this science. when science has more than enough evidence to prove evolution and not creation.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Different dating methods often give quite different results.
> If this was a reliable means of determining ages, then they should all agree.
> In Australia some wood was found that had been buried in a lava flow which had formed into basalt.
> The wood was dated by radiocarbon (carbon 14) analysis at about 45,000 years old.
> ...



Lava + wood? Surely it would just burn?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> why dont you look it up. everytime you talk to a christian about evolution they always say some dumb shit like you just have to believe....and they has no evidence that disproves this science. when science has more than enough evidence to prove evolution and not creation.


there is *No* evidence to prove evolution (as in a monkey turning into a human)


----------



## Rexob715 (Aug 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> there is *No* evidence to prove evolution (as in a monkey turning into a human)


 
You are QUITE wrong. Evolution, or the belief thereof, is based on the evidence found within reality.
Life(which is hugely diverse) adapts to its environment over time. Given more time, and especially more environmental changes, we could and would expect to find greater changes among the LIFE forms. That's what life is......an adaptation to environment.
The evidence found, archaeological, biological, chemical, genetic etc. etc. all support this belief of LIFE changing over time.

You say there is no evidence, but this is ONLY because if you admitted there was evidence, your very own God will punish you severely!


But the ONLY way you are right is THIS CHANGE OVER TIME, which has produced multiple different species, millions of years to accomplish. So, we have every right to believe it happened and ALL the evidence we have found in reality supports this belief. We actually have so much evidence that shows it happened, we consider it FACT!


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

Rexob715 said:


> adapts to its environment over time. Given more time, and especially more environmental changes, we could and would expect to find greater changes among the LIFE forms.
> 
> We actually have so much evidence that shows it happened, we consider it FACT!


 
to adapt is one thing but you can not show me ANYTHING that proves we evolved.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 18, 2009)

Notice how fish doesn't have any strength in the sciences? I'm gonna throw out a guess and say that polls would confirm that religious ppl don't have strong backgrounds in science. I'm not talking about careers, just general knowledge.

Just a hunch, but I think a good one.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm gonna throw out a guess
> Just a hunch, but I think a good one.


 
that is basicaly how you live your life

If you can prove me wrong go ahead i dont mind changing what i believe.. If i am wrong i am wrong and i will change


----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The Bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old. Since 100% of geologists would laugh at this number, I think that should be a tip off that the Bible is incorrect..


 


CrackerJax said:


> I'm just going by church doctrine........


Why say the Bible says earth is only 6000 years old and 100% geologiests would laught and that proves the bible is incorrect *then* say just going of church doctrine.. kinda misleading huh?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 18, 2009)




----------



## fish601 (Aug 18, 2009)

Do you think there is no god, know there is no god, or want there to be no god?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 18, 2009)

I believe in a creation point and nothing more since nothing more is in evidence.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Do you think there is no god, know there is no god, or want there to be no god?


Do you think there is a god? Know there is a god? Or want there to be a god?

Fish have you ever seen drunk people? How they lose all upper brain function and become animals. They think about food, fighting and sex. This is because they revert back to the part of the brain which is purely animal instinct. People are animals just like any other. If you deny this fact then you are obviously very very blind to reality.

Christians claim that the world was made for man. That all the wonders were made for us. Does that no strike you as arrogance?

Christians say look at the human hand, at how complex it is. They say that its impossible that could of just 'happened'. That a creator must be involved for something so amazing to happen.

But surely in an infinite universe surely there are infinite possibilities? 

By that i mean we are the minute chance, Earth is that 0.0000000000000000000000001% chance of life being formed.

I am not saying you should not be a Christian but to believe in a 'young' Earth is fucking stupid. You must of found some really extreme Christian group to believe that tbh. Look into it a bit more and you will realise that it cant be as young as you have claimed it to be.

Just to add Noah's Flood was in all likely hood just a country wide flood. He would of though the entire world was flooded but that is impossible.


----------



## pillarize (Aug 19, 2009)

There is an evidence of God...so all must work out there own salvation.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 19, 2009)

There is only evidence of creation, nothing more. No man behind the curtain is evident or has ever revealed itself. 

It is only man's ego which demands it be brought forth.


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


>


House has been proven by science not to exist  just joshing. i'd say it is about even. but there have been more people killed in the name of religion than anything i can think of. Of course that zealotry doesn't even need to be the true reason, but it's a good guise for a power grab.  

on the other hand, an omniscient god is by definition so far beyond us it would be improbable we could comprehend it in it's entirety. For me god=processes that cause...well everything.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 19, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Fish have you ever seen drunk people? How they lose all upper brain function and become animals. They think about food, fighting and sex. This is because they revert back to the part of the brain which is purely animal instinct. People are animals just like any other. If you deny this fact then you are obviously very very blind to reality.
> 
> Christians claim that the world was made for man. That all the wonders were made for us. Does that no strike you as arrogance?
> 
> ...


I think about food and sex all the time anyways and being drunk doesnt make me want to fight. so i really dont see what drinking has to do with it.

Why was the world made?

I think the human eye is pretty cool, and did you know that the chances of your one eye developing is the same chance if you stick a stick of dynomite under a pile of junk metal and it exploding and before the metal hits the ground it formes a jet that takes off before it hits the ground. and that is just for one eye.. we have two and having two allows us to judge distance so could u imagine the chance of both eyes?? i think thats pretty amazing

there are some very smart people that believe in young earth who study it and are non christians, there has to be something there for them to believe that.

flooded earth is not impossible for my God


----------



## fish601 (Aug 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I believe in a creation point and nothing more since nothing more is in evidence.


that does not mean there is no god
have you seen all the evidence? 
is it possible that evidence exists that at least supports that a god exist?


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I think about food and sex all the time anyways and being drunk doesnt make me want to fight. so i really dont see what drinking has to do with it.
> 
> Why was the world made?
> 
> ...


the problem that i have with this reasoning is that you are only looking for evidence to support your stance and not accepting any evidence to the contrary...of course that is what faith is about right? 

you are very mild in your prosthlatizing and i appreciate that. i don't have a problem with a catastrophic flood, i have a problem with the concept of an arc that held TWO of every species on earth (since evolution is ruled out) 

"The National Science Foundations Tree of Life project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million."

so these estimates say between 4 and 200 million species on a boat...how many cubits wide and long...? been a long time since i read it.HA HA 

A literal interpretation of the bible is...not possible. these are allegorical stories to explain the unexplainable. 

i'm glad you have faith, i just think if you look to the book without perspective you may end up a fallow, bitter atheist, instead of a caring human being.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

pinkus said:


> i just think if you look to the book without perspective you may end up a fallow, bitter atheist, instead of a caring human being.


Which is probably why so many people believe it.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I think about food and sex all the time anyways and being drunk doesnt make me want to fight. so i really dont see what drinking has to do with it.
> 
> Why was the world made?
> 
> ...


Well the whole alcohol thing is actually a fact, whether you believe it or not lol. How you interpret that data is up to you. The point was human beings are mammals the same as all other.

About the eye thing. Who has actually tested this? Where did you get this info from?

Again the point with that example I gave was that we are that tiny chance. In an infinite universe we are the tiny percentage, Earth. Or I reckons anyway.

Back to this young Earth thing, could you outline the basics of it for me please? And in your words if you don't mind, not a copy and pasted link.

If there had been a world wide flood there would be evidence for it. I am not aware of any such existing. I never said that a god would not be capable of doing it.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 19, 2009)

pinkus said:


> the problem that i have with this reasoning is that you are only looking for evidence to support your stance and not accepting any evidence to the contrary...of course that is what faith is about right?
> 
> you are very mild in your prosthlatizing and i appreciate that. i don't have a problem with a catastrophic flood, i have a problem with the concept of an arc that held TWO of every species on earth (since evolution is ruled out)
> 
> ...


 
are you willing to look? look it would be much much easier if there was no god we just live and die game over. 


there were not millions of animals not every species of animal got on the boat
total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. 
something to remember there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species 
Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called clean kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark. (Morris, 1987)
whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, *scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.
*


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

fish601 said:


> are you willing to look? look it would be much much easier if there was no god we just live and die game over.
> 
> 
> there were not millions of animals not every species of animal got on the boat
> ...


Wait so God killed millions of species of animals cos they didnt fit on the ark?

I know there are a LOT of animals, more than 15% of that size which are bigger than dogs.

And did God put two of each type of animal on your example being 400 odd species of dog?

If animals inbreed they get genetic defects i believe so surely there must of been more than two of every animal?


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Wait so God killed millions of species of animals cos they didnt fit on the ark?
> 
> I know there are a LOT of animals, more than 15% of that size which are bigger than dogs.
> 
> ...


dogs are one species fish...you must not go outside or to zoos or watch the nature channel. for instance a cassowary. they can gut a man with one kick and they are almost as big as an ostrich, secretive, and live in the rain forest. What did they feed our feathered friend?


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

a bird, really...........get to the point


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> a bird, really...........get to the point


you don't get that robert? come on...point being that the volume (size) and needs of the critters could never be met for forty days and forty nights. that the stories are allegories and that faith is it's own reward AND faith by it's religious def anyway REQUIRES a belief beyond the rational.


----------



## nuera59 (Aug 19, 2009)

church = one of the richest companys in the world


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

P...drop the drama ,we Texans Can convey our point with our conversation


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> P...drop the drama ,we Texans Can convey our point with our conversation


drama? i'm not even using exclamation points


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

robert the focus seems to be now the arc. the last arguments have pertained to the arc argument. I maintain it is an impossibility, at the same time i maintain that faith is by definition beyond rational. they are not mutually exclusive. it's not drama. i must have hit a nerve. sorry. i think that people of true faith should stop trying to convince people that the stories are true, because it's a loosing proposition. i firmly believe in "Christian" principles, but these principles are not exclusive and in fact are a part of all the worlds great religions.


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

oh yeah...and i love the cassowary...don't be hatin' on my cassowary rob. i think they still have one at SA Zoo


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

i too love the cassowary , but i don't see where where your fury comes from


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

I love South Parks take on religion. Always very funny. The episode where Jesus saves Santa from terrorists and Jesus dies in Santas arms lol.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> i too love the cassowary , but i don't see where where your fury comes from


I believe the fury comes from peoples blind ignorance and them trying to force their incorrect views on others. Could be wrong.


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

OK, thank you for your passive aggressive take


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> OK, thank you for your passive aggressive take


I'm not really sure about passive aggressive, you asked for an opinion i gave it?


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> i too love the cassowary , but i don't see where where your fury comes from


seriously bro...i got no fury for this... I'm glad that people have faith. i'm even glad that the person prosthlatizing is a nice kind person. i don't see where you see fury rob.


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

dpjones said:


> I'm not really sure about passive aggressive, you asked for an opinion i gave it?


 sorry you took this out of context


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> sorry you took this out of context


Urm still not sure what you mean or meant. But i wasn't trying to offend anyone, just give what i though was probably the reason for any hate


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

i went back and reread my posts and i guess the "gutting a man with one kick" is kind of aggressive...it's out of zeal for the cassowary and their general dangerous nature


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Urm still not sure what you mean or meant. But i wasn't trying to offend anyone, just give what i though was probably the reason for any hate


 hush little babby don't say a word ......... just let it go ...how simple is that ?


----------



## dpjones (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> hush little babby don't say a word ......... just let it go ...how simple is that ?


Well now you are being condescending, was trying to make sure i hadn't insulted anyone but meh now i don't care.


----------



## naboo (Aug 19, 2009)

I think that religion should be a personal matter. as soon as its more than one person the belifs have to be bent to suit everyone. organized religion is just another way of geting people to conform to their way of thinking, to get people to band together to point their finger at someone else.
I can see no benefit in organized religion, other than false peace of mind. and it has so many downsides, not least the scary levels of indoctrination. let people make up their own minds.
Lets evolve past it.


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> hush little babby don't say a word ......... just let it go ...how simple is that ?





dpjones said:


> Well now you are being condescending, was trying to make sure i hadn't insulted anyone but meh now i don't care.


yeah....i have to agree rob...i think the bee is your bonnet, not mine or dpj's. nobody was seeming mad or mean to me.


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Well now you are being condescending, was trying to make sure i hadn't insulted anyone but meh now i don't care.


 how do i make this stop ...rob?


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> how do i make this stop ...rob?


i'm sorry. that's what works for me bro. I really wasn't out offend anyone in _this_ thread. ha ha. it's all good....i should know better than to enter a religious debate, or a political one. 

It's pretty [email protected]#$in' hot hey Robert. You think it's going to rain anytime soon?


----------



## robert 14617 (Aug 19, 2009)

pinkus said:


> I'm sorry. that's what works for me bro. I really wasn't out offend anyone in _this_ thread. ha ha. it's all good....i should know better than to enter a religious debate, or a political one.
> 
> It's pretty [email protected]#$in' hot hey Robert. You think it's going to rain anytime soon?


 45 fucking days dry and over 100 degrees F no i don't thin kit will rain .
but looking at the for cast there will be some rain in our near fitter


----------



## pinkus (Aug 19, 2009)

i think we hit +60 days over 100 a couple days ago...but i am one to believe this isn't so far out of the norm for here. You know, this is dessert that floods periodically. it's those forecasters that always say "it's ten degrees hotter than *normal*" when last year it was 79, the year before that it was 105, and the yrear before that it was 90....HA HA HA there is a wide variety within what's Normal in texas weather,,,,I feel much better how about you amigo?


----------



## phatlip (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> to adapt is one thing but you can not show me ANYTHING that proves we evolved.


 The problem is u literally dont know the definition of evolution... evolution is the adaptaion of an animals genotype and phenotype to its environment... Do u believe in natural selection? that is a part of evolution... people like yourself seem to think that evolution is when an ape gives birth to a human... WRONG! evolution is miniscule changes over hundreds of thousands of years that happen depending on an organisms particular niche... you are aware that human genetics are 99% the same as a chimp? the problem is u literally dont understand the definition of evolution... why dont u ever answer my questions specifically? look back a few posts and answer my questions... i personally think u dont answer them becuase u dont have answers... and as far as ur late triassic being 360 million years or whatevre u thought, check ur numbers again! the problem with debating with u is u dont know ur science well enough to be able to give a valid rebuttal


----------



## phatlip (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> If you believe the adam and eve story and we all came from 2 people then you would realize that we still in a way marry our brothers and sisters for maybe a better answer http://www.gotquestions.org/Cains-wife.html


 
dude that is somebodys opinion... i could have wrote that for all u know... and i absolutely do not belive in adam and eve its absurd... anyways isnt having sex with family forbiden in the bible? personally i dont feel that i am the product of Adam and Eve's children incest... and if u beleive that just to keep ur faith, u are more of a fool than i thought... there are so many descrepencies with the bible... why do u think its been changed so many times? the church changes it to make it sound more current and so that it applies to modern life better... And did u know that the "red sea" that moses crossed when fleaing from the pharoahs was actaully miss translated and was actaully the "Reed Sea"? bet u didnt know that... and if u did i bet u didnt know that the location of the Reed sea is know... and since ur a theology master u know that the bible talks about all the reeds and what not... now when u see the reed sea even today it makes much sense that it is the location... when u read about the reed sea u will read that the water would rise and lower frequently and and very quickly... now wouldnt it make sense that moses made it across before it flooded again? Or with the plagues they is a logical explantion for all of them... for instance the first born sons dying... the fact of the matter is there is scientific proof that there was volcanic activity in the water near by... Carbon dioxide was being released from the water and travels like fog... however it is starts to dicipate after about 2 ft into the air... but below 2ft its very toxic... now if u know ur history u would know that only the first born sons of the slept on low lying beds at ground level... while other family members andwhat not slept high up on roof tops, hay bails, etc... but well off the ground... all the plagues are explainable and a number of them are a result of the same volcanic activety


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

phatlip said:


> The problem is u literally dont know the definition of evolution... evolution is the adaptaion of an animals genotype and phenotype to its environment... Do u believe in natural selection? that is a part of evolution... people like yourself seem to think that evolution is when an ape gives birth to a human... WRONG! evolution is miniscule changes over hundreds of thousands of years that happen depending on an organisms particular niche... you are aware that human genetics are 99% the same as a chimp? the problem is u literally dont understand the definition of evolution... why dont u ever answer my questions specifically? look back a few posts and answer my questions... i personally think u dont answer them becuase u dont have answers... and as far as ur late triassic being 360 million years or whatevre u thought, check ur numbers again! the problem with debating with u is u dont know ur science well enough to be able to give a valid rebuttal


in a million years will the monkeys of today evolve into people?
with all the fosils we have today not one showes animals evolving into anyother animal much less people.. if they evolve so slow there should be some evidence


----------



## pinkus (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> in a million years will the monkeys of today evolve into people?
> with all the fosils we have today not one showes animals evolving into anyother animal much less people if they evolve so slow there should be some evidence


takes longer than a million years....now back to the birds. ARCHAEOPTERYX 
check out his teeth and feathers...you are right ONE fossil CAN't show an animal evolving because it is static. you need two to show a progression....however this guy shows a combination that no longer exists...a bird with teeth. in fact modern birds do have a tooth when they are born, the egg tooth.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

phatlip said:


> isnt having sex with family forbiden in the bible?
> 
> why do u think its been changed so many times?
> 
> ...


read the bible to find out if and when sex with faimly was forbiden

the bible has not changed 

outstanding, Great find  oh wait hmm reed sea wasnt a mistranslasion yam suph is the term in Hebrew and its meaning has allways been known

so your saying God used volcanic activety? fine with me i dont care


----------



## pinkus (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> read the bible to find out if and when sex with faimly was forbiden
> 
> the bible has not changed
> 
> ...


the bible HAS been changed numerous times...


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

pinkus said:


> the bible HAS been changed numerous times...


the ancient manuscripts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) have been reliably copied over the centuries
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

how we got the bible
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html


----------



## pinkus (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> the ancient manuscripts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) have been reliably copied over the centuries
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html
> 
> how we got the bible
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html


so what about the Gnostic gospels? and i'm glad you are using sources that don't have a conflict of interest.


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I think about food and sex all the time anyways and being drunk doesnt make me want to fight. so i really dont see what drinking has to do with it.
> 
> Why was the world made?
> 
> ...


Can you provide us a source of information for that claim?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

pinkus said:


> so what about the Gnostic gospels? and i'm glad you are using sources that don't have a conflict of interest.


we know what you believe but have you heard the other side


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

Johnny Retro said:


> Can you provide us a source of information for that claim?


look it up...


*Darwin also admitted drawbacks of the evolution theory in trying to explain complex organs, such as the eye. "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light...could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree...The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." *
*Some evolutionists recognize the incredible scientific obstacles of evolution theory (as Darwin states: "...absurd in the highest possible degree..."), yet still choose to believe in evolution rather than in creation. To quote George Wald, Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position... One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." *​


----------



## dpjones (Aug 20, 2009)

lol people live for what a 100 years? The thought of millions of years going by is to much for the human mind to get around. Its just as absurd to say there is an all powerfull being as that the human eye was formed by chance. How far does the oldest human record go back? And then how old is the Earth. An earthquake produces power on the scale of nuclear weapons. Is it so far a stretch of the mind to think that amazing things could happen given enough time and possibilites?

Also we are the apes that evolved.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Also we are the apes that evolved.


 
could you please give me the source that has evidence for that?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Is it so far a stretch of the mind to think that amazing things could happen given enough time and possibilites?


no not at all first there was nothing then something formed and exploded creating plantets with volcanos air water gravity then live monsters crawled out of the pools of water turned into monkeys that turned into humans thats not to hard to imagine. 
but to think that some god created it all haha thats funny who could imagine that?

what is hard to imagine is what we are turning into.. got any ideas?


----------



## zorkan (Aug 20, 2009)

pinkus said:


> so what about the Gnostic gospels? and i'm glad you are using sources that don't have a conflict of interest.


 
ok i like tu butt n  so whut bout da gnostic gospels why du u ask dat guy
why not luk it up? u tink he smart or sumthing gugle it 
http://y-jesus.com/gnostic_gospels.php
http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/gnostic_gospels.htm
http://www.gnosis.org/lectures.html 
















hey any1 no tis answer 


https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/230048-what-kinda-glass-shield.html


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 20, 2009)

zorkan said:


> ok i like tu butt n  so whut bout da gnostic gospels why du u ask dat guy
> why not luk it up? u tink he smart or sumthing gugle it
> http://y-jesus.com/gnostic_gospels.php
> http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/gnostic_gospels.htm
> ...


 
DAMN!! almost cant understand what this guy just said lol


----------



## zorkan (Aug 20, 2009)

zorkan said:


> ok i like tu butt n  so whut bout da gnostic gospels why du u ask dat guy
> why not luk it up? u tink he smart or sumthing gugle it
> http://y-jesus.com/gnostic_gospels.php
> http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/gnostic_gospels.htm
> ...


 






dat guy ant right


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 20, 2009)

zorkan said:


> dat guy ant right


why did you just quote yourself?


----------



## zorkan (Aug 20, 2009)

zorkan said:


> dat guy ant right


 
yea who let him on here


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 20, 2009)

wow this zorkan guy needs to be banned for being an idiot


----------



## pinkus (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> we know what you believe but have you heard the other side


WHICH other side. You do know that there are more religions that just Christianity, right?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

pinkus said:


> WHICH other side. You do know that there are more religions that just Christianity, right?


we are all taught evolution now hear the other side ...


yes but those can easily be proven fake
dont ask me to do it just search it yourself
its easy


----------



## pinkus (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> we are all taught evolution now hear the other side ...
> 
> 
> yes but those can easily be proven fake
> ...


whoah! now you're talking gibberish...why would the christian god lett all Buddhists go to hell? not very Christian. I am quite willing to let you have your beliefs, but all others can be proved wrong? it's time to leave the thread until you open your eyes and ears.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 20, 2009)

pinkus said:


> but all others can be proved wrong?


 
yep dig deep the truth is there


----------



## pinkus (Aug 20, 2009)

fish601 said:


> yep dig deep the truth is there


you mean archaeopteryx? or did you conveniently rule that out,... as a way for god to screw with our heads? 


you can't have it both ways, ignore and embrace evidence. Again, faith doesn't need proof.....but proving it to those who need proof....it just ain't gonna happen 

good luck on your filling your quota  this is what i see in your future,  except that smilie is gonna be smiling, so have fun. i'll go meditate on this  peace fish man

pinkus


----------



## dpjones (Aug 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> no not at all first there was nothing then something formed and exploded creating plantets with volcanos air water gravity then live monsters crawled out of the pools of water turned into monkeys that turned into humans thats not to hard to imagine.
> but to think that some god created it all haha thats funny who could imagine that?
> 
> what is hard to imagine is what we are turning into.. got any ideas?


well actually it didnt happen anything like that. Thanks for showing how little you know on the subject which you condem.

I at least have a pritty good understanding of Christianity and the beliefs and you know bugger all about what it is you say is false.

So stop for minute look through this thread, notice how you only answer questions where there is apprantly no definite proof for or against. Notice how the good questions get convienetly ignored.

Notice how all the 'evidence' you posted came from Christian websites. 

Find me material proof that God exsists and i will be converted. Throw spirtual bullcrap and half baked arguments in my face and I will fight you all the way.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Aug 21, 2009)

Yeah it shouldnt be a race of sorts. We are all striving to do the right things in our lives I believe when it comes down to everyday things we do. As being so primitive looking at myself in a way I do see that thanks man for opening me up a lil bit. But I have had closed views on life and Im starting to realize there is a whole world and more out there for me and you and I can't discredit your views one bit so "step off" right.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 21, 2009)

No doubt that last part is true. If one is determined to live outside of the myth mentality......one must tie oneself to the mast.....it isn't an easy way to go. It is much more comfortable in the bosom of religion, hence it's popularity.

Here is an interesting snippet of an article I was researching in Greenhouse gases for another forum. It got me to thinking about this thread......

Read the snippet.... it's interesting. Think of course how you can take the information of the "how and why" in stride today. Now cast yourself back to biblical times and replay the article. What do you think would have been written about it? 

I think that should give you a window into the mentality of the people from which Christian religion was born from.... 


*Gas saturation*

Lake Nyos is one of only three lakes in the world known to be saturated with carbon dioxide -- the others are Lake Monoun, also in Cameroon about 100 km away, and Lake Kivu in Rwanda. A magma chamber beneath the region is an abundant source of carbon dioxide, which seeps up through the lake bed, charging the waters of Lake Nyos with an estimated 90 million tonnes of CO2. 

Lake Nyos is thermally stratified, with layers of warm, less dense water near the surface floating on the colder, denser water layers near the lake's bottom. Over long periods, carbon dioxide gas seeping into the cold water at the lake's bottom is dissolved in great amounts. 

Most of the time, the lake is stable and the CO2 remains in solution in the lower layers. However, over time the water becomes supersaturated, and if an event such as an earthquake or volcanic eruption occurs, large amounts of CO2 may suddenly come out of solution. *The 1986 disaster*

Lake Nyos as it appeared less than two weeks after the eruption; August 29, 1986. Areas once covered with vegetation are especially visible from the divide between photos to the extreme right.


A cow suffocated by gases from Lake Nyos




Although a sudden outgassing of CO2 had occurred at Lake Monoun in 1984, killing 37 local residents, a similar threat from Lake Nyos was not anticipated. However, on August 21, 1986, a limnic eruption occurred at Lake Nyos which triggered the sudden release of about 1.6 million tonnes of CO2. The gas rushed down two nearby valleys, displacing all the air and suffocating some 1,700 people within 20 km of the lake, mostly rural villagers, as well as 3,500 livestock. About 4,000 inhabitants fled the area, and many of these developed respiratory problems, lesions, and paralysis as a result of the gases.[4] 

It is not known what triggered the catastrophic outgassing. Most geologists suspect a landslide, but some believe that a small volcanic eruption may have occurred on the bed of the lake. A third possibility is that cool rainwater falling on one side of the lake triggered the overturn. Whatever the cause, the event resulted in the rapid mixing of the supersaturated deep water with the upper layers of the lake, where the reduced pressure allowed the stored CO2 to effervesce out of solution. 

It is believed that up to a cubic kilometre of gas was released. Because pure CO2 is denser than air, the gas flowed off the mountainous flank in which Lake Nyos rests and down two adjoining valleys in a layer tens of metres deep, displacing the air and suffocating all the people and animals before it could dissipate. The normally blue waters of the lake turned a deep red after the outgassing, due to iron-rich water from the deep rising to the surface and being oxidised by the air. The level of the lake dropped by about a metre, representing the volume of gas released. The outgassing probably also caused an overflow of the waters of the lake. Trees near the lake were knocked down. 

*Stay objective and keep one eye on the horizon.....*


----------



## fish601 (Aug 21, 2009)

dpjones said:


> well actually it didnt happen anything like that. Thanks for showing how little you know on the subject which you condem.
> 
> 
> So stop for minute look through this thread, notice how you only answer questions where there is apprantly no definite proof for or against. Notice how the good questions get convienetly ignored.
> ...


 


I have skiped a few questions because i think you all know the answer and are just asking me to see if i know. click the links in my sig they will answer alot of questions.
If you have one that those pages dont answer then ask me.
Those answers mostly come from christian webpages because we are all taught the big bang, evolution ... in school.
have you really checked into the facts or just took the word of text books in school because everyone knows they still print known lies in those and what a shame.
google "lucy".

i could ask you a "good question" like how does the big bang work or how did what did we evolve from OR i could just go to one of the atheist sites. why would i ask you that questions, to see if you know?


what material proof that God exsists would you like to see? <-- that is a questions i cant go to some atheist webpage to find out.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I have skiped a few questions because i think you all know the answer and are just asking me to see if i know. click the links in my sig they will answer alot of questions.
> If you have one that those pages dont answer then ask me.
> Those answers mostly come from christian webpages because we are all taught the big bang, evolution ... in school.
> have you really checked into the facts or just took the word of text books in school because everyone knows they still print known lies in those and what a shame.
> ...


Don't skip questions, very simple. If what you say is true then we all know nothing and it is your duty to inform us so that our souls can be saved.

The links in your sigs are bias towards Christianity, we need impartial sources or bullshit will be called.

I have asked you many questions and so have other which have been unanswered.

I could make my own page with my own facts and claim them to be true. Just cos i say it does not make it so. We need material logical evidence.


School books contain information which YOU claim to be wrong. Find proof against them and your ideas might be considered.

I didn't read all of what wikipedia said about 'Lucy' but it seems to me to be a part of the 'missing link'. Is that what you are getting at with that? A skeleton very similar to humans dated at roughly 3 million years old?

You could ask me to prove the Big Bang but to fully understand it you would need to do a degree in Physics. Basically it is a very very complex piece of physics.

One thing though that I can roughly explain is the red shift.

Gonna steal some stuff from Wikipedia (Impartial Website)

In physics and astronomy, *redshift* occurs when electromagnetic radiationusually visible lightemitted or reflected by an object is shifted towards the (less energetic) red end of the electromagnetic spectrum due to the Doppler effect or other gravitationally-induced effects. More generally, redshift is defined as an _increase_ in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in wavelength corresponds to a drop in the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Conversely, a _decrease_ in wavelength is called blue shift.

Basically scientist have been able to see Stars going supernova using the hubble telescope. The light is shifted towards the red spectrum.

This means they are moving away. If something is moving away then it must of started at a central point to begin with. This is one of the 'proofs' of the Big Bang. Because although the science isn't there yet (experiment happening in particle accelerators etc) There are signs to show it must have happened. 

Hmm what material proof of God would I like.

Well I would like to see him, and know it was him (and he would be able to make me believe this cos he is God). If something happened which was actually impossible, like someone who was dead for 3 days coming back to life. If an angel came down and spoke to me.

Atheist and Christian websites are always going to be Bias towards their own beliefs. So use something impartial. Basically stop posting those links which are written by some extreme nut.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 21, 2009)

This video i found by complete accident is very relevant http://www.break.com/index/the-ultra-deep-field-in-3d.html its only 4 mins but explains it a lot better than i can.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 21, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Don't skip questions, very simple. If what you say is true then we all know nothing and it is your duty to inform us so that our souls can be saved.
> 
> The links in your sigs are bias towards Christianity, we need impartial sources or bullshit will be called.
> 
> ...


 
ok ask your questions.


about school books .... On Friday the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt Chief Deputy
Commissioner of the Texas Education Agencys Robert Scott's, recommendation
for the elimination of factual errors in high school and advanced placement
biology textbooks.
Discovery
Institute President Bruce Chapman said. "We are already happy that a number
of embarrassing errors that overstate the evidence for evolutionary theory
were being fixed; 
In the future the Discovery Institute officials in their press release said
they will continue to publicize the errors in textbooks, the weaknesses
alleged to prove Darwinian evolution theory, and educate the public on the
dangers of not fully and completely teaching Darwin's theory http://www.discovery.org/a/1639
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/evolution.debate/


LUCY Casts of Lucys bones have been *imaginatively restored in museums* worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones!

*LUCY:* Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.
Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, *they were found to match a chimpanzee*, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 22, 2009)

fish601 said:


> ok ask your questions.
> 
> 
> about school books .... On Friday the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt Chief Deputy
> ...


You need to stop using Christian based arguments if you want to prove anything. Simply because all their arguments are based on faith.

The guy who is kicking up a fuss is having a moan because evolution is taught as fact and his religion says differently. Its only because the media has become involved that the school even bothers with him.



fish601 said:


> LUCY Casts of Lucys bones have been *imaginatively restored in museums* worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones!
> 
> *LUCY:* Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.
> Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, *they were found to match a chimpanzee*, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.


Source please cos wikipedia says differently, and wikipedia uses many different sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

And are you not going to address the rest of my point or that video?


----------



## dpjones (Aug 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No doubt that last part is true. If one is determined to live outside of the myth mentality......one must tie oneself to the mast.....it isn't an easy way to go. It is much more comfortable in the bosom of religion, hence it's popularity.
> 
> Here is an interesting snippet of an article I was researching in Greenhouse gases for another forum. It got me to thinking about this thread......
> 
> ...


How would you have views this incident 2000 years ago without science to explain it?


----------



## dpjones (Aug 22, 2009)

Can you explain the young Earth theory to me please in laymen terms?

How old is the Earth? (An estimate is fine)

If a tree falls in the wood, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

dpjones said:


> You need to stop using Christian based arguments if you want to prove anything. Simply because all their arguments are based on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those arguments are based on science

The radiometric dating of "Lucy" is an example. After the original date of 3.6 million years became unpalatable, a geologist suggested that the date should be revised downward to 3 million years based upon comparative dating of similar volcanic tuff. Another date was 2.6 million years, then 2.9 million years, and then 1.8 million years. Now, they believe that "Lucy" should be about two million years old.10 http://www.rae.org/revev3.html


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]&#8226;[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*LUCY:* Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.
Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.[34] http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm[/FONT]

dude look for yourself lucy is fake google it
and look at the pic below bones they found and pic they came up with 

might watch vid later


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

dpjones said:


> How would you have views this incident 2000 years ago without science to explain it?


same as a volcano or earth quake


----------



## dpjones (Aug 22, 2009)

fish601 said:


> same as a volcano or earth quake


Which is?

What i'm getting at is people thought they were punishments from God when now science has proved otherwise.


----------



## dpjones (Aug 22, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Those arguments are based on science
> 
> dude look for yourself lucy is fake google it
> and look at the pic below bones they found and pic they came up with
> ...


I don't give a shit about any computer generated pictures. Look at the fossil.

I am still waiting for the source on your info.

Also still waiting for answers to my other questions.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Which is?
> 
> What i'm getting at is people thought they were punishments from God when now science has proved otherwise.


 
those "people thought" maybe they were in error mayeb god made that happen.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Can you explain the young Earth theory to me please in laymen terms?
> 
> How old is the Earth? (An estimate is fine)
> 
> If a tree falls in the wood, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?


No i can not explain young earth theory 
here is a christian page that *showes the problems with young earth* http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

I dont know how old the earth is
I do know that they make alot of errors in dating

yes


----------



## dpjones (Aug 22, 2009)

Ok i've had enough of this now. We seem to be going round in circles.


----------



## sunni (Aug 22, 2009)

youre completely right and i believe the reason religion is such an issue for war is because religion is a strong belief someone has
such as an example someone disses someones mother, and they fight about it, when someone takes something someone loves or believes in such a strong way or matter they tend to fight or argue int he case of religion i think because religion is strong people have strong beliefs in it so when it comes into conflict with another really strong belief war is created


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

dpjones said:


> Ok i've had enough of this now. We seem to be going round in circles.


 
my turn?

if they are so wrong about lucy what about all the other ones.. could it be that they are wrong about those also?

but really does it matter how old the earth is? The bible does not say so it cant prove the bible wrong.





So i have a few questions and really i dont know the answer, can anyone help me?

Why do humans cry when sad?

If evolution is true howcome other animals havent developed language

Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution?

The Earth's magnetic field is dacaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. true or false?

Why are there human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints?




In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

well i do have one more question i just tought of it and i am high so it might be dumb lol

alright big bang happend forming earth and this happen 4.5billion years ago. 

why when we test rocks the date is allways different  earth getting younger? 

4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are *relatively rare*, oWTFhow can they be rare?) however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 22, 2009)

The oldest rocks are usually found in sea beds, but the earth is like a conveyor belt when it comes to rock. it seems like a stable foundation underneath but earth is being driven down (old rocks) and being driven up (new rocks) everywhere. The continental plates are all either eating or spewing forth earth. It's a constant, not a static earth.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 22, 2009)

Sigh........... I think I'm done with you


----------



## fish601 (Aug 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The oldest rocks are usually found in sea beds, but the earth is like a conveyor belt when it comes to rock. it seems like a stable foundation underneath but earth is being driven down (old rocks) and being driven up (new rocks) everywhere. The continental plates are all either eating or spewing forth earth. It's a constant, not a static earth.


 
what makes "new rocks" no matter where they are at on the conveyor belt all rock were made at the same time right? 

maybe i am not using the right words .. let me use this.. if i created a rock and put it out in space and put water on it and added a few volcanos then came back 5billion years later to test the age of it, no matter where i pull a sample from it should read 5billion

is the original earth not here anymore?


----------



## Brazko (Aug 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Sigh........... I think I'm done with you


 



hehehehehehehahahahahaha..aaaaaahhhhhhhh shit, Rep you right back for this 1 CJ, Not the Sexiest but the best Yet 

Challenge


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 22, 2009)

She grows on you doesn't she?!


----------



## phatlip (Aug 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> in a million years will the monkeys of today evolve into people?
> with all the fosils we have today not one showes animals evolving into anyother animal much less people.. if they evolve so slow there should be some evidence


 
see what i mean u literally dont know the definition of evolution... im done with u


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

what is evolution help me understand


So i have a few questions and really i dont know the answer, can anyone help me?

Why do humans cry when sad?

If evolution is true howcome other animals havent developed language kinda silly but interesting

Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution really i cant find any but if u believe their are skip this one

The Earth's magnetic field is dacaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. true or false? someting i seen on the internet.....

Why are there human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints?

What do you think we will evolve into in anther billion years? i was thinking we could fly around you know if we went from four legs to 2 why not go from 2 to none?.. actually i think 4 is better than 2 lol specially when drunk

also..... really i havent looked into it and i havent given it much tought lol so umm the earth was created big bang or what ever but it was made all at once right? so why doesnt all earth have a date of the same time?
example.. magically created a rock and stuck it out in space put volcanos, water and wind on it and came back in 10 million years should every piece of the rock,sand,dirt all give me the same reading?


----------



## grape swisha (Aug 24, 2009)

phatlip said:


> see what i mean u literally dont know the definition of evolution... im done with u


fish will never understand. he seems like one of those hardcore christians that is ignorant to just about anything that isnt in the bible.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> fish will never understand. he seems like one of those hardcore christians that is ignorant to just about anything that isnt in the bible.


 
you can look at evolution from different angles
the bible and science agree


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

Since there is no science in the Bible....I disagree. No science....only primitive superstitions.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

how little you know


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

I have read it... I have studied it at University. I was raised on it. I know it. 

No science......


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

cracker will you read and comment on *Romans 9:14-24 http://www.biblestudytools.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ro+9:18&version=niv&context=1&showtools=1*


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

yes, the old circular logic bit again.... what of it?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> yes, the old circular logic bit again.... what of it?


Dont know what that means..


do you feel used?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

and if you would give me the most convincing evidence that there is not a god or that the bible is not real i will consider it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

Don't know what circular logic is? Part of me is shocked...part of me says...of course he doesn't! 

A circular argument is one wherein at least two conclusions are offered as proofs of each other. This is to say, for example, that A and B are true, and your proof is that A therefore B, and B therefore A, with no outside proof of either. A good (and common) example is "God exists because the Bible says and the Bible is the infallible word of God." Break it down into: "God exists because the Bible says so" and "The Bible is true because God says so." These lean upon each other; remove either and both fall apart. The first assumes the truth of the Bible to prove that God exists, and the second assumes that God exists to prove the truth of the Bible. Each assumption is unproven outside of its sibling assumption. But this is elementary logic.

Picking up on my drift?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 26, 2009)

i was talking about what does it have to do with that scripture.

if you can prove the bible wrong by all means feel free


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 26, 2009)

Now see, it's right in front of you and yet....you do not see. This is quite pointless.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

ok so you didnt read that scripture or you would get what i was talking about.. yep kinda pointless


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

I read the scripture but my post defeats all scripture....so....your point is mighty dull.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

ok i can see you are scared of scripture


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

No, I'm just not fooled into thinking it's gospel truth. It says it is, but so what. Just because they say it and ppl then believe it, doesn't make it actually true.

The Bible only confirms itself, nothing else. Conversly, nothing else confirms the Bible, except the ones who have made a business out of it. 

I'm just not fooled easily and have the strength to go into the darkness without a myth as comfort.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

I have been asking you to show me give me 100% evidence


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> fish will never understand. he seems like one of those hardcore christians that is ignorant to just about anything that isnt in the bible.


Is a black person who doesn't agree with your point of view an "ignorant black" 

My bet is your hatred doesn't end with Christians


----------



## GanjaAL (Aug 28, 2009)

grape swisha said:


> so i was thinkin and i honestly think that religion has done more bad than good in the world. anyways i would like some opinions and why.


NOpe... it is people doing bad things in the name of religion.

People are people regardless of their religious preference.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> So i have a few questions and really i dont know the answer, can anyone help me?
> 
> Why do humans cry when sad?


See here and here for a couple of theories.



fish601 said:


> If evolution is true howcome other animals havent developed language kinda silly but interesting


It would depend on what you mean by "language", but animals communicate with each other in many ways. Their methods just aren't generally as refined as ours. (link)



fish601 said:


> Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution really i cant find any but if u believe their are skip this one


Here you go.




fish601 said:


> The Earth's magnetic field is dacaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. true or false? someting i seen on the internet.....


See here and here.



fish601 said:


> Why are there human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints?


There aren't.




fish601 said:


> What do you think we will evolve into in anther billion years? i was thinking we could fly around you know if we went from four legs to 2 why not go from 2 to none?.. actually i think 4 is better than 2 lol specially when drunk


Sure, wings would be cool. Nature's already started trying the winged mutation with cats, so we may get a chance as well.




fish601 said:


> also..... really i havent looked into it and i havent given it much tought lol so umm the earth was created big bang or what ever but it was made all at once right? so why doesnt all earth have a date of the same time?
> example.. magically created a rock and stuck it out in space put volcanos, water and wind on it and came back in 10 million years should every piece of the rock,sand,dirt all give me the same reading?


I take it you aren't aware of how rocks are formed, or how they are dated. See here for the simple stuff (that you should have learned by the age of 10), and once you have absorbed that, see here.


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *grape swisha*  
_fish will never understand. he seems like one of those hardcore christians that is ignorant to just about anything that isnt in the bible._




Green Cross said:


> Is a black person who doesn't agree with your point of view an "ignorant black"
> 
> My bet is your hatred doesn't end with Christians


I don't C the connection or where You would get the Impression from Purple Swisha making the above statement about Fish: Ignorance is Contagious, everyone has it, being Ignorant and Dumb is, Well, RAre. But it reminded me of a Story and A Joke, Here Goes the Story.

A co-Worker of Mine was discussing how 1 day in Class our Physicist Teacher was saying how he can calculate to an T the exact location one Should Sit on An Airplane with speed, size, Weight, blah, blah, that would allow that person to Survive an Crash. My Co-worker Said, Mr. Blank, I don't care where I sit on that plane, I can be on the OUtside sitting on the Nose of the Plane and if God want's me to Live than I will.....

The Joke:

A devout Christian, and Faithful was sick and Shut in. For So long he had been Sick everyone was trying to get him to Go see a Doctor, but Faithfully the man said God will Take care of me, My Faith is in Him to Heal Me....DAys went by, then Weeks, then a Month, Still the faithful Christian waited on the Lord to Save him as his situation continued to get Worse. One day a Doctor showed Up hearing how sick the man had became, and wanted to treat him. The Faithful Christian Smiled and Said No Thank You, my trust is in the Lord, The Doctor Pleaded, but to no avail. Days continued to pass, and another Doctor heard of the man's Illness and decided he would try to help, Upon showing up, The faithful Christian Smiled, Thanked the Doctor and explained to him that the Lord is on His side, He will be healed be the Almighty. The Doctor Pleaded with him but once again, no avail. Soon Weeks turned into months and the Man's Case got worse, Finally, A third Doctor Showed up to his doorsteps, this man was A Christian and a Doctor, he knew he would be able to get through to him, and be allowed to treat the man's Illness, but like all others..The Man told the Doctor he should know better than all others, That the Lord is On his side, He will Wait On him.

Finally, a fatal end, the Faithful Christian Had Passed On...and assuredly he Went to Heaven. Upon entering the Gates, Was the Great and Almighty... The Faithful Christian said God, I have been so Faithful to you, and always trusted in You, Why would you not come and Heal me when you Heard My Cries, God being God Laughed and Smiled at his Child ..What ever do you Mean child, I was all but Sure that I Sent over 3 Doctors to take care of You!!


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

Hey CJ, here's proof that God is omnipotent and You have a Soul (atleast digital that is), Check out Post #290, I have just captured your Immortal Digital Soul, there is No escape, Hahahahahaha ,

God sure Works is Mysterious Ways, or is that just the programming.. , ,


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

_Why do humans cry when sad?_ *those links talk about the effects that crying has on people it doesnt explain why we do it*

_If evolution is true howcome other animals havent developed language_.... *no animal is even close to humans in language i think you know what i mean*

_Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution..._ they present that as evolution but its not close to being proven. *with that said i have only check on a few so if u will show me which one proves without a doubt please let me know alot of those are so iffy seems like they needed to fill a spot and put something in. i am willing to research a few but i cant do them all so if you know of one,....*

_The Earth's magnetic field is dacaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. true or false? someting i seen on the internet_..... *ok that sounds good to me thanks*

_Why are there human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints? *turns out i was wrong thanks*_


_When the cat runs, the mats flap up and down giving the impression of wings the winged mutation with cats _

_I take it you aren't aware of how rocks are formed, or how they are dated. See here for the simple stuff (that you should have learned by the age of 10), and once you have absorbed that, see here. *did you see my example?* anyways..*The whole earth is made of rocks & minerals The rocks you see around you - the mountains, canyons & riverbeds, are all made of minerals. A rock is made up of 2 or more minerals. my questions is have those minerals been here from the beginning? if so why dont they all date the same age? *_

_*thanks *_


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

Not having particular answers in science does not give validation to any G*D..... so what's the point?

As soon as you find a gap....you want to fill it up with any nonsense? How about just waiting till we figure it out first. Try giving man the benefit of the doubt for a change.




BUckwheat, I mean Brazko.... you may download my digital soul at will. Replicate and distribute..... then CJ will be everywhere.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 29, 2009)

_Why do humans cry when sad?_ *those links talk about the effects that crying has on people it doesnt explain why we do it*

It's effect on other people is exactly why we have evolved the ability to do it. It's beneficial to our survival.


_If evolution is true howcome other animals havent developed language_.... *no animal is even close to humans in language i think you know what i mean*

Just because they don't communicate in the same way as us does not make their "language" less viable. Ants could ask the same question about us, since our method of communication is nothing like theirs, but they have evolved a system that works for them, as have we. There are loads of examples of animals using components of what we consider language, and any of them could potentially evolve this further in the far future.


_Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution..._ they present that as evolution but its not close to being proven. *with that said i have only check on a few so if u will show me which one proves without a doubt please let me know alot of those are so iffy seems like they needed to fill a spot and put something in. i am willing to research a few but i cant do them all so if you know of one,....*

I'm sorry if they seem "iffy" to you, but to be honest, it shows a lack of research on your part. One fossil on it's own doesn't prove very much, but all of them combined should make things pretty obvious., especially when you look at them on a genetic level.


_The Earth's magnetic field is dacaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. true or false? someting i seen on the internet_..... *ok that sounds good to me thanks*

_Why are there human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints? *turns out i was wrong thanks*_


_When the cat runs, the mats flap up and down giving the impression of wings the winged mutation with cats _

I posted that page as a kind of joke, but that is pretty much how evolution works. Mutations take place, some positive and some negative, and if the animal is successful (manages to breed), the mutation is passed on.

It seems that you have also chosen to quote the most irrelevent part of the article as well, since the "matted fur" stuff is not exactly a mutation.



> The second explanation of reports of winged cats is a skin condition called feline cutaneous asthenia or FCA, which is related to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (elastic skin) in humans. In winged cats that are due to FCA, the wings only occur on the shoulders, haunches, or back. *Winged cats that are due to FCA can often actively move their wings, suggesting the presence of neuromuscular tissue within the wings, which is not present within clumps of matted fur alone.*
> The third explanation is a form of conjoining or extra limbs. These non-functional or *poorly functional extra limbs would be fur covered and might resemble wings, as in one winged cat case recently documented by Dr Karl Shuker, in which the wings were shown to be** supernumary limbs.*


_

I take it you aren't aware of how rocks are formed, or how they are dated. See here for the simple stuff (that you should have learned by the age of 10), and once you have absorbed that, see here. *did you see my example?* anyways..*The whole earth is made of rocks & minerals The rocks you see around you - the mountains, canyons & riverbeds, are all made of minerals. A rock is made up of 2 or more minerals. my questions is have those minerals been here from the beginning? if so why dont they all date the same age? *_



> Closure temperature Main article: Closure temperature
> *If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero.* The temperature at which this happens is known as the closure temperature or blocking temperature and is specific to a particular material and isotopic system. These temperatures are experimentally determined in the lab artificially resetting samples using a high-temperature furnace. As the mineral cools, the crystal structure begins to form and diffusion of isotopes is less easy. At a certain temperature, the crystal structure has formed sufficiently to prevent diffusion of isotopes. This temperature is what is known as closure temperature and represents the temperature below which the mineral is a closed system to isotopes. *Thus an igneous or metamorphic rock or melt, which is slowly cooling, does not begin to exhibit measurable radioactive decay until it cools below the closure temperature. The age that can be calculated by radiometric dating is thus the time at which the rock or mineral cooled to closure temperature.*



In your earlier example where you "created" a planet filled with volcanoes, rocks would continue to be created after you have left it, so not all rocks would date to your "creation point" You're dating the rock's current form, not it's component elements.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

If crying didnt have an affect on people would we be stuck with crying that had no use? 
What made us develop crying? were are bodies just testing things out?


"One fossil on it's own doesn't prove very much, but all of them combined should make things pretty obvious" 
I dont see missing links I see missing chains. I continually look into it searching for something to "link" us with something


On dating rocks i understand now thanks but we still run into the problems with dating methods


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 29, 2009)

If crying didnt have an affect on people would we be stuck with crying that had no use? 
What made us develop crying? were are bodies just testing things out?

In the second link I posted:


> First, according to an historical hypothesis, crying indicates distress of infants due to physical separation from their parents. In the evolutionary past of _Homo sapiens_, infants appear to have been continuously carried by their mothers. In those circumstances, prolonged physical separation probably meant abandonment by the parent.



I fail to see where you are trying to go with this though. Does crying have some kind of religious inferrence?

"One fossil on it's own doesn't prove very much, but all of them combined should make things pretty obvious" 
I dont see missing links I see missing chains. I continually look into it searching for something to "link" us with something

The most convincing evidence in my mind is not the fossil record, but human chromosome 2, which was formed by a fusion of 2 chromosomes present in all other primates. Add this to all the other evidence, and it's hard to see why anyone still has doubts about our origins.

On dating rocks i understand now thanks but we still run into the problems with dating methods

Rocks and fossils are usually dated using multiple methods to ensure the accuracy of the results. Each method has it's drawbacks, but when combined the results are highly accurate.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

He thinks finding a flaw in science equates to validation of a myth.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

its just science doesnt provide truth when it comes to evolution. there are alot of scientific assumptions


I am not gona make excuses for a myth 

why would a tree grow?


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> its just science doesnt provide truth when it comes to evolution. there are alot of scientific assumptions
> 
> 
> I am not gona make excuses for a myth
> ...


Fish it seems that you have never studied science, so stop pretending that you understand it. There is proof of evolution, if you just look at viruses and bacteria. Over time they have evolved to combat our medicines. And since viruses and bacteria can have new generations at a much much faster rate then any species. Have you wondered why penicillin is not as effective as it was a few decades ago. That is because we used it so much that certain variations of viruses that were immune to the drug were able to survive and reproduce. This is the basis of evolution the strong survive and pass on their genes to the next generations. Over time the mutations that were favorable to survival build up on each other. If you study DNA, most of it is actually unused genes from the species that we evolved from. There are certain cases of people having genetic defects which makes it so that these genes show up again. Such as people being born with tails, or people being born with excessive amounts of hair. Just because you wish to ignore things does not make it so that it is not there. 

Science does have holes in it, but that is because scientist do not understand everything, and do not claim that they do. They research and try to answer the questions that they do not understand. Unlike religion which just accepts everything. Tell me why your religion is right, and not some ancient tribe in Africa (which the Vatican has had a fun time destroying that continent over time, destroying my peoples heritage in place of their views). I unlike you do not believe things on faith, I have to have proof that has been tested over time. And the problem with anyone saying that a religion is true is that is it cannot be tested, and you have to just believe it. 99% of scientist believe that the earth is around 4.5 years old. This website http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
also disproves every accusation that you have about the young earth theory. Here is just one argument disproving you decaying magnetic field theory:

2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (198.

Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-10 or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-3
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-15
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)

Stop pretending you understand science when you get your facts from a website that has no scientific legitimacy. All Science in the end is assumptions, assumptions with data behind it. Religion is assumptions with nothing; you cannot say the bible since I can not test the bible or any religious document to disprove it. Science leaves the possibility to disprove any notion, unlike religion.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> Fish it seems that you have never studied science, so stop pretending that you understand it.
> 
> Stop pretending you understand science when you get your facts from a website that has no scientific legitimacy. All Science in the end is assumptions, assumptions with data behind it. Religion is assumptions with nothing.


I dont know science no more than i know math,
Do these people know science?
*Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation*


Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist<LI sizset="106" sizcache="8">Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics <LI sizset="107" sizcache="8">Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist 
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist<LI sizset="108" sizcache="8">Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist 
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist<LI sizset="109" sizcache="8">Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics <LI sizset="110" sizcache="8">Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist 
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology<LI sizset="111" sizcache="8">Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry 
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer<LI sizset="112" sizcache="8">Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics 
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics<LI sizset="113" sizcache="8">Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics 
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering<LI sizset="114" sizcache="8">Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist 
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education<LI sizset="115" sizcache="8">Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering 
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist<LI sizset="116" sizcache="8">Dr. Bob Compton, DVM <LI sizset="117" sizcache="8">Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist <LI sizset="118" sizcache="8">Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist <LI sizset="119" sizcache="8">Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics 
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist<LI sizset="120" sizcache="8">Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging 
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist<LI sizset="121" sizcache="8">Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany <LI sizset="122" sizcache="8">Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics 
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry<LI sizset="123" sizcache="8">Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education <LI sizset="124" sizcache="8">Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience <LI sizset="125" sizcache="8">Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div <LI sizset="126" sizcache="8">Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist <LI sizset="127" sizcache="8">Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research <LI sizset="128" sizcache="8">Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research <LI sizset="129" sizcache="8">Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist 
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist<LI sizset="130" sizcache="8">Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics <LI sizset="131" sizcache="8">Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy <LI sizset="132" sizcache="8">Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology <LI sizset="133" sizcache="8">Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry <LI sizset="134" sizcache="8">Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology 
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science<LI sizset="135" sizcache="8">Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research <LI sizset="136" sizcache="8">Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist <LI sizset="137" sizcache="8">Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist <LI sizset="138" sizcache="8">Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist <LI sizset="139" sizcache="8">Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon <LI sizset="140" sizcache="8">Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry 
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)<LI sizset="141" sizcache="8">Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist <LI sizset="142" sizcache="8">Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist 
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service<LI sizset="143" sizcache="8">Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist <LI sizset="144" sizcache="8">Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science <LI sizset="145" sizcache="8">Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry <LI sizset="146" sizcache="8">Dr. George F. Howe, Botany 
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist<LI sizset="147" sizcache="8">Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology 
Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics<LI sizset="148" sizcache="8">Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy <LI sizset="149" sizcache="8">George T. Javor, Biochemistry 
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology<LI sizset="150" sizcache="8">Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology 
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology<LI sizset="151" sizcache="8">Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry 
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist<LI sizset="152" sizcache="8">Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist 
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist<LI sizset="153" sizcache="8">Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: <LI sizset="154" sizcache="8">Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist 
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry<LI sizset="155" sizcache="8">Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher <LI sizset="156" sizcache="8">Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist 
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist<LI sizset="157" sizcache="8">Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics <LI sizset="158" sizcache="8">Dr. David Menton, Anatomist <LI sizset="159" sizcache="8">Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist <LI sizset="160" sizcache="8">Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist 
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist<LI sizset="161" sizcache="8">Colin W. Mitchell, Geography <LI sizset="162" sizcache="8">Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician 
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator<LI sizset="163" sizcache="8">Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist <LI sizset="164" sizcache="8">Dr. Henry M. Morris (19182006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research. <LI sizset="166" sizcache="8">Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist <LI sizset="167" sizcache="8">Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist 
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist<LI sizset="168" sizcache="8">Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology <LI sizset="169" sizcache="8">Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering 
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering<LI sizset="170" sizcache="8">Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher 
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics<LI sizset="171" sizcache="8">Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology 
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist<LI sizset="172" sizcache="8">Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) 
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter<LI sizset="173" sizcache="8">Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics <LI sizset="174" sizcache="8">Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist 
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.<LI sizset="175" sizcache="8">Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics 
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist<LI sizset="176" sizcache="8">Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology 
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry<LI sizset="177" sizcache="8">Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist: 
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (19151995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer<LI sizset="178" sizcache="8">Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist 
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science<LI sizset="179" sizcache="8">Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology <LI sizset="180" sizcache="8">Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education <LI sizset="181" sizcache="8">Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer <LI sizset="182" sizcache="8">Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry 
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics<LI sizset="183" sizcache="8">Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering <LI sizset="184" sizcache="8">Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics <LI sizset="185" sizcache="8">Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics 
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry<LI sizset="186" sizcache="8">Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist: <LI sizset="187" sizcache="8">Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science <LI sizset="188" sizcache="8">Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist 
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (18921979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering<LI sizset="189" sizcache="8">Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer 
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)<LI sizset="190" sizcache="8">Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics <LI sizset="191" sizcache="8">Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist 
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist<LI sizset="192" sizcache="8">Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist <LI sizset="193" sizcache="8">Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) 
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics<LI sizset="194" sizcache="8">Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering 
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology<LI sizset="195" sizcache="8">Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist 
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I dont know science no more than i know math,
> Do these people know science?
> *Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation*
> 
> ...


You can list names of scientist all day, but just because you have a PhD in you name does not mean anything if you cannot support your argument. I also do not know the credentials of the scientist, I question everything do not take every thing at face value. You also listed a philosopher, which is not a scientist. Many of the arguments made by creationist are based on warped data, as I have shown in my previous post. I don't in scientist, that would make it religion, I believe in the data which is the science. Creationism is not a science, there is no data or proof, and it can not be tested, since all theories have a common link. Saying that God started it all, you cannot prove or disprove God, so it cannot be tested. If you can not test it is not a science. There are scientist that accept creationism, but can not back it up with data that is clear and consistent, that can be later tested. I doubt that they can. Much of the "data" which they use is extremely old and faulty.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

they look at the same evidence evolution scientist look at but i was just showing you it isnt me making all this up and that there is a different side of the story that has just as much evidence


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> its just science doesnt provide truth when it comes to evolution. there are alot of scientific assumptions
> 
> 
> I am not gona make excuses for a myth
> ...



As usual Fish, you look at things backward.

It is the Bible which is the assumption, not science.


----------



## pinkus (Aug 29, 2009)

Fish...you refuse to even entertain the possibility you are wrong. The possibility of being wrong is necessary to test anything scientifically. hence, you really aren't playing on a level playing field. 

AGAIN Faith by definition does not need proof...so do yourself and all these other people a favor and quit pretending you want proof...no proof will ever suffice. so go to church, i'll meditate on your sorry fate.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> they look at the same evidence evolution scientist look at but i was just showing you it isnt me making all this up and that there is a different side of the story that has just as much evidence


Creationism CANNOT be a science because at its core is states that God is the creator of everything. You cannot test God to prove or disprove he/she/it exist, so you do not have a science. FACT. That takes away the credibility of anyone that tries to use creationism as a alternative to evolution when looking at it from a scientific point of view. Creationist use completely different set of data to base their views on false information below I give you 10 pieces of evidence that creationist use to justify their claims, and 10 reasons refuting and proving tat they are wrong. This was found here 

Evidence 1.
Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.

Response:
As explained on the Leapsecond page of the National Earth Orientation Service, the true spindown rate of the earth is 1.5 to 2 milliseconds per day per century. That means that after 100 years, the length of day has systematically increased (on average) 0.0015 to 0.002 seconds. This is also found, for instance, in Kurt Lambecks's book "The Earth's Variable Rotation" (Cambridge University Press, 1980; currently out of print), page 3. This is a long-term secular variation. As Lambeck and numerous others point out, there are variations on the length of day that range from daily to seasonal in scale, so that the true length of day can vary greatly from day to day, over multi-year time scales.

The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because the two use seconds that are not the same length). The leap second is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within 0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing down by one second per year.

Evidence 2.
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973).

Response:
The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes is directly false. I have already written an extensive critique of Barnes' work, which is found in the talk.origins archive. Barnes' argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved. Barnes makes the simplistic mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a 10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem, ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already proven that this could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very poor argument.

Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. a) Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14.

Response:
Directly false. Current observation & measurement shows that the rate of helium loss from the atmosphere balances the rate of production through radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. Cook was unaware of the loss of ionized helium along polar magnetic field lines, as are more current champions of the same argument. A detailed response is available.

Evidence 4.
There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1½ miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, any of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. a) Peter A. Steveson, "Meteoric Evidence or a Young Earth," Creation Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, June, 1975, pp. 23-25.

Response:
Directly false. Meteorites in fossilized sediments are rare, but they do exist. And meteoritic dust and debris are quite common in sediments. There are also a few hundred undeniable impact structures (i.e. craters) on the earth. A detailed response is available.

Evidence 5.
The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an exceedingly large amount of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young. a) Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151-153. b) Steveson, pp. 23-25. c) Hans Peterson, "Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust," Scientific American, Vol. 202, February, 1960, p. 132.

Evidence 6.
If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust--possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon is young.

Response:
Since items 5 & 6 deal with essentially the same thing, that being the accumulation rate of interplanetary dust, on either the earth or the moon, I have taken them together. The short answer is that this argument is diirectly false. The accumulation rate of meteorite dust is now known by way of direct observation. That measured rate is inconsistent with the young-earth argument. Add to this the fact that the citation of Pettersson's work is not correct, and you get an argument that was already weak when it was originally generated, but now stands simply falsified. A more detailed response is available.

Evidence 7.
The sun acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeoriods per day. If the solar system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoriods should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less than 10,000 years old. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 60-61.

Response:
Directly false. While it is true that the dynamic lifetime of dust in the solar system is short compared to the age of the solar system, the statement that there is no significant source of replenishment is known to be false. A detailed response is available.

Evidence 8.
Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 yearsa. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much.b-c Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago. a)"Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September, 1979, pp. 17-19. b) David W. Dunham, et. al., "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, pp. 1243-1245. c) Irwin I. Shapiro, "Is the Sun Shrinking?", Science, Vol. 208, April 4, 1980, pp. 51-53.

Response:
Directly false. The original proponents of this argument failed to appreciate the fact that the study cited by Dunham was never published. In fact, it was revoked by the authors prior to publication when they realized that their own data were flawed. Current detailed observations show that the sun is not shrinking in radius, but may pulsate slowly over a solar cycle period of about 11 years. Theory suggests that the sun is slowly expanding over time. A detailed response is available.

Evidence 9.
Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.

Response:
Directly false. This argument suuffers from the same fatal flaw as the dust arguments: the denial of a significant source of replenishment, when there are strong data to show the opposite. The argument is even more seriously damaged by the detection of the Kuiper belt. A detailed response is available.

Evidence 10.
Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off. a) H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie, Jr., "The Internal Powers and Effective Temperature of Jupiter and Saturn,: The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, Jul, 1969, pp. 169-172. b) "Close Encounter with Saturn," Time, November 10, 1980, p.78. c) Steidl, pp. 51-52, 55.

Response:
True, although some of the details are slightly in error. All of the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) radiate more energy than they receive from the sun. The worst offender in that way is Neptune. The reason given is also correct, the planets indeed have not had time to cool off. However, the author of this argument naively fails to appreciate that it takes several billion years for masses of these sizes to cool off, and that there are significant sources of internal heat other than heavy isotope radioactive decay (such as internal viscous friction from helium settling out in the mostly hydrogen mantles). So the creationists are right on this one, but it still doesn't help. Is a more detailed response necessary?

Again your statement about something you do not know about is wrong, since creationist are NOT looking at the same data real scientist are.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

pinkus said:


> Fish...you refuse to even entertain the possibility you are wrong. The possibility of being wrong is necessary to test anything scientifically. hence, you really aren't playing on a level playing field.
> 
> AGAIN Faith by definition does not need proof...so do yourself and all these other people a favor and quit pretending you want proof...no proof will ever suffice. so go to church, i'll meditate on your sorry fate.


I have been wrong and admited it 

there are smarter people than you and I that debated this so i guess one cant prove the other wrong. If there was just one piece of evidence 100% fact on one side and none on the other we would all have to believe that one.
If scienced ever does proved humans evolved from monkeys i would have to believe that. But so far they have not. if they could prove big bang or how old the earth is i would have to believe that but they havent i really dont care how old the earth is Nor do i care if we evolved i would just say that was in gods plan but how could you ever prove there is or isnt a god unless he wanted it that way so i guess we are left with faith, me faith in God you faith in science


----------



## pinkus (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I have been wrong and admited it
> 
> there are smarter people than you and I that debated this so i guess one cant prove the other wrong. If there was just one piece of evidence 100% fact on one side and none on the other we would all have to believe that one.
> If scienced ever does proved humans evolved from monkeys i would have to believe that. But so far they have not. if they could prove big bang or how old the earth is i would have to believe that but they havent i really dont care how old the earth is Nor do i care if we evolved i would just say that was in gods plan but how could you ever prove there is or isnt a god unless he wanted it that way so i guess we are left with faith, me faith in God you faith in science


you know, i've been defending your right to your beliefs and I've been tellings others not to call others names. you are damn close to name calling and i'm damn close to writing you off. 

nobody has said i have faith in science or anything else. But you continually try to prove the unprovable.... YOU DON'T NEED TO if you have faith.... again (how many times) faith by DEFINITION does not require evidence. that's why it is called faith....as in on good faith.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

> If there was just one piece of evidence 100% fact on one side and none on the other we would all have to believe that one.


Fish, ....amazing. Religion has been proven wrong over and over again, but you are blind to it. "But the book says", or read scripture so and so is not a defense. The Bible is not a historical reference of any accuracy, and it is not a book of science. It is neither and the only verification lies within it's own bindings. A theory cannot be proven by simply stating the theory over an over again. It must be testable and verifiable. The Bible is NOT either of these. 

But let's use your faulty premise for a bit. You need 100% proof of evidence for "either" side to believe. 

This means you don't believe EITHER theory. No creationism, no evolution.

By your own words.....


----------



## sandmonkey (Aug 30, 2009)

Fish, you make the rest of us monotheists look like idiots.

Quit before you reveal more of your ignorance and further embarrass yourself.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

I had mono once, but I got over it....


----------



## Atrilius (Aug 30, 2009)

There is no such thing as good or bad ? think about it..... We all have to TRY and live by the law and some cases religion law aswell. Law and Religion Tells us what is right or wrong, and we should all know that Law and religion is always changing therefore there must be a case for saying that religion and law is not always right. 

All Religions I believe were to serve a purpose..... CONTROL.... controling the masses to do what the people who created the religion.... to do what they want them to. These groups of people have been around for a very long time and past on there power through family. People always are talking about the three classes of people but in fact there are four.... working class, middle class, upper class and the ELITE . The Elite control you and me... via the media... Banks (credit Debt), Religion, Law (goverment), school,football (keep your mind of things that really matter) infact they create money out of thin air and now changed the word slave to the word work...without anyone really knowing the difference. They pay you nothing for your freedom and we are obliged feel lucky that we go to work. If you like me understand this in alot more depth then you will also understand that we can not do anything about this because we have to face everybody first, before we can make any changes. Ie. your family, your friends, the neighbour, the man or women on the street, the media and so on. Its near enough impossible to fight all these people. I told my mum once when I was young that I did not want to get a job ! because I did not want to be a good little slave for anyone. She fliped and went crazy... I lost the battle and was thrown out onto the street.

When I talk about the elite you have to remember that these people are familys of people who own most everything, including your king or queen, goverment and they are not interested in being in the media lime light like most people. They also dont get on with each other aswell but serve a common purpose and that is to control everthing. To have control you need to create many things ... ie.. fear... Religion uses it to make sure the believers behave in the way they want. Goverment use the word terrorist, weapons of mass destructions to do what they want for there superiors. If you get the masses to be scared then you can get them to agree to anything you want... Think about it and look at all the evidence out there to see this is the case. 

The word Terrorist is used in away that people dont even think for themselves. Think about it.... The word Terrorist and Freedom fighter is very closley linked. The biggest Terrorist act in living history was the nuke bomb that landed in japan... Those who say that America are bad are labeled as Terroist Why... I dont understand this. Why do people believe the media all the time.... Why do some people dont question there religions, Why do some people believe in religion and then go and kill innocent people or in fact anyone even if they are guilty. This amazes me... If I was Religious I would not fight anyone and kill no one as I believe that god will judge all in time....This goes for 99% of all religions. So therefore can one assume that religious people are not really religious ??? and those who think they are are deluded??? 

So the original question was is Religion bad and caused most wars ??? Religion is not bad in my view but there to control those who can not think for themselves....and there were lots of barbaric people along time ago not knowing what harm they were doing to one another. I Think that it is man who is responsible for all wars and we should all feel guilty as we have all particapated in one way or another without you even knowing you have. i.e not voting or voting the war mongering party, those who do not question what is put in front of them, those who believe and support Religion and those who dont care about politics. Because of your actions or no actions you are involved wether you like it or not.

We should always question EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING and like I said there is no such thing as good or bad....But we have something which we should all use... Thats Common sense.... use it.... Ignnorance will devide us all, we need to learn to love each other regardless of colour skin or anything else because we all share this world. Are real enemys are those who are the biggest Hypocrites of them all and fooling us all every day and taking our freedom away from us. Dont listen to those who tell you to forget the past and move on.... Learn from the past as all the evidence and facts are there for you and most things happening now have already happened in the past but in slighty different ways. The past will provide you a better understanding of how things are and have always been.

Dont be fooled... Peace to you all.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Fish, ....amazing. Religion has been proven wrong over and over again, but you are blind to it. "But the book says", or read scripture so and so is not a defense. The Bible is not a historical reference of any accuracy, and it is not a book of science. It is neither and the only verification lies within it's own bindings. A theory cannot be proven by simply stating the theory over an over again. It must be testable and verifiable. The Bible is NOT either of these.
> 
> But let's use your faulty premise for a bit. You need 100% proof of evidence for "either" side to believe.
> 
> ...


I believe creationism, i said i would need to show you 100% proof to make you believe.
I do have 100% proof i just cant make you see it


----------



## pinkus (Aug 30, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> Fish, you make the rest of us monotheists look like idiots.
> 
> Quit before you reveal more of your ignorance and further embarrass yourself.


Sandmonkey...thankyou!!!  i'm not a monotheist, but am glad to have the right to chose. 
+rep

Edit: i forgot my no name calling policy....guess you said what i've been thinking all along.


----------



## dpjones (Sep 6, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYASxal-PI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

And some lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> I believe creationism, i said i would need to show you 100% proof to make you believe.
> I do have 100% proof i just cant make you see it


You have 100% proof? Where, what, when, who and how. Seriously you never have shown any real evidence that has held up. You have some fun theories, and some interesting links, but those are not proof, they are guesswork at best and hoax at worst.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

how do you decide right from wrong


----------



## pinkus (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> how do you decide right from wrong


i pay attention to evidence, weigh it...and try not to disregaurd evidence that could change my mind. That last bit is crucial to learning anything


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> how do you decide right from wrong


Right and wrong work just like science.... data reinforced by repeatable tests which are verified.... or not.

Bible ..... fail.


----------



## dpjones (Sep 7, 2009)

I heard an interesting question to ask a Christian.

What would it take for you to stop believing?

The fact is most Christians wont accept that there is anything that will prove them wrong and thus they will never truly go into any argument with an open mind. This entire thread is completely pointless.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 7, 2009)

> how do you decide right from wrong


The same way chimps do.

They have a clear sense of it. They did this study:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1959414



> To study chimpanzees' propensity for punitive behavior, Jensen _et al._ (9) devised an ingenious experimental protocol in which one chimpanzee was given the opportunity to respond to the loss or inaccessibility of valued food items by pulling a rope that caused a platform to collapse and the food to fall out of reach. This setup allowed the researchers to examine how chimpanzees responded when food was inaccessible or taken away from them, how they responded to disparities in outcomes between themselves and others, and their sensitivity to the role others played in their losses.


When the researcher would pull the food away the chimp would do nothing but watch the other chimp eat its food, but when the other chimp would pull the rope and essentially steal it away, the first chimp would pull its rope to knock everything over so that nobody got their food.


See this is where religion hurts us.

If we were able as a society to put more emphasis on studies like this, we may be able to actually get to the bottom of why some humans (ie Charles Manson) seem to have no right or wrong responses. 

The religious reasoning is just not good enough. We need to realize that the old devil/god dynamic is as outdated as believing that rain gods get angry and don't give you rain until you sacrifice something to them.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> The same way chimps do.
> 
> They have a clear sense of it. They did this .


some people think its ok to rape, is that clear sense ok with you?

I think its ok to smoke and grow weed does that make it ok?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 7, 2009)

> some people think its ok to rape, is that clear sense ok with you?
> 
> I think its ok to smoke and grow weed does that make it ok?


Nope, but that is why we should have science looking into why these things occur. Religion just cops out on these difficult questions and tosses a devil in the mix. We need to use science to figure out the why, but with all the religious people pulling the strings in the government these things get pushed aside as ungodly and false.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

A 94- to 90-million-year-old Sphaerodactylus gecko is one of the proofs that living things never underwent evolution.
pic bottom​ 

http://www.living-fossils.com/living_fossils_1_1.php​ 

The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution​


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution


No it doesn't.


> The term was first coined by Charles Darwin in his _The Origin of Species_, when discussing _Ornithorhynchus_ (the platypus) and _Lepidosiren_ (the South American lungfish):
> 
> ... All fresh-water basins, taken together, make a small area compared with that of the sea or of the land; and, consequently, the competition between fresh-water productions will have been less severe than elsewhere; new forms will have been more slowly formed, and old forms more slowly exterminated. And it is in fresh water that we find seven genera of Ganoid fishes, remnants of a once preponderant order: and in fresh water we find some of the most anomalous forms now known in the world, as the _Ornithorhynchus_ and _Lepidosiren_, which, like fossils, connect to a certain extent orders now widely separated in the natural scale. *These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition.*
>  Charles Darwin , The Origin of Species, p49​


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Here's the rub.....

Even if...... even if tomorrow, evolution was totally disproved, science would not have a melt down. Science would simply test this new data and if it said something different, and was repeatably verifiable with outside independent testing..... the new "theory" would be adopted. 

Take that same scenario and put it in with Religion. Complete and TOTAL meltdown of followers would ensue. You'd all have to be rounded up and locked away.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

> The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution


This still is accounted for in evolution and disproves nothing!

Animal "Ax" mutates, mates with Animal "A" That baby is still animal "A" but carries a resessive trait. there are plenty of Animal A's out there that don't have it. 

So later Animal "A" with ressesive trait mates with another that has the trait, and it is now Animal "Ax". This does not mean that animal "A" no longer exists, it just means that a new animal has been created, and every time it mates with another of its kind that gene pool continues. Now the "A"s don't disapear, or get bred out. 

It is like a off shoot of a river, or a offshoot of a plant. The main stem can still be there even if another branches out.

Think Low stress training. The main stalk doesn't HAVE to go away.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> This still is accounted for in evolution and disproves nothing!
> 
> Animal "Ax" mutates, mates with Animal "A" That baby is still animal "A" but carries a resessive trait. there are plenty of Animal A's out there that don't have it.
> 
> ...


so evolution only works sometimes?


----------



## wm2009 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> how do you decide right from wrong


As U said 'decide', it's up on you, No judgment is possible because there is no right and wrong in nature, but those who seed will harvest !


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

> so evolution only works sometimes?


Exactly!

This is not a successful mutation:








Evolution is just a name for the process, it is not some design. If it is benefitial it will continue to be passed down to the next family member, until a cross is made and a new form of that animal takes place. It is not that it 'works' or dont really. Just that it happens.

It is not the same as saying the intelligent designer was wrong, that can only happen if it is someone pulling the strings.


----------



## Poth3ad (Sep 8, 2009)

anyone who believes in religion is wasting their time


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Exactly!
> 
> This is not a successful mutation:
> 
> ...


my bad what i ment to say is does evolution only occur in some animals.

if its not benefitial but they still mate and have offspring will it pass the negative mutation?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

wm2009 said:


> As U said 'decide', it's up on you, No judgment is possible because there is no right and wrong in nature, but those who seed will harvest !


 
so its ok if i bite your fingers off?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Exactly!
> 
> This is not a successful mutation:
> 
> ...


 
i was just searching around tell me what you think about this.... is this true?

Mutations (DNA replication errors) are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage that passes on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation (error). The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Here is a very modern day example of mutation in FAVOR of man. Lactose intolerance is a very real problem for a percentage of the worlds population. Far more ppl however are not lactose intolerant. 
Now tens of thousands of years ago, before we domesticated the cow (or equivalent depending on location) everybody was lactose intolerant to dairy animals. BUT a mutation occurred along the way...... a lactose tolerance built up in some ppl. This gave these ppl a distinct advantage over the intolerant ppl. They could get nourishment from a cow many times over and THEN butcher it for its meat, where as the intolerant could only butcher the animal right off. This mutation improved the overall health of the "tolerant" population and allowed that mutation to overcome the original "intolerant" population. 
All things being equal, the advantage goes to the lactose mutation.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Here is a very modern day example of mutation in FAVOR of man. .
> Now tens of thousands of years ago, before we domesticated the cow everybody was lactose intolerant to dairy animals. BUT a mutation occurred along the way...... .


 
tens of thousands of years ago.. everyone was lactos intolerant to dairy,
and how do you know that?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> tens of thousands of years ago.. everyone was lactos intolerant to dairy,
> and how do you know that?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance#History_of_genetic_prevalence


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance#History_of_genetic_prevalence


thanks, so he was wrong


According to Heyman (2006), approximately 70% of the global population cannot tolerate lactose in adulthood


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

*Scientists identify lactose intolerance mutation*

*15-Jan-2002*

Related topics: Science & Nutrition 
A single genetic mutation allows people to tolerate milk after they leave babyhood, and is virtually the same in people of Asian, European and African descent, researchers reported Sunday. 
Finding the tiny change in the genetic code should allow scientists an easy test for lactose intolerance, a painful digestive condition, and also offers insights into how some groups of people evolved a milk-drinking culture, the team of U.S. and Finnish researchers said. 

People who have lactose intolerance - most of the people in the world - cannot digest large amounts of lactose, the main sugar found in dairy products. 

If they eat milk, cheese or other dairy products they develop nausea, cramps, bloating, gas and diarrhea. Between 30 million and 50 million North Americans are lactose intolerant - 75 per cent of African-Americans and 90 per cent of Asian-Americans. 

It affects about 5 per cent of Northern Europeans and close to 100 per cent of Southeast Asians, said the researchers, who reported their findings in the journal Nature Genetics. 

Lactose intolerance was known to be genetic, caused by a recessive gene, meaning that a person has to inherit a "faulty" copy from each parent to be lactose intolerant. 

_"This is the first time this mutation, the DNA change, is actually identified,"_ said Dr. Leena Peltonen, a geneticist at the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study. _"This paves the way to DNA testing."_ 

Peltonen and colleagues first looked at nine Finnish families, 196 people, who had lactose intolerance. They narrowed it down to a gene that regulates the gene responsible for making the enzyme that breaks down lactose. 

They found two changes, one in every person with lactose intolerance and another in all the Finns. 

Then they looked at blood samples from nine Italians, nine Germans and 22 Koreans, all of whom had been diagnosed with lactose intolerance, as well as genetic information from 109 people from Utah in the United States and France. 

They found the gene variation in 41 per cent of the French, 7.6 per cent of white North Americans and 79 per cent of African-Americans. 

Peltonen said babies are born with the ability to digest lactose - it is found in breast milk - but they lose this ability after weaning. 

_"That we found the same DNA variant in all lactose-intolerant people across distant ethnic groups indicates to us that it is very old,"_ she said. 

*"We believe that the variant we identified in patients is the original form of the gene, which mutated to tolerate milk products when early humans adopted dairy farming," she added. 

"This 'lactose intolerance' today is actually the ancient form of the gene."* 

*In cold climates where winter crops cannot be reaped, a gene mutation allowing adults to digest milk would help people survive better. People who survived would pass on those genes to their offspring. *

_*"Ten to twelve thousand years ago*, when human populations started to use dairy culture - cattle, goats - around that time the mutation happened and made some individuals lactose tolerant,"_ Peltonen said. 

_"I think it's fascinating. People think lactose intolerance is a disease, but this is how everyone was initially."_


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> thanks, so he was wrong
> 
> 
> According to Heyman (2006), approximately 70% of the global population cannot tolerate lactose in adulthood


It's all in the article Fish. Your bias is showing by choosing to cherry-pick a couple of sentences and twisting them to fit your purpose.



> However, certain human populations have a mutation on chromosome 2 which eliminates the shutdown in lactase production, making it possible for members of these populations to continue consumption of fresh milk and other dairy products throughout their lives without difficulty. This appears to be an evolutionarily recent adaptation to dairy consumption, and has occurred independently in both northern Europe and east Africa in populations with a historically pastoral lifestyle.[10] Lactase persistence, allowing lactose digestion to continue into adulthood, is a dominant allele, making lactose intolerance a recessive genetic trait. A noncoding variation in the MCM6 gene has been strongly associated with adult type hypolactasia (lactose intolerance)[4].


----------



## cph (Sep 8, 2009)

Mmmmmmmmmmm. I love a tall glass of milk!!


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> *"We believe that the variant we identified in patients is the original form of the gene, which mutated to tolerate milk products when early humans adopted dairy farming," she added. *
> 
> *"*_."_





Nocturn3 said:


> It's all in the article Fish. *Your bias is showing by choosing to cherry-pick* a couple of sentences and twisting them to fit your purpose.


 
hmm and the part "we believe" doesnt mean anything to you? my bias?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> hmm and the part "we believe" doesnt mean anything to you? my bias?


Actually I was referring to the wiki article that I posted. However, just because a random scientist neglects to choose her words carefully, doesn't mean that she is incorrect.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

They say "we believe" as a form of descriptive language. It infers that further testing will VERIFY his OPINION which is not based on some ancient text written by anonymous authors, but from real testing and data.

So there is a mutation which FAVORS man.... nuff said.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Actually I was referring to the wiki article that I posted. However, just because a random scientist neglects to choose her words carefully, doesn't mean that she is incorrect.


 
well i really dont want to read all that but i know that babies drink milk so if someone is lactose intolerant it would seem like a negative mutation to me


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> well i really dont want to read all that but i know that babies drink milk so if someone is lactose intolerant it would seem like a negative mutation to me


Since you can't be bothered reading it, I can't be bothered addressing your point, especially since the wiki page already covered it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

The lactose intolerance was first Fish.... try and follow along. It's in english.


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 9, 2009)

These guys think they are calling god . . .
[youtube]58T3m1ovla4[/youtube]
At about 4:15 a guy talks about screwing his sister and how they want to move in together . . .


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> my bad what i ment to say is does evolution only occur in some animals.
> 
> if its not benefitial but they still mate and have offspring will it pass the negative mutation?


Yeah (you are getting it!)! If the mutation does not do enough to scare away potential mates, and/or end up getting them killed before they are able to mate, then that gene is passed down. And if enough of those genes get passed down it will end up crossing and meaning that those 'new' animals can end up with the deficiency. 

Usually in nature they end up dying off, but sometimes they are in a easy enough situation or it is small enough that it doesn't matter and they not only survive it, but they thrive.

Like rabbits, they have to eat their poo to get the nutrition out of it.

They literally eat the grass, pass it through their system without absorbing anything because they don't have the enzymes to break it down, and poop out the pellets. Then they have to eat those pellets that are 1/2 way broken down so that they can then absorb the nutrients.

That is so inefficient, and could lead to starvation in a situation where there is a lot of competition for the food, but rabbits developed in very plentiful areas so they were able to survive this blunder of evolution. So this is a situation where evolution did not help a species out. There are an immense amount of these things in almost every single species on the planet. 

For example, we humans innovations in food has outpaced evolution. We have more calories than we can possibly use and are getting fatter due to it. But if you look at the common rat, they have a very high metabolism due to the brown fat that they carry, so they have a very difficult time getting rats to become fat. We developed less brown fat (possibly due to the very nature we would have to hunt with our bare hands, and ineffective brain as chimps) so we wanted to carry some body fat for the times we had less food. So due to this, we now are getting fat as a species instead of having enough brown fat on our body to deal with this issue. 




> hmm and the part "we believe" doesnt mean anything to you? my bias?


I get a little fuzzy on this part, but have read a couple books on it. How you look at the 'timeline' of these genes is a mathematical formula. Basically the amount of these mutations tell the story of how long they have been around. 

If you look at native americans. You can pretty much follow the genes and tell how long between the crossing over the land bridge because of the split in these genes.

So native americans have (not correct numbers, just giving you an idea of it) 80% of the same genes as chinese people. So that 20 percent shows 2 mutations. When you date bone fragments you find that the average time that it takes for these mutations is about 10,000 years. So they can say with a well formulated and backed up with evidence around the world and historical data, and radio carbon dating, that they would be here 20,000 years ago (again not the real number, just giving you the overall). 

The dating methods may not be 100%, but they are fairly precise (see the asymptote example I talked about on the other thread). And constantly being tested with history. With things like pottery, paintings, bone fragments, ect. And the info we have is the most up to date, and evolution has held up. See evolution is just a term about the movement of life on our planet, and nothing more. 

See by saying 'we believe' is still not ruling anything out. If they were to say "We know" like christianity does, then any new information that is slightly off would instantely rule it out as wrong. Science doesn't rule these things out, because they have to incorporate it and change to a more precise measuring method.



> well i really dont want to read all that but i know that babies drink milk so if someone is lactose intolerant it would seem like a negative mutation to me


CJ covered this, but I figured I would add some in too. Human milk was ok before this, but we were not able to consume a cows milk due to completely different enzymes in it. But due to evolution it gave our children a brand new source of food that allowed them to not be forced to die if the mother died and another pregnant woman was not in the tribe.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

so the very first life form could still exist? the origianl one that hasnt mutated at all.?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> so the very first life form could still exist? the origianl one that hasnt mutated at all.?


For sure it could. It would be some sort of single celled organism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote



> The oldest known fossilized prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago, only about 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth's crust. Even today, prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant life forms. Eukaryotes only appear in the fossil record later, and may have formed from endosymbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors. The oldest known fossil eukaryotes are about 1.7 billion years old. However, some genetic evidence suggests eukaryotes appeared as early as 3 billion years ago.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

ok lets go back to dating methods because inorder for your theory to work it would need lots of time

we have two problems, first we will never be able to tell if the rate of decay has been the same as it is today we can only assume and second, even if the rate of decay is constant without a knowing the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the first place the dating method still has a problem. convence me of this then we can move to evolution, please?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> ok lets go back to dating methods because inorder for your theory to work it would need lots of time
> 
> we have two problems, first we will never be able to tell if the rate of decay has been the same as it is today we can only assume and second, even if the rate of decay is constant without a knowing the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the first place the dating method still has a problem. convence me of this then we can move to evolution, please?


Ok so there are several different sciences out there, and I am not a expert by any means. But you have different fields that work independantly and they all come up with very similar timelines.

So first you have to look at advanced mathematical models that show the timeline of the universe. The way (I think this is right, but again I am not a astral physicist) is think of throwing a handful of dirt. And having it video recorded.

Now you take this snapshot of that video when the dirt left your hand, then one a few ticks of time later. Now take two specs of dirt that are apart so it would almost be like this:







Ok so you do the math to find a point of origin of all three lines. This would give you an eventual center of all three (the hand that threw it). After you have that you do the math that shows the time it took for those red X to move to the second one on the line. 

At that point you can pretty accurately gauge the time it took for the "X" to travel from the center point to the current position.

Ok now for the element decay: (again anyone with better information hook it up, because this is not my specialty)






So the smaller curve would be carbon dating, more accurate but only under shorter time spans. And not as accurate as stuff that is within years that would be able to really scale down the time line, but as you get further out in time it no longer works.

So Radio carbon dating works very well in the curve part but as it straitens out it no longer is accurate because of the asymptote that I explained before. But that is when you move to a different element that has a far larger decay curve. Thar curve is accurate but only for much longer period of times, and the asymptote starts to happen again.



So there you have 2 examples of mathematical equations and science that has worked out the same/similar number but in two completely different ways. The things are always coming up and working out the same conclusions. If just one model said this, then scientists would not listen to it, but when you have 2, 4, 9 and more models all coming up with the same conclusions it gains more and more support.

It all comes down to accuracy which is why I am continuing to ask you what do you feel is a real world example of accuracy.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

if you do not know that the rate of decay has been consistant and you do not know at what it started at how can you tell how old someting is.. 

just me but i would think that we could get pretty close dating on something within a few thousand years.
but when you talk about 1 million + we dont have a clue of what happend


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> if you do not know that the rate of decay has been consistant and you do not know at what it started at how can you tell how old someting is..
> 
> just me but i would think that we could get pretty close dating on something within a few thousand years.
> but when you talk about 1 million + we dont have a clue of what happend


What it comes down to is when was it created. After that point (remember the pic that I made with the lines) we can look at the speed it is decaying and follow that rate of change back to the conception point. That is what allows for the timescales. We just have to look at different things, because somethings break down slower than others.


----------



## ReggaeGanja (Sep 9, 2009)

i think if you guys were in any war your view on religion would change a hell of alot better than it is now


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 9, 2009)

ReggaeGanja said:


> i think if you guys were in any war your view on religion would change a hell of alot better than it is now


Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 9, 2009)

I think he means that when things get truly desperate it is difficult to resist the myth temptation. The brains defense mechanism for resolving the conflict of being put in harms way by others.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> i think if you guys were in any war your view on religion would change a hell of alot better than it is now


I don't think that having the shit scared out of you is a good way to make you believe in god. I have no problem with the idea of religion. I just take issue with it when it is used to halt education and strip peoples rights away.


----------



## zorkan (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> I don't think that having the shit scared out of you is a good way to make you believe in god. I have no problem with the idea of religion. I just take issue with it when it is used to halt education and strip peoples rights away.


 
you must hate the government

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


; not an expert but all religion strip peoples rights 

but who gave people those rightsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 9, 2009)

Zorkan, chill out for fucks sake. Try to use coherent sentences so people can understand what you are actually saying.

Shit like your above post just makes you look stupid and/or crazy.


----------



## zorkan (Sep 9, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Zorkan, chill out for fucks sake. Try to use coherent sentences so people can understand what you are actually saying.
> 
> Shit like your above post just makes you look stupid and/or crazy.


 

stupid and crazy


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 10, 2009)

I think the idea of who gave us rights is silly.

I don't have the right to not be eaten by a bear if I piss it off, or not die of a snake bite, or not starve if I have no food to eat, or to have a mate if I am not desirable.

Rights are a man made idea. Because we can do things to help out our people, we do. The idea of needing a piece of paper to spell out our 'rights' is laughable. More that is a contract between two groups of people that we will do this if you do that. And when things change, we need to add more words in to that document to talk about the new changes. And that contract allows us to work together and acheive new heights and have a better life than we would without that cooperation. 

By staying in America I have accepted my part of that contract (even if I do break some rules here and there), and it does a ok job at keeping their side of the bargin.


But seriously are you just trying to bury those posts with huge text that just eats up space in hopes that it is 4 or 5 pages back soon?


----------



## pinkus (Sep 10, 2009)

rights are a concept needed for society...an attempt to make things "fair". as we all know things are NOT equitable from the get go...social status, skin color, location, intelligence, health....all highly variable.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 10, 2009)

If life was fair, there wouldn't be religions.....


----------



## pinkus (Sep 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If life was fair, there wouldn't be religions.....


no doubt...if you wait for life to be fair you've already lost the game


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 10, 2009)

I can't even find the darn rule book..... psst...there isn't any.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 10, 2009)

Hey! Your god condoned it, too.Does that mean I am a better person than your god?


(Judges 21:10-24 NLT) 
_ So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan._

_ The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."_

_ Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes._




(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT) 
_ They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings  Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba  died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. _

_ Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves._








(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) 

_ As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you._





(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) 
_ If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her._






(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) 
_ If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife._





(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB) 
_Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives _[plural]_ while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'_
_ Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die_." [The child dies seven days later.]






(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) 
_"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."_ 



(Judges 5:30 NAB) 
 _They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil._




(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) 
_When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. 
_




(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) 
 _Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city_


fish601 said:


> some people think its ok to rape, is that clear sense ok with you?
> 
> I think its ok to smoke and grow weed does that make it ok?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 10, 2009)

ReggaeGanja said:


> i think if you guys were in any war your view on religion would change a hell of alot better than it is now


 
lmao, the old addage "there's no atheists in foxholes" eh?

If I were in the military, even though it's almost exclusively a christian organization, I'd be PROUD AS FUCK about being an atheist, just like I am in every other situation.

Somebody else touched on it also, but if your God has to scare you into belief, then it's not really belief is it. You're a weak minded tool who can't handle reality. Fuck fear tactics, only goes to show more evidence of your bullshit.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 10, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Hey! Your god condoned it, too.Does that mean I am a better person than your god?


*[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Romans 13 Read This Chapter[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]13:4 For he (governing authorities) is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]13:5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. [/FONT]*


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 10, 2009)

But your god condones rape.Therefore, it isn't wrong in his eyes.Sure, you get thrown in jail by "authorities" but by telling those folks in those scriptures I quoted to take the women and ravish them,your god is condoning rape, and therefore, with the passage you've quoted, has contradicted himself.Do omnipotent beings contradict themselves?


fish601 said:


> *[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Romans 13 Read This Chapter[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]13:4 For he (governing authorities) is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]13:5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. [/FONT]*


----------



## fish601 (Sep 10, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> But your god condones rape.Therefore, it isn't wrong in his eyes.Sure, you get thrown in jail by "authorities" but by telling those folks in those scriptures I quoted to take the women and ravish them,your god is condoning rape, and therefore, with the passage you've quoted, has contradicted himself.Do omnipotent beings contradict themselves?


 
If your talking about :::::" Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) 
_Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city::::"_


try reading it in context


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 10, 2009)

U should try reading it..... ravished isn't oogling or fondling.... it's RAPE. It also says half the city is to be slain. 

Here's a tip, never use the Bible to try and project G*D as merciful or generous. It's too ez to disprove.....


----------



## fish601 (Sep 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> U should try reading it..... ravished isn't oogling or fondling.... it's RAPE. It also says half the city is to be slain.
> 
> Here's a tip, never use the Bible to try and project G*D as merciful or generous. It's too ez to disprove.....


 
yep its rape no doubt about that NOW read it in context

half the city to be slain yep and so? G*D killed millions of people during the flood...

never use the bible to project G*D as merciful or generous LOL he has been merciful and gernerous by sending jesus but just wait till judgement day. the bible says fear the lord!!!! i am afraid you have been mislead


----------



## sandmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

...except Jesus is/was not "The Lord".

Matthews 21:18-19 

"18.Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
19.And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."

What kind of God or creator wouldn't even know the season when his creation (in this case the fig tree) bears fruit?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 10, 2009)

Stoney talks about rape.... 
Fish says read it in context. 
I put it in context
Fish says so what....

Uhhhh..... TROLL.


----------



## pinkus (Sep 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Stoney talks about rape....
> Fish says read it in context.
> I put it in context
> Fish says so what....
> ...


come on man, you know it's his chosen lot to proselytize...it's his golden ticket bro


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 10, 2009)

Religion is driven by insecurity. The greater the belief, the greater the insecurities. 

Have a little faith.....in man.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 10, 2009)

Uh I did.I'll translate it to modern English."After you whip the shit out of these fuckers and occupy their city, I want you to brutalize their women because I'm a misogynist pig of a diety who has no mercy unless it's convenient for me to show some."


fish601 said:


> If your talking about :::::" Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
> _Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city::::"_
> 
> 
> try reading it in context


No.I haven't.Because if there is a god, and he is the god of the bible,then I will not worship him no matter what.I won't accept the guilt trip of Jesus.I will not bow down to a tyrant who demands obedience and brutality in his name.I don't care if he kills me or burns me.It even says in your bible that YOU ARE THE SHEEP.Anyone who reads that, and some of the other quotes from that book, and says,"Hey, I can really get down with this" is either ignorant or masochistic.There is no judgment day, and fear is a tool to control the weak.I am my own god.


fish601 said:


> yep its rape no doubt about that NOW read it in context
> 
> half the city to be slain yep and so? G*D killed millions of people during the flood...
> 
> never use the bible to project G*D as merciful or generous LOL he has been merciful and gernerous by sending jesus but just wait till judgement day. the bible says fear the lord!!!! i am afraid you have been mislead


----------



## snail240 (Sep 11, 2009)

If jesus was nailed to a giant bread stick would he still be jesus? The cross most have made him holy or was it the nails? Ah shit here we go agian witch fair tail we talking about? Oh yeah the one guy that made fish in to bread what do you guys call chris angel? Modern jesus? 

Jesus was a guy that invented the now you see it now you dont trick. Now hes famous I mean god damn every person that can play tricks on your head must be your new chosen lord now? 

If I could make you beleive I turned water in to wine I would be your new jesus? If I killed me self to save another I would be jesus right and have a book writen after me and all of you would go whorship me right? Or jesus is special because hes "gods" sun? I want a DNA test call Maury because im the daddy. 

Even if jesus was real wheres the proof? I mean I think its pretty simple to see he was made up when every picture of him looks different. Even santa looks the same in pictures and has more backup then jesus.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 11, 2009)

> No.I haven't.Because if there is a god, and he is the god of the bible,then I will not worship him no matter what.I won't accept the guilt trip of Jesus.I will not bow down to a tyrant who demands obedience and brutality in his name.I don't care if he kills me or burns me.It even says in your bible that YOU ARE THE SHEEP.Anyone who reads that, and some of the other quotes from that book, and says,"Hey, I can really get down with this" is either ignorant or masochistic.There is no judgment day, and fear is a tool to control the weak.I am my own god.
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


Interesting.

Lets say that we all follow the bible Fish.

We all do exactly what it says, and according to the new test. are going to be able to go into heaven.

Well God has changed his mind before right (old/new) and written new books. Well what happens if the rapture, or sometime we are in heaven and he changes it again? And we all end up in hell, which is his invention if he created everything right?

And since he created hell, he did so because he is petty and wanted to torture everyone for not doing exactly what he wanted them to do. So it is like us watching ants and saying anyone that goes to this spot of honey I put here is going o be burnt with a magnifying glass. He put the fruit in the same garden as Adam and Eve, he knew we would take the bite and ruin all mankind. So he set us up to fail!

SO if it was the case that all mankind fell in line and did exactly what it was and avoided every trap that he had set up for us, in order to not be a part of his sadistic fun by burning in hell that he created for our souls to be tortured for all eternity, what says that he would not get bored of it and torture us anyway? While in heaven what would stop him from creating another bible that sets us up to fail yet again (Eve and the apple) so that he can go back to his game of heaven and hell?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 11, 2009)

There's an old carny saying invented by P.T.Barnum, "there's a sucker born every minute". 

Not so says the church...... there's one born every "second". They have a very effective net to scoop them up with. It's almost laughable, if the church didn't do so much damage to society. 

Almost laughable.....but not quite.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> There's an old carny saying invented by P.T.Barnum, "there's a sucker born every minute".
> 
> Not so says the church...... there's one born every "second". They have a very effective net to scoop them up with. It's almost laughable, if the church didn't do so much damage to society.
> 
> Almost laughable.....but not quite.


I honestly don't blame kids for believing it when their parents force it down their throat at such a young age. When people tell you will burn for eternity if you don't believe... that tends to catch peoples (youngsters) attention. However, when you reach a certain age.. you should realize that the game is rigged.... and they want your money.

Brainwashing !
[youtube]LACyLTsH4ac[/youtube]

You can see their fear in their eyes...

poor kids


----------



## kronic1989 (Sep 11, 2009)

The only god of mine is the SUN. Without it. Nothing of this would exist. I just accept that it is there, and I am grateful for it. 

This jesus is put in by the underground society that runs this world. It is there to define who they want you to be. How they want to mould you.

Like earlier said. We are all sheep. The government and whoever else it is thats running the show, has done a quite considerably good job, or raping this world for what its worth. Imposing fear and famine.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 11, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Lets say that we all follow the bible Fish.
> 
> ...


God isnt making this up as he goes

you have a choice you can believe science or you can believe God 
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Romans 1 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*1:20* For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse[/FONT]


God does not want us to suffer 
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*1 John 4 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*4:10* This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.[/FONT]

He did not want us to make the choice to eat the fruit
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Genesis 6 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*6:6* The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]He knew we were gona mess it up and from the beginning he had a plan [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Joh 3:16 - Show Context "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.*[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Romans 6 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*6:23* For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [/FONT]
[/FONT]


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 11, 2009)

No, man is making it up...... figure it out.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 11, 2009)

^ I want to see God's John Hancock at the end of the bible. 

To be fair... i have seen a some evidence of God....


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 11, 2009)

That's just one of natures little perks to keep reproduction rates and hand lotion sales up.


----------



## kronic1989 (Sep 11, 2009)

i am not going to trash god. or jesus. they may very well have existed. And If god does exist, he will accept me for who i am and what I do. No harm no foul.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 11, 2009)

kronic1989 said:


> i am not going to trash god. or jesus. they may very well have existed. And If god does exist, he will accept me for who i am and what I do. No harm no foul.


Somebody's too scared to take a stand
*points and laughs* 



jk brother


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 11, 2009)

God isnt making this up as he goes



> you have a choice you can believe science or you can believe God
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Romans 1 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*1:20* For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse[/FONT]


 So it is ok not to believe in god? I thought that was one of the things that bought a a trip to the oven.




> God does not want us to suffer
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*1 John 4 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*4:10* This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.[/FONT]


 So then why does he allow things in the world that make us suffer. He did not have to put the tree in eden right? So why did he. If it was not a mistake, then it had to have been on purpose. I get that he sent his 'son?' down here to get tortured and killed, but really did he have to? Couldn't he have done it without slaughtering his child? I know that the church said it was to show how torturous the world is, and to give us a real world example of how much he cares about us, but why not just wipe out all sinful nature? Would that not be more godly?



> He did not want us to make the choice to eat the fruit
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Genesis 6 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*6:6* The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.[/FONT]


 So why did he not just not have that in the garden of eden? That one tree could have been crystalized if it had to be on the planet, but really if he is able to do anything, why would it need to be on the planet? He did not have to make it in the first place. 

There is no reason for it to be even in existence. He is the source of knowledge right? Not a tree. 

(side note: I need to look into pagan religions for 'tree of life' and forbidden fruit that give intelligence. I am betting it is a different early religion that this spawned from.)




> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]He knew we were gona mess it up and from the beginning he had a plan [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Joh 3:16 - Show Context "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.*[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Romans 6 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*6:23* For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [/FONT][/FONT]


But why did he need to do this? If he is all, then he would have known by putting that tree in that he would have to create hell, and one day his son that would then have to be tortured and killed. It would have all been fine if he had not put that tree in the garden of Eden.


And why is there two books that were 1500 years apart? I thought it was to change all the old laws that were in the old testimate? Even still why not just make the first book all encompassing?


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## fish601 (Sep 11, 2009)

> So then why does he allow things in the world that make us suffer. He did not have to put the tree in eden right? So why did he.


we have a choice to obey he said dont eat it, 
*Genesis 2:17 *but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." 




> I know that the church said it was to show how torturous the world is, and to give us a real world example of how much he cares about us,


thats a new one to me



> but why not just wipe out all sinful nature? Would that not be more godly?


we really wouldnt have a choice then,
he could make you believe in him but he has given you a choice





> (side note: I need to look into pagan religions for 'tree of life' and forbidden fruit that give intelligence. I am betting it is a different early religion that this spawned from.)


if you believe the bible its kinda simple
adam eve the first people and all there kids certainly new the story. so if there is a "early religion" that claims says that i can tell you where they got the idea from 




> But why did he need to do this? If he is all, then he would have known by putting that tree in that he would have to create hell, and one day his son that would then have to be tortured and killed. It would have all been fine if he had not put that tree in the garden of Eden.


some really smart people can give you some really good answers but me.. i am fine with knowing god can do what he wants and its been done so i accept it 



> And why is there two books that were 1500 years apart? I thought it was to change all the old laws that were in the old testimate? Even still why not just make the first book all encompassing?


there are many of phrophecies in the Old testament i am glad 1500 years passed by so that noone can doubt the fulfilled phrophecies most of which are recorded in the new testament

the phrophecy of how jesus was to die had not even been invented at the time it was written, put that ontop of the people who killed him did not believe in god and god used them to fulfil it and that is one of alot of phrophecies


----------



## pinkus (Sep 11, 2009)

fish601 said:


> there are many of phrophecies in the Old testament i am glad 1500 years passed by so that noone can doubt the fulfilled phrophecies most of which are recorded in the new testament
> 
> the phrophecy of how jesus was to die had not even been invented at the time it was written, put that ontop of the people who killed him did not believe in god and god used them to fulfil it and that is one of alot of phrophecies


K...first paragraph uses it's own claims to prove itself...a logical NO NO.

second paragraph...if god is omnipotent it was preordained bro. 

you are gonna have better sales for Christ in another venue...CJ and Hannimal won't crack...you have however cracked me up


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 11, 2009)

> we have a choice to obey he said dont eat it,
> *Genesis 2:17 *but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


But why put it there? That is the big part of this that does not make any sense. He did not have to do that. Really does God need a tree of knowledge? 

If not for that one thing, the bible would not even need to have been written, because we would never would have had sin! That one tree undid everything and resulted in every single act of violence throughout our history, just that one tree has caused people to falsely burn thousands of women at the stake for being witches, enslaving entire races, the haulocaust, gay people, abortions, murders, theivery, murder, rape, everything!

Just that one tree is the reason for it all. So why would he put it there?

Unless he wanted to see us all suffer. Because we are talking about gods will. And it would not have been there if it was not his will.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 11, 2009)

He believes the book. The book tells him to believe.

let's just be glad he doesn't read Mein Kampf.


----------



## pinkus (Sep 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> He believes the book. The book tells him to believe.
> 
> let's just be glad he doesn't read Mein Kampf.


*LMFAO!!!*

thanks CJ


----------



## fish601 (Sep 11, 2009)

> K...first paragraph uses it's own claims to prove itself...a logical NO NO.


well i said most not all, there are enuf accurate prophecies proven by other historical writtings to lead me to beleive that the bible is good enuf to assume the other prohecies are accurate as well





> you are gonna have better sales for Christ in another venue...CJ and Hannimal won't crack...you have however cracked me up


 i am not capable of cracking them i am not even trying,, all this is doing is making me think how silly evolution is something that i once accepted and how right and well thought out the bible is NOW i know there are some very hard to understand scriptures but i believe there is enuf evidence to prove its the word of god and i just have to accept the hard to understand ones


----------



## fish601 (Sep 11, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> But why put it there? That is the big part of this that does not make any sense. He did not have to do that. Really does God need a tree of knowledge?
> 
> If not for that one thing, the bible would not even need to have been written, because we would never would have had sin! That one tree undid everything and resulted in every single act of violence throughout our history, just that one tree has caused people to falsely burn thousands of women at the stake for being witches, enslaving entire races, the haulocaust, gay people, abortions, murders, theivery, murder, rape, everything!
> 
> ...


with out a choice we wouldnt of had free will and without free will we would of just been robots. God wants us to choose him and he made it really easy


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 11, 2009)

> i am not capable of cracking them i am not even trying,, all this is doing is making me think how silly evolution is something that i once accepted and how right and well thought out the bible is NOW i know there are some very hard to understand scriptures but i believe there is enuf evidence to prove its the word of god and i just have to accept the hard to understand ones


I pretty much was pissed for a bit after seeing this, since I took it as a slap in the face for trying to have a civil discussion with you and you saying it is silly, especially after I took hours to try to help you see the science of the math and data collection practices using actual evidence and not just bs and yelling. But I think that I had misread it. 

If not let me know so that I can take offense.

But if my re-reading of it is right, and you are just saying that you are more strengthened in your beliefs then all is good, and I am happy for you being satisfied and confident in them.

But here is my question for you, how do you feel about what I had said? And tell you what ask your preacher about it, and please report back on how he/she answered it.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 11, 2009)

> with out a choice we wouldnt of had free will and without free will we would of just been robots. God wants us to choose him and he made it really easy


But without that tree we would not be able to have free will? Wouldn't that just mean that we would not go to hell for our decisions?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 11, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> But without that tree we would not be able to have free will? Wouldn't that just mean that we would not go to hell for our decisions?


 
why didnt god just put the people who were going to believe in heaven and the ones that didnt in hell? why even be born why not go straight to heaven or hell? why even be made at all? why does any of this exist?

god wanted it that way and he is in charge


----------



## fish601 (Sep 11, 2009)

> hanimmal said:
> 
> 
> > I pretty much was pissed for a bit after seeing this, since I took it as a slap in the face for trying to have a civil discussion with you and you saying it is silly,
> ...


----------



## greenmama (Sep 11, 2009)

Have you ever heard of Zeitgiest? or Zietgiest; Addendum? You can watch these very impressive documentaries on google video for free. I recommend everyone watch this... It relates to religion, politics and moving into the future. Let me know what you think if you watch it.


----------



## sandmonkey (Sep 11, 2009)

greenmama said:


> Have you ever heard of Zeitgiest? or Zietgiest; Addendum? You can watch these very impressive documentaries on google video for free. I recommend everyone watch this... It relates to religion, politics and moving into the future. Let me know what you think if you watch it.


I did.

Thought it was a rip-off of many other more in-depth documentaries, and actually serves the same system it claims to bash.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 11, 2009)

fish601 said:


> the thought of us forming out of a big bang and evolving sight is a roadblock to me.. how did our dna even know that with eyes we could see.. how did our dna know that with 2 eyes we could judge distance? how did we know there was color available? dont say mutation unless you can tell me what the chance of that is 1 in what? its impossable for that to of just envolved
> and that is just an eye there are so much more amazing things about us.


 I thought we'd already covered this, but it appears that you still don't get it. DNA doesn't "know" anything. The reason these mutations were so successful is because they were beneficial to the creatures involved. Natural selection took care of the rest.

Regarding the evolution of eyes, I refer you, again, to the wiki article. Since there is little chance of you reading it, and even less chance of you comprehending it, here's a video that you may be able to digest a bit more easily.




fish601 said:


> I dont ask a preacher because they will just tell me what they believe.. i want to know the truth.. just like i dont take scientist word (not that they are always wrong) but i like to hear all sides and form an opiniion based off all the information.


That's a good approach, in theory. However, you seem to have some real problems processing any information which is contrary to your beliefs. You also have a lack of understanding of science, and scientific methodology, which leads you to approach problems from the wrong end.

I think it's just easier for you to believe than it is to actually learn.


----------



## pinkus (Sep 11, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Regarding the evolution of eyes, I refer you, again, to the wiki article. Since there is little chance of you reading it, and even less chance of you comprehending it, here's a video that you may be able to digest a bit more easily.


thanks, i'd been looking for the vid. pretty persuasive.


----------



## pinkus (Sep 11, 2009)

greenmama said:


> Have you ever heard of Zeitgiest? or Zietgiest; Addendum? You can watch these very impressive documentaries on google video for free. I recommend everyone watch this... It relates to religion, politics and moving into the future. Let me know what you think if you watch it.


i thought it was excellent... don't know how it could be construed as sand monkey did.


----------



## sandmonkey (Sep 11, 2009)

Because Peter Joseph is pushing forward the same agenda as the men behind the curtains.

His 1st part about Horus, Mithra, etc. is full of more errors than historical/mythical accuracy.

The part about 9/11 is just a crappy rip-off of Loose Change.

The third part about the Federal Reserve was just a way to shift the blame and our hate to a transient government body.

In short, this "documentary" is for people new to conspiracy theories; who think that by watching this crap they've now gotten such secret knowledge and know the whole truth.

Gimme a f'in break.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 11, 2009)

fish601 said:


> the thought of us forming out of a big bang and evolving sight is a roadblock to me.. how did our dna even know that with eyes we could see.. how did our dna know that with 2 eyes we could judge distance? how did we know there was color available? dont say mutation unless you can tell me what the chance of that is 1 in what? its impossable for that to of just envolved
> and that is just an eye there are so much more amazing things about us ..
> 
> I dont ask a preacher because they will just tell me what they believe.. i want to know the truth.. just like i dont take scientist word (not that they are always wrong) but i like to hear all sides and form an opiniion based off all the information.


 
Fish, do you read the stuff we type on this thread? 

We've been over the eye, and this entire concept you keep bring up of taking the conclusion of our reality - us existing - then backtracking from there.. It's OBVIOUS why you have a hard time grasping the theory of evolution, and that's not me being condescending or anything at all to you. 

Imagine flipping a coin, it lands heads, then you say "see, there is absolutley NO WAY that coin could have come up tails!" - that is exactly what you're doing with evolution. You believe in the creation story. You believe that's how we came to be how we are today, that's why you cannot see any other possible outcomes to our existence. To you, creation is the answer and evolution is impossible... in your own words.


----------



## pinkus (Sep 11, 2009)

sandmonkey said:


> Because Peter Joseph is pushing forward the same agenda as the men behind the curtains.
> 
> His 1st part about Horus, Mithra, etc. is full of more errors than historical/mythical accuracy.
> 
> ...


some people ARE new to any theories that contradict the line toted by the elite. 

people are NOT going entertain much beyond that at their meal of alternate knowledge.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 11, 2009)

In the end all conspiracies have one fatal flaw of logic. They all take for granted that these intricate plots are continued year in and year out, ppl passing secret knowledge and power. All quite complicated and flawed. 
Humans just can't usually pull that sort of thing off for long.

So as opposed to deep plotting and masterminding for centuries of hidden control, it's more likely to be just like the cops kicking in the door on D.C. Mayor Barry standing in a hotel room with a crack pipe.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 12, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> We've been over the eye, and this entire concept you keep bring up of taking the conclusion of our reality - us existing - then backtracking from there.. It's OBVIOUS why you have a hard time grasping the theory of evolution, and that's not me being condescending or anything at all to you.
> 
> Imagine flipping a coin, it lands heads, then you say "see, there is absolutley NO WAY that coin could have come up tails!" - that is exactly what you're doing with evolution. You believe in the creation story. You believe that's how we came to be how we are today, that's why you cannot see any other possible outcomes to our existence. To you, creation is the answer and evolution is impossible... in your own words.


nothing can create everything? big bang

how did we know sight was available and how did we know it took an eye to see it? go back to the beginning of the development of an eye.. why start to develop something that was useless.. it took time for it to envolve into a working eye.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 12, 2009)

Just because you find a gap in our scientific knowledge (before the big bang), doesn't mean it's time to insert a 2000 year old myth as the answer. 

Science has accurately gotten us to the point of origin. Outside of a primitive allegorical book which you think is true, because the book says its so  (this is critical thinking?), Religion has NO answers to anything. Yet, you give it EQUAL footing. 

The problem isn't with science The problem lies with you.

Just because you don't have the XYZ of an equation worked out, doesn't mean inserting ABC is correct.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 12, 2009)

Marry was a whore get over it! How can she be a virgin with all them fine sheep around? Who knew all she had to do was where a wool rug on her back to create gods sun. Jesus was the sun of a sheep hence why all the people that beleive in him follow blindly.


----------



## edwardtheclean (Sep 12, 2009)

i dont think it is religion, its humans using it as an excuse, Christ is the man, but that does not mean that christians are all ok, same with islam, islam could be peaceful but the uneducated people that take it way to serious make it all a mess, i am a christian, but i would never tell a muslim he would go to hell or anything, i dont beleive it, 
i think any smart person would agree that there are good people and bad people. 
i think the catholic church is a joke, but i dont tell my best friend he is following a fools path, because people could say the same to me, and a story from the crusades say that the muslims were actually way more merciful than the christians, like i would know tho, but my point is, if every one followed what their religion says to do, then the world would be a great place, but instead, people fight over the "holy land", does anyone really think God cares about a small piece of land???? i doubt it, anyways, i know that i was raised to respect people and their beliefs, i think most americans are raised that way, am i wrong????


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 12, 2009)

> I dont ask a preacher because they will just tell me what they believe.. i want to know the truth.. just like i dont take scientist word (not that they are always wrong) but i like to hear all sides and form an opiniion based off all the information.


 I can appreciate this. But that begs the question why go to church at all?



> the thought of us forming out of a big bang and evolving sight is a roadblock to me.. how did our dna even know that with eyes we could see.. how did our dna know that with 2 eyes we could judge distance? how did we know there was color available? dont say mutation unless you can tell me what the chance of that is 1 in what? its impossable for that to of just envolved
> and that is just an eye there are so much more amazing things about us ..


Yeah this is hard to get. But remember when we were talking about forensic study, you start at the present and continue to work backwards in time with the evidence that you have.

So we start with what we have, two color eyes. The reason why they are in the front of the face and not the sides is so that we can judge distance. You need two eyes to really get good perspective (Because one won't give you the depth). Put something small in front of you in the middle and close one eye and then the other. Having two eyes gives you a much better view of small objects and where to handle them. We covered the color part, because it is easier to see predators and prey in the jungle so we would survive better.

Interesting fact if you were not already aware. Land animals have developed the location of their eyes based on where they are in the food chain. If you see eyes on the side of the head it almost always (I say almost again because there may be somethign somewhere, but I doubt it) are the prey animals. They use the side eyes to track animals trying to flank them and since they don't need to worry about depth perception to eat grass or leaves it works well. Predators (meat eaters) almost always have eyes in the front of the head so that they can have that depth view when in battle.











Ok anyways sorry. 

So we move back through evolution and get more and more primitive eyes colorblind, ect.

Eventually we need to figure out why we have eyes, so more it turns into a study of where they eye developed.

Here is a good cut/paste from:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html







> The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
> 
> Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
> 
> In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


Wow just found this try it (directions below picture):








> Close your left eye and stare at the cross mark in the diagram with your right eye. Off to the right you should be able to see the spot. Don't LOOK at it; just notice that it is there off to the right (if its not, move farther away from the computer screen; you should be able to see the dot if you're a couple of feet away). Now slowly move toward the computer screen. Keep looking at the cross mark while you move. At a particular distance (probably a foot or so), the spot will disappear (it will reappear again if you move even closer). The spot disappears because it falls on the optic nerve head, the hole in the photoreceptor sheet.


 Also I found that if you look at it about a foot from the screen and simply turn your head in a 'no' way with one eye closed you lose sight of it too (kind of disapears). 



Anyway.

*Did you know?*
Like some other lizards, the Asian water dragon has a light sensitive spot located on top of its head known as the "parietal eye".

The light sensitive spots can be found in nature. Now most will have a more delevoped form as well. But you figure that you can feel the suns rays on your skin right, that would be a good place for the mutation to begin very early on. The mutation would allow just a sensitivity to light that would move to the next step, pigment cup.






Flat worms have this pigment cup. 



Then Pin hole sight:







> Pinhole eyes, in which the size of the pigment aperture is reduced, have better resolution than pigment cup eyes. The most impressive pinhole eyes are found in the mollusk genus _Nautilus_, a member of a cephalopod group that has changed little since the Cambrian period.


Ok the rest is pretty followable from there. So we got the eye development down.



Life:

If you can follow down to the eye, the next step is to get to the first lifeforms. We discusses this before. Basically it comes down to a bunch of factors that this planet had going for it. We are a good distance from the sun without being too far. So we are not too hot or too cold. Then you have a collision with another planet that spins off the moon (or moon is huge compared to its planet) this slows the spin rate to create the 24 hour day, and no crazy storms.

Then also this keeps our planet's crust/core from fully forming (like mars) into one mass so we get plate techtonics, This means that we get volcanoes that heat up water, and nasty checmicals in the air. This mixing with water, chemicals, temperature, lightning, oxygen, ect all created a brew for the earliest particles that made the first life on our planet to form.

This has been done in lab experiments http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/


So now we have life that through billions of years evolved to today.

So how did the earth form:

Basically our solar system was all a bunch of hurdling rocks gravitating around our star (that is hurdling through space). And those rocks bumped more and more int eachother until planets where formed.






http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/astr_250/Lectures/Lec_22sml.htm

Here is a more readable one that I linked the other day: http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_earthbirth.htm


So then through the math that I had talked about earlier, we can follow the paths of these different solar systems and things in space to one central point. For that central point to be there that would mean that they had to of all at one point been apart of eachother. Right now the most scientific reason is the big bang theory. I think eventually it may somewhat be replaced, but the thing replacing it will still hold that is a point where one large explosion happened, but it could be something like that was one of many 'massive black holes' and there were several 'big bangs' which when you follow those back you find yet again one spot, on and on.



Anyway when you start from the info that we have, and real world examples, and math the timeline goes like this: Giant explosion that sent material out>> Material circles around the sun (large gravitational force that causes all debri to surround and rotate around it) >> material bumps into eachother and forms planets >>> planets collide and create moon and slow earths rotation allowing for plate techtonics and easier weather >>> weather mixed with several other factors shocked by lightning creates earliest particles of life >>> Life particles mix together and create earliest forms of life >>> Those mutate and combine to make newer more complex lifeforms >>> Lifeforms develop special advantages like light sensitive skin cells (seen today on some animals) >>> Those pigment cells develop further in lifeforms like flat worms that allows then to mutate into a more cave type depression to focus the light changes >>> Then more mutations form the pin hole eye >>> Eventually a skin is put over it (mussels) >>>> Turns into a lens (Octopus) >>> Evolution pushes water animals to develop into land life, where the eye is even more advantagous that in water so it further develops and speciallizes depending on the hunting paterns of the animal >>> Eventually humans evolve with color sight that allow them to see animals in the jungle.


And there you go, big bang to color sight.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 12, 2009)

All things Christian spring from the Catholic Church. If it is in error, all derivatives have the same errors. 
It all starts with the BIG lie. The BOOK was written by G*D. Once u swallow that one...the rest of the craziness follows in totem.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 12, 2009)

> how did we know sight was available and how did we know it took an eye to see it? go back to the beginning of the development of an eye.. why start to develop something that was useless.. it took time for it to envolve into a working eye.


I don't think I really covered this above. But once you read that this will make more sense.

The sun is our power generator. So we react to it, all animals do (even if in a negative way) so it makes sense that we would be sensitive to it.

So then that sensitivity in pigment changes was early form of the eye. The sun beating down on early life would mean that the mutations that allowed for them to withstand the sun would benefit them.

Over time mutations that allowed a fast response (like a wire to the brain) would mean that this early form (Flatworm) would be able to tell if they were near the surface of the water without being too close to be washed up on land and dry out and die. So that flatworm type would thrive.

Eventually mollusk develop the pin hole eye mutation that allows even more clear sight, this would allow them to be predators and hunt with being able to see the difference in light in the water meaning that something was close by. This would have helped them thrive.

Then you move on through time. Light is a spectrum, so it did not mean that the dna 'knew' that there was color. But one of hundreds of thousands of mutations (because remember most mutations are very detrimental to the animal) one developed that allowed more light sensitivity, that light sensitivity allowed them to see more of the spectrum of light, which is really what all the evolution to this point has done. 

So here we are with a color sighted eye. And the eye is not perfect. There is a lot of things that make it not efficient (like veins ontop of the lenses) but it is very efficient for our sight.

You can look any other animal and follow the pattern to figure out their sight, good night vision, wide view, multiple eyes, eagles vision, on and on. It really is amazing when you can figure out where things came from. And through this understanding the betterment of human kind spawns from, if we can figure it out, who knows how we can help people out with things like blindness, or making new things to help people that lose eyes out. Without the understanding of where it came from science will stagnate.

And if science stagnates, we may as well right off the species (like the bible has done).


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 12, 2009)

You may also ponder that while religion puts man at the very pinnacle of existence amongst other animals, AND religion creationists simply LOVE to talk about the EYE development, it's just interesting to point out that man does not have the best vision on the planet. Not by a wide margin. We have an eye which works for our species, just like the Scallop has an eye that works for it. There is no plan to perfection. Nature just mutates and mutates and what works works, and what doesn't, doesn't. No value of good, bad. Nature and creation are indifferent and neutral. If somehow the earth started to receive 50% sunlight and we managed to live through it..... gradually our eyes would change to fit that environment. No plan...no perfection. If we developed underground..... we'd all be blind and the religious would walk around telling everyone that not having eyesight proves there's a G*D. Look, we don't need eyes! Amen brotha.... 

Holey Moley.............


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 12, 2009)




----------



## snail240 (Sep 13, 2009)

I think green tree pythons got pimp shit eyes that make our eyes weak. The patern of their grows into the eye and keeps flowing. And remember they are a few steps back on the evolution chain for you crazys that dont beleive in evolution witch happen to be the same crazys that beleive in a god.

So point is we are more advance geneticly then other animals yet they out advance us? Seems like we are at the end of the road where is jesus? Wheres our super cool eyes to keep us camo from the aliens? God doesnt want us to live then just green tree pythons because they can hide from alien invaders because of the super awsome camo eye action. They could see us to easy white shiny eyes all dumb mopin around like some monkey sheep....Yeah I can see it we are the chosen ones....................


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 13, 2009)

This is timely and well worth a read. It shows two sides of the coin. Interesting....
==========================================================


SEPTEMBER 12, 2009, 2:08 P.M. ET
 * Essays *

*Man vs. God *


*Karen Armstrong says we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence*

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of courseat least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.




Nippon Television Network 


* Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to do *



But Darwin may have done religionand Goda favor by revealing a flaw in modern Western faith. Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undevelopedeven primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart. 
But by the end of the 17th century, instead of looking through the symbol to "the God beyond God," Christians were transforming it into hard fact. Sir Isaac Newton had claimed that his cosmic system proved beyond doubt the existence of an intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, who was obviously "very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry." Enthralled by the prospect of such cast-iron certainty, churchmen started to develop a scientifically-based theology that eventually made Newton's Mechanick and, later, William Paley's Intelligent Designer essential to Western Christianity.
But the Great Mechanick was little more than an idol, the kind of human projection that theology, at its best, was supposed to avoid. God had been essential to Newtonian physics but it was not long before other scientists were able to dispense with the God-hypothesis and, finally, Darwin showed that there could be no proof for God's existence. This would not have been a disaster had not Christians become so dependent upon their scientific religion that they had lost the older habits of thought and were left without other resource. 
View Full Image







WSJ Illustration 













Symbolism was essential to premodern religion, because it was only possible to speak about the ultimate realityGod, Tao, Brahman or Nirvanaanalogically, since it lay beyond the reach of words. Jews and Christians both developed audaciously innovative and figurative methods of reading the Bible, and every statement of the Quran is called an ayah ("parable"). St Augustine (354-430), a major authority for both Catholics and Protestants, insisted that if a biblical text contradicted reputable science, it must be interpreted allegorically. This remained standard practice in the West until the 17th century, when in an effort to emulate the exact scientific method, Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history. 
Most cultures believed that there were two recognized ways of arriving at truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and neither was superior to the other; they were not in conflict but complementary, each with its own sphere of competence. Logos ("reason") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world and had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. But it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life's struggle. For that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology; if translated into ritual or ethical action, a good myth showed you how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity.
In the ancient world, a cosmology was not regarded as factual but was primarily therapeutic; it was recited when people needed an infusion of that mysterious power that hadsomehowbrought something out of primal nothingness: at a sickbed, a coronation or during a political crisis. Some cosmologies taught people how to unlock their own creativity, others made them aware of the struggle required to maintain social and political order. The Genesis creation hymn, written during the Israelites' exile in Babylonia in the 6th century BC, was a gentle polemic against Babylonian religion. Its vision of an ordered universe where everything had its place was probably consoling to a displaced people, thoughas we can see in the Biblesome of the exiles preferred a more aggressive cosmology. 
There can never be a definitive version of a myth, because it refers to the more imponderable aspects of life. To remain effective, it must respond to contemporary circumstance. In the 16th century, when Jews were being expelled from one region of Europe after another, the mystic Isaac Luria constructed an entirely new creation myth that bore no resemblance to the Genesis story. But instead of being reviled for contradicting the Bible, it inspired a mass-movement among Jews, because it was such a telling description of the arbitrary world they now lived in; backed up with special rituals, it also helped them face up to their pain and discover a source of strength.
Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?
Darwin made it clear once again thatas Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed outwe cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the "God beyond God." The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiencesand has helped me to appreciate when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection. 
But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth ("Existence is suffering"), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvanaand others call God. 
Ms. Armstrong is the author of numerous books on theology and religious affairs. The latest, "The Case for God," will be published by Knopf later this month.*Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to do*

Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in "Natural Theology," that the creation of life was God's greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we'd amend the statement: Evolution is the universe's greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.
Indeed, evolution is probably the greatest show in the entire universe. Most scientists' hunch is that there are independently evolved life forms dotted around planetary islands throughout the universethough sadly too thinly scattered to encounter one another. And if there is life elsewhere, it is something stronger than a hunch to say that it will turn out to be Darwinian life. The argument in favor of alien life's existing at all is weaker than the argument thatif it exists at allit will be Darwinian life. But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe. 




Bettmann/CORBIS Charles Darwin



What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics. Nothing does (if anything did, physicists would just have to formulate new lawsit's happened often enough in the history of science). But although life never violates the laws of physics, it pushes them into unexpected avenues that stagger the imagination. If we didn't know about life we wouldn't believe it was possibleexcept, of course, that there'd then be nobody around to do the disbelieving!
The laws of physics, before Darwinian evolution bursts out from their midst, can make rocks and sand, gas clouds and stars, whirlpools and waves, whirlpool-shaped galaxies and light that travels as waves while behaving like particles. It is an interesting, fascinating and, in many ways, deeply mysterious universe. But now, enter life. Look, through the eyes of a physicist, at a bounding kangaroo, a swooping bat, a leaping dolphin, a soaring Coast Redwood. There never was a rock that bounded like a kangaroo, never a pebble that crawled like a beetle seeking a mate, never a sand grain that swam like a water flea. Not once do any of these creatures disobey one jot or tittle of the laws of physics. Far from violating the laws of thermodynamics (as is often ignorantly alleged) they are relentlessly driven by them. Far from violating the laws of motion, animals exploit them to their advantage as they walk, run, dodge and jink, leap and fly, pounce on prey or spring to safety.
Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges into uncharted territory. And how is the trick done? The answer is a process that, although variable in its wondrous detail, is sufficiently uniform to deserve one single name: Darwinian evolution, the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information. We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our own planet. And my bet, as I said, is that the same process is in operation wherever life may be found, anywhere in the universe.
View Full Image







WSJ Illustration 













What if the greatest show on earth is not the greatest show in the universe? What if there are life forms on other planets that have evolved so far beyond our level of intelligence and creativity that we should regard them as gods, were we ever so fortunate (or unfortunate?) as to meet them? Would they indeed be gods? Wouldn't we be tempted to fall on our knees and worship them, as a medieval peasant might if suddenly confronted with such miracles as a Boeing 747, a mobile telephone or Google Earth? But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us. Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complexstatistically improbable and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universethe miracle-free zone that is physics.
To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution. It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity: seemingly limitless complexitycertainly up to our human level of complexity and very probably way beyond. There may be worlds on which superhuman life thrives, superhuman to a level that our imaginations cannot grasp. But superhuman does not mean supernatural. Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences. Once it has done so, of course, those intelligences can create other complex things: works of art and music, advanced technology, computers, the Internet and who knows what in the future? Darwinian evolution may not be the only such generative process in the universe. There may be other "cranes" (Daniel Dennett's term, which he opposes to "skyhooks") that we have not yet discovered or imagined. But, however wonderful and however different from Darwinian evolution those putative cranes may be, they cannot be magic. They will share with Darwinian evolution the facility to raise up complexity, as an emergent property, out of simplicity, while never violating natural law.
Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.
Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."
Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right. 
Mr. Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene," "The Ancestor's Tale," "The God Delusion." His latest book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will be published by Free Press on Sept. 22.


----------



## pinkus (Sep 13, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


>


used to have that on a shirt stoney....many Christans were not so Christan when i wore it


----------



## fish601 (Sep 13, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Anyway when you start from the info that we have, and real world examples, and math the timeline goes like this: Giant explosion that sent material out>> Material circles around the sun (large gravitational force that causes all debri to surround and rotate around it) >> material bumps into eachother and forms planets >>> planets collide and create moon and slow earths rotation allowing for plate techtonics and easier weather >>> weather mixed with several other factors shocked by lightning creates earliest particles of life >>> Life particles mix together and create earliest forms of life >>> Those mutate and combine to make newer more complex lifeforms >>> Lifeforms develop special advantages like light sensitive skin cells (seen today on some animals) >>> Those pigment cells develop further in lifeforms like flat worms that allows then to mutate into a more cave type depression to focus the light changes >>> Then more mutations form the pin hole eye >>> Eventually a skin is put over it (mussels) >>>> Turns into a lens (Octopus) >>> Evolution pushes water animals to develop into land life, where the eye is even more advantagous that in water so it further develops and speciallizes depending on the hunting paterns of the animal >>> Eventually humans evolve with color sight that allow them to see animals in the jungle.
> 
> 
> And there you go, big bang to color sight.


 
I see what your doing.. you are mixing alittle bit of truth with a bunch of lies. 

You see all that and think wow evolution must be true.. I see all that and think wow god is awsome


----------



## fish601 (Sep 13, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I see what your doing.. you are mixing alittle bit of truth with a bunch of lies.
> 
> You see all that and think wow evolution must be true.. I see all that and think wow god is awsome


ok that was my initial reaction

i have never looked into it but what is the mathematical probability not just for a single mutation a series of mutations.. say 3 mutations in a row...And how many mutations would it take to form a eye or lung? 
while we are on mathematical problems how many more times is it likley for a negative mutation vs a positive mutation?
seems like we would be not evolving in a good way but being tore down.

ok Next 
For a mutation to occure that you are talking about a gene had to be there in the first place.. wouldnt that point to creation?


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 13, 2009)

Fish, you are a very closed minded person. You are not willing to be open to any idea that goes against you religouse beliefs. Time and time again you are given evidence and reasoning as to how things could have come about, I say could because I can admit there is a chance we could be wrong. No-one has all the answers but the scientific world has many many many more credible answers than any religion. When your faced with evidence you just say its lies. When you say you have proof you have nothing to back it up, nothing credible anyway.

Get over it, Religions were created by man to control man.


----------



## Atrilius (Sep 14, 2009)

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!! Because Pinkus says so ?????????

SandMonkey&#8230; knows it all&#8230; because he has been told Conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories and that&#8217;s it (quote by Bush). MMMM interesting. Conspiracy theories can not be proven&#8230;. Why&#8230;. Because the law, media and anybody else who can officially say that a conspiracy is true or not is either involved one way or another, whether they know it or not. Just because it&#8217;s official it does not mean it&#8217;s TRUE. Like the Bible&#8230;. Just because there is a book and many people believe in it does not make it true.

Does anyone remember when the bcc reported the tower 7 went down 23 minutes before it actually did and behind the reporter was the tower still standing? She described the building falling exactly how it did fall 23 minutes later. It was cut off air and was never shown again. You can still find a copy on the internet but most links have been closed for some reason. Mmmm wonder why. The BCC eventually gave a response due to constant pressure&#8230;. There response was laughable. Does anyone think it&#8217;s odd that no media talks about this????? Does anyone think it&#8217;s odd that the reporter never wanted to talk about this???? Or do you think like George Bush says it&#8217;s a conspiracy and that&#8217;s it. 

LOL George Bush made me laugh&#8230; God is on our side when we go to war&#8230;. And he talks about conspiracy&#8230;. Unbelievable &#8230; but he gets away with it because so many people believe him, because he is president?????????

Quote by SandMonkey: (Behind the curtain) In short, this "documentary" is for people new to conspiracy theories; who think that by watching this crap they've now gotten such secret knowledge and know the whole truth.

Do you believe that SandMonkey knows why this documentary was made? His answer is odd&#8230; An answer which a brainwashed individual would think or answer from a person with a lot of hate towards other people would have. The documentary was giving us an insight on things and telling us to get on with each other and love ourselves, be in control of our self&#8217;s, think for our selves etc&#8230; not go believing in fairy tales or saying we are the chosen ones or we will be going to bad places or money etc etc etc. Because this doc was not OFICCIALY factual then there will always be people like SandMonkey telling us what he has been told. I watched this doc for the first time today and quite accurate to what I believe and know already and many millions of people do so as well. I wrote similar things on page 34 before watching the doc&#8230; please see.

The Internet is a great tool at the moment&#8230;. People like us can find out things without anyone saying if it&#8217;s okay to publish before so (i.e. like many books). We can listen to the press and compare there stories to those who are actually been involved i.e. war zones etc&#8230;. its amazing how much bull our press tell us or not tell us. So anyone coming across this doc will learn something new, something which they may of not ever known if it was not for the internet. Slowly it&#8217;s changing unfortunately because the powers are using terrorism laws to prevent freedom of speech on the internet. Before anyone jumps on the band wagon I am not saying that everything on the internet is accurate&#8230;. but hey guys we all should be able to think for ourselves and see the motives behind what we read. We all need to remember whether you like it or not we are all brothers and sisters sharing this one world. We should all be working together to making it a better place for us all&#8230; not just for the minority.

It&#8217;s more important to be than have a goal. Peace to you all.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

> Does anyone remember when the bcc reported the tower 7 went down 23 minutes before it actually did and behind the reporter was the tower still standing? She described the building falling exactly how it did fall 23 minutes later. It was cut off air and was never shown again. You can still find a copy on the internet but most links have been closed for some reason. Mmmm wonder why. The BCC eventually gave a response due to constant pressure. There response was laughable. Does anyone think its odd that no media talks about this????? Does anyone think its odd that the reporter never wanted to talk about this???? Or do you think like George Bush says its a conspiracy and thats it.


Nonsense.... so the reporter is in on it too huh??.... Now this reporter would be receiving the PULITZER prize if she broke the conspiracy story. So she just goes along?

How about maybe the possibility that a tech glitch was made and that's why it was pulled... if indeed that report EVER EXISTED in the first place. IF, and I say BIG IF it ever aired....EVERYONE would have seized upon it. But...............








> I watched this doc for the first time today and quite accurate to what I believe and know already and many millions of people do so as well. I wrote similar things on page 34 before watching the doc please see.


*Quite accurate to what U believe*..... Now see, that wasn't so hard was it? You found the gaping hole in ur logic all by urself....  Some PPl see what they want to see. Others investigate with objectivity FIRST.



> The Internet is a great tool at the moment. People like us can find out things without anyone saying if its okay to publish before so (i.e. like many books). We can listen to the press and compare there stories to those who are actually been involved i.e. war zones etc. its amazing how much bull our press tell us or not tell us. So anyone coming across this doc will learn something new, something which they may of not ever known if it was not for the internet.


 

The internet is just like a gun. No any better or worse than the user. It has tons of info and tons of DISinformation. The skill is in mining the CORRECT data. The 9/11 Truthers show that indeed ppl can be easily fooled as long as the "conspiracy" fits their world view already in place. It's a common trap and works all too well.

Without a foundation of core values and an education to put new facts into the correct context, the internet is the easiest place to get lost and confused in. 

I give U the Truthers as evidence. In reality the 'truthers" haven't a clue.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 14, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I see what your doing.. you are mixing alittle bit of truth with a bunch of lies.
> 
> You see all that and think wow evolution must be true.. I see all that and think wow god is awsome


Evolution is true most people that breed animals understand this logic because you are breeding certain traits out or breeding for them. Same goes for pot plants when we breed them we are doing evolution.

We look for the strongest traits then breed those plants or animals. they will either show the trait of the parents witch means its a gentic trait that can be line bred to be stronger or more potent or colorful or it doesnt show its trait and its a weak link on the evolution scale.

Animals do the same thing breed one trait to the other you get a mix of of the two plus some that are normal of the parents. A retard is a genetic trait witch both the parents carried they where both hetrozygous(spelling) for retard hence every child this couple has will have a 50% chance of being retarded 25% chance to show moms traits 25% chance to chow fathers traits. If boths traits sow up you got special ed make sence?

No god was involved its genetics its the circle of life. The weakest traits get weeded out would you have sex with special ed? prolly not witch insures our species wont keep having special ed children. But people do have sex and children with special ed people and with the normal offspring of special eds kids witch is why we stil have special ed classes. Wheres god when you need him?


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

No, a lot of Christians aren't.


pinkus said:


> used to have that on a shirt stoney....many Christans were not so Christan when i wore it


We're not saying that there might not be a god, fish.We're willing to accept the possibility we may be wrong.Are you?
Speaking for myself, all I'm saying is this:evolution does occur.We know that for a fact.Species adapt and change to the climate and their local habitat.Did we get here from nothing?No, I don't personally believe we did...but humans perceive time in a linear fashion.For us, it's beginning, middle, end.So it may be hard to conceive there was a beginning when there was nothing there to build with.I personally think it's a bit more complicated than that.Think of a ring.There is no obvious beginning or end to it.Now, you could take that ring and make a mark on it and call that mark the "beginning".You could also call that mark "end",since you would start and stop on that mark to traverse the ring completely.But it's a matter of perception...there really is no clear beginning or end to the ring, it's an unbroken circle,you can run around it forever and never actually run out of ring.This is my little hypothesis on the universe....perhaps it didn't "come from nothing"....because that would imply the universe is a straight line, with a clear beginning, middle, and end.It would have to follow a set course,the material would all be used up,once consumed, it would be gone,right?But we can see, even by looking at the stars, this is not the case.When a star "dies",its elements are flung out across a vast distance.So to a person looking at it from a fairly nearby position, the material may appear to be diffuse,or even consumed complety....this person would call this "the end".But it's not.All of that material is being reused...google orion nebula...from the deaths of many old stars, even more new stars are forming...an endless cycle of death and rebirth...a ring.When one thing "ends",another begins.We see this.This is an observable thing.But we humans are only here for a short time,compared to the rest of the matter that comprises the universe.We didn't even know the world was round until relatively recently on our timescale.As we walk the earth, it appears to be relatively "flat" to us...we can't perceive the curve of it until we observe it from greater distances.I propose that time is like this as well.Since we only see a tiny portion of it,we think of it in a linear way...because that's how it is for US.We cannot step back from the time stream and observe the whole of it.So we try to understand it in our limited terms.We like to make sense of things.We don't want to admit there are things we can't begin to imagine.All I'm saying is...why does there have to be a beginning,middle, and end as we know it?What if the universe is a ring,with no visible beginning, or end?As it expands,like any explosion, it exapands to a point....and then collapses back into itself....and just like a supernova,when the matter becomes so tightly packed,basically(in simplified terms)the enormous pressure causes heat, and an explosion occurs...and that explosion expands to a point, and collapses.Like any explosion.Now, for the planets that may have been surrounding the star...it's an end.But if we step back and view the situation from farther away,with the passage of time, we see it was also a beginning.Because young stars begin to form from the ejected material of the old star.Is this a perfect model of what happens?No, because I can only perceive so much.
Is there a god?I don't know...but if he's anything at all like the one in the Bible,or any other religion thus far for that matter,I've no use for him.And since nobody has really ever heard from him (anyone that can be actually certified as telling the truth),maybe he has no use for us, either.Maybe he doesn't even know about us.Perhaps he's an enormous creature of such immense proptortions that we would be like dust mites to him....it's all in how you perceive it.Think about all we didn't know before the microscope was invented.
And being human,with our limited time,we've really only got time to try to understand what we can observe.We can observe how nature works.We can observe what's around us.We get clues.We test a hypothesis.If it doesn't hold up,we discard it.That's what I've done with religion.Because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.But since I cannot see absolutely everything, I'm willing to admit, I could be wrong. Religion cannot do that.Because it isn't about knowledge, it's about control.If you deny a person knowledge, you deny them power.Power to make informed decisions.That's the reason I like science.It isn't the easy way out.


fish601 said:


> I see what your doing.. you are mixing alittle bit of truth with a bunch of lies.
> 
> You see all that and think wow evolution must be true.. I see all that and think wow god is awsome


----------



## Atrilius (Sep 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Nonsense.... so the reporter is in on it too huh??.... Now this reporter would be receiving the PULITZER prize if she broke the conspiracy story. So she just goes along?
> 
> How about maybe the possibility that a tech glitch was made and that's why it was pulled... if indeed that report EVER EXISTED in the first place. IF, and I say BIG IF it ever aired....EVERYONE would have seized upon it. But...............
> 
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

A growing number of Christians no longer view the Bible as the word of G*D. Fish is in the minority within his own belief system.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

(Waves) That was probably a little too long for him to read, anyway....


CrackerJax said:


> A growing number of Christians no longer view the Bible as the word of G*D. Fish is in the minority within his own belief system.


----------



## Atrilius (Sep 14, 2009)

oh... I never did say the reporter was in with it.... This is the point you dont understand. I believe and many others do that she only read a script handed down to her, she had no clue, eventually she disapeard for awhile and held no interviews... I believe she was not aloud to talk about it. 

Yes it was a mistake but not the one you think it was, they just read the script to early and somone screwed up there part or DID THEY.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 14, 2009)

Maybe hes new to god. His name is fish. FISH! FISH! FISH! FISH! I love that movie!


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

Atrilius said:


> oh... I never did say the reporter was in with it.... This is the point you dont understand. I believe and many others do that she only read a script handed down to her, she had no clue, eventually she disapeard for awhile and held no interviews... I believe she was not aloud to talk about it.
> 
> Yes it was a mistake but not the one you think it was, they just read the script to early and somone screwed up there part or DID THEY.


Ever notice that all of your logic is based on assumptions not in evidence? That's a clear tip ur off the mark......


Hey Stoney ... (waves)


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

Man, that beautiful post, lost in the shuffle...so are we talking about conspiracy theories now?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

No...... just a slight derailment folks...... enjoy the complimentary donuts and coffee.... we'll have the train rolling in no time... Choo Choo.... uh Puff puff.

Stoney did u read that article I posted...?


----------



## Atrilius (Sep 14, 2009)

What evidence do I need to give you (i have given you a tiny bit and you choose not to believe) will you only believe once you have been told by the tv or your goverment ?????? 

Crackerjax... come on man... do you believe that people go into goverment ... law etc ...for our interest ? 

Does your logic suggest that Goverment is there to serve us and protect us blah blah blah .... even though you know they lie, steal from us etc etc etc.. Loads evidence to support the opposite.

Crackerjax.. please tell me what you think happened during the mix up with wtc 7 please with the bbc ?


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

You mean the novella?Yes, I did...It's right on the money,I don't disagree with any of it,so I didn't feel the need to dissect it.I still have the god delusion of my computer,waiting to be watched, but I just haven't gotten around to it.Most of my conclusions were reached on my own over my life,and I'm pretty surprised to see them shared by greater minds than mine.Just think, Richard Dawkins and a smalltown Iowa housewife are both saying pretty much the same thing,lol.


CrackerJax said:


> No...... just a slight derailment folks...... enjoy the complimentary donuts and coffee.... we'll have the train rolling in no time... Choo Choo.... uh Puff puff.
> 
> Stoney did u read that article I posted...?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> You mean the novella?Yes, I did...It's right on the money,I don't disagree with any of it,so I didn't feel the need to dissect it.I still have the god delusion of my computer,waiting to be watched, but I just haven't gotten around to it.Most of my conclusions were reached on my own over my life,and I'm pretty surprised to see them shared by greater minds than mine.Just think, Richard Dawkins and a smalltown Iowa housewife are both saying pretty much the same thing,lol.



Dawkins has an amazing mind..... voted to be the greatest living mind in the UK right now. That's a high compliment. That might just make you the smartest Iowan housewife....  

What was especially interesting was the "theological" side of it. The author starts out with an evolution mea culpa..... 
It was ESPECIALLY interesting to see where she stated that early Christians didn't really think the Bible was word for word history or the actual word of G*D. The corruption took place much later on. 

Poor Fish...... 



Atrillus .... go to 9/11 debunked if you want to discuss it further. I'll be more than willing to shoot ur fish in a barrel there...


----------



## Atrilius (Sep 14, 2009)

Thank you CrackerJax... However I must decline as I have no desire to talk about 9/11 fiasco ... My long winded point was to show you folks that the media in the UK and the world is being manipulated by higher powers. Just because something is not official it does not mean that it is not true; please don&#8217;t use the word conspiracy like it&#8217;s a joke... A lot of conspiracy theories have been proven right..... Eratosthenes said the world was round but no one believed him and laughed and accused him of a conspiracy. There are so many examples of this and so many examples of bad theories as well.

I would like to say only... please all think for your selfs, question everything, respect your fellow man, be yourself, dont be affraid of anything and most importantly be patient and wait for those lovely little amber trichomes to come.

Peace


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> I've been thinking about stuff like this...flags are just symbolism,a way of trying to categorize.....a way to simplify something,to make it accessible to everyone,easier to understand,when the reality is so much more complex,it can't be condensed into one symbol or another. That's why I'm not really against flag burners,because it's really just their way of trying to say that one little part of something is not the sum of it. The American Flag is supposed to symbolize freedom,free speech,the "American Way", but I think we can all agree it doesn't tell the whole story, and it's not even really what America is about anymore. We cling to symbols like that because to some, they become almost like false idols....they give them more power than they really have.If you tear a flag into pieces, it can't clothe all the people it is supposed to represent.


This is what I wrote in another thread about symbolism,which that article also touched on.God is just a symbol for the unknowable,basically...and it's my belief that symbols exist to simplify things...but they can't truly represent every facet of the story.Religion simplifies things by giving us a myth to apply to something we don't understand. When we don't understand something, we tend to be a little intimidated by it.The religious mind seeks to be given the answers...the easy way...the scientific mind seeks to find the answers themself,to "see it with their own eyes",so to speak.
I think with early Christianity, there were a lot of converted pagans and polytheists...they had been so used to the worship of multiple dieties that they knew there were many sides to a story,so one god who did it all might have been a step back for them in their thought processes.And I don't thin as many of them would have joined if the Christians were all yelling about the vengeful god,punishment, etc.That came later, as a means of control, when the next generation was born, knowing nothing else but what they had been taught about the one god. So when presented with only one option, "behave this way, or this will happen," they didn't really have anything else to turn to...most people back then were primarily concerned with survival...and utter nothingness is a scary thing to contemplate, because we don't understand it.(I mean, can you really SEE the color clear?Aren't you just seeing whatever color is behind it?) One of the main reasons for religion is the human's natural fear of death.They want everything to be easy,to know what's happening,because we're wired to know that uncertainty or hesitation can sometimes mean death....(Stop and ponder your options when that cave lion is chasing you, and most likely, he eats you...run along with the pack, and you stand a chance of survival.)But we're no longer in the times where we have to fight to survive as much.We have the luxury of contemplation that many of our ancestors did not.I think that's why it's taken so long for us to shrug off religion.


CrackerJax said:


> Dawkins has an amazing mind..... voted to be the greatest living mind in the UK right now. That's a high compliment. That might just make you the smartest Iowan housewife....
> 
> What was especially interesting was the "theological" side of it. The author starts out with an evolution mea culpa.....
> It was ESPECIALLY interesting to see where she stated that early Christians didn't really think the Bible was word for word history or the actual word of G*D. The corruption took place much later on.
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

I couldn't agree with you more.It's very similar to what we've been saying.


Atrilius said:


> I would like to say only... please all think for your selfs, question everything, respect your fellow man, be yourself, dont be affraid of anything and most importantly be patient and wait for those lovely little amber trichomes to come.
> 
> Peace


----------



## Brazko (Sep 14, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Man, that beautiful post, lost in the shuffle...so are we talking about conspiracy theories now?


No, it wasn't lost in the Shuffle, I thought it was a great, InSightful Post... Thanks for sharing.. Some people only Address personal Agenda's tho'... Your post probably didn't fit that Arena 

+rep


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

Thanks, brazko.I do tend to get pissy with religious types sometimes, because many of them are so close minded.They cannot admit that their way is not the only way.If you can't admit you may be wrong, then you are letting fear of the unknown keep you from growing mentally.


Brazko said:


> No, it wasn't lost in the Shuffle, I thought it was a great, InSightful Post... Thanks for sharing.. Some people only Address personal Agenda's tho'... Your post probably didn't fit that Arena
> 
> +rep


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

There are sects of Christianity who desire to take out all of the boogedy boo and miracle voodoo from the Bible, but they keep running into the same problem.

There just isn't a whole lot left. Other books can address the same problems with much more cohesion and comprehension. Take away the goobly goo from the Bible, and it becomes extremely ordinary.

P.S. whenever someone says GREAT POST BACK THERE.... leave the post number. It's easier. TY... Then everyone knows INSTANTLY which post.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

Right...people need to realize that since we are all different, the only one who can interpret the answers in a satisfactory manner is you yourself.What's truth for some is not truth for others.Kinda like self help books...I don't read them, can't understand doing so...because you have to HELP YOURSELF! If you won't examine the facts and see for yourself,how can you ever expect to truly know something?If you're taking someone else's word for something,then you're not thinking for yourself. Hell, DON'T believe me when I say evolutions occurs...get out there and look at all the information that's available...and make sure there's no agenda behind it.Take everything with a grain of salt.


CrackerJax said:


> There are sects of Christianity who desire to take out all of the boogedy boo and miracle voodoo out of the Bible, but they keep running into the same problem.
> 
> There just isn't a whole lot left. Other books can address the same problems with much more cohesion and comprehension. Take away the goobly goo from the Bible, and it becomes extremely ordinary.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 14, 2009)

If you want to be current in scientific studies, get urself a subscription to _*Nature*_.

That's what science is all about..... studying Nature.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 14, 2009)

The funny thing is we are all the same geneticly almost to much the same thats why we see so many birth defects and we never progress. Compared to other species we are fucked we lost or natural instincts. We no longer have a fight or flight its hand them your wallet and thank a fake god he didnt kill you.

If we where like any other species we would either run or fight and eat him to live another day or minute maybe because life is that short and you REALLY only get ONE no matter what some book told you. After the lights are out it worms and larva for you buddy.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 14, 2009)

Yup.Or just go outside, lol.


CrackerJax said:


> If you want to be current in scientific studies, get urself a subscription to _*Nature*_.
> 
> That's what science is all about..... studying Nature.


I believe that,too.We're becoming weaker as a species.Eventually even technology won't be able to stop it...we either evolve or die.


snail240 said:


> The funny thing is we are all the same geneticly almost to much the same thats why we see so many birth defects and we never progress. Compared to other species we are fucked we lost or natural instincts. We no longer have a fight or flight its hand them your wallet and thank a fake god he didnt kill you.
> 
> If we where like any other species we would either run or fight and eat him to live another day or minute maybe because life is that short and you REALLY only get ONE no matter what some book told you. After the lights are out it worms and larva for you buddy.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolfact.htm Why not credit your source?


zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

Still reporting you as spamming, because you keep posting the same thing, over and over,on multiple threads.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 15, 2009)

zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


 
easy man, they dont like to hear the truth


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 15, 2009)

fish601 said:


> easy man, they dont like to hear the truth


I'm fine with anyone speaking the truth as they see it, even if I think they are wrong. It's pathetic fucking spammers that I have a problem with.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 15, 2009)

fish601 said:


> easy man, they dont like to hear the truth


Any scientist is seeking the truth and will do this through trial and error, coalating the evidence as they go along to find the most logical answer. Prove it wrong with logical evidence not the hearsay of gospel and they wont be deaf to what your saying.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 16, 2009)

I steped on a nail to save a rolly polly. WORSHIP ME!!


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

All hail the the almighty Snail. It is so written.


----------



## stonurse (Sep 16, 2009)

all i can say is...wther ur muslim..budhist..islam..christian..mormon..theres only 1 supreme being...its all the same...


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

What about Hindu's just to name one. Lots of gods there.


----------



## lou~dog (Sep 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> He believes the book. The book tells him to believe.
> 
> let's just be glad he doesn't read Mein Kampf.


very true. Its just mind control, look at all the idiots that voted for bush and how badly they fucked our country. DON'T vote bible!


----------



## AlBundy (Sep 16, 2009)

Religion hasn't done bad things, people using religion to suit their own persons has done bad things.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

AlBundy said:


> Religion hasn't done bad things, people using religion to suit their own persons has done bad things.


Mainly the "churches" (change according to the religion) behind the religions, until recent history when church has been removed from the state. Now its the fanatics turn to use the word of God to suit their means.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 16, 2009)

I see you kids are home from school already. 

Theocracy is bad mmmkay?






People tend to do bad things in spite of religion. 

Using your logic you could say white/black people have done more bad than good.

Bigotry always thinks it's on the right side, but singling out religion for your hatred, is no different than any other personal lifestyle choice.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

Its not hatred, just observation of how the powers at be controlling the religions have abused its influence of people to meet their own ends.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 16, 2009)

anyone who's concerned with the attacks on, and erosion of, religious freedoms in America, should read this. There's also a link to this material at the bottom. 

The White House Attack on Religion Continues : Repealing Conscience Protection https://www.rollitup.org/200906035014/culture-wars/the-white-house-attack-on-religion-continuesrepealing-conscience-protection/print.html https://www.rollitup.org/component/option,com_mailto/link,aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yaWdodHNpZGVuZXdzLmNvbS8yMDA5MDYwMzUwMTQvY3VsdHVyZS13YXJzL3RoZS13aGl0ZS1ob3VzZS1hdHRhY2stb24tcmVsaWdpb24tY29udGludWVzcmVwZWFsaW5nLWNvbnNjaWVuY2UtcHJvdGVjdGlvbi5odG1s/tmpl,component/ Written by David Barton Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:40 
June 3, 2009
*by David Barton*
*WallBuilders.com*
Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office. 

A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a "case-by-case" basis. 1 
Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Catholic[/COLOR][/COLOR] Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values - for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don't have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc. 
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment's guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider the applicants' religious faith during the hiring process. 2 The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, 3 and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. 4 But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. 5 
The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House's announcement of President Obama's commitment to "pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]sexual [COLOR=green !important]orientation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]." 6 This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]ministry[/COLOR][/COLOR] staffs. 
The administration's third attack on religion occurred in the President's stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities "(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." 7 As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, "any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Prayer[/COLOR][/COLOR] Breakfast." 8 Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to "allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding," 9 but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote. 
The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama's 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups. 10 
The fifth attack is the White House's announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. 11 
In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States. 
- - - &#9674; &#9674; &#9674; - - -Today's liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America's Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-182 correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just "to our destiny in the world to come" but also "in reference to its influence on this world," and therefore must always "be contemplated in [these] two important aspects." 12 
While today's post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America's Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena - especially on the formation of America's unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:



The Bible is the most republican book in the world. 13 *JOHN ADAMS*, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, U. S. PRESIDENT
I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian Religeon to overturn all the corrupted political . . . institutions in the world. 14 *BENJAMIN RUSH*, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
[T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. 15 *NOAH WEBSTER*, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER, LEGISLATOR, JUDGE
They . . . who are decrying the Christian religion . . . are undermining . . . the best security for the duration of free governments. 16 *CHARLES CARROLL*, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible . . . men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. 17 *DANIEL WEBSTER*, "DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION"
*CONTINUE TO FULL ARTICLE AND REFERENCES ON WALL BUILDERS**........*

The White House Attack on Religion Continues : Repealing Conscience Protection   Written by David Barton Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:40 
June 3, 2009
*by David Barton*
*WallBuilders.com*
Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office. 

A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a "case-by-case" basis. 1 
Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Catholic[/COLOR][/COLOR] Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values - for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don't have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc. 
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment's guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider the applicants' religious faith during the hiring process. 2 The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, 3 and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. 4 But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. 5 
The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House's announcement of President Obama's commitment to "pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]sexual [COLOR=green !important]orientation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]." 6 This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]ministry[/COLOR][/COLOR] staffs. 
The administration's third attack on religion occurred in the President's stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities "(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." 7 As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, "any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Prayer[/COLOR][/COLOR] Breakfast." 8 Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to "allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding," 9 but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote. 
The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama's 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups. 10 
The fifth attack is the White House's announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. 11 
In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States. 
- - - &#9674; &#9674; &#9674; - - -Today's liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America's Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-182 correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just "to our destiny in the world to come" but also "in reference to its influence on this world," and therefore must always "be contemplated in [these] two important aspects." 12 
While today's post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America's Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena - especially on the formation of America's unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:



. . . _s the most republican book in the world. 13 *JOHN ADAMS*, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, U. S. PRESIDENT
[*]I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the to overturn all the corrupted political . . . institutions in the world. 14 *BENJAMIN RUSH*, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
[*][T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. 15 *NOAH WEBSTER*, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER, LEGISLATOR, JUDGE
[*]They . . . who are decrying the Christian religion . . . are undermining . . . the best security for the duration of free governments. 16 *CHARLES CARROLL*, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
[*][T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible . . . men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. 17 *DANIEL WEBSTER*, "DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION"
_
_*CONTINUE TO FULL ARTICLE AND REFERENCES ON WALL BUILDERS**........*_


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

Ok. A lot of that seems a bit unfair. I agree with you that you shouldn't be forced to employ someone who's beliefs go against your principles, thats just stupid. But I don't think that anything the state funds of gives monetary aid to should be used exclusively for one group, wether that be race religion or whatever. I dont think the state should give any money to religous institutions full stop, they should be self sufficient because of their followers.

I believe what Obama is trying to do there is good, just needs some alterations to be a bit more realistic.

And as for getting tax deductions for make charitable donations, shouldn't happen. Why the hell should the state loose its tax money cos someones made a donation to a charity.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 17, 2009)

I think we should all sin as much as possible. So if the shit is true we can just take satins place. Welcome everyone to hell playing a b.c. rich warlock.

Man if only I could disign hell it would be the shizzle. I would make it everybodys worst nightmare loose bloody purple pussys on spikes singing the barney intro. That fat red headed kid from sandlot would be there to rape your girlfriend in front of you(if your a chick he would rape you). Man dont give me that job. Give me some weed,some metal and goat horns and its on!


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 17, 2009)

snail240 said:


> I think we should all sin as much as possible. So if the shit is true we can just take satins place. Welcome everyone to hell playing a b.c. rich warlock.
> 
> Man if only I could disign hell it would be the shizzle. I would make it everybodys worst nightmare loose bloody purple pussys on spikes singing the barney intro. That fat red headed kid from sandlot would be there to rape your girlfriend in front of you(if your a chick he would rape you). Man dont give me that job. Give me some weed,some metal and goat horns and its on!


Rasies a good point that I've actually given some thought...

If you were the devil, why would you torment souls? What is the point? You're supposed to be this badass rebel that totally revolts against God right? So why are you there doing his dirty work? Tormenting souls would be Gods purpose for you, you hate God, why would you do shit for him? 

Someone answer me that.


I'd make hell THE SHIT! Nobody would ever want to leave! Talk about a paradise, lmfao!


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 17, 2009)

The old heaven and hell concept. Didn't the Muslims and Christians just make up the concept of an afterlife to steal the Jewish followers as Judaism has no afterlife.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Think of the devil myth as more of a prosecuting attorney. The devil says man is corrupt, and Jesus says no. The devil merely proves his point over and over again to G*D. See G*D.... they are just corrupt little things.... look how easy I can move them from scripture.

That's the way the Devil is.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

If it's a church organization, fine.Otherwise, you should not be able to discriminate against any potential employee on the basis of personal belief.(And churches should have to pay taxes like any other corporation.)


krustofskie said:


> Ok. A lot of that seems a bit unfair. I agree with you that you shouldn't be forced to employ someone who's beliefs go against your principles, thats just stupid. But I don't think that anything the state funds of gives monetary aid to should be used exclusively for one group, wether that be race religion or whatever. I dont think the state should give any money to religous institutions full stop, they should be self sufficient because of their followers.
> 
> I believe what Obama is trying to do there is good, just needs some alterations to be a bit more realistic.
> 
> And as for getting tax deductions for make charitable donations, shouldn't happen. Why the hell should the state loose its tax money cos someones made a donation to a charity.


The devil has changed since the Old Testament...he was placed by god in the old testament to fuck with man...In the new testament,he became an enemy of god,lol.


PadawanBater said:


> Rasies a good point that I've actually given some thought...
> 
> If you were the devil, why would you torment souls? What is the point? You're supposed to be this badass rebel that totally revolts against God right? So why are you there doing his dirty work? Tormenting souls would be Gods purpose for you, you hate God, why would you do shit for him?
> 
> ...


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 17, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> If it's a church organization, fine.Otherwise, you should not be able to discriminate against any potential employee on the basis of personal belief.(And churches should have to pay taxes like any other corporation.)
> 
> The devil has changed since the Old Testament...he was placed by god in the old testament to fuck with man...In the new testament,he became an enemy of god,lol.


You have obviously never read the Bible, because Satan was not "placed" by God. Satan was created by God, but Satan rebelled, just as you all are rebelling against God.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

Uh..yes, I have.God told Satan to go ahead and tempt Eve.God also told him to go ahead and hurt Job.They're a team. If you believe the Bible. And as for "rebelling", it's hard to rebel against a work of fiction which cannot be proven.Even if your god were real, I still wouldn't worship him.He's a tyrant.A boogeyman.


Green Cross said:


> You have obviously never read the Bible, because Satan was not "placed" by God. Satan was created by God, but Satan rebelled, just as you all are rebelling against God.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

But of course G*D would have known before creating the devil that he would rebel.... so there is no rebellion Green cross. The devil is doing exactly what G*D wants.... always. The devil is doing G*D's intended work.

According to the Bible that is.... The rest of us see only a myth.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

Hey Cracker.Did you "myth" me?


CrackerJax said:


> But of course G*D would have known before creating the devil that he would rebel.... so there is no rebellion Green cross. The devil is doing exactly what G*D wants.... always. The devil is doing G*D's intended work.
> 
> According to the Bible that is.... The rest of us see only a myth.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 17, 2009)

Jesus mowed my lawn. True story I can get pictures I used to work with the guy.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Stoney, the myth... the legend. 


hey, it is kind of funny how Latinos have no problem what so ever calling their kids Jesus. 

White ppl think their kids are gonna grow up to be President.
Latinos think their kids are gonna grow up to be Jesus!


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

I wonder about that, too.My mom always said it was blasphemy to name a kid Jesus...now there are some Latinos who are about as devoutly Catholic as they come, and I've never heard of white catholics naming their kids Jesus....


CrackerJax said:


> Stoney, the myth... the legend.
> 
> 
> hey, it is kind of funny how Latinos have no problem what so ever calling their kids Jesus.
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> I wonder about that, too.My mom always said it was blasphemy to name a kid Jesus...now there are some Latinos who are about as devoutly Catholic as they come, and I've never heard of white catholics naming their kids Jesus....


And yet Mary is quite popular.....


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

Right, but that's not TEH MESSIAH!


CrackerJax said:


> And yet Mary is quite popular.....


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Jesus was a very common name back in the day of primitive antiquity. Nothing special about the name at all. 

Just more church BS!


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

Jesus H Fucking Christ was actually the original form of the name.They shortened it because it fit better on a license plate.


CrackerJax said:


> Jesus was a very common name back in the day of primitive antiquity. Nothing special about the name at all.
> 
> Just more church BS!


----------



## snail240 (Sep 17, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Jesus H Fucking Christ was actually the original form of the name.They shortened it because it fit better on a license plate.


Then came the "where did the rock go? Behind your ear!!" then the "Oh hes good, what was his name" "names jesus bitch dont forget it"


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

LOl...Jesus sounded like the main character in a blaxploitation flick.


snail240 said:


> Then came the "where did the rock go? Behind your ear!!" then the "Oh hes good, what was his name" "names jesus bitch dont forget it"


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)




----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 17, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> You have obviously never read the Bible, because Satan was not "placed" by God. Satan was created by God, but Satan rebelled, just as you all are rebelling against God.


We are all rebelling against god? And we were created by god, so I guess your calling us the devil?


----------



## snail240 (Sep 17, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> We are all rebelling against god? And we were created by god, so I guess your calling us the devil?


Devil aint got shit on me. By defult im satan I screwed 18 hookers within the last 3 years 8 of them had kids and all of their names is Jesus!! Mwahaha And every one of them knows the rock trick Mwahaha


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 17, 2009)

I think speaking with or calling people the devil isn't productive for any christian. I believe there is no devil so this bothers me nothing.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

How to tell if you have died and gone to Heaven:

The engineering is German and the food is Italian

If it's the other way round, bad news.... you're in Hell.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 17, 2009)

which country would Apples fall into?


----------



## MexicanWarlord420 (Sep 17, 2009)

You know the current Pope Benedict was a hitler youth?


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 17, 2009)

And as Cardinal,he was the guy who sent the order down to stifle the accusations of molestation against priests. He knew they were doing it,and did nothing to stop it.


MexicanWarlord420 said:


> You know the current Pope Benedict was a hitler youth?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Two things need to be maintained by the church.... power structure and assets. History has shown that the church doesn't mind dealing with any nation state which helps them in that maintenance. Not much different from Big Oil.


----------



## Basshead (Sep 17, 2009)

religion itself has never done absolutely anything. ITS PEOPLE AND THE WAY THEY ACT UPON EVENTS WITH RELIGION IN THEIR INTENTS. religion has never served any other purpose than to address systems of values. its people and what they do with, and through their religious actions that have done good, and done bad. Don't blame, or give credit to the religion. Give credit, or blame to the people. They have fingers and feet. Religion has nothing but studies, methods, practices and words which can't do anything without people acting upon it. Sometimes people do right. Sometimes people do wrong. This applies with, or without religion.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Or how about if there wasn't any Christianity or Islam, half of the worlds conflicts would simply vaporize...... it's not just the people... it's the message that is given to the people. the message, both messages are wrong wrong wrong, and always have been.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Or how about if there wasn't any Christianity or Islam, half of the worlds conflicts would simply vaporize...... it's not just the people... it's the message that is given to the people. the message, both messages are wrong wrong wrong, and always have been.


 
lol people will fight and kill about anything


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 17, 2009)

fish601 said:


> lol people will fight and kill about anything


Yes, but mostly religion. And wealth.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 17, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Yes, but mostly religion. And wealth.


 
is the drug war included in religion or wealth?


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Yes, but mostly religion. And wealth.


ie, ControL/Dominance and Greed



fish601 said:


> is the drug war included in religion or wealth?


 
Umm, YES!!!


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

So Art Thou Wiser? Please Share..., Or Wait a Minute does that Mean You will be Professing Ur Wisdom, making You da' Fool, Or Iz One A fool Who DAres Not Profess their Wisdom, Or Wisdom is A Fools Tool, Or Should A Fool Never Be Taken 4 WisDom Or, Fools Are No longer, Once Wisdom has Shown, OR is Wisdom Shown No Longer 2 the Fool, Or , FooL tis Is Wisdom. R 






smokeitalldaylong said:


> sup wit tis


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

That's about the dumbest chart I have seen yet Brazzy.... so scientifically thought out.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

See, You going About it All Wrong, That's Not Supposed to B Science,. that My friend is the REal Deal.. 100%Weird Science, Come On Man!!! You Gotta think, OutSide the Box, Looking From Inside the Box, Without REalizing that You Are the Box...


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Heh... okay,... my bad. I just can't tell anymore which nutty stuff ppl take seriously anymore... 

booga boogedy boo...


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

Hey, 2 catch You UP, I was replying to a Drive By POster, I believe it was Two of them, Officer Sir, and I sware I don't Know which way they Went..., Promise 

I thought there Might B Some Confusion its all Good..., The Spirituality, Philosophy, SexYTime Forum is getting Creepy , I'm going to Hang Out in Newbie Central


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Heh... okay,... my bad. I just can't tell anymore which nutty stuff ppl take seriously anymore...
> 
> booga boogedy boo...


I believe Mared JooWon addressed it pretty reasonably and Nice in another Thread


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)




----------



## TheDemocrat (Sep 17, 2009)




----------



## doobnVA (Sep 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> is the drug war included in religion or wealth?


The "drug war" isn't really a war, but the motivation behind it IS money. And ironically, the majority of "Christians" support the drug war.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 18, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> The "drug war" isn't really a war, but the motivation behind it IS money. And ironically, the majority of "Christians" support the drug war.


That's probably true of most uninformed people, but there are religious leaders leading the fight to pass medical marijuana law in Illinois. 

Thanks God we have religious freedom in this country, and there's nothing the communists and the progressives can do about it. 

*Medical marijuana: Religious leaders ask Illinois lawmakers to allow medical marijuana use: 'Medical marijuana is an issue of mercy and compassion,' one religious leader said* 
_Chicago Tribune - April 29, 2009_ 
[SIZE=+1]*Manya A. Brachear, Tribune reporter*[/SIZE] 

More than 60 religious leaders in Illinois are calling on state senators this week to pass a bill that would allow patients to use medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation and without criminal consequences. 

"Medical marijuana is an issue of mercy and compassion," said Rev. Bill Pyatt of the First United Methodist Church of Carthage. "We pray that the Illinois legislature will have the compassion to stop this war on patients." 
Many religious leaders also hope the discussion about easing restrictions on marijuana use will widen the conversation about treating illegal drug use as a public health issue instead of a crime. 
Religious proponents of the Senate bill, which is expected to be decided before Thursday, say although medical marijuana use and decriminalization of drug use are related, they are separate issues. 
Several studies suggest that marijuana can mitigate nausea, pain and anxiety for patients with illnesses such as HIV, cancer, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain. Theological arguments are based on these findings. 
"Jesus lived his life healing those where he could," said Rev. Al Sharp, executive director of Chicago-based Protestants for the Common Good. "This is entirely consistent with that." 
Denominations that officially support medical marijuana include the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, Episcopal Church, and United Church of Christ. 
If passed, the legislation would create a three-year pilot program allowing the state Department of Public Health to give registry identification cards to people with doctors' recommendations for cannabis. Eligible patients would be entitled to seven dried cannabis plants and 2 ounces of dried usable cannabis. 
Illinois State Police oppose the bill, saying there is no way to measure impairment for enforcement of DUI laws, and calling marijuana a gateway drug. 
For decades, the "holy war on drugs" has focused less on law enforcement and more on providing havens and recovery. 
"There are a lot of folks who are looking at re-entry of folks coming out of prison," Sharp said. "We need to look at it from the front end called 'no entry.' It is very repressive drug laws putting people in prison who should have other alternatives." 
[email protected] 
090429 
CT090401 Copyright © 2009 - Chicago Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Chicago Tribune, Permissions Desk, 435 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611 http://www.chicagotribune.com
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from the National Library of Medicine, AIDS Walk of Orange County, and donations from users like you. 
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in *2009*. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV. 

It's the liberals who are trying to block the bill. Please inform yourself before speaking next time, please.


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 18, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> It's the liberals who are trying to block the bill. Please inform yourself before speaking next time, please.



I think you can take your own advice, there.

The bill (sponsored by democrats) was passed by committee (with a democratic majority).


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 18, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> It's the liberals who are trying to block the bill. Please inform yourself before speaking next time, please.


 
Sir, the little man operating your brain must have vacated the premisis LONG AGO! 

It is *conservatives *who started the disinformation campaign in the beginning, you'd think someone on a Marijuana forum would know that by this point, especially someone with as many posts as you have. Remember, the whole hemp industry taking over the paper industry thing... 

It's *conservatives *who *keep it illegal* through further disinformation because the majority of the population is afraid of the projected consequences of legalizing a ''drug'' no more harmful and much less addicting than alcohol. Did I mention weed's never killed anyone? 

Reagan was a *conservative.* Drug war? 

Bush sr. was a *conservative.* 

...funny how drugs weren't much of an issue when Clinton... a liberal, was president..

Bush jr. was a *conservative. *


I have yet to see you give good advice or correctly respond to anything at RIU GC. 

You just wait till I get elite, you're gonna be earnin' those rep points buddy.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 18, 2009)

Well to be fair, weed has been outlawed for a long time now and every party in the end treats it the same.... a tool of division which garnishes lots of votes. A political foil used by both parties, sometimes bordering on shameful parody with the sheer lack of evidence of exactly why it remains illegal.

It's a vote getter and until we can make it a vote loser, nothing will change. Not on the Federal level. 

We need a tipping point.

I propose to adopt the "Al Queda/Hamas approach (know thine enemies )

Every now and again on this forum, some babe in the woods finally decides to take his plant outside and show everybody. See??!! It won't hurt you!! it's harmless, it's just a plant!! See??!! It's all quite funny, and these ppl are never heard from again. 

But fear not my green bud friends... I have a plan. Let's develop a thread to attract just those types of people.... oh let's just call them naive.... liberal... take ur pick (I couldn't resist ). 

Let's attract them, wind them up and send them out there with a plant in their hands and bud filled pockets..... one of them is bound to get the attention... some will fall, but in the end a cascade effect will overwhelm the populace, and finally the politicians will recognize that anti-weed is a vote loser.

The martyrs will be freed, the ppl will dance.....


----------



## snail240 (Sep 18, 2009)

Yeah some body needs to sit at the front of the bus smoking a fatty.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 19, 2009)

I think religion has done a lot of bad and good. How can anyone quantify that question? How should someone measure good or bad?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 19, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> I think religion has done a lot of bad and good. How can anyone quantify that question? How should someone measure good or bad?


 
Look at it subjectively.

Do you think we would be more advanced and better off without the existence of religion, or do you think without religion the world would go to hell and chaos?


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 20, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Look at it subjectively.
> 
> Do you think we would be more advanced and better off without the existence of religion, or do you think without religion the world would go to hell and chaos?


There should be more options. We aren't taking about a black and white issue. "Better off" meaning.......what? You don't really know that life would be better off without religion, because you've never experienced it. Almost everyone you meet has some sort of religious conviction, and tries to live by a higher standard. Even criminals live by a very defined set of rules within their own community. 

I am thoroughly backed tonight. Good night, ya'all.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 20, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> There should be more options. We aren't taking about a black and white issue. "Better off" meaning.......what? You don't really know that life would be better off without religion, because you've never experienced it. Almost everyone you meet has some sort of religious conviction, and tries to live by a higher standard. Even criminals live by a very defined set of rules within their own community.
> 
> I am thoroughly backed tonight. Good night, ya'all.


 
Good point, but just for the sake of the hypothetical...

Try to picture if the human species started off from the beginning, instead of creating a diety and a story behind it, say none of it never developed and instead all the religious wars that have been fought through history never happened. Take this same logic and apply it to the useful things religion has given us, inventions and such that came about because of religion, we wouldn't have any of that either in it's current form of existence. 

There is a ton more involved in this scenario to think about that I didn't label because I don't have the time at the moment, but just start off with that.

Honestly, I'd think we'd be somewhere near Star Trek or Star Wars type technology right now if religion never entered into the picture..


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 20, 2009)

That is probably one of the most cogent arguments in terms of actually measuring such a quantitative question I can remember hearing. And, I really appreciate the fact that you haven't quickly resorted to calling me a stupid poo poo head, yet. Cheers, mate! 




PadawanBater said:


> Try to picture if the human species started off from the beginning, instead of creating a diety and a story behind it, say none of it never developed and instead all the religious wars that have been fought through history never happened.


The question is not framed to find the truth. "Has the Church done more bad than good? Well, let's see how much bad they've done. Oh, quite a bit of bad in God's name. The evidence stands that the Church has done more bad than good." I think to have a truly informed opinion on the question, you have to be able to list all the good religion has done, also. 



PadawanBater said:


> Take this same logic and apply it to the useful things religion has given us, inventions and such that came about because of religion, we wouldn't have any of that either in it's current form of existence.


It sounds like you're saying that religion has been worthless over the entire history of humanity, producing nothing of value. Hmmmm? Micheal Angelo comes to mind. He had a few things to offer humanity, and the Catholic Church payed the bill. You can't make what Michael made without some inspiration.




PadawanBater said:


> *Honestly, I'd think we'd be somewhere near Star Trek or Star Wars type technology right now if religion never entered into the picture..*


Theres no way you can know that. Nobody has the slightest idea what a world without religion would be like. It is a reality that has been woven into the fabric of every society that has ever existed. Where is your example that life would be better without religion? Stare Trek? Star Wars? Dude! Their movies. 

And, there's no way you can find out what this kind of religion-less world would be like, either. You can try to compare atheist communities to see if they are more civilized or human than their Christian, Buddhist, Muslim counterparts. But, I'm sure you still find greed, lusts, abuses and such.


----------



## lou~dog (Sep 20, 2009)

Here's PROOF your religion's is wrong : )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqofVS_L4d8

you can find it on the CNN website too... cause its real


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 20, 2009)

lou~dog said:


> Here's PROOF your religion's is wrong : )
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqofVS_L4d8
> 
> you can find it on the CNN website too... cause its real



I think that alien turned out to be a dog. : )

And, I don't care for religion. No attempt to prove anything here.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 20, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> That is probably one of the most cogent arguments in terms of actually measuring such a quantitative question I can remember hearing. And, I really appreciate the fact that you haven't quickly resorted to calling me a stupid poo poo head, yet. Cheers, mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree, you can't measure the bad without looking at the good. 

How do you suggest we do it? By human deaths? The countries that are highly religious in correlation with the civil rights, same thing with less religious nations like in Europe and the civil rights correlation? Should it be specified between each religion, which ones are more dangerous than the others? How would you like to do it?

Religion has not been worthless. It provides certain stable people with the feeling of enlightenment they need to get through life. Who am I to try to take that away from somebody? I would actually argue religion serves as a deterrant to a lot of people and is partly responsible for keeping society at large somewhat together. Though there are plenty of arguments even against that. If people were simply educated about things, taught how to learn correctly.. there would be no void to fill, there would be no emptiness or meaninglessness without God. These things would keep themselves together, so is that even a valid argument in support of the "good religion has done" to begin with?.. I guess in my hypothetical it is not.

We can't know for sure, but we can speculate. Star Trek and Star Wars, sure they're both movies.. but they both serve as perfect examples of a religionless society. I'm a HUGE fan of SW, and a recent fan of ST with the new one that just came out, so I know a bit about em. They didn't add religion into the movies for a reason. Think about it.

True, but we can compare the differences and find out which societies have more crime and such..


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 21, 2009)

You sure do put a lot of faith in the vision of a better world that Star Wars offers. You might even say that the movies and books have become a sacred text. Personally, I don't believe it's possible for humanity to NOT put our faith in something. Anything that makes us feel caught up in a bigger story is a good definition of worship.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 21, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> You sure do put a lot of faith in the vision of a better world that Star Wars offers. You might even say that the movies and books have become a sacred text. Personally, I don't believe it's possible for humanity to NOT put our faith in something. Anything that makes us feel caught up in a bigger story is a good definition of worship.


 
I don't feel I ''worship'' anything..


----------



## snail240 (Sep 21, 2009)

The first "god" was a wooden club. And jesus was the guy that held it. Once the rest of the cave men figured out how to make a "god" we had our first war.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 21, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Good point, but just for the sake of the hypothetical...
> 
> Try to picture if the human species started off from the beginning, instead of creating a diety and a story behind it, say none of it never developed and instead all the religious wars that have been fought through history never happened. Take this same logic and apply it to the useful things religion has given us, inventions and such that came about because of religion, we wouldn't have any of that either in it's current form of existence.
> 
> ...





Mauihund said:


> That is probably one of the most cogent arguments in terms of actually measuring such a quantitative question I can remember hearing. And, I really appreciate the fact that you haven't quickly resorted to calling me a stupid poo poo head, yet. Cheers, mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Man, you guys just presented some well thoughtful arguements, I guess this is Why the wheel keeps Turning, ++rep


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 23, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Man, you guys just presented some well thoughtful arguements, I guess this is Why the wheel keeps Turning, ++rep



Hey, thanks!


----------



## smoker toker (Sep 24, 2009)

Ahhh i'm glad i'm baked.. and i'm also glad that we're a buch of stoners talking about this because if we weren't it'd become a heated discussion real quick =p... but we're all high so it dont matter  woohoo!

Yeah I think that religion is the cause of a lot of problems in the world... Jeruisilum is STILL living proof of that... And the Holy Crusades, all in the name of "God", but that's bullshit because God gave people free fucking will to do what they want, and people just use religion and His name as an excuse. Religion is a giant hypocrosy in my opinion. Anyone ever seen the movie Dogma?... yeah... like that.. that's what I think 

 Smoker Toker


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

Christians are just a big fat bunch of liars. Everything about their religion is either stolen or lies.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Christians are just a big fat bunch of liars. Everything about their religion is either stolen or lies.


Only one person lies more then christians and thats Obama. If god where real he would let me smoke my weed in blueberry vanilla pappers just more proof that god isnt the only fake one in this country.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

Oh I think Obama is truly a liar, but still amateurish compared to the church. He has the capability though to really harm us all, so at this juncture Obama is the top danger to the country, and other countries as well.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 24, 2009)

snail240 said:


> Only one person lies more then christians and thats Obama. If god where real he would let me smoke my weed in blueberry vanilla pappers just more proof that god isnt the only fake one in this country.


Back your foolish statement up hater. You made a declarative statement (look it up) about Christians being liars. It would be like saying Gay's lie, but that would never fly like your hate does. 

Anyhow prove it.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 24, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Back your foolish statement up hater. You made a declarative statement (look it up) about Christians being liars. It would be like saying Gay's lie, but that would never fly like your hate does.
> 
> Anyhow prove it.


Prove im not lieing

And the circle continues. I shit on a grave last night and no bolt of lightning shung upon my mighty turd.

And gays do lie shits a fab agianst nature. Thats why they all have the same homo voice and act the same.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

Christians entire religion is a lie. Give back the old testament, it's not yours.

The new testament was a way to steal the old testament. 

The Jews have never broken the covenant with G*D. G*D himself (by the writings of the Old Testament) said that was an impossibility. He would always be at THEIR side. 
The new testament was crafted to steal the Old. Once the lie was swallowed the real persecution began of the Jews. A self fulfilling prophecy based on lies. It was the rejection by the Jews that the Christian Jews couldn't stand. 

Rejection is at the heart of the Christian Faith, not love. The Christian churches action in history show that much to any casual observer.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Christians entire religion is a lie. Give back the old testament, it's not yours.
> 
> The new testament was a way to steal the old testament.
> 
> ...



Everyone who is a Christian is a liar. And, every homo is a pedophile. And, everyone who drinks wine is an alcoholic. Every man can't keep it in his pants. All women are whores. Children are just expensive. Did I leave anything out? All old people are a waist of time. There are some other stereotype I'm missing.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 24, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Everyone who is a Christian is a liar. And, every homo is a pedophile. And, everyone who drinks wine is an alcoholic. Every man can't keep it in his pants. All women are whores. Children are just expensive. Did I leave anything out? All old people are a waist of time. There are some other stereotype I'm missing.


Ill agree with all of the above. homos being pedophile though thats kinda steep. Ill just say they are liars like christians I put them on the same level sence they hate each other so much for the same things. 

Christians like long haired dudes nailed to crosses. Homos like long haired dudes getting nailed.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

I didn't say christians as ppl... I said the religion.... and yes it's based on lies.

Mexicans can't drive. You left that one out.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I didn't say christians as ppl... I said the religion.... and yes it's based on lies.
> 
> Mexicans can't drive. You left that one out.




Thanks for catching that. I'd get in trouble around here if word got out I was unfair to anyone. God forbid!



You say that Christianity is based on a lie. That means you know the truth pretty well in order to make that comparison. I'm curious what you think that truth is? Lets just assume buds have some role in this.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Thanks for catching that. I'd get in trouble around here if word got out I was unfair to anyone. God forbid!
> 
> 
> 
> You say that Christianity is based on a lie. That means you know the truth pretty well in order to make that comparison. I'm curious what you think that truth is? Lets just assume buds have some role in this.


 
The truth is that NOBODY knows the truth. Anyone that says they do (Christians, Muslims, Jews, all religions) is lying.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

I know that the old testament is a hijacked testament. true or no? If you aren't Jewish, the old testament doesn't apply to you. Period at the end of that sentence.

G*D implicitly tells the Jews that G*D and the Jews will forever be linked. The Old Testament is a JEWISH G*D, no one else's. Their tribal religion,and it was never for outsiders. You are either part of the clan, or you aren't.

So, what is the Old Testament doing in the Bible? Riddle me that one Batman.. 

Hijack.

Then the common answer may be heard. jews broke the covenant with G*D, so they're out and we're in (so to speak).

That is certainly how the church behaves. History shows that once Christianity was plucked from relative oblivion, and joined itself to an Empire, the Jews were in for a bad bad time. 

Because that was the crux of the biscuit now wasn't it? The Jews breaking of the covenant... according to the church (powers) it was the Jews DENIAL of the supposed Jesus which broke their covenant with G*D. Says who? says the folks in charge with all the power.

Zip... Old testament now ours. The new and improved religion. 

This brings us to the main lie. You cannot use the new Testament against the Old. The Old ends with the Jews firmly blessed for all eternity and destruction for those that harm them (only fitting since they wrote it). 

So a lie is needed to over come it. To overcome the rejection the early Christians must have felt towards their home land, like an orphaned child the church struck out with the story of Jesus. To break the covenant. But one religion cannot say another is no longer valid, unless you own that religion as well. The Old Testament was needed to be coupled with the New. 

Motive, opportunity and gain. In a court room, it wouldn't even be close. 

They'd be dusting off the hot seat.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 24, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> The truth is that NOBODY knows the truth. Anyone that says they do (Christians, Muslims, Jews, all religions) is lying.



Even yourself? Are you lying? You say you can see the lie, but that HAS to mean that you can see the truth first. There's no other way to see a lie, regardless of the subject. You have to judge based on what you beleive to be the truth. 

If I believed you, that everyone is lying, I'd have to disbelieve you, too. That sounds wrong. Someone has to be telling the truth.


----------



## tourima (Sep 24, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Even yourself? Are you lying? You say you can see the lie, but that HAS to mean that you can see the truth first. There's no other way to see a lie, regardless of the subject. You have to judge based on what you beleive to be the truth.
> 
> If I believed you, that everyone is lying, I'd have to disbelieve you, too. That sounds wrong. Someone has to be telling the truth.


Why on earth does somebody have to be telling the truth? In case you havent noticed, human history is a giant litany of fucking shite up and being DEAD wrong. I agree completely with PadwanBater, these people who claim to just KNOW the answers, are the hallmark of religion. That sort of arrogance, that 'I know for certain when in reality nothing is certain' is WHY logical, rational people loathe religion. Because it permits people who DON'T know all the answers, to think that they DO.

As Bill Maher put it..."[if the world does end] it will be because mankind was able to precipitate mass death...before he got over the disease of WISHING for it."


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Even yourself? Are you lying? You say you can see the lie, but that HAS to mean that you can see the truth first. There's no other way to see a lie, regardless of the subject. You have to judge based on what you beleive to be the truth.
> 
> If I believed you, that everyone is lying, I'd have to disbelieve you, too. That sounds wrong. Someone has to be telling the truth.


No, that's false. I do not have to know the truth to know something is false. 

Example; 

5 x 2 = ??? 

If I did not know the answer, could I then conclude that 5 x 2 = 8? No. You know 8 is not the answer. The same logic applies about any truth.

I'm saying nobody *knows* the truth. I admit to it. Religion, and religious people, say they *do know* the truth. The fact that I *know* *nobody knows* the truth tells me that the truth actually is that *nobody knows.* 

lmfao


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Even yourself? Are you lying? You say you can see the lie, but that HAS to mean that you can see the truth first. There's no other way to see a lie, regardless of the subject. You have to judge based on what you beleive to be the truth.
> 
> If I believed you, that everyone is lying, I'd have to disbelieve you, too. That sounds wrong. Someone has to be telling the truth.


No... it's always possible that everyone is lying. This is the case with religion.

I went to the trouble of spelling out the christian lie... no comment? I did it on ur request...


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No... it's always possible that everyone is lying. This is the case with religion.
> 
> I went to the trouble of spelling out the christian lie... no comment? I did it on ur request...


Calling the Christian religion a lie is something you can't prove, so your statement isn't true is it? It's just you opinoin 

Look up declarative statement next time, if you want to debate using the rules of logic. Google it


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

Just read the post. the lie is evident. It is proven. Disprove what I typed please.

It's all correct and in context.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Just read the post. the lie is evident. It is proven. Disprove what I typed please.
> 
> It's all correct and in context.


I only got through the first sentence, and found a discrepancy. 

If Jesus is the Jewish messiah, and Jews at the time recognized it first, and Paul was the disciple to the gentiles, there was no hijacking of a religion, because he was sent to the Jews first. 

You're facts are wrong. 

You obviously have no understanding of the bible, or times/events. 

Maybe you should study religion before attempting to debate it?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

I'm talking about the Old Testament. It doesn't belong to you. It's not meant for non jews. Are you jewish?


----------



## tourima (Sep 24, 2009)

I don't think there's anything remotely empricial that proves anything of any of the abrahamic religions. jesus was a story that existed thousands of years before, in mithra, krisna, and horus.

he's old news and so are most religions.


----------



## styxxoo1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Worse thing EVER thought up... nothing against belief.. believe whatever the hell you want... that's the point of freedom...
But when large groups of people come together and try to enforce this belief on others..... then religion is born and wars break out.. 

The thing is that most mainstream beliefs are rather selfish... in a "non-believers go to hell" kinda way...
Thus having these fanatics develop a hero complex and whist trying to save "souls" tend to do nothing but cause annoyance and conflict...


----------



## snail240 (Sep 25, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Calling the Christian religion a lie is something you can't prove, so your statement isn't true is it? It's just you opinoin
> 
> Look up declarative statement next time, if you want to debate using the rules of logic. Google it


So wait people can rise from the dead? And split the sea in half?

Yeah I think its been proven fake. Kinda like how you will only see Chris Angel float on TV but in real life he is on the ground signing his picture. Your telling me that this guy has the power to fly and hes just gonna stand here and sign pictures? Hells no he would be floating who stands on their feet when they can float.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 25, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I do not have to know the truth to know something is false.


Yes you do. Using your example, if you knew that 5 x 2 = 10, than an answer of 8 would be false. If you were in grade school, your teacher would put a big red mark on your paper. 





PadawanBater said:


> If I did not know the answer, could I then conclude that 5 x 2 = 8? No. You know 8 is not the answer. The same logic applies about any truth.


I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying because I didn't know the true answer to 5 x 2, I can't just pick what ever answer I want to? Because I just know there is a true answer? Not trying to be difficult, here. (it just comes naturally.  )





PadawanBater said:


> I'm saying nobody *knows* the truth. I admit to it. Religion, and religious people, say they *do know* the truth. The fact that I *know* *nobody knows* the truth tells me that the truth actually is that *nobody knows.*
> 
> lmfao




I'm still working on that last sentence. Because you know no one knows the truth, you have learned the truth. Which you now have and are advocating in this discussion. It seems very cyclical to me.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm talking about the Old Testament. It doesn't belong to you. It's not meant for non jews. Are you jewish?


The old testament is all that was available at the time Christ walked the earth, and it predicted Christs coming. When his followers quoted scripture they were Jew's quoting from the old testament. 

When Jesus read scripture in the temple, he was a Jew reading from the Old testament. 

The more you talk the more obvious you have no clue about what Christianity is.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 25, 2009)

It predicted a messiah, as ALL religions do. No mention of who it would be.

It is you who deny urself to be a Jew. The Old Testament is a Jewish text. Jesus read from the Old Testament because he was a Jew. 

You must either recognize urself as a rebel sect of Judaism, and you are truly a Jew, or admit you have no business copping the OT. Jesus never considered himself anything but a Jew. Jesus was talking to Jews and NO ONE ELSE. His teaching were never intended for ppl outside the tribe. That's plain enough.

I think I know more than you do..... your perspective is colored a bit. Know where you come from.... know who you are.

Christians are either Jews, or hypocrites. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 25, 2009)

Johnny Retro said:


> For the past 2000 years 95% of the worlds wars were about religon..
> 
> Your completly right.


Let's see: 

WW I 
WW II
Korea
The Cold War
Vietnam
The Civil War 
The Spanish American War


Yep 995 all wars are caused by religion


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It predicted a messiah, as ALL religions do. No mention of who it would be.
> 
> It is you who deny urself to be a Jew. The Old Testament is a Jewish text. Jesus read from the Old Testament because he was a Jew.
> 
> ...


Salvation has been opened to the Gentiles, or would you prefer that only Jews participate in God's plan for salvation? Maybe consult Jews for Jesus if you think Jews and Christians can't see things from the same point of view. 

But I have a question for you, because I think you don't even know your own heritage. I could be wrong, but where did Caucasians come from? 

And why are you so determined to undermine religion, knowing this exactly what Stalin and Hitler did to undermine the people. You're a neo-Marxist like Obama right? At least be honest and explain your agenda.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 25, 2009)

Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to ignore what you wrote. It's interesting, but I just don't know enough about what you wrote to have a very good opinion. I'll take a stab at it, but hold a tooth pick to my eye and I'll happily change my mind. 




CrackerJax said:


> Christians entire religion is a lie.


So, if I can find something about the Christian religion that isn't a lie, then will you be willing to reconsider your position? It sounds like your opinion is based solely on this statement. To be so all encompassing in your understanding of Christianity and what is the lie, you have to know a lot of stuff.




CrackerJax said:


> Give back the old testament, it's not yours.



Take it. It's yours. Always was, always will be. Who is stopping you from learning from the Old Testament? The Christians? Bull shit! They have nothing to do with your life if you don't want them to. Or, have you personally been forced out of your home and persecuted for what you chose to read and believe? I didn't think so.




CrackerJax said:


> The Jews have never broken the covenant with G*D. G*D himself (by the writings of the Old Testament) said that was an impossibility.



Then why did they wander in the desert for 40 years instead of being guided directly to the promised land? I have a bible at home. I'm willing to dust it off if you have an old testament reference supporting this. 

Never and impossible? Did they become super human and incapable if sinning? I know the Jews are God's chosen people. But, they've stopped the sacrifices. I see no direction from God to stop making sacrifices. 




CrackerJax said:


> He would always be at THEIR side.



Makes me sad to think that God won't love me because of my race. 




CrackerJax said:


> The new testament was crafted to steal the Old. Once the lie was swallowed the real persecution began of the Jews. A self fulfilling prophecy based on lies. It was the rejection by the Jews that the Christian Jews couldn't stand.



There is no way to substantiate these claims. But, if God never intended it to happen, then why would he let the Christians lie so effectively that it co-opted the Jews from performing their ritual sacrifices?





CrackerJax said:


> Rejection is at the heart of the Christian Faith, not love. The Christian churches action in history show that much to any casual observer.


I've been more than a casual observer all my life. I've seen some wicked abuses of power in the Church. That's one reason I don't go any more. And there have been many, many (most) times when I'v left a church service and wonder what was the point of THAT! But to say that at it's very core Christianity is rejection, I have to reject that idea. Ha! (I crack me up!)


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 25, 2009)

styxxoo1 said:


> Worse thing EVER thought up... nothing against belief.. believe whatever the hell you want... that's the point of freedom...
> But when large groups of people come together and try to enforce this belief on others..... then religion is born and wars break out..
> 
> The thing is that most mainstream beliefs are rather selfish... in a "non-believers go to hell" kinda way...
> Thus having these fanatics develop a hero complex and whist trying to save "souls" tend to do nothing but cause annoyance and conflict...



Preach it, brother! Reps from me.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 26, 2009)

> So, if I can find something about the Christian religion that isn't a lie, then will you be willing to reconsider your position? It sounds like your opinion is based solely on this statement. To be so all encompassing in your understanding of Christianity and what is the lie, you have to know a lot of stuff.


All lies, all good lies have truth mixed up with them. Finding a truth in a religion doesn't make that religion correct by concept.




> Take it. It's yours. Always was, always will be. Who is stopping you from learning from the Old Testament? The Christians? Bull shit! They have nothing to do with your life if you don't want them to. Or, have you personally been forced out of your home and persecuted for what you chose to read and believe? I didn't think so.


It's not mine. I'm not Jewish.

It doesn't belong to Christians however. It is central to the lie however, in working to break the covenant with G*D.





> Then why did they wander in the desert for 40 years instead of being guided directly to the promised land? I have a bible at home. I'm willing to dust it off if you have an old testament reference supporting this.


I make no claims that the Old Testament is the word of G*D. I'm an atheist... Never the less it doesn't change the events of the Christian church maneuvering to cop the Jewish religion.




> Never and impossible? Did they become super human and incapable if sinning? I know the Jews are God's chosen people. But, they've stopped the sacrifices. I see no direction from God to stop making sacrifices.


That's what the Old testament says.... yes. Look for yourself. You argue but haven't read the material ur debating???? 






> Makes me sad to think that God won't love me because of my race.


That's because it wasn't meant for you. their G*D, not Christians or Buddhists. Kind of my point.







> There is no way to substantiate these claims. But, if God never intended it to happen, then why would he let the Christians lie so effectively that it co-opted the Jews from performing their ritual sacrifices?


Again, I'm an atheist. You suppose already "why would G*D let...." I presume no such guesswork.

I don't think anyone is up there guiding anything.
It's just one man based religion stealing and harassing (exterminating?) from another.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 26, 2009)

So wait people can really raise from the dead?


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm talking about the Old Testament. It doesn't belong to you. It's not meant for non jews. Are you jewish?


But every human MUST be a jew if you beleive the words of the old testament, so it could not be hijacked as its everyones as we must all be jews wether you like it or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong but to be considered Jewish you must be born to a Jewish mother, making you a Jew and that could never be changed.

If we are all decendants of Adam and Eve then doesn't that mean we were all born to a Jewish mother as we all came from the same two people in the begining.


----------



## snail240 (Sep 27, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> But every human MUST be a jew if you beleive the words of the old testament, so it could not be hijacked as its everyones as we must all be jews wether you like it or not.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but to be considered Jewish you must be born to a Jewish mother, making you a Jew and that could never be changed.
> 
> If we are all decendants of Adam and Eve then doesn't that mean we were all born to a Jewish mother as we all came from the same two people in the begining.


Adam and eve story was made to make you fear government. You see that make it seem as if we had a creater then as if he can make mistakes. They get to pick these mistakes that "god" made and ban them from the people. Because they are made by the "devil" so now you must fear these things and not do them because the "creater" (government) made a mistake even though he doesnt make mistakes so it must be the devil.

They want you to go ask them what to fear when it should be second nature. Fear a tiger because it can eat you dont fear a god that makes mistakes because in they own words he could have made a mistake.


----------



## Mauihund (Sep 27, 2009)

Wow! This post turned out to be a long one. I'll try more indica before I write next time.




CrackerJax said:


> All lies, all good lies have truth mixed up with them. Finding a truth in a religion doesn't make that religion correct by concept.



Agreed. Finding a truth in something (religion, someones ideas...whatever) doesn't make anything correct or good in its self. I'm not trying to defend something I find a lot of problems with, like the church. I think the difference between our positions is I see a lot of good, also, coming from religion. You made the statement that it was all lies. The heart of which is based in rejection (despite the obvious fact that it's exploded in practice over the last 2000 years). 






CrackerJax said:


> It's not mine. I'm not Jewish.
> 
> It doesn't belong to Christians however. It is central to the lie however, *in working to break the covenant with G*D. *



My mistake. You have so much passion on the subject, I naturally assumed you were Jewish. So, if it's all lies, and the Christians are making something out of the OT that it wasn't intended for, so what? It's just lies made from lies. In that case, it makes no real difference to anything important.

I very confused. Are you affirming that God actually made a covenant with the Jews? How can you say you are an atheist and hold that something significant happened between the Jews and God? It's a lie, dude! Why the hell do you care?







CrackerJax said:


> I make no claims that the Old Testament is the word of G*D. I'm an atheist... Never the less it doesn't change the events of the Christian church maneuvering to cop the Jewish religion.



You are making the OT the source of your argument as evidence that the Christians have perverted it to reject the Jews. I know you didn't claim to believe it was the word of God. 


I'm really curious about atheism. A defined belief system that there are no belief systems worthy of faith. It seems to me the more someone rails against the lack of God's existence, the more they prove they believe He exists. 

You've never heard anyone say the following statement: _"That fucking bitch Tinker bell! I was totally expecting her to come through for me, and that cunt didn't help me out!"_ No one would say that because no one believes she really exists. My question in this is, if you are truly convinced of the lack of God's existence, than why bother saying so? If an entire world from the beginning of recorded history has recognized the presence of a God, then maybe you are the one who needs to change his mind? 




CrackerJax said:


> That's what the Old testament says.... yes. Look for yourself. You argue but haven't read the material ur debating????


I told you I've been more than a casual observer all my life. Never said I didn't know the material I am discussing. I don't think I even implied that. No biggie. I may join you in a good round of "How fucked up the Christian Church is" on another thread. I'm not trying to "defend the faith". That word means too many things to everyone.








CrackerJax said:


> That's because it wasn't meant for you. their G*D, not Christians or Buddhists. Kind of my point.




Oh. I thought your point was that the Jewish God doesn't want to love me. There are many examples in the OT where wives and the servants of a household converted to the man's Jewish beleifs. And many of those people were not born in a Jewish family. I think the OT shows more than not God is pleased with anyone's, everyone's worship, not just the Jews (the stones and rocks themselves would cry out if everyone remained silent: OT somewhere). I can prove it, but I don't really want to go there.





CrackerJax said:


> Again, I'm an atheist. You suppose already "why would G*D let...." I presume no such guesswork.
> 
> I don't think anyone is up there guiding anything.



That's cool. Maybe that's why I've been enjoying the discussion.


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 4, 2009)

Believing or faith not bad .the ORGANIZED churches are the problem.


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 4, 2009)

Anyone seroiously interested in the overall scope of religion and societies throughout history, should look up and listen too/watch the ORIGINAL lecture series(not the later, highly edited version meant for popular tv.) of Dr.Ralph Cambell of U.C.L.A..He was probably the worlds foremost authority.An interesting fact is that he believed that the Hindus had about the best act of all religions.


----------



## tebor (Oct 4, 2009)

I am not christian, but there is one reason I love them.
the crusades. 

Could you imagine if muslims had conquered Europe?
horrible thoughts.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 4, 2009)

Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche?...


----------



## Permabuzz (Oct 4, 2009)

overgrowem said:


> Believing or faith not bad .the ORGANIZED churches are the problem.


exactly


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> But every human MUST be a jew if you beleive the words of the old testament, so it could not be hijacked as its everyones as we must all be jews wether you like it or not.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but to be considered Jewish you must be born to a Jewish mother, making you a Jew and that could never be changed.
> 
> If we are all decendants of Adam and Eve then doesn't that mean we were all born to a Jewish mother as we all came from the same two people in the begining.



No, you have it exactly backwards.

The Old Testament was written BY Jews, FOR Jews.... only. Certainly not gentiles who were "outsiders" and not of the tribe.

Yes, you must have a Jewish mother to be considered a Jew (by birth, you can convert). But that is it. 

No Christian can claim the Old testament as their own and be considered honest. Jesus never spoke to gentiles, only Jews. The message from Jesus was ONLY for the Jews. Of course I am simply working within the myth here. I don't believe a Jesus ever was.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No, you have it exactly backwards.
> 
> The Old Testament was written BY Jews, FOR Jews.... only. Certainly not gentiles who were "outsiders" and not of the tribe.
> 
> ...


My point is that the Old testament, regardless of who it was written by and written for, claims we the whole human race are descendants of Adam and Eve. Do the Jews not consider Eve a Jew? if Eve is not considered a Jew by the Jewish then my point is mute but if Eve is considered a Jew then we the human race would have to be accepted as being direct descendants of Eve Jewish, thus we can not hijack the Old testament because we must all be Jewish wether we like it or not.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

Adam & Eve? Ur joking of course. Someone better tell the Palestinians that they are Jews then....

You can try all you like to twist it, but the fact remains the Old Testament was written for the tribe of Israel and no one else. They don't consider themselves to be the spawn point for all mankind.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Adam & Eve? Ur joking of course. Someone better tell the Palestinians that they are Jews then....
> 
> You can try all you like to twist it, but the fact remains the Old Testament was written for the tribe of Israel and no one else. They don't consider themselves to be the spawn point for all mankind.


So the old testament doesn't claim Adam and Eve are the start of human kind then? Its not my belief its just what I see to be the biggest contradiction to the Jewish faith as they would have to except all human kind into their ilk. Its not me twisting anything its what the old testament claims. If you can tell me that the Jewish book of faith the 'Tanakh' or what Christians call the old testament does not say that human kind originated from Adam and Eve then I am wrong. We could even bring in the story of Noah and his family, another big story from the old testament, if all life on the planets surface, except Noah and his family, including the animals 2x2, were killed by a great planet wide flood, then we would all be direct descendants of Noah, thus meaning we must all be Jews, again a contradiction if we can not consider all humans Jewish.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

Okay, let's simplify it for both of us.

Riddle me this batman....

What is the big lesson of Adam & Eve? Would you agree that it is... Original sin?


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 4, 2009)

Partly. Thats not the whole story but yes thats surely part of it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

I mean it's the main part of it. It's why we die, and why there must be death. because adam & eve committed the original sin.


But there's a big problem.

The Jews DO NOT believe in original sin. Only the Christians do. But the Jews wrote it. It's theirs. 

So, not only have the Christians hijacked the Old Testament, they have changed it's meanings to fit their own.

That's a clear TIP OFF that it's not yours.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 4, 2009)

My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 4, 2009)

I thought the main part of it was to explain the creation of man which is much bigger than the sin part. Still your just pointing out another contradiction. I do know where your coming from and you are right, in literal terms, the Old testament was 'stolen from the Jews'. But then the Old testament was put together in its original form by the Jews from other old wives tales etc etc, just as the bible is a collection of bullshit stories. But my original point still stands that Jews can not say that the old testament was hijacked if they believe in Adam and Eve being the start of human kind and they do contradict themselves by singling themselves out by saying others are not Jews because, according to the book of their faith, we ALL originated from Adam and Eve and there for must be of Jewish descent.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 4, 2009)

You're expecting religious cults to make sense, though.

Religion isn't about making sense. It's about controlling populations.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 4, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> You're expecting religious cults to make sense, though.
> 
> Religion isn't about making sense. It's about controlling populations.


Quite the opposite. We don't expect them to make sense at all. Speaking for myself I think all religions are BS, made by man to control man, I think cracker thinks the same but he would have to vouch for that himself. Where just having a small debate over the small print.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 4, 2009)

In that case, here's more fuel for the fires 

Ever run into a person who doesn't believe in the literal Adam and Eve, but DOES believe in the literal Original Sin?
That takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

The Jews believe that Adam and Eve were the "symbolic" start of man. It's a metaphor more than anything.

The main point being that Christians have turned the story into something else entirely. They aren't emulating the Jews, they are hijacking their stories and attaching new meanings to them.

Incorrect I might add. Adam and eve were always mortal.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 4, 2009)

Judaism does the exact same thing to other religions though.

It's not even close to being original.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

Actually it is the New Testament which is unoriginal in the myth.

the Old Testament is really more of a tribal history of that region. 

But yes, all religions have to share much of their credo. The fact that they all have happy endings is a tip off that .... we made it all up.

Look around.... nothing ends happily on earth.


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 4, 2009)

Now they say it was the symbolic start of man as they find it impossible to dispute evolution, so it is only recent history they have said this. But for thousands of years it was preached that everything in the book was actual fact as it happened. Religion has changed its views time and time again just to keep in line with what science has proven wrong about the faiths.


----------



## snail240 (Oct 6, 2009)

So damn I cant come back from the dead if I change my name to Jesus?

Im gonna name my child God Jesus I like the ring to it.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 6, 2009)

Well, at least the women he sleeps with will never have to worry about screaming out the wrong name.


----------



## c5rftw (Oct 6, 2009)

people would inevitably create religions... i believe no religion is evil. PEOPLE ARE


----------



## snail240 (Oct 7, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> people would inevitably create religions... i believe no religion is evil. PEOPLE ARE


Evil doesnt exist period. If you say Evil exists then you think God exists. I say crazy fucks exist leave Evil out of it


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

Oh, I think there is definitely evil in the world, it's just not supernatural. It's made right here on Earth, by us. No Diety needed for that. It's a blame game.... easier than looking in the mirror.


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 8, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> people would inevitably create religions... i believe no religion is evil. PEOPLE ARE


Yes people certainly do need to change. It's already 2009 and people still haven't figured it out.


----------



## snail240 (Oct 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Oh, I think there is definitely evil in the world, it's just not supernatural. It's made right here on Earth, by us. No Diety needed for that. It's a blame game.... easier than looking in the mirror.


Goat headed devil dancers with big tittys now thats evil awsome.

I just think evil is a bad word to us because it makes it seem as if it can manifest like some sort of spirit. I think people are just nuts. Evil is a word made up by crazys to make them feel less crazy because its the "evil" not they crazy ass.

But yes in a way im with you I beleive there is "evil" by definition but I hate definitions it just sounds wack.


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 8, 2009)

What does any of this anti-god nonsense have to do with growing weed? Politics and religious discussion should at least be on topic IMO


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

Read the title of the thread... 

Main street is two blocks over, then hang a left.


----------



## overgrowem (Oct 8, 2009)

Crackerjax; There probably was a Jesus.You got me on the miracles, but claims of imaculate conception were common.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

There probably actually wasn't. Only 4 references in the historical record to same or similar name, at least one considered to be a forgery by both secular and theological historians. But they are passing references only. (And the bible is not a historical record. Unicorns and talking snakes do not an accurate history make.  )

The Bible chapters written about Jesus were not written during his supposed lifetime, nor even shortly after, but 2 to 3 generations after. The authors never met the man, nor witnessed any of the acts ascribed to him in their documents.

You could create a profile of an entity similar in nature, if not by name, by lifting data from many legends hundreds of years older.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

Yes, there is little evidence of an historical Jesus. The name was not uncommon.

Read up on Paul of tarsus .... he is the key to the hijacking of the Christian faith. All subsequent gospels spring from Paul. Paul is our best known writer, and we do know a few things about him..... he certainly was no saint.


----------



## snail240 (Oct 9, 2009)

overgrowem said:


> Crackerjax; There probably was a Jesus.You got me on the miracles, but claims of imaculate conception were common.


We got this one firgured out allready I used to work with the guy. He wasnt nothing special I did see him hand a bum some bread once so maybe that got him famous?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

I had this crew once of Hondurans. We were working on an out of town project and I got two connecting rooms for them all, one with a kitchenette. 
A week later I'm up there during the day out on the job and one guy pulls out some tin foil from his pocket and offers me some fish. His name was Jesus. I'm always polite so I say thanks and take a TINY piece. It was very good, and I asked him if he made it last night. Oh no, last week! Then I find out they just leave the cooked fish out! No refrigeration for their stomachs!

I didn't get sick, but that was the last fish I accepted from Jesus.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

Even though I'm not a Jesus fan, I'm gonna watch this movie.
[youtube]4LRIypcaIX4[/youtube]





And as an aside, the guys that made this movie made another movie I'm planning on watching simply because it has the best title ever.


----------



## snail240 (Oct 9, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I had this crew once of Hondurans. We were working on an out of town project and I got two connecting rooms for them all, one with a kitchenette.
> A week later I'm up there during the day out on the job and one guy pulls out some tin foil from his pocket and offers me some fish. His name was Jesus. I'm always polite so I say thanks and take a TINY piece. It was very good, and I asked him if he made it last night. Oh no, last week! Then I find out they just leave the cooked fish out! No refrigeration for their stomachs!
> 
> I didn't get sick, but that was the last fish I accepted from Jesus.


 kitchenette??


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 9, 2009)

"During the Russian Revolution, much like the French Revolution, the churches and clergy sided with the Czars of Russia. This is because there was an established relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czars, much like there was a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French Crown prior to the French Revolution. Because of this, the church was opposing the revolution and working against the peasants and oppressed masses in their struggle to better their own condition.


Out of this grew a backlash against religious leaders during the revolution. However, once Stalin came to power and had stabilized the country he began to promote the growth of the Russian Orthodox Church, but he opposed all other forms of religion and only allowed existence of the Russian Orthodox Church to support Russian nationalism." 

Sound familiar to those who spend their endless days trying to discredit religion? lol 

Here's John Lennon's answer to your communist dreams: 

You say you want a revolution 
Well, you know 
We all want to change the world 
You tell me that it's evolution 
Well, you know 
We all want to change the world 
But when you talk about destruction 
Don't you know that you can count me out 
Don't you know it's gonna be all right 
all right, all right 

You say you got a real solution 
Well, you know 
We'd all love to see the plan 
You ask me for a contribution 
Well, you know 
We're doing what we can 
But when you want money 
for people with minds that hate 
All I can tell is brother you have to wait 
Don't you know it's gonna be all right 
all right, all right 
Ah 

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah... 

You say you'll change the constitution 
Well, you know 
We all want to change your head 
You tell me it's the institution 
Well, you know 
You better free you mind instead 
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao 
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow 
Don't you know it's gonna be all right 
all right, all right 
all right, all right, all right 
all right, all right, all right


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

snail240 said:


> kitchenette??


yah.... it had a stove, fridge.... everything. Those guys were there for three weeks. I walked in one morning to get them up, and the smell of their cooking from the night before hit me like a brick.... woah!


----------



## snail240 (Oct 9, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> yah.... it had a stove, fridge.... everything. Those guys were there for three weeks. I walked in one morning to get them up, and the smell of their cooking from the night before hit me like a brick.... woah!


like a portable kitchen? Thats pretty cool shit really. Wish the mexicans I used to work for would have brought a taco stand to work everyday prolly wouldnt have quit. Free tacos and easy work? Yeah anyone would stick around.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

Yah, it had everything.... and a connecting room. plus I got the room next door for them which connected to that kitchen suite. they didn't want to go home after three weeks!!! 

They kept asking me after the job.... "when are we doing another project out of town?"


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

Sound familiar?Hell yeah!The catholic church tried to do the very same thing.We call it the "Dark Ages."


Green Cross said:


> "During the Russian Revolution, much like the French Revolution, the churches and clergy sided with the Czars of Russia. This is because there was an established relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czars, much like there was a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French Crown prior to the French Revolution. Because of this, the church was opposing the revolution and working against the peasants and oppressed masses in their struggle to better their own condition.
> 
> 
> Out of this grew a backlash against religious leaders during the revolution. However, once Stalin came to power and had stabilized the country he began to promote the growth of the Russian Orthodox Church, but he opposed all other forms of religion and only allowed existence of the Russian Orthodox Church to support Russian nationalism."
> ...


----------



## snail240 (Oct 9, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yah, it had everything.... and a connecting room. plus I got the room next door for them which connected to that kitchen suite. they didn't want to go home after three weeks!!!
> 
> They kept asking me after the job.... "when are we doing another project out of town?"


They where wanting to put some miles on that new kitchenette. After 500 miles they could turn the gas up all the way on the grill. whole city would have smelled like tuna burritos if you woulda let them.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 9, 2009)

Green Cross, I usually don't Agree with much of your hard lined views, but minus the analogy, the Lyrics really opened my eyes to a lot of what a host of others have always chimed in with, I think I finally get it,... Thanks for sharing the tunes, I'm feeling kinda Groovy now 





Green Cross said:


> ]"During the Russian Revolution, much like the French Revolution, the churches and clergy sided with the Czars of Russia. This is because there was an established relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czars, much like there was a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French Crown prior to the French Revolution. Because of this, the church was opposing the revolution and working against the peasants and oppressed masses in their struggle to better their own condition.[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> Out of this grew a backlash against religious leaders during the revolution. However, once Stalin came to power and had stabilized the country he began to promote the growth of the Russian Orthodox Church, but he opposed all other forms of religion and only allowed existence of the Russian Orthodox Church to support Russian nationalism."
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

Lennon was rapping on the politics of the day.... Vietnam.


----------

