# Why Is The Bible So Revered As The "Word of GOD"?



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 14, 2011)

Why is the Bible so Revered as the "Word of GOD". It's not like god wrote a book and placed it down for a prophet to find it. The bible is just stories that where told orally until someone that actually knew how to read and write turned it into a book. So how do we know The bible is not just a really famous fiction novel that a roman solider brought back to Italy and said god wrote this so follow it with me.
Because as you may notice all the origins of Christianity are based in the middle east, yet there are hardly any Christians over there. 

It's easier to believe your friend won a fight if you weren't right there watching him get his ass beat. know what I mean.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 18, 2011)

^^^ Because long before Christopher Columbus and his mother was born, the book of Job said: "The earth is round and it hangs upon nothing." Job 26:7 

Now you think about the implications of this statement for a moment. Advise like this is throughout the scriptures. Do you see the light?


----------



## Zcomfort (Apr 18, 2011)

I will hold my tongue. Now Im no expert on the Bible, but you have to have faith. I believe it is God's word through men who had stronger faith than I ever will. The middleages and even before that make it even harder to have faith because of all Katholics bs and missing an even deleted books from the Bible. Just got to have faith man.


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 18, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Because long before Christopher Columbus and his mother was born, the book of Job said: "The earth is round and it hangs upon nothing." Job 26:7
> 
> Now you think about the implications of this statement for a moment. Advise like this is throughout the scriptures. Do you see the light?


 
That's pretty interesting, but I can't reference anything stating the earth is "round".

*He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.*


This says nothing about being round. I suppose if YOU want to interpret it that way more power to you.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 18, 2011)

saves on ink....and printing costs


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 18, 2011)

Zcomfort said:


> Just got to have faith man.



What you have to do is use your intellect. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's, which chronicles many books of the bible. Some of these books date back to 300 B.C. That's damn now near the beginning of recorded human history and yet there were to discrepancies when compared with todays Scriptures. Do you understand the implications of this?


----------



## IAm5toned (Apr 18, 2011)

RyanTheRhino said:


> Why is the Bible so Revered as the "Word of GOD". It's not like god wrote a book and placed it down for a prophet to find it. The bible is just stories that where told orally until someone that actually knew how to read and write turned it into a book. So how do we know The bible is not just a really famous fiction novel that a roman solider brought back to Italy and said god wrote this so follow it with me.
> Because as you may notice all the origins of Christianity are based in the middle east, yet there are hardly any Christians over there.
> 
> It's easier to believe your friend won a fight if you weren't right there watching him get his ass beat. know what I mean.


beause people en mass are gullible and want to beleive in a higher power.
sometimes its easier to let someone else do the thinking for you than decide for yourself, i guess.

it must suck to be like that


----------



## IAm5toned (Apr 18, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What you have to do is use your intellect. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's, which chronicles many books of the bible. Some of these books date back to 300 B.C. That's damn now near the beginning of recorded human history and yet there were to discrepancies when compared with today&#8217;s Scriptures. Do you understand the implications of this?


im sorry, but recorded history predates 300 bc by a cpl thousand years.

whats interesting is that modern man has been around for at least 50,000 years that we know of... Homo Sapiens... not Neanderthal...
we've only got records for maybe 7000 years at best.

thats alot of time to account for.... with a blank slate. enough time for civilization to rise and fall and have all evidence of such destroyed by natural phenomena, several times over.

let THAT cook around in your noodle for a min


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 18, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> That's pretty interesting, but I can't reference anything stating the earth is "round".
> 
> *He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> ...


This is where you have to pay attention to the "context", the original Greek and Hebrew words. Unfortunately, there are many who have inserted their own agenda into the scriptures, thus changing its meaning. In your case, instead of reviewing Greek and Hebrew meanings, I would just grab as many bibles as possible, then compare Job 26:7, then you will see the light.

Some translations use the word sphere instead of round - keep an open mind okay


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 18, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What you have to do is use your intellect. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's, which chronicles many books of the bible. Some of these books date back to 300 B.C. That's damn now near the beginning of recorded human history and yet there were to discrepancies when compared with today&#8217;s Scriptures. Do you understand the implications of this?


 300 bc? Beginning of recorded history? Um, no.

Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC
Recent discoveries of Maya occupation at Cuello in Belize have been carbon dated to around 2600 BC.
There are more, Incans, some older chinese cultures, etc Granted, these are carbon dates, but their recorded history still dates to much much earlier than 300bc. Most chinese dynasty's are considerably older than that.

The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.[3] This is the beginning of _history_, as opposed to prehistory, according to the definition used by most historians. *"ripped from wiki"*


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 18, 2011)

IAm5toned said:


> im sorry, but recorded history predates 300 bc by a cpl thousand years.
> 
> whats interesting is that modern man has been around for at least 50,000 years that we know of... "
> let THAT cook around in your noodle for a min


I said that 300 B.C.was damn "near" the beginning of human recorded history. Much closer than 50,000 years of human existence, which the fossil record does not support-you're dead in the water-enough said.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> This is where you have to pay attention to the "context", the original Greek and Hebrew words. Unfortunately, there are many who have &#8220;inserted&#8221; their own agenda into the scriptures, thus changing its meaning. In your case, instead of reviewing Greek and Hebrew meanings, I would just grab as many bibles as possible, then compare Job 26:7, then you will see the light.
> 
> Some translations use the word sphere instead of round - keep an open mind okay


Absolute rubbish!

There was no biblical Hebrew word for sphere. The closest that we can get is the word used for 'ball' in Isaiah 22:18.

Job never mentions the shape of the earth (although it does say it has 'edges'). You are thinking of Isaiah 40:22.


----------



## chillwills (Apr 19, 2011)

I think the bible is so revered to be the word of God because.................So much of the prophecy has come to pass (came true).


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 19, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Absolute rubbish!
> 
> There was no biblical Hebrew word for sphere. The closest that we can get is the word used for 'ball' in Isaiah 22:18.
> 
> Job never mentions the shape of the earth (although it does say it has 'edges'). You are thinking of Isaiah 40:22.


You sir should pay attention to the point. Okay, Job 27:4 mentions the earth is hanging upon nothing and Isaiah 40:22 says, " . . .above the circle of the earth." Some translations use the word *sphere *

Are you able to connect the dots?
.


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 19, 2011)

I have probably opened a bible 5 times in my life. These were the 5 times I have been to church. I do find the bible fascinating, but as you can see, everybody that reads the bible interprets it differently, or interprets it the way they are told to interpret it. 

And then what's up with: 

Whatever it was in the tree. ???
The bloody tears. ???
The old cookie or sandwich. ???
The sheet with the Jesus imprint. ???
Noah's Ark. ???

One time I saw the Easter Bunny in the clouds. Whoopty doo.

People are always looking for PROOF that they will never find. Patient - "I saw THE LIGHT during my surgery". Doctor after surgery - " maam your all done, we flicked the light switch off.

Then theres the 10% you are suppose to give to the church. Who the hell made this up? Really? Let's just say the average family makes $50,000 a year. That's 5k a year for every family that goes to church. You add it up. On top of that, you are suppose to fill the pantry? I have never figured this out. Maybe I should have asked to see the books.

The money goes where? To beautify the church? To pay the preacher? New Bibles? 

The last time we went to church the preacher was basically saying that people didn't contribute enough the previous week. Too damn bad.

That was the last and final time I went.

Just being real. Am I wrong?

-HLG


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 19, 2011)

chillwills said:


> I think the bible is so revered to be the word of God because.................So much of the prophecy has come to pass (came true).


For example, (732 B.C.E.) Babylon the Great, demise was foreseen 200 hundred years in advance - in detail, including who would conquer her, with dates. You can't touch that.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 19, 2011)

except for the nagging detail the prediction was written after the fact...
no matter though...it's in the surviving copies of the notes...

so it is and so it was. Good enough for most...


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 19, 2011)

I predict we will have a terrorist attack within the next 25 years. And it will be al Qaeda related. While I'm predicting that, we will also see a huge earthquake in this time frame. It's in writing now. Print this out or you can purchase my book. It is all spelled out in there. Crap, I forgot about the tsunami in my book. But I was imagining one and it did happen.

If you believe in me please join my cult. Pay me and I will preach my book to you. If any of you would like to preach my book, there is a 10% franchise fee.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 19, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> I have probably opened a bible 5 times in my life.



Herein lies the problem. Never. . . never accept someone elses translation of the Scripture without reading the entire bible yourself. Otherwise, you'll be a fool for life.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 19, 2011)

It is revered as God's Word only by those that believe it. Others ridicule and burn it. For me, I say if we would all just follow the 10 Commandments, we wouldn't need all the other laws we have today.


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Herein lies the problem. Never. . . never accept someone else&#8217;s translation of the Scripture without reading the entire bible yourself. Otherwise, you'll be a fool for life.


Brother - You are 100% correct. Forget everything I have said. I just find a little humor in it all. I'm talking your translation against others or vise versa. Everybody and nobody is correct. All the comments are interesting to say the least. 

-HLG


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 19, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> except for the nagging detail the prediction was written after the fact...
> no matter though...it's in the surviving copies of the notes...
> 
> so it is and so it was. Good enough for most...


What . . .


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 19, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> I predict we will have a terrorist attack within the next 25 years. And it will be al Qaeda related.


Oh yeah!. . . Can you do it in 200 years? Get real!


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> For example, (732 B.C.E.) Babylon the Great, demise was foreseen 200 hundred years in advance - in detail, including who would conquer her, with dates. You can't touch that.


 Nostradamus made over a thousand(s?) predictions. Depending on interpretation you could say that he got anywhere between 0 and ALL of them right. I am not very familiar with the bible, could you please reference the material that DETAILS who was going to conquer who, when, and with dates? Nothing i have ever read in the bible has ever been so specific (well, when not counting the 'stories' like the ark and the garden of eden).

Either way, by your logic, Nostradamus made a successful prediction, so his word is sound. We shouldn't ever question anything else we ever read by him now.


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Oh yeah!. . . Can you do it in 200 years? Get real!


No problem. There will be a terrorist attack within the next 200 years. I can increase my odds also. There will be a terrorist attack within the next 500 years.

Are the dots connecting now.


Let me guess. You saw the devil in the WTC smoke too!


----------



## crackerboy (Apr 19, 2011)

_This was taken from www.reasons.org
by Dr. Hugh Ross_ Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter&#8212;no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!
God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too. Through clairvoyants (such as Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce), mediums, spiritists, and others, come remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy, never with total accuracy. Messages from Satan, furthermore, fail to match the detail of Bible prophecies, nor do they include a call to repentance.
The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is _no _room for error.
As economy does not permit an explanation of all the Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, what follows in a discussion of a few that exemplify the high degree of specificity, the range of projection, and/or the "supernature" of the predicted events. Readers are encouraged to select others, as well, and to carefully examine their historicity.
*(1)* Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)**
*(2)* In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*
*(3)* In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave&#8212;thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used&#8212;just as predicted&#8212;for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1011.)*
*(4)* Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013.)*
*(5)* The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1015.)*
*(6)* Mighty Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travelers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22 and Jeremiah 51:26, 43). Their description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 109.)*
*(7)* The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1018.)*
*(* The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24).
This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment&#8212;in our lifetime.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 120.)*
*(9)* Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*
*(10)* Joshua prophesied that Jericho would be rebuilt by one man. He also said that the man's eldest son would die when the reconstruction began and that his youngest son would die when the work reached completion (Joshua 6:26). About five centuries later this prophecy found its fulfillment in the life and family of a man named Hiel (1 Kings 16:33-34).
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 107).*
*(11)* The day of Elijah's supernatural departure from Earth was predicted unanimously&#8212;and accurately, according to the eye-witness account&#8212;by a group of fifty prophets (2 Kings 2:3-11).
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 109).*
*(12)* Jahaziel prophesied that King Jehoshaphat and a tiny band of men would defeat an enormous, well-equipped, well-trained army without even having to fight. Just as predicted, the King and his troops stood looking on as their foes were supernaturally destroyed to the last man (2 Chronicles 20).
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10.*
*(13)* One prophet of God (unnamed, but probably Shemiah) said that a future king of Judah, named Josiah, would take the bones of all the occultic priests (priests of the "high places") of Israel's King Jeroboam and burn them on Jeroboam's altar (1 Kings 13:2 and 2 Kings 23:15-1. This event occurred approximately 300 years after it was foretold.
*(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013).*
Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)&#8212;that chance = 1 in 1080. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.
Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document, there is every reason to expect that the remaining 500 prophecies, those slated for the "time of the end," also will be fulfilled to the last letter_. _Who can afford to ignore these coming events, much less miss out on the immeasurable blessings offered to anyone and everyone who submits to the control of the Bible's author, Jesus Christ? Would a reasonable person take lightly God's warning of judgment for those who reject what they know to be true about Jesus Christ and the Bible, or who reject Jesus' claim on their lives?
*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:


Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.
 Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 20, 2011)

a scholar AND a mathematician who specializes in statistical probabilities.
what are the odds...such a rare combination...

I'm sold. 
Even willing to overlook the messiah's ridiculously small margin of getting killed not helping him any when he got nailed to a couple of chunks of wood and roasted in the sun for just saying how great it would be if we were all simply nicer to each other.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You sir should pay attention to the point. Okay, Job 27:4 mentions the earth is hanging upon nothing and Isaiah 40:22 says, " . . .above the circle of the earth." Some translations use the word *sphere *
> 
> Are you able to connect the dots?
> .


 You are the one that needs to pay attention. First of all, you never mentioned Isaiah at all, you said specifically it was Job and you said that you have to pay attention to the context. There's no context when you're giving the wrong fucking scripture!

As for 'chug' being translated as sphere, really? Show me one, just one place, in Job or anywhere else, that the Hebrew 'chug' get's translated into sphere. Ask an Israeli if 'chug' ever means sphere, k? 

In fact, 'chug' is the root word for the verb that means to draw a circle. 

At some point you will just have admit that you might have been mistaken. That's okay, there's no shame. People are taught incorrect things all of the time but when you learn the truth, you should stop using Job 26 as some sort of proof text.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> For example, (732 B.C.E.) Babylon the Great, demise was foreseen 200 hundred years in advance - in detail, including who would conquer her, with dates. You can't touch that.


 What exactly was foretold 200 years in advanced? Do you know when the Hebrew bible was written? Do you know the dates of the Babylonian exile?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 20, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> It is revered as God's Word only by those that believe it. Others ridicule and burn it. For me, I say if we would all just follow the 10 Commandments, we wouldn't need all the other laws we have today.


That would be a really terrible idea 

[video=youtube;WnEcQ_OVsVk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnEcQ_OVsVk[/video]


----------



## djruiner (Apr 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Because long before Christopher Columbus and his mother was born, the book of Job said: "The earth is round and it hangs upon nothing." Job 26:7
> 
> Now you think about the implications of this statement for a moment. Advise like this is throughout the scriptures. Do you see the light?





BrotherBuz said:


> What you have to do is use your intellect. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's, which chronicles many books of the bible. Some of these books date back to 300 B.C. That's damn now near the beginning of recorded human history and yet there were to discrepancies when compared with todays Scriptures. Do you understand the implications of this?


why is it when the topic of the bible comes up the first thing people do is start posting scripture and passages from the bible...when he is asking why they see the bible as the word of god..he isnt asking for you to quote the bible and expect people to go.."ok i guess ill follow after reading your facts"...the bible says this...this passage says this...well guess what..there are HUNDREDS of other books of different types of religions...why is your "faith" any different,better,or true.why cant people see the bible as it really is...a tool used to control primitive people.and how can you control a primitive undereducated mass of people....fear...tell them to do this or do that or all this bad shit will happen.
and why is it that all this stuff that happened in biblical times dont happen anymore...no one speaks to god anymore,no burning bushes,no one is walking on water,no seas are being parted...none of all this magical shit the bible spoke of...why is these things not happening...well first off it seems that when those things happened before..no one was around to hear or see it...case in point...moses...why is it just so happens that no one else is around when god does all this talking and passing of information...so everything that is supposed the "word of god" is things told to single individuals that then tell these things to other people. sounds a little to shady for me to just blindly follow.
now you can go ahead and quote the bible...say you just got to have faith all you want....but until god pops outta the clouds..tells me to get my shit together...im going to sleep in on sundays..not get all dressed up..and keep the 10% for my family and not fund the preachers dream of driving a nicer vehicle.

ps...if you look around...things are fucked up..look at the middle east...look at japan...thousands of people..men,women,children are killed and suffering at the hands of man and nature. if this is the best this "supreme being" can offer the species he supposedly loves...then he is truely either not doing his job...or plain just dont give a shit.he used to have no problem interfering with human life in biblical times...but he sure is an absentee parent at this current time in the world.

now let the bible thumbers pick a sentence or two out of all that to rip apart and not even get into the whole statement...tell me i just need "faith"...quote the bible...do your thing and let the superstitious babble run its course.so let that feeling inside that god is watching you lead you...while i get that same feeling from eating to much chocolate...im just able to see and acknowledge the reason im having that same feeling isnt from the invisible man that no one hears from anymore.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 20, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> I am not very familiar with the bible, could you please reference the material that DETAILS who was going to conquer who, when, and with dates? Nothing i have ever read in the bible has ever been so specific (well, when not counting the 'stories' like the ark and the garden of eden).


About 732 B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah said "Babylon would fall." Isaiah provided specifics: A leader named &#8220;Cyrus&#8221; would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates would &#8220;dry up,&#8221; and the city&#8217;s gates would &#8220;not be shut.&#8221; Isaiah 44:27 

Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon: &#8220;She will never be inhabited.&#8221;
Isaiah 13:19, 20

*I found this info*


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> About 732 B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah said "Babylon would fall." Isaiah provided specifics: A leader named &#8220;Cyrus&#8221; would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates would &#8220;dry up,&#8221; and the city&#8217;s gates would &#8220;not be shut.&#8221; Isaiah 44:27
> 
> Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon: &#8220;She will never be inhabited.&#8221;
> Isaiah 13:19, 20
> ...


 Where's your evidence that Isaiah even wrote those verses and that they were not redactions that someone added after-the-fact to make it appear Isaiah had remarkable prophetic abilities? 

The Hebrew prophets constantly spewed out invectives and tirades against the nations around Israel. Ezekiel predicted that the stronghold of Tyre would be destroyed and never built again and that Egypt would be laid waste for 40 years and "no foot of man or beast" would pass through it. These prophecies never came to pass just as Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Edom never happened. Without access to Isaiah's actual writings, we can never know exactly what he wrote about Babylon. The only evidence that you have is the bible itself. The bible is correct because the bible is correct.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 20, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> "...such a rare combination..."


Yeah . . . and even "rarer" when God instructed the Israelites in 1500 B.C.E., about quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste, long before Louis Pasteur discovered germs- while the Europeans were throwing their trash out the window causing the plague.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Yeah . . . and even "rarer" when God instructed the Israelites in 1500 B.C.E., about quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste, long before Louis Pasteur discovered germs- while the Europeans were throwing their trash out the window causing the plague.


 And the Hebrews still had cesspools, what's your point? 

Your failure to address criticisms of your claims does not go unnoticed by other readers.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 21, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> About 732 B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah said "Babylon would fall." Isaiah provided specifics: A leader named &#8220;Cyrus&#8221; would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates would &#8220;dry up,&#8221; and the city&#8217;s gates would &#8220;not be shut.&#8221; Isaiah 44:27
> 
> Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon: &#8220;She will never be inhabited.&#8221;
> Isaiah 13:19, 20
> ...


 He predicted a downfall of a society. Your quote still did not provide the details you claim, such as dates . Try again. Its still just as 'openly interpretable' as nostradamus' predictions and horoscopes.

-edit-
From the bible: Isaiah 44:
*26* who carries out the words of his servants
and fulfills the predictions of his messengers,
who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,'
of the towns of Judah, 'They shall be rebuilt,'
and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,'
*27* who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry,
and I will dry up your streams,'
*28* who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt,"
and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'


Man, so detailed.....


----------



## mygirls (Apr 21, 2011)

RyanTheRhino said:


> Why is the Bible so Revered as the "Word of GOD". It's not like god wrote a book and placed it down for a prophet to find it. The bible is just stories that where told orally until someone that actually knew how to read and write turned it into a book. So how do we know The bible is not just a really famous fiction novel that a roman solider brought back to Italy and said god wrote this so follow it with me.
> Because as you may notice all the origins of Christianity are based in the middle east, yet there are hardly any Christians over there.
> 
> It's easier to believe your friend won a fight if you weren't right there watching him get his ass beat. know what I mean.


do you even know what GOD stands for

GOVERNMENT OF DISTRUCTION...


----------



## beardo (Apr 21, 2011)

Because it is.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You are the one that needs to pay attention. First of all, you never mentioned Isaiah at all, you said specifically it was Job and you said that you have to pay attention to the context. There's no context when you're giving the wrong fucking scripture!
> At some point you will just have admit that you might have been mistaken. That's okay, there's no shame. People are taught incorrect things all of the time but when you learn the truth, you should stop using Job 26 as some sort of proof text.


You're a master at talking in circles, . . . I bet you even trip yourself up.  Listen up and follow closely. Okay, I got the scripture mixed up. However, it does not change the fact that Job 26:7 says, " . . . the earth hangs upon nothing." And at Isaiah 40:22 it says, "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth . . ." 
You can talk as much bullshit ass you like, because its written in most bibles, there for all to see - you can't stop that!!!


----------



## djruiner (Apr 21, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You're a master at talking in circles, . . . I bet you even trip yourself up.  Listen up and follow closely. Okay, I got the scripture mixed up. However, it does not change the fact that Job 26:7 says, " . . . the earth hangs upon nothing." And at Isaiah 40:22 it says, "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth . . ."
> You can talk as much bullshit ass you like, because its written in most bibles, there for all to see - you can't stop that!!!


i take it you didn't read a single thing i posted....was covering just that....you quote the bible as if it was proven facts...just like the rest of the sheep.anytime anyone questions the bible all you people can do is quote the bible...as if it was facts.bring something more to the table or step away from it.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 21, 2011)

djruiner said:


> why is it when the topic of the bible comes up the first thing people do is start posting scripture and passages from the bible....


Maybe we should quote you, because you've been around for thousand of years right - ready to die tomorrow!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 21, 2011)

We are WAY off topic. Are there any more contributing opinions? Or is the thread up in flames?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 21, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> No problem. There will be a terrorist attack within the next 200 years. I can increase my odds also. There will be a terrorist attack within the next 500 years.


Bullshit, you can't connect dots.


----------



## sso (Apr 21, 2011)

why did people believe it was the word of god.

1. someone spoke with passion enough that people believed them.
2. someone important looking told them.
3. someone showed them tricks that that convinced them of the validity of their claims. 
4. mixture of the above or none of the above.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 21, 2011)

sso said:


> why did people believe it was the word of god.
> 
> 1. someone spoke with passion enough that people believed them.
> 2. someone important looking told them.
> ...


NOW we're back on topic! Thank you and agreed.


----------



## djruiner (Apr 21, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Maybe we should quote you, because you've been around for thousand of years right - ready to die tomorrow!


just because the bible been around for many years...don't make it correct or facts....case in point...Santa Clause...for the first 8-10 years (give or take a few years depending) that you believe that Santa is real (or at least for many children of the world,not all though)...is told that he is real...and as a little kid you see this as being factual and the truth....then one day the news is broken to you that what you was told and followed for many years was more then a big lie to keep your innocence and childhood alive...and lets not forget that many kids went to bed early on Christmas eve by order of their parents and if they didn't go to bed early Santa would not bring them any gifts...sound familiar?...do this how we tell you...or this is going to happen. then one day as you get older and logic and reason begin to sit in and you go..."wait...this was bullshit..Santa isn't real"...now why does this sense of reason and logic not kick in as it comes to the bible? because one would think hell to be much worse then not getting presents...same principle...just different outcomes.wake up...smell the frankincense...and let go of your adult version of Santa...and you can definitely quote me on that.


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 21, 2011)

Let's stir this pot up a [email protected] and others...I agree with you, the bible and religion and the modern interpretation of GOD is a manipulation by the few at the expense of the masses.

Now if God did not account for us then where did we come from??

What about the idea that we come from a race of Humanoids beyond our solar system?


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 21, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Bullshit, you can't connect dots.


BrotherBuz - 

You have used up all your 50 posts on the Bible. Do you grow or toke? Maybe you run a cannabis ministry? Don't forget. You must be 18 years old to be on here.

-HLG


----------



## djruiner (Apr 21, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Let's stir this pot up a [email protected] and others...I agree with you, the bible and religion and the modern interpretation of GOD is a manipulation by the few at the expense of the masses.
> 
> Now if God did not account for us then where did we come from??
> 
> What about the idea that we come from a race of Humanoids beyond our solar system?


that the problem...spend so much time focusing on where we came from...your not paying attention to where your going


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 21, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Let's stir this pot up a [email protected] and others...I agree with you, the bible and religion and the modern interpretation of GOD is a manipulation by the few at the expense of the masses.
> 
> Now if God did not account for us then where did we come from??
> 
> What about the idea that we come from a race of Humanoids beyond our solar system?


I am a Creationist. Blame it on my lack of education, scientific mind, or otherwise. I believe there is a power greater than i(purposely not capitalized). I just can't see the odds working out in our favor without SOME kind of plan. I believe in coincidence. But millions or billions of them? I don't see it. Maybe I'm blind, but.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPcHieRUcxo

I think ALL men need SOMETHING to believe in. Some beliefs are just different than others. The CHURCH has saddled mankind with the feeling that they MUST prosletize(?).


----------



## beardo (Apr 21, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> We are WAY off topic. Are there any more contributing opinions? Or is the thread up in flames?


 Because it is the word of God.


----------



## HighLowGrow (Apr 21, 2011)

_"Let's stir this pot up a bit"_

- hang on let me get the butter.

_"What about the idea that we come from a race of Humanoids beyond our solar system?"_

That's bullshit. "Humanoids" is not used in the bible therefore it didn't happen.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 21, 2011)

beardo said:


> Because it is the word of God.


Pretty much sums it up, unfortunately. Intellectual thought seems to go out the window when religion is introduced into the conversation.


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Apr 21, 2011)

After reading all this cluster and ripping a fattie....I just have one question.....If god is in control....how do we explain suicide? God being lazy and letting us do his work??
? 

Actually....one more....does free will contradict god being all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all controlling? (Ive actually had a pastor tell me it does, but how do we know its not god testing us lol ) ***Here children is a test of contradiction to prove my love?? 

I tend to believe love is rather clear. You can say it all day long, write it in a book, print and pass along,do every miracle under the sun for me, like jesus did...but until you mean it from the heart, and ONLY then, will you be able to SEE AND FEEL IT. ( perhaps thats why there has never been a jesus citing lol)

Actually....i dont give a fek...ill find out when the rodeo's over m8's


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Apr 21, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> _"Let's stir this pot up a bit"_
> 
> - hang on let me get the butter.
> 
> ...


Neither is T-Rex but Im positive he(dinosaurs) happened


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 21, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> After reading all this cluster and ripping a fattie....I just have one question.....If god is in control....how do we explain suicide? God being lazy and letting us do his work??
> ?
> 
> Actually....one more....does free will contradict god being all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all controlling? (Ive actually had a pastor tell me it does, but how do we know its not god testing us lol ) ***Here children is a test of contradiction to prove my love??
> ...


Ahhhh, the "Free Will" paradox!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Without access to Isaiah's actual writings, we can never know exactly what he wrote about Babylon. The only evidence that you have is the bible itself. The bible is correct because the bible is correct.


Among the eleven caves, Cave 1, which was excavated in 1949, and Cave 4, excavated in 1952, proved to be the most productive caves. One of the most significant discoveries was a well-preserved scroll of the entire *book of Isaiah.*

The famous Copper Scrolls were discovered in Cave 3 in 1952. Unlike most of the scrolls that were written on leather or parchment, these were written on copper . . ."

What are the odds that this copper scroll, the book of Issah, read today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?
Now, when you take your head out of your ass, you think about that!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 21, 2011)

djruiner said:


> that the problem...spend so much time focusing on where we came from...your not paying attention to where your going


Hey M8, you got that backwards. You must know where you come from, before you know where you're going


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 21, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> _"Let's stir this pot up a bit"_
> 
> _"What about the idea that we come from a race of Humanoids beyond our solar system?"_
> 
> That's bullshit. "Humanoids" is not used in the bible therefore it didn't happen.


The fossil record does not support it. You just can't make shit up-sorry!


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Apr 21, 2011)

huh? Im from planet earth and i don't know tomorrow from the next...nor do I know if I will remain on earth, or if there will be a tomorrow to have a place to go......Just sayin that ol' country lyric is not always true


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 21, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You're a master at talking in circles, . . . I bet you even trip yourself up.  Listen up and follow closely. Okay, I got the scripture mixed up. However, it does not change the fact that Job 26:7 says, " . . . the earth hangs upon nothing." And at Isaiah 40:22 it says, "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth . . ."
> You can talk as much bullshit ass you like, because its written in most bibles, there for all to see - you can't stop that!!!


 Ha, I'm talking in circles? You're fucking delusional. You ignore the substance of the post. I told you to show me one book, bible or otherwise that translates chug into sphere. You can ignore it all day long but there is no biblical Hebrew word for sphere. The earth is not a circle. Circles are not spheres. The earth doesn't sit on foundations. You cannot see the 'ends of the earth.' It is not fixed in place. The sun does not revolve around it, it revolves around the sun. 

If the supposed scientific truths are not an example of making scripture to fit to be consistent with science, rather than true foreknowledge that leads scientific discovery, why wasn't the Church fighting for all of these interpretations. They should have read God's word and came to the same conclusion as you that the earth is really spherical and Galileo should not have been tried for heresy. 

You cannot produce one piece of evidence except for the bible itself to verify any of the stories of the bible including the prophecies. That is the very definition of circular reasoning. Every other religious text has evidence that their god is the correct one.

there is proof that everything written in the vedas is getting confirmed, they have found the city of Lord Krisha and the location of the war of marbartha which was written to on excess of 3000 years before Christ. They have also found information on the Bridge Lord Rama made to rescue his wife on the edge of Lanka and you can research that as well " RamaSetu Bridge" it was written 4 thousand years ago.
(Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_scientific_proof_of_Hinduism#ixzz1KE5s9Pi b)

Have faith, that's all that's required of you. There is no need to demonstrate scientific truths in the bible. Doing so just demonstrates your inability in applying critical thought. That's okay, there's still time to learn. Critical thinking takes practice and you have to recognize and let go of some of your tightly held biases. 
​
[video=youtube;6OLPL5p0fMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg[/video]


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> I am a Creationist. Blame it on my lack of education, scientific mind, or otherwise. I believe there is a power greater than i(purposely not capitalized). I just can't see the odds working out in our favor without SOME kind of plan. I believe in coincidence. But millions or billions of them? I don't see it. Maybe I'm blind, but.......


I bet *Dumbphuk*, believe in evolution, without a fossil record - billions and billions of years.


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> _"Let's stir this pot up a bit"_
> 
> - hang on let me get the butter.
> 
> ...


That's funny LOL. So what has made God and the bible real for you then, what epiphany did you have? Or was it your parents who brainwashed you?


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

djruiner said:


> that the problem...spend so much time focusing on where we came from...your not paying attention to where your going


That sounds very clearly a personal opinion which only makes sense in your head. I doubt many people would agree with you on this one.


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I bet *Dumbphuk*, believe in evolution, without a fossil record - billions and billions of years.


Perhaps you believe in global warming too then?


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 22, 2011)

seeing how our sun rises in temperature every second of every day i'd be shocked if the earth wasn't warming up...yes....i admit it


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> ". . . why wasn't the Church fighting for all of these interpretations.They should have read God's word and came to the same conclusion as you that the earth is really spherical and Galileo should not have been tried for heresy." [/COLOR][/LEFT]


You know as well as I do that the Church had its own agenda, including hiding the "truth" from people, much like your doing now.


----------



## djruiner (Apr 22, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> That sounds very clearly a personal opinion which only makes sense in your head. I doubt many people would agree with you on this one.


of course it was personal opinion....im not trying to get people to agree with me.i spoke my mind on a certain subject. i just don't see the point it trying to "figure out where we came from" for how many thousands of years have they been trying to figure that out...and do you think any of these people are going to figure that out in our lifetime? if they haven't figure it out with 100% certainty by now...they sure as hell are not going to stumble on the answer anytime soon.so sit back...enjoy whatever superstition you choose to follow...enjoy what you have and what you know now before death creeps up on your ass while you wasted it trying to figure out where you came from....if people cant agree with that then they don't really understand what reality is


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

djruiner said:


> of course it was personal opinion....im not trying to get people to agree with me.i spoke my mind on a certain subject. i just don't see the point it trying to "figure out where we came from" for how many thousands of years have they been trying to figure that out...and do you think any of these people are going to figure that out in our lifetime? if they haven't figure it out with 100% certainty by now...they sure as hell are not going to stumble on the answer anytime soon.so sit back...enjoy whatever superstition you choose to follow...enjoy what you have and what you know now before death creeps up on your ass while you wasted it trying to figure out where you came from....if people cant agree with that then they don't really understand what reality is


I think it is very possible that Religion has played a vital role in suppressing the real truth about our origins, which would ultimately expose religion for the fraud that it is, and I mean all religions! And I think that time is near. 

Assuming mankind has wasted time trying to figure out his origins again has to be personal opinion.....that implication has no effect on the fact that as a civilisation we have advanced at a compound rate so where are we falling behind?......spiritually perhaps, but where does thinking our past and origins having no bearing on where we want to be going. 

On your advice I shall cancel that weekly "where did we come from seminar" and free up another hour to get stoned and think about the difference between our "origins" and "not crying over spilt milk" or "the past is the past".


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

djruiner said:


> .so sit back...enjoy whatever superstition you choose to follow...enjoy what you have and what you know now before death creeps up on your ass while you wasted it trying to figure out where you came from....if people cant agree with that then they don't really understand what reality is


I think death has already creped up on you and got you by the balls.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You know as well as I do that the Church had its own agenda, including hiding the "truth" from people, much like your doing now.


 Now I'm hiding the truth? Everything I have said can be independently verified. Still waiting for you to show us any evidence that the bible mentioned a spherical earth. All you have to do is link anywhere that can confirm Hebrew 'chug' can mean sphere. 

BTW, the Church wasn't alone in it's silence on the whole spherical earth. There have been countless theologians and other Jews and Xians that seemed to miss this important detail that you claim is clearly in the bible. Of course it wouldn't matter anyway if it happened to find it's way into the bible. The ancient Greeks already knew the earth was a sphere and Eratosthenes actually measured it's circumference fairly accurately. It was not some secret knowledge that only a deity could have known.


----------



## djruiner (Apr 22, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> I think it is very possible that Religion has played a vital role in suppressing the real truth about our origins, which would ultimately expose religion for the fraud that it is, and I mean all religions! And I think that time is near.
> 
> Assuming mankind has wasted time trying to figure out his origins again has to be personal opinion.....that implication has no effect on the fact that as a civilisation we have advanced at a compound rate so where are we falling behind?......spiritually perhaps, but where does thinking our past and origins having no bearing on where we want to be going.
> 
> On your advice I shall cancel that weekly "where did we come from seminar" and free up another hour to get stoned and think about the difference between our "origins" and "not crying over spilt milk" or "the past is the past".


what advice did i give...don't remember giving any advice in that...but good work on clarifying again that it was my opinion...seeing is that is what i said with the very first sentence.you can look into what and where we came from..thats fine...like i said before...i just choose to not look at the past...no matter what the answer is..its not going to change my future. maybe others but not mine.we could have started out as sea monkeys for all i care...wont change who i am or where im going.once again.JUST MY OPINION...you have yours...as i have mine


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> seeing how our sun rises in temperature every second of every day i'd be shocked if the earth wasn't warming up...yes....i admit it
> 
> View attachment 1562824


Um... the sun has been getting hotter since it's inception, yet we have had numerous ice ages on earth and numerous hot periods. Humans are always so arrogant to only think in their conception of time, think about the Earth's timeframes and you will see that this is a small breath for the earth. 

The sun has been hitting the earth with solar flares for as long as they have been dancing in the skies, this is no different today. 2012.......mwuah mwuah mwuah..LOL.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 22, 2011)

it's true!


... in contemporary hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a planoconcave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth....god even stretched out the heavens over the earth like a canopy in Isaiah (13 to 22? i refuse to look it up, to stoned)...this completely loses all meaning and become utterly absurd if you try to apply the text to an image of a spherical earth...it does perfectly fit with a flat earth model though....
i too have a need for more clarification on this small matter

EDIT:

and all the ice keeps melting....or do you need me to pull up (no doubt doctored) images of our polar caps?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Without access to Isaiah's actual writings, we can never know exactly what he wrote about Babylon. The only evidence that you have is the bible itself. The bible is correct because the bible is correct.


Among the eleven caves, Cave 1, which was excavated in 1949, and Cave 4, excavated in 1952, proved to be the most productive caves. One of the most significant discoveries was a well-preserved scroll of the entire book of Isaiah.

The famous Copper Scrolls were discovered in Cave 3 in 1952. Unlike most of the scrolls that were written on leather or parchment, these were written on copper . . ."

What are the Fucking odds that this copper scroll, the book of Issah, reads today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?
Now, when you take your head out of your ass, you think about that!!


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> it's true!
> 
> 
> ... in contemporary hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a planoconcave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth....god even stretched out the heavens over the earth like a canopy in Isaiah (13 to 22? i refuse to look it up, to stoned)...this completely loses all meaning and become utterly absurd if you try to apply the text to an image of a spherical earth...it does perfectly fit with a flat earth model though....
> ...


Fuck what the bible said, am I not saying the same thing without all the verse BS??


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 22, 2011)

i quite liked the speech of grand time scales and arrogance...
...then the switch to a Gregorian calendar...

simply priceless...
+REP for making me giggle


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 22, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> i quite liked the speech of grand time scales and arrogance...
> ...then the switch to a Gregorian calendar...
> 
> simply priceless...
> +REP for making me giggle


Enlighten me.....!!


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 22, 2011)

...introduced by Pope Gregory XIII...yadah yadah...Anno Domini...blah blah...Sweden...

just plain out a barrel full of laughs....gotta love that christian calendar


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What are the Fucking odds that this copper scroll, the book of Issah, reads today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?


it doesn't though...current ones mostly read in an entirely different language...there are....troubles in translations...

then again...it damn well better read the same as it did 2000 years ago, or there would be questions
texts chiseled in metal shouldn't spontaneously change after it's hammered in given any span of time really...

oh!
...unless a god or something decided to make a few editorial sweeps at it anyhow....


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> it doesn't though...current ones mostly read in an entirely different language...there are....troubles in translations...


That's a bunch of Crap. You think people were born last week Friday?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Among the eleven caves, Cave 1, which was excavated in 1949, and Cave 4, excavated in 1952, proved to be the most productive caves. One of the most significant discoveries was a well-preserved scroll of the entire book of Isaiah.
> 
> The famous Copper Scrolls were discovered in Cave 3 in 1952. Unlike most of the scrolls that were written on leather or parchment, these were written on copper . . ."
> 
> ...


 Yes the Isaiah we know today is the same as it was after Ezra completed the first redaction of the Tanak, the book you call the Old Testament. In case you forgot, Ezra led exiles from Babylon back home to Israel. That happened hundreds of years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. Virtually all of the Hebrew bible can be traced back to Ezra and this time period. It is still hundreds of years after Isaiah and also after the fall of Babylon. It is no surprise that the written versions of Isaiah found in Qumran are virtually identical to versions today. That proves absolutely nothing except that scribes are meticulous. There still is zero evidence that Isaiah wrote the prophecies that are attributed to him. 

Here's your problem in a nutshell. 
~700 BCE -Isaiah was a prophet. His words may or may not have been preserved in writing. 
~539 BCE - Babylon is invaded by Cyrus
~450 BCE - Ezra puts together the first written compilation of the books and stories that comprise the Hebrew bible... including Isaiah.

In case you missed it, there's about 80-100 years for Isaiah's prophecy to be "enhanced" or even completely fabricated. 

Quit acting so defensive and look at the facts. You can believe what you want but name calling and childish insults won't change the facts that you have been unable to dispute. You rely on the bible's word that everything in it is true. Other historical documents get a lot more scrutiny and skepticism, probably even by you, than you appear to give the bible. 
It has been written that Saint George slew a dragon. Are you as credulous about that claim?


----------



## tip top toker (Apr 22, 2011)

When i was studying GCSE history, one thing we were taught when using a quote as a fact etc, was to find out it's source, and more importantly whether it was first hand etc. The idea that people think that a book written hundreds of years down the line fro the actual events basesd on word of mouth and wives tales, just makes me chuckle. Someone actually tried to justify the CONTENTS of the bibble by a carbon dating study  religeous types are fools, it's nothing but a weak personality that needs some imaginary friend to comfort them.

Here's something that right cracked me up this morning "
The widow of a businessman shot dead at his home during an attempted robbery has said his killer's jail sentence was close to her "prayers being answered".
Darren Kernohan, 35, of Moss Drive, Antrim, was given a life sentence"

Apparently god answers prayers for revenge, last i checked jesus said turn the other cheek..some people are dumb shits. Another story today was the american todddler that fell from a balcony and was caught by a british woman. The woman who was looking after the child claimed it was the work of god, and that the woman was an angel sent from the heavens  idiots.


----------



## secretweapon (Apr 22, 2011)

Lol @ bibble


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Here's your problem in a nutshell. ". . ."
> In case you missed it, there's about 80-100 years for Isaiah's prophecy to be "enhanced" or even completely fabricated.


Here's your problem for all to see. What are the Fucking odds that this copper scroll, the *book of Issah*, reads today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?
Now, when you take your head out of your ass, you think about that!!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 22, 2011)

tip top toker said:


> When i was studying GCSE history, one thing we were taught when using a quote as a fact etc, was to find out it's source, and more importantly whether it was first hand etc. The idea that people think that a book written hundreds of years down the line fro the actual events basesd on word of mouth and wives tales, just makes me chuckle. Someone actually tried to justify the CONTENTS of the bibble by a carbon dating study  religeous types are fools, it's nothing but a weak personality that needs some imaginary friend to comfort them.
> 
> Here's something that right cracked me up this morning "
> The widow of a businessman shot dead at his home during an attempted robbery has said his killer's jail sentence was close to her "prayers being answered".
> ...


I say live and let live. If you want to worship the 1 eyed, 1 horned flying purple people eater, so be it. MY problem comes when someone tells you that you can't OR when you try to force ME to believe in it. Faith cannot be forced.(Not saying you do this, just a comment about religion in general).


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Here's your problem for all to see. What are the Fucking odds that this copper scroll, the *book of Issah*, reads today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?
> Now, when you take your head out of your ass, you think about that!!


i'd say it would be pretty good odds seeing as it would have been copied word for word over the ages and theres no reason why they couldnt back check against earlier copies to test accuracy. its hardly proof of god


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Apr 22, 2011)

Why cant we just get a jesus citing ya know


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> i'd say it would be pretty good odds seeing as it would have been copied word for word over the ages and theres no reason why they couldnt back check against earlier copies to test accuracy. its hardly proof of god


You just defied the opinion of most in this thread. Thanks! lol


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You just defied the opinion of most in this thread. Thanks! lol


Agreed, but remember that MAN'S hand translated and revised it. Therefore, I don't believe it to be the TRUE wor of God, but rather the Inspired word.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You just defied the opinion of most in this thread. Thanks! lol


what opinion? that "revered" text doesnt change when copied word for word is somehow magical? 

you guys must shit yourselves about copy and pasting


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> what opinion? that "revered" text doesnt change when copied word for word is somehow magical?
> 
> you guys must shit yourselves about copy and pasting


  What school did you go to?  lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What school did you go to?  lol


a school that showed me i can copy pieces of text by hand without errors (if i tried really hard), where the teachers went threw my work afterwards to check spelling errors and grammar...

this isnt a case of chinese whispers over the last 2000 years this is copied text which can be stored for hundreds of years and used to back check for any accumulative errors

so how do you think that its magical that the text is so unchanged?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You can believe what you want but name calling and childish insults won't change the facts that . . ."


*Mindphuk*

"*Ha, I'm talking in circles? You're fucking delusional.*"


Looks like you started name calling first. Now who's really delusional?  This is the story of your life lol


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Here's your problem for all to see. What are the Fucking odds that this copper scroll, the *book of Issah*, reads today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?
> Now, when you take your head out of your ass, you think about that!!


I explained why that's not all that surprising. Maybe you need to re-read my post. 
Other people understand so I don't think my post is that confusing. Maybe KlosetKing can explain it to you better.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Mindphuk*
> 
> Ha, I'm talking in circles? You're fucking delusional.
> 
> ...



lol nope still you buz


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 22, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Mindphuk*
> 
> Ha, I'm talking in circles? You're fucking delusional.
> 
> ...


 You're delusional and incredibly stupid. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 22, 2011)

^^^ Yeah . . . billions and billions of years ago - dumb fuck


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 23, 2011)

its always funny watching religious sorts get to the point where their logic fails they nigh always forget their religious teachings and turn to anger and aggression 

its also pretty kinda sad


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Mindphuk*
> 
> "*Ha, I'm talking in circles? You're fucking delusional.*"


Ginjawarrior - 

I totally agree. He can't communicate, then turns to childish name-calling. lol lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Ginjawarrior -
> 
> I totally agree. He can't communicate, then turns to childish name-calling. lol lol


im pretty sure i wasnt talking about him....


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^ Don't lie, its in quotes. lol lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Don't lie, its in quotes. lol lol


what back water church run school did you grace the halls?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^Better than being taught billions and billions of years is what caused life - without a fossil record. What a silly ass concept.!


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^Better than being taught billions and billions of years is what caused life - without a fossil record. What a silly ass concept.!


Yet blind faith and a book is not a silly ass concept. Oh well, no loss! Your kind are becoming extinct anyway.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^ I have a fossil record, physical evidence and countless other pieces of tangible evidence. What do you have? You got nothing - nothing, but silly words like billions and billions of years. Give me a break!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^Better than being taught billions and billions of years is what caused life - without a fossil record. What a silly ass concept.!


"without a fossil record"

are you saying there aren't fossils? im guessing your a young earther?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^ I'm saying the fossil record does not support evolution - please try and keep-up!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 23, 2011)

how does the fossil record not support evolution? i thought you were saying there was no fossil record stretching billions of years.

what parts are wrong? 

and how old is the earth?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^ Higher education teach our children that humankind is 50,000 years old or more. When in fact, the fossil record only support five or six thousand years of human existence. There is no fossil record of human existence stretching billions and billions of years.

If you read the entire thread, you'll notice one dude mention the earliest recorded human existence.


P.S. I don't know how old the earth is, scripture does not say.


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ I have a fossil record, physical evidence and countless other pieces of tangible evidence. What do you have? You got nothing - nothing, but silly words like billions and billions of years. Give me a break!


I love "show and tell".......let's see your fossil record, physical evidence and countless other pieces of evidence?


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Higher education teach our children that humankind is 50,000 years old or more. When in fact, the fossil record only support five or six thousand years of human existence. There is no fossil record of human existence stretching billions and billions of years.
> 
> If you read the entire thread, you'll notice one dude mention the earliest recorded human existence.
> 
> ...



The Earth is approximately 3.6 billion years old....the moon is actually according to NASA 4.5 billion years old.

Where does God live and what is his favourite food do you think?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> I love "show and tell".......let's see your fossil record, physical evidence and countless other pieces of evidence?


You got to be kidding me, that's all you have to say. Thant's the weakest rebuttal I've ever heard. If youre going to keep up with me, you have to do better than that.


----------



## djruiner (Apr 23, 2011)

> I don't know how old the earth is, scripture does not say.


scripture doesn't tell you how to take a shit either...but you figured it out..i hope at least.there are more things to read and learn from then just the bible. branch out on your reading material...you might just LEARN something as opposed to blindly following what your told is facts


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> The Earth is approximately 3.6 billion years old....the moon is actually according to NASA 4.5 billion years old.


Dude . . . this isn't about the above^ this is about how old mankind is. Do you understand?


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You got to be kidding me, that's all you have to say. Thant's the weakest rebuttal I've ever heard. If you&#8217;re going to keep up with me, you have to do better than that.


You have yacked all over the place about your evidence yet you have only posted a quote from the bible here and there......so show your evidence otherwise everyone will see you as a talker not a walker.......get it kid?


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Dude . . . this isn't about the above^ this is about how old mankind is. Do you understand?


Post #110.........."P.S. I don't know how old the earth is, scripture does not say."

Well unless you use a different form of English I'd say that was you saying you have no idea how old the earth is so try to be more accurate in what you mean to say.


PS. How will you ever find out about sex when the bible does not have a birds and bees section?


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^ Apparently you're not following the thread - troll


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Higher education teach our children that humankind is 50,000 years old or more. When in fact, the fossil record only support five or six thousand years of human existence. There is no fossil record of human existence stretching billions and billions of years.
> 
> If you read the entire thread, you'll notice one dude mention the earliest recorded human existence.
> 
> ...


 That was me, and by the way it was to tell you that you were wrong. You were claiming that civilization was merely 2 thousand years. Stop trying to avoid that. Oh, and btw thats RECORDED human history. stop trying to confuse people and make them think thats the same as 'human history'. Its not.


newworldicon said:


> The Earth is approximately 3.6 billion years old....the moon is actually according to NASA 4.5 billion years old.
> 
> Where does God live and what is his favourite food do you think?


 The earth is actually about 4.5B years old, as is the moon. They were created at roughly the same time as everything else in our solar system. In fact last time i checked, they hadnt ruled out the possibility that the moon actually WAS part of earth during its molten state (look it up).


BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Apparently you're not following the thread - troll


 Actually apparently YOU arent following the thread (as shown by you trying to use my post to further your point).

You are indeed going in circles. You still havnt shown where it said sphere. You STILL havnt shown me the precise dates and names in the bible that you so diligently referred. In fact, DID quote the bible for you, the VERY verse you were referencing. Now im not naive, and i know there are many different versions of the bible, so i again beg of you, please reference the actual material? 

Just for clarification ill requote the posts i made:


KlosetKing said:


> 300 bc? Beginning of recorded history? Um, no.
> 
> Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC
> Recent discoveries of Maya occupation at Cuello in Belize have been carbon dated to around 2600 BC.
> ...





KlosetKing said:


> He predicted a downfall of a society. Your quote still did not provide the details you claim, such as dates . Try again. Its still just as 'openly interpretable' as nostradamus' predictions and horoscopes.
> 
> -edit-
> From the bible: Isaiah 44:
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Higher education teach our children that humankind is 50,000 years old or more. When in fact, the fossil record only support five or six thousand years of human existence. There is no fossil record of human existence stretching billions and billions of years.
> 
> If you read the entire thread, you'll notice one dude mention the earliest recorded human existence.
> 
> ...


Fossils are not the only or the best evidence there is for evolution. Have you ever heard of DNA and the science of genetics? 
At least be consistent when you write. Humans have not existed for billions of years and no one has claimed that. We do have evidence that mitochondrial Eve lived somewhere in East Africa about 200,000 years ago so humans have been around at least that long.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

^^^ The childish one is back


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 23, 2011)

Ironic the one person refusing to engage in mature debate and instead throws around insults like a 12 year old calls others childish.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 23, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> They were created at roughly the same time as everything else in our solar system.


Okay . . . I have no beef with that. 

I was wrong about Isaiah's prophecy including dates - I was mistaken. However, you can't deny the rest of the details.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 23, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Okay . . . I have no beef with that.
> 
> I was wrong about Isaiah's prophecy including dates - I was mistaken. However, you can't deny the rest of the details.


 Unfortunately I can. I take those predictions no more seriously than i do Nostradamus or horoscopes. They are vague for a reason, and I will not accept them as fact. I welcome facts, but unfortunately everything im ever provided from the other side of the debate turns out the same way this did. A chance fit that 'could' be considered close, but it really isn't. It's like a fortune cookie.


----------



## deprave (Apr 23, 2011)

Regardless of religion or if you believe in god, the bible is important literature to study from even just a historians perspective, it is an important part of human culture, history, and more and I think its important that everyone read and study it, to have a closed mind and to shut it out and not read it is just immature and these close minded people have pretty much ruined this thread with their hate filled flaming. I appreciate all the informative and mature posters here.

Also to the evolution worshiper: while evolution is a valid scientific theory with good evidence it does not have the answer for everything and is not without its flaws and it does not disprove the existence of god - evolution is not the answer to life and neither is the bible - keep looking - keep an open mind - explore all possibilities.

I dont know the answers - I am not religious - I don't follow a book - but I keep an open mind and study hard to expand my knowledge. The Bible, its great literature, and its important. If you studied every book with the exception of the Bible you would still be missing out on quite a bit of wisdom and knowledge, your understanding of societies, cultures, and history would be in fact quite limited. (and vice versa)


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 24, 2011)

How is the "closed minded" position the one admitting 'I don't know' and the logical default "opened minded" one the one that claims absolute knowledge about our existence?

Explain that to me please.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> You were claiming that civilization was merely 2 thousand years. Stop trying to avoid that.


Show me where I said that- go ahead!!


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

I tossed you a like, because I don't honestly think (or hope) that that was directed at me. I have read the bible, in fact more than once. I was also brought up christian, which i later denounced. I am far from close minded, just well educated. Ive done my best to keep my arguments and discussion positive and insightful, i apologize if i haven't succeeded (search for DelSlows psts in another thread here in this subforum for a reference of when i detach from such an attitude). I don't personally think i have said anything hate filled at all.

And again, i honestly hope you aren't referring to me worshiping evolution. Understand that there is a great difference between worshiping something, and understanding that its just the more logical explanation. I DO see the resemblance of us in monkeys as well as other creatures. The logic, and for the most part, fossil records, support the theory. There is not one logical theory i have heard that explained to me how god took adams rib and made a woman. 

I beg, just one? I mean really, ANYTHING that sounds plausible will do. But it can't be done. Just like noah couldn't possibly put the millions of species of animals on a single boat. Jesus, who I openly accept was a real man, did not walk on water any more than Criss Angel did.

I am not so naive to ignore the benefits that the bible can have on man. Many people find great relief, comfort, and solice inside their faith, and if thats what their 'fix' is then by all means (too bad most of them dont think the same way). But to try to pass of anything in the bible as prophetic, or factual, would be a fallacy. There are far too many fairy tales inside to take the few things that seem legitimate at face value.

I want to re-iterate that again, i have read the bible. I personally am now agnostic, and actually embrace the idea of a higher power. In my opinion something had to get the ball rolling. The big bang was 'him' bouncing that ball. Math is 'his' language and tool, and the universe being 'his' sandbox. Remember, this is personal belief, and in no way is that supposed to be expressed as fact.

I am by no means being closed minded. But, if someone wants to point something out as fact, i want them to understand what the definition of fact is. Truth be told, there are very few of them in the bible. You cant just say things in a manner that sounds factual with no actual fact behind it. Remember Jon Kyl, who during a speech to congress said that 'well over 90%' of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions? If i remember right, turns out it was closer to 3%. His defense later, being 'it was not intended to be a factual statement'. Same idea applies here.When the uneducated, often very religious, extremists (from BOTH sides) realize that their opinion or ideals are not shared, or are being dissproved, they just get louder and angrier. They resort to childish name calling, and embellish their side to distort perception, and in some cases go as far as killing.

Im all for constructive discussion and debate. And i have happily and respectfully replied to all of the one post that i have gotten a response to. The bible is good literature, and its important to understand our history in order to move forward, its just part of the human condition. But again, its filled with hypocrisy, as so many people who put so much faith in it are truly afraid of the future, and cling for dear life to their outdated ideals and influence.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Show me where I said that- go ahead!!





BrotherBuz said:


> What you have to do is use your intellect. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's, which chronicles many books of the bible. Some of these books date back to 300 B.C. That's damn now near the beginning of recorded human history and yet there were to discrepancies when compared with today&#8217;s Scriptures. Do you understand the implications of this?


 300 b.c. is not damn near, in fact, its not even close.


----------



## deprave (Apr 24, 2011)

I am sorry the close minded comment wasn't direct at either of you - its pages back in the thread were people are just being immature and killin the thread


----------



## deprave (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Im all for constructive discussion and debate. And i have happily and respectfully replied to all of the one post that i have gotten a response to. The bible is good literature, and its important to understand our history in order to move forward, its just part of the human condition. But its again, its filled with hypocrisy, as so many people who put so much faith in it are truly afraid of the future, and cling for dear life to their outdated ideals and influence.


nicely put.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Oh, and btw thats RECORDED human history. stop trying to confuse people and make them think thats the same as 'human history'. Its not.


Care to elaborate ?


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

Human history can be dated back tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands of years. Mankind existed long before they (we) developed the ability to write. Hence caveman drawings etc.... catch my drift?

And before the question comes, no. Man did not live with dinosaurs.

-edit-
Here is an article that describes teeth that were found that are believed to be about 400,000 years old. Granted this was just the first thing i pulled up, but there are plenty of others that date almost as old.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> You still havnt shown where it said sphere.



*Isaiah 40:22 * Some translations use the word circle or sphere. Just grab a few bibles and compare. I should you this before; I will not do your work for you.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Isaiah 40:22 * Some translations use the word circle or sphere. Just grab a few bibles and compare. I should you this before; I will not do your work for you.


 Dodge much? The circle comes round again....
Your still focusing on generalities. They never said the earth was round, they made vague references to circles.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Daniel 4:11 
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth.

There are more, if you would like, that plainly describe the end of the earth, JUST as vaguely as the ONE passage refers to a circle:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

So we have 10 verses that are all basically just as detailed as one another. Nine of them refer to the earth as being 2 dimensional in a way. One of them refers to a circle of no descriptive form. So you are using the minority vote of your book?


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

So far sir, it seems im doing all the work. Your debating skills are lacking, and your are providing me with nothing but short snubs that seem almost directly intended in just trolling the thread, which i have now grown weary of.

It was fun while it lasted, and i hope a few people got a little insight as to how even their own words contradict themselves.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Human history can be dated back tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands of years.
> http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/oldest-human-israel-101228.html




You sound ambiguous. Anyway, the fossil record does not support more than 6,000 years of human existence. You just can't make shit up Sorry!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 24, 2011)

I will put out there that I believe in a Creator. *I* call him God based on how I was raised. I love to debate and will take Devil's Advocate in the drop of a hat, but this is the ONE subject where I find it difficult to do because of the VAST amount of info and knowledge available and my finite ability to absorb it all only allow me to absorb so much. In the end, I know that when I die, I will be at peace with whatever happens. If it's all over, blackness, then my last thoughts will be of how pleased I am about the way I lived my life and treated others. If I meet God(which IS my personal aspiration and belief), then I hope to spark a fat one and answer a few questions. And if I'm WRONG, well, I like my chances.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Isaiah 40:22 * Some translations use the word circle or sphere. Just grab a few bibles and compare. I should you this before; I will not do your work for you.


The one making the claim is the one that should be providing evidence. Telling someone to do research to confirm your claim is the height of arrogance or stupidity. Which one do you think you are?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You sound ambiguous. Anyway, the fossil record does not support more than 6,000 years of human existence. You just can't make shit up Sorry!


 You're off by about a factor of 30.
DNA evidence supports the 195,000 year old human fossils. We have two separate branches of science that confirm each others findings to within a few thousand years.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You sound ambiguous. Anyway, the fossil record does not support more than 6,000 years of human existence. You just can't make shit up Sorry!


 You quite clearly didnt even read the article I showed you, or else you would realize how untrue that statement is.

So again, you deflect, tell me im making shit up (even tho i provided a LINK, which is 10x more than anything youve offered so far).

Your still going in circles buddy, but you aren't confusing us, and we aren't going to trail off topic. Your losing ground fast man.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

"These are the oldest well-dated fossils of modern humans (Homo sapiens) currently known anywhere in the world," the scientists say in a summary of the study.
I can keep providing links and even more specific scientific data if you would like. Do you have anything other than more repetitive rhetoric or accusations of 'making things up'? Im still eagerly waiting.


----------



## thexception (Apr 24, 2011)

IAm5toned said:


> beause people en mass are gullible and want to beleive in a higher power.
> sometimes its easier to let someone else do the thinking for you than decide for yourself, i guess.
> 
> it must suck to be like that


that is ur opinion, although lame if u knew anything about religious teaching which its okay that u don't but then don't speak of it. For those that believe in God...God gave man FREE WILL....so that means we all do get to think for ourselves & more importantly choose for ourselves. And that includes ur free will to decide u don't want to believe on some sort of empty premise that "believing" would mean u couldn't choose for urself. More like, u choose to have free will but not have to account for the actions u choose. Kind of like u making a choice & then not wanting to take responsibility for YOUR choice. We who believe, CHOOSE to try our best to live by God's word, and we CHOOSE to be held accountable for OUR choices in this lifetime. Happy Easter, oops wait a minute, I guess for u that doesn't apply


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> "These are the oldest well-dated fossils of modern humans (Homo sapiens) currently known anywhere in the world," the scientists say in a summary of the study.
> I can keep providing links and even more specific scientific data if you would like. Do you have anything other than more repetitive rhetoric or accusations of 'making things up'? Im still eagerly waiting.


Do you actually think he'll respond? He ignores and dodges facts every time they have been presented. He is still insisting Isaiah said 'sphere' when he has been informed there was no such word in Isaiah's language. Does that stop him from spouting lies? 

Why does it seem that the more devout the person is, the less he is able to act in the way Jesus taught? Anger, insults, arrogance, impatience and lying is all I'm seeing from BroBuz. I put him on ignore when I thought he was just being an arrogant little shit but then I saw him quoted in another person's thread and found out he's a young earther, so we can add 'complete inability to use reason' to his list of character flaws. Anyone that can believe in a young earth has to deny so much science and knowledge it's unimaginable to me how they are able to tie their shoes. I know schizophrenics that have a better grasp of reality than young earthers.


----------



## thexception (Apr 24, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> I have probably opened a bible 5 times in my life. These were the 5 times I have been to church. I do find the bible fascinating, but as you can see, everybody that reads the bible interprets it differently, or interprets it the way they are told to interpret it.
> 
> And then what's up with:
> 
> ...


No u r not wrong when it comes to I would say the larger majority of modern day churches; the bigger the better, etc. trying to outshine the next. But don't let ur disdain for churches or ur lack of knowledge keep u from FINDING out ur own truth! My ideal church (which to me means nothing more then people coming together to worship God in God's house) would be one of the most modest means, a wood building, with not much more then heat, bibles, & LOVE...as God meant it; the rest of the money or riches were to be GIVEN to the poor.

But I would ask u to not just let the bible be fascinating to you, read it sometime, start small. U said the only time u read it was when u went to church, God is everywhere, u only need talk & he will listen. 

In short, & the sum of all u need to know is this: Jesus died on the cross for EVERY sin man could EVER commit. Now, of course u r suppose to do ur best to live a good life, & be good to people, & be generous in ur heart & with ur wallet, if u r so fortunate as to where u can help another...and when u do sin as all humans do, u will be forgiven (although of course it always helps to be sorry u did whatever wrong u did, & better to ask for forgiveness and try not to do it again). But the only thing u have to do for everlasting salvation & to enter the kingdom of heaven is to accept God as ur God, & Jesus as ur savior & accept them as such...and not worship the devil or any other gods. 

That is the beauty of it, The only people who will not "enter into thy kingdom of heaven" are really the people who choose not to. 

Happy Easter  And why not google the meaning of Easter so u know why the celebration to those who believe is so important. imo it marks the single most important event ever in the HISTORY of human kind.


----------



## thexception (Apr 24, 2011)

djruiner said:


> why is it when the topic of the bible comes up the first thing people do is start posting scripture and passages from the bible...when he is asking why they see the bible as the word of god..he isnt asking for you to quote the bible and expect people to go.."ok i guess ill follow after reading your facts"...the bible says this...this passage says this...well guess what..there are HUNDREDS of other books of different types of religions...why is your "faith" any different,better,or true.why cant people see the bible as it really is...a tool used to control primitive people.and how can you control a primitive undereducated mass of people....fear...tell them to do this or do that or all this bad shit will happen.
> and why is it that all this stuff that happened in biblical times dont happen anymore...no one speaks to god anymore,no burning bushes,no one is walking on water,no seas are being parted...none of all this magical shit the bible spoke of...why is these things not happening...well first off it seems that when those things happened before..no one was around to hear or see it...case in point...moses...why is it just so happens that no one else is around when god does all this talking and passing of information...so everything that is supposed the "word of god" is things told to single individuals that then tell these things to other people. sounds a little to shady for me to just blindly follow.
> now you can go ahead and quote the bible...say you just got to have faith all you want....but until god pops outta the clouds..tells me to get my shit together...im going to sleep in on sundays..not get all dressed up..and keep the 10% for my family and not fund the preachers dream of driving a nicer vehicle.
> 
> ...


no bible thumper here, lol, but, okay people do hear from him, if they "choose to listen", he doesn't have to appear...u know by certain things that happen in ur life, it could be something so small or someone u've met, or what some people would call coincidence or perfect timing, others know is God. U said that right, suffering at the hands of man. If u truly had knowledge of the bible or God's previous actions u would know, God did intervene not once but at least twice killing off all mankind, & started anew. (The rainbow was God's promise he would never do that again.) And miralces STILL happen all the time, things no science can explain...u just choose not to believe. God decided since his killing off of mankind didn't work, but since he still loved his creation so & his hopes that mankind could be all good & humble, he decided instead to send his son to die for all sins man could ever commit from that day forward and he gave man free will, to live his life, to believe or not, & that is that. You've been told, through the bible & if ur waiting for a personal voice, well i'm sorry to tell u, it's likely not going to come & u will not enter into heaven, it u do not choose to accept God as ur God, & Jesus as ur savior. That is ALL u have to do, & if that is too much trouble, well, ur loss I suppose...but think about it, r u REALLY so arrogant in ur thinking, that u must be right, to want to take that chance?


----------



## thexception (Apr 24, 2011)

beardo said:


> Because it is the word of God.


 and because the people before us & before them & before that, were told those things & taught those teachings by those that encountered Jesus, and because it is part of HISTORY, like every other part. Why should we believe in what people say George Washington said? The same reason, it was documented & was known by people of that time.


----------



## thexception (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> There is not one logical theory i have heard that explained to me how god took adams rib and made a woman.
> 
> I beg, just one? I mean really, ANYTHING that sounds plausible will do. But it can't be done. Just like noah couldn't possibly put the millions of species of animals on a single boat. Jesus, who I openly accept was a real man, did not walk on water any more than Criss Angel did.
> 
> ...


First u want a "theory" then u want fact, which do u want?  u want to know how eve was made but u believe how God made Adam? why u would choose THAT, I just don't know. Not even how he made heaven & earth? Noah, millions, said who? That is YOUR interpretation. Seeing as the bible says God had already killed off mankind & all living creatures once before, and the fact that we know species evolve from other species, that explains that...there were far from millions, probably not more then a couple hundred; my interpretation, certainly plausible. 

So the bible is "so old & outdated" but yet u believe THIS part, that Jesus was a real man? But nothing much else, and everything wrapped around this ONE man, told by this book is fairytale? He is the only man to walk on water, because he is the only by God's hand, he wanted to walk on water, just like he is the only man he allowed to be crucified and then breathed eternal life into him, yet let him walk the earth again.

Finally, again do u want to call the bible literature or history...u said it. History IS FACT! People believe it the same way they believe what was written about how George Washington talked, looked, & was, because it was written by people who knew him, knew of him, & from that time frame. To say now, that so much time has passed, that those that still believe this piece of history (u said that right) r afraid of the future or cling to outdated ideals is absurd. We believe it to be our human history like any other. And is it still outdated to have a man near on one knee to propose to his bride to be? God I would hope not. I hope the younger generations still cherish some ideals as ones like God's love ....everlasting!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> "These are the oldest well-dated fossils of modern humans (Homo sapiens) currently known anywhere in the world.


This is the *Cambrian explosion*. 
It&#8217;s a deathblow to evolution. The fossil record does not support evolution - Sorry!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg
http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How is the "closed minded" position the one admitting 'I don't know' and the logical default "opened minded" one the one that claims absolute knowledge about our existence?
> 
> Explain that to me please.


We all know what your agenda is.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 24, 2011)

Sorry for the copy & paste wall of text, but I just read this stickied somewhere and thought it might......help?











*Avoiding logical fallacies* 
So you're having a debate and your argument just isn't working. You're being accused of ad homs, strawmanning, and red herrings. What the fuck are these people talking about? 

Let me tell you then.

A logical fallacy is an approach to making an argument or point by breaking rules that are known to not be sound in reasoning and logic. There are many _many_ of these fallacies but I'll list and describe some of the main ones.

*Ad Hominem* (the argument against the man) 
Attacking the person's character instead of attacking the argument.
Examples:
"Why should I listen to your opinion on philosophy, you barely graduated high school."
"You think you are capable of debating evolutionary theory while you sit there and smoke weed all day?" 

*Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc* (After this, therefore, because of this)
This one is a favorite of mine. Drawing a conclusion that two or more events are related when there is no real proof they are.
Examples:
"We ate fish tacos last night and this morning my head was pounding. Fish tacos give me headaches I guess" (the person isn't qualified to conclude fish tacos were definitely the cause of the headache)
"I had a dream I won the lotto, so I bought 20 scratch off tickets and one ended up being a winner for 500 bucks! I must be psychic."

*circular logic* (The conclusion of the argument is the same as the premise) 
Examples:
"The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible."

*Ad baculum* (appeal to the stick or force)
An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force is used to justify the conclusion.
Examples: 
"If you don't repent your sins you will burn for eternity in hell, therefore you MUST repent."
"Don't argue with the king's policies or he will lock you up and toss away the key. Therefore keep your mouth shut."

*Ad lapidem* (throwing stones)
Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving reason why it is absurd.
Examples:
"You don't believe in a divine being? That's just fuckin' retarded!"
"You don't think marijuana is addictive? Are you crazy!? Pull your head out of your ass."

*Untestability fallacy*
Argument based on assertions that cannot be tested.
Examples:
"You're not old enough to really understand life." 
"Eating beans prouts may not kill you today, but one day you may eat a poisonous one and die. Therefore you should just avoid eating bean sprouts."
"All atheists secretly believe in a god."

*Red Herring*
An attempt to divert the argument or change the subject
Examples:
Person A- "Bush should have been tried as a war criminal."
Person B- "What about all the other people in the world that commit crimes and get away with it? What about that justice not served? In fact, the murder rate in Romania is bla bla yack yack....."

*loaded question* 
Asking a question that presupposes something that isn't yet proven.
Examples:
"Do you still beat children up with baseball bats?"
"Why is Obama afraid to admit he was born in Kenya?"

*Straw Man*
Misrepresenting a persons argument in such a way it would be easy to refute. Beating up the straw man.
Examples:
"Of course evolution isn't true. No one has ever seen a reptile turn into a bird."
"Liberals just want a big nanny state."

*Ad Populum* (appeal to the people)
Concluding an argument is true because a majority of people believe it to be true.
Examples:
"Most people in the US believe marijuana is a dangerous drug therefore it is."
"Majority of the world believes there is a divine being, they can't all be wrong."

*Subjectivist Fallacy*
Using the fact that one wants to believe something to be true as evidence of it's truth.
Examples:
"We are all beings of spirit and light."

Person A-"We are an electro-chemical system."
Person B-"That may be true to you, but that's not true to me. That's just your opinion."

*negative proof* (argument from ignorance)
Appealing to lack of proof of the negative. X is true because there is no proof X is false.
Examples:
"There is no evidence Glenn Beck didn't rape and kill a woman in 1984."
"You can't prove god doesn't exist!"

There are many many more but these are some of the most common. If you're in a debate and you see these tactics being used, call them out on their fallacies.

----------

Newly added fallacies as submitted by commenters.


*Argumentation ad misericordiam* - (appeal to pity) Recommended by Dryice
Using an emotion like pity, sympathy, or compassion for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
Examples:
"If you don't give me a job here, I can't donate to the starving children's fund! My life dream would be ruined."
"Of course the judges should vote me winner of the chili cookoff, I've recently had a death in the family."

*false dilemma* or *false dichotomy* - (either-or fallacy) Recommended by tongues
An argument where only two choices are given when there are in fact more.
Examples:
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
"Either love your country with all it's problems or leave it."

*inductive fallacy* - (Hasty Generalization) Recommended by mrgoodsmoke
Fallacy committed when one comes to a quick conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
Examples:
"My town is mostly republican. Three of the five houses on my street have republican signs in them."
"I did a survey in my town by going to three different Dentists and they all said Crest was the best toothpaste to use so Crest must be the best."


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> This is the *Cambrian explosion*.
> It&#8217;s a deathblow to evolution. The fossil record does not support evolution - Sorry!!
> 
> 
> ...





BrotherBuz said:


> We all know what your agenda is.


 Spoken as if you have no agenda. You use a website called "Learn the Bible" for your information about evolution and the Cambrian period. (Nevermind the fact that you use the Cambrian explosion circa 530 Ma to respond to a post about human fossils circa .2 Ma)

I guess then it should be just as appropriate to use a link called "Learn about Science and Atheism" to get my facts about Jesus and the bible, right?


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 24, 2011)

*silent scream*


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> We all know what your agenda is.


Well then BB, go ahead and answer that first question I asked, then go ahead and tell me what my agenda is.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Spoken as if you have no agenda. You use a website called "Learn the Bible" for your information about evolution and the Cambrian period. (Nevermind the fact that you use the Cambrian explosion circa 530 Ma to respond to a post about human fossils circa .2 Ma)
> 
> I guess then it should be just as appropriate to use a link called "Learn about Science and Atheism" to get my facts about Jesus and the bible, right?


Sounds like you've got this one nailed ;D but as you said, nothing will come from it. Expect some more dodging and deflection very soon.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Spoken as if you have no agenda. You use a website called "Learn the Bible" for your information about evolution and the Cambrian period.


http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html

Anthropologist went searching and found a layer of fossil called the * Cambrian Explosion*, because it refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in this geologic column. You see, evolutionist claim that humankind took millions of years to establish, after crawling out of the sea. But this fossil layer proves that humankind had a sudden appearance and did not take millions of years to evolve 

You sir should pay attention to the point.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Sounds like you've got this one nailed ;D but as you said, nothing will come from it. Expect some more dodging and deflection very soon.


There's something that needs to be said about the outcome of this, and indeed any other religious/secular argument that takes place on RIU, this same shit happens everytime.. The theists come with crazy claims, the rest of us point it out, it's acknowledged by everyone but the one making the claim and the circle jerk continues ad infinitim. Babs, crackerboy, weed4cash..brotherbudz.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Anthropologist went searching and found a layer of fossil called the * Cambrian Explosion*, because it refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in this geologic column. You see, evolutionist claim that humankind took millions of years to establish, after crawling out of the sea. But this fossil layer proves that humankind had a sudden appearance and did not take millions of years to evolve
> 
> You sir should pay attention to the point.


go read a boooooooooook!

Life emerged out of the oceans and it took another 550 million years for homo sapiens to arrive.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

thexception said:


> First u want a "theory" then u want fact, which do u want?  u want to know how eve was made but u believe how God made Adam? why u would choose THAT, I just don't know. Not even how he made heaven & earth? Noah, millions, said who? That is YOUR interpretation. Seeing as the bible says God had already killed off mankind & all living creatures once before, and the fact that we know species evolve from other species, that explains that...there were far from millions, probably not more then a couple hundred; my interpretation, certainly plausible.
> 
> So the bible is "so old & outdated" but yet u believe THIS part, that Jesus was a real man? But nothing much else, and everything wrapped around this ONE man, told by this book is fairytale? He is the only man to walk on water, because he is the only by God's hand, he wanted to walk on water, just like he is the only man he allowed to be crucified and then breathed eternal life into him, yet let him walk the earth again.
> 
> Finally, again do u want to call the bible literature or history...u said it. History IS FACT! People believe it the same way they believe what was written about how George Washington talked, looked, & was, because it was written by people who knew him, knew of him, & from that time frame. To say now, that so much time has passed, that those that still believe this piece of history (u said that right) r afraid of the future or cling to outdated ideals is absurd. We believe it to be our human history like any other. And is it still outdated to have a man near on one knee to propose to his bride to be? God I would hope not. I hope the younger generations still cherish some ideals as ones like God's love ....everlasting!


I agree, Klosetking is very confused. He's the "protege" *Mindphuk* lol lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html
> 
> Anthropologist went searching and found a layer of fossil called the * Cambrian Explosion*, because it refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in this geologic column. You see, evolutionist claim that humankind took millions of years to establish, after crawling out of the sea. But this fossil layer proves that humankind had a sudden appearance and did not take millions of years to evolve
> 
> You sir should pay attention to the point.



mankind didnt appear until half a billion years after the cambrian explosion thats hardly all of a sudden...


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> .The theists come with crazy claims, the rest of us point it out, it's acknowledged by everyone but the one making the claim and the circle jerk continues ad infinitim. Babs, crackerboy, weed4cash..brotherbudz.


My claims are founded in bedrock. I have physical, fossil and tangible evidence, what do you have?. You got nothing-nothing.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

thexception said:


> First u want a "theory" then u want fact, which do u want?  u want to know how eve was made but u believe how God made Adam? why u would choose THAT, I just don't know.


Actually i never said i believed ANY of that story cuz i dont. I was merely using a specific example, i dont want to speak in generalities like you guys are so pro at doing.



thexception said:


> Noah, millions, said who? That is YOUR interpretation. Seeing as the bible says God had already killed off mankind & all living creatures once before, and the fact that we know species evolve from other species, that explains that...there were far from millions, probably not more then a couple hundred; my interpretation, certainly plausible.


You continue this, but it is only because you do not accept evolution as even slightly plausible. The bottom line is there were millions of animals, trees, insects, and numerous other forms of life that he COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY got them all. To think that one old man built a big enough boat to even fit 2 of just 1 thousand animals is an absolute fallacy, and mentally handicapped children still have trouble accepting it.



thexception said:


> So the bible is "so old & outdated" but yet u believe THIS part, that Jesus was a real man? But nothing much else, and everything wrapped around this ONE man, told by this book is fairytale? He is the only man to walk on water, because he is the only by God's hand, he wanted to walk on water, just like he is the only man he allowed to be crucified and then breathed eternal life into him, yet let him walk the earth again.


There is actual science and TONS of books that imply that jesus was a man. Can you find TONS of books referring to noah? can you find TONS of books that refer to adam and eve? no, just a couple. Also, you only continue to believe he walked on water because its what your fabled story book tells you. Were you there? Guess what, i just saw my mom walk on water too! Who are you to say i didnt, you werent there! See your reasoning? You guys keep missing the biggest thing about having a debate, the burden proof lies on those making the claim.



thexception said:


> Finally, again do u want to call the bible literature or history...u said it. History IS FACT!


I provide quotes and links for all of my arguments, almost every time. Please, PLEASE, point out to me where i said 'History is Fact'. You cant, because it didnt happen.




thexception said:


> People believe it the same way they believe what was written about how George Washington talked, looked, & was, because it was written by people who knew him, knew of him, & from that time frame. To say now, that so much time has passed, that those that still believe this piece of history (u said that right) r afraid of the future or cling to outdated ideals is absurd. We believe it to be our human history like any other. And is it still outdated to have a man near on one knee to propose to his bride to be? God I would hope not. I hope the younger generations still cherish some ideals as ones like God's love ....everlasting!


 Some might say that engagement practices are outdated, but it really doesn't matter does it? People don't use engagement as a tool for mass control, oppression of rights or murder. Try again. The bible teaches us about where we came from, the way we thought a long time ago, how we evolved from our previous ways of faith, civilization, ignorance and intelligence, ugliness and beauty, all in one. It is NOT fact, far less so than a history textbook, which is already questionable enough as it is. So even if i DID reference to the bible as fact due to being a form of history (which i didnt) would i rather trust 'textbook' thats 10 years old? Or 2000 years old?

Your beliefs ARE outdated. Very few of you use your faith as ONLY a tool for the good, and for leading a good life. MOST of you, use it as a tool for war. As a means to strike fear into those that are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions, take responsibility for their own actions, or even understand how many serious holes in your 'logic' there are.

I am more than willing to continue to post, quote, link, and continue to break your argument apart piece by piece if needed. This post is a direct example. I have addressed everything you have said. How will you respond? I expect more dodging, more circles. It lost its fun for a bit, but i admit, you have rekindled me slightly.


BrotherBuz said:


> I agree, Klosetking is very confused. He's the "protege" *Mindphuk* lol lol


Oh, more insults. No surprise there eh?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> My claims are founded in bedrock. I have physical, fossil and tangible evidence, what do you have?. You got nothing-nothing.


No, what you have are novice critical thinking skills. 

I'm not even sure you know what you're claiming.

The traditional route creationists take is sidestepping the science and going straight with faith "god works in mysterious ways".. For one to claim the science confirms the biblical account of creation, it's just laughably stupid because it means one of two things; a. The person has no basic understanding of science, and b. Their god actively deceives us by giving us inaccurate measurements, inconsistent with an all loving god.

The science, that is every single piece, supports and confirms evolutionary theory. It is fact.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> mankind didnt appear until half a billion years after the cambrian explosion thats hardly all of a sudden...


What I mean by sudden is this:

Evolutionists claim that it took millions and millions of years for mankind to evolve. But if this is true, then there should be "transitional links" that precedes the appearance of mankind in the fossil record. 

Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. The missing links hasn't been found, because it does not exist. lol lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What I mean by sudden is this:
> 
> Evolutionists claim that it took millions and millions of years for mankind to evolve. But if this is true, then there should be "transitional links" that precedes the appearance of mankind in the fossil record. The missing links hasn't been found!! lol lol


keep up kid


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What I mean by sudden is this:
> 
> Evolutionists claim that it took millions and millions of years for mankind to evolve. But if this is true, then there should be "transitional links" that precedes the appearance of mankind in the fossil record. The missing links hasn't been found!! lol lol


Omg, im so tired of hearing this. We could find 1000 missing links, and that last link would be missing a toe or some shit and you guys would continue to say that the links just arent there. Someday i hope you come to accept the opposable thumb as a pretty damn big hint.

[video]http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851[/video]

"Things do not exist simply because you say they do... THUS SAYETH THE GREAT CREATURE IN THE SKY!"


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> keep up kid


NO NO NO. Dont you get it? Wheres the link between N and O? Pfft. Not enough links yet ;D


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 24, 2011)

Hey all. 

I gotta admit that BrotherBuz has got tenacity. Pitbull is fitting. I admire conviction and heart. I've unsubscribed to this thread 4 times now, but keep seeing it pop up and wonder how it isn't up in flames by now. Y'all are doing a great job. Lot's of heart and minimal personal attacks. Keep it up guys. Intelligent debate and discussion is the only way to get us(society) out of this mess we find ourselves in.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 24, 2011)

*waits patiently for the inevitable question of why there are still monkeys if we evolved from them*


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The traditional route creationists take is sidestepping the science and going straight with faith "god works in mysterious ways"


Are you kidding me.  The fossil record does not support evolution.Got it?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Are you kidding me.  The fossil record does not support evolution.Got it?


Explain how.

Everything ever dug up from the ground in fossil form supports evolutionary theory, that is without exception pal.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Are you kidding me.  The fossil record does not support evolution.Got it?


 Does too. Naw naw naw. 

See I can play that game too but it doesn't help anyone learn anything.

That's all you seem to do is making broad assertions without evidence. Your trite link to a creationist website notwithstanding, you have yet to show any evidence for ANY claim you have made in this thread. Your opposition, however, has given ample evidence which you have yet to refute. 

The fossil record goes from simple organisms to complex. Your link even confirms that. 

Why not try to act like the adult you pretend to be and actually answer objections to your posts without the snide comments. The only thing you have responded to my posts with are insults. Of course, I don't mind as it shows the weakness of your debate skills.

Go ahead, prove we are all wrong about you and answer some of the questions and challenges put forth.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Explain how.
> 
> Everything ever dug up from the ground in fossil form supports evolutionary theory, that is without exception pal.


 He does this tactic so you keep asking questions, hopefully forgetting that he hasn't answered the ones you asked earlier.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Isaiah 11:12
> And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
> 
> Revelation 7:1
> ...


So you can say that even though 9 things say otherwise, the 1 phrase means its true. You do the same here. All of the parts of evolution don't matter, the one part you don't understand means its false. But, all but ONE phrase calls the earth, in so many words, flat? You cant just flip your logic like that.

There are hundreds, nay thousands of fossils, studies, teeth, visual and dna evidence to support it, but you go and find the ONE thing that doesn't add up as nicely as the rest does (sad thing is it does, you just dont understand it).

So is religion really about just believing the improbable? Having faith in luck? You're argument about the sphere is that they said it ONCE, even though it was contradicted in multiple other places in the very same 'book'. Yet you are assuming the ONE part of evolution that doesn't make sense to you (even though it does to everyone else) means it is all a fallacy, even tho the rest of it backs it up.

Your are a mind boggler for sure.


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> He does this tactic so you keep asking questions, hopefully forgetting that he hasn't answered the ones you asked earlier.


 EXACTLY! It is so freaking common its not even funny. These guys truly must have a fuckin handbook somewhere.

Google 'how to disprove evolution'. Their kind actually have writeups as to how to debate the topic. Tactics on how to avoid certain questions, and tips on how to twist words against their opponent (debater).


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Omg, im so tired of hearing this. We could find 1000 missing links, and that last link would be missing a toe or some shit and you guys would continue to say that the links just arent there. Someday i hope you come to accept the opposable thumb as a pretty damn big hint.
> [video]http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851[/video]


Your problem is this. You don't understand the meaning of *"transitional links"*. 


You remind me of a person who has lived in a cave, chained to the wall, since birth. Someone comes along and leads you out of the cave, into the sun. The light is too bright, so back into the cave you go, watching shadows on the wall, thinking its reality. That's sad lol lol


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

Oh i fully understand the idea of transitional links. You will just never have enough of them. There is a difference.

It's funny that you of all people would say that i'm the one in the dark. You have provided the least amount of actual data to back up your arguments than anyone. The one person who came in here and defended you provided a post that was 10x the quality of anything you have said yet, and it still didn't have any real links, citations, or data.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> These guys truly must have a fuckin handbook somewhere.
> 
> Google 'how to disprove evolution'. Their kind actually have writeups as to how to debate the topic. Tactics on how to avoid certain questions, and tips on how to twist words against their opponent (debater).


You better put the bong down bro . . . lol lol lol


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You better put the bong down bro . . . lol lol lol


 More quality debate.


----------



## djruiner (Apr 24, 2011)

just let it go people...buz is not going to properly debate anything you post...he cant. he says a few words here and there..says "got it" and just thinks everyone will take everything he says as facts without anything at all to back him up. just wasting time with this one...just another one of those people that don't believe a thing unless it was in the bible. and then even if it is in the bible its way over his head and he does not comprehend what its saying...so your just spinning your wheels here.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Oh i fully understand the idea of transitional links. You will just never have enough of them. There is a difference.
> 
> It's funny that you of all people would say that i'm the one in the dark.


No! . . . you don't understand, you're beyond seeing light, you're in a "cave", chained to the wall. That's no shit . . . lol lol


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 24, 2011)

djruiner said:


> just let it go people...buz is not going to properly debate anything you post...he cant. he says a few words here and there..says "got it" and just thinks everyone will take everything he says as facts without anything at all to back him up.


 It's funny, i was thinking the very same thing. I just pictured him standing up after hitting post and saying to himself 'NAILED IT!' and walking away with a giant smile on his face lol

But your right, it is going nowhere. Take care all, and thanks to those who gave me some valid discussion =D


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Explain how.
> 
> Everything ever dug up from the ground in fossil form supports evolutionary theory, that is without exception pal.


Where are the "missing links the "transitional links" that are suppose to back evolution's * theory *? you got nothing-nothing. For evolution to exist there should be thousands and thousand of these little links spread throughout the fossil record. Are you so dense that nothing can get through to you? Are maybe you have your head somewhere else and you can't see straight. lol lol lol


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

^^^ Anybody else? . . . Lets get this party started.


----------



## thexception (Apr 24, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Actually i never said i believed ANY of that story cuz i dont. I was merely using a specific example, i dont want to speak in generalities like you guys are so pro at doing.
> 
> 
> You continue this, but it is only because you do not accept evolution as even slightly plausible. The bottom line is there were millions of animals, trees, insects, and numerous other forms of life that he COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY got them all. To think that one old man built a big enough boat to even fit 2 of just 1 thousand animals is an absolute fallacy, and mentally handicapped children still have trouble accepting it.
> ...


I addressed all comments u made, I didnt pull any "generalities" out of the air. You said, u believe Jesus to have been a man, not u say u dont believe any part of the "story"; he is the MAIN party of the "story" (Bible)

Now where did I say, I didn't accept evolution as being anything? Now I am speaking directly to your comments, where did u get that from. But since u brought it up specifically in reply to me, I do indeed believe evolution happened as well. But alas, evolution or no, the beginning was STILL made by God, & all things beginning, so while man may as well evolved, lets say from ape, God made ape; all God's work or doing just a different form. And it seems u sir r not replying directly to my reasonable or in ur words plausible argument. I SAID, I believe there were maybe only a couple hundred....just my thoughts on the interpretation, let me say once again. And again, u want to pick apart single things but r missing for those that believe in God, all things are one. No, one old man didnt build an ark himself, God laid his hands upon that old man & in effect used him as his "tool" if u will to build the ark...again, u just want to seem to interpret everything to need a specific answer. That is the BASE of believing in the bible, which you actually don't which is fine. But no one needs to prove or is every going to prove that to you, ever. There is no answer to what was before God, nothing, God always was, period, end of story. It is hard for humans to believe because humans in their inherent nature needs X+Y to = XY. There is NO explanation for many things, they just ARE. U want people to bring proof to u, bring proof that they are just stories, bring proof that this outdated information is not as important or doesnt have as much meaning as it did...2000 years ago. I will give you proof, the mere acceptance by the larger majority around the world on planet earth that do believe in a higher power and in Jesus, & in the bible. The acceptance that has been & will continue to be for another 2000 years if earth last that long. What more proof do u need?

Again, God killed many before. Again God came down to man, spoke from the heavens to man, etc etc etc. and even after he sent his son to perform all the miracles thereafter, etc. etc. there were still those that wouldnt believe, didnt believe, and those that will never believe or until they see more miracles with "their own eyes". That is why gave up on convincing many, he did too good a job on this species of man, & his need for proof proof proof. he gave man free will, told man he could believe & accept or not, & called it a day. Afterall he wants all man to come to heaven & will have an eternity to wait for each one, but man must CHOOSE, and what a gracious & loving God in the end to let you & me, do that.

The burden in your opinion lies in the ones making the claim. imo, the burden lies in the ones saying what has been written & believed in & told throughout the centuries has no basis of truth. Prove it!

U didnt say history was fact, you said the bible is part of history. well in any definition I have ever known of history, history is something that happened in the past on record, as something that HAD happened, DID occcur, WAS. I looked it up though, quick definition: History...1. The study of past events, particularly in human affairs. So again, you said, bible was literature, & then YOU said in the same sentence it was simply a part of history at which point I said, exactly...you said it (being facicous). The bible is part of human history (again please refer to the meaning of history), history doesnt mean what may have happened, it doesnt mean mythology, it means HISTORY which the bible is part of, a book of history.

I cannot say u dont have points with ur final banter about war, & hate, & murder, etc. you absolutely do, BUT, all that doesnt come from the Bible, belief therein, or from God's or Jesus teachings. That comes from CHURCH, & church & the bible or church & the word of God, & church and anything else that u can equate to religion of any sort are two ENTIRELY different animals. Church=man (at least in the present day age & age that has been for the last several hundred years at least) Bible=God, Jesus=God. Now THAT is where all the problems come in as far as I am concerned the teachings of any one "denomination of faith/ Church".

That's where, after the bible, for some "men" the bible wasnt good enough OR as the years passed on the arguments ensured over the interpretation of the bible, thus new religions formed, old ones changed & added their own laws/rules, etc. then changed them again to relate to the masses at large, at that time, to keep their set followers to find more rules, "laws", that appealed to more people, & it was a big ugly bubble that grew & grew & broke apart into another & another & another & another & this continues to this day. But there is but ONE word of God, it is written in a book of historical fact called the bible. And while this book will always & forever be the most highly debated book ever as to what is the meaning of this that or the other, the central meaning for the lay person has always & will forever be the same. 

There is a God, he created everything, all mankind & all living things, that ever were or will be after him, in his image. And as God made mistakes & learned, we are not unlike him at all, much very much like him. He made you, he had no one to guide him along the way, he made mistakes. He learned from them, he blessed man with his knowledge of love, anger, vengence, etc. and so forth & with the story of his mistakes and his OWN repentance, & of his own conclusion, that the only way to get through to man is through love & in that end the only way to him is through love. We are so much of everything that God is, it is beautiful. Now, like him, we must find our own way, but unlike him, (who had no one) we have had him there to lead us & guide as, long long after his own trials & tribulations with his creation in man; we have the bible everlasting, his word everlasting, as he is everlasting, to help us, to maybe not make all the mistakes he did if we CHOOSE to listen. Sounds very much like parenting...no? And anyone who is a parent knows exactly what that means? Some people, in fact most all people, no matter what, HAVE to find their own way. You can teach them, guide them, love them, & let them go. The rest is up to them  God sinned, (although God is without sin, because sin is something of man, same equivalent in man's terms.) God murdered, God showed anger, God tested his "sheep", God bestowed the worst plagues on lands, peoples, nations, God was jealous, so on & so forth. But in the end, God was I believe, the way he hopes all mankind "might" choose to be from jumpstart, just a simple good hearted person, out to love & be loved, out for peace & beauty, & have life in this manner everlasting, one of which is better shared!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 24, 2011)

Looks llke *Klosetking* is dodging again. You can run,but you can't hide.


----------



## Leothwyn (Apr 24, 2011)

The bible may have *some *history in it, but that surely doesn't make it *all *true. For the old Norse beliefs the equivalent to the bible might be the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda. These collections of stories have a fair amount of history in them... stories about various kings, different battles, one of the stories (The Vinland Saga) tells about vikings discovering N. America long before Columbus (which we know to be true). But I doubt anyone would claim that since the Eddas contain historical accounts that the stories about gods fighting giants, dragons, magic runes, etc. are also true.

The Eddas are the same as the bible: some history (with questionable accuracy), some history that has been totally exaggerated, and some complete mythology. You know why the bible is so popular and somehow is actually taken seriously by so many people, while the Eddas aren't? Because the christians were much better at grabbing power, holding onto power, and forcing others to accept their mythology (with violence or the threat of violence). If the pagan norse were as aggressive about making everyone else bow to their gods we might be on this forum debating whether or not Odin really hung from a tree for 9 days to bring written language to humanity... rather than whether or not there's any truth to the story about a magic zombie that can walk on water.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Looks llke *Klosetking* is dodging again. You can run,but you can't hide.


 So says the King of Dodge.

How about answering just a few of the multitude of questions asked of you?


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 25, 2011)

@Brotherbuzz and @thexception...............

Please prove that God exists before continuing this discussion. I am yet to see any human being prove his existence. Why is that?


----------



## deprave (Apr 25, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> @Brotherbuzz and @thexception...............
> 
> Please prove that God exists before continuing this discussion. I am yet to see any human being prove his existence. Why is that?


 its pretty difficult to prove ANYTHING to EVERYONE - Look how long it took people to convince the earth is round or even of gravity as an example, are you so close minded you need absolute scientific proof? There is many things in this world still unexplained to this day and still many technologies to discover, If everyone needed absolute proof to give something even a chance for speculation then there would be no proof, we'd probably still be riding around on horse and buggy and living in Africa. If god doesn't exist well then so what? You think its a waste of time to study humanity and discuss religion/philosophy? Its not. Why are you even in the spiritual forums here if you don't think people shouldn't discuss spiritual things?





5 Thing Sciene cant prove: 


Logic and Mathematics
Metaphysical truths
Ethical beliefs
Aesthetic judgments
Science itself


Science is not the end all  be all my friend - its but a valuable piece of the puzzle


----------



## newworldicon (Apr 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> its pretty difficult to prove ANYTHING to EVERYONE - are you so closed minded you need proof? If everyone needed absolute proof to give something even a chance for speculation then there would be no proof, we'd probably still be riding around on horse and buggy and living in Africa. If god exists then who is going to be the moron that doesnt know anything about him? If he doesn't exist well then so what? You think its a waste of time to study humanity and discuss religion/philosophy? Its not.


Fuck me....what a load of cobblers, for a start I have nothing against anyone studying humanity or religion, in fact everyone studies it in their own way, they just may not see it. 

As for me being closed minded....what a fucking assumption! I have given God and religion more than a fair chance in my life so don't even try to sit on the other side assuming!

How young, stupid or just stuck in your own little world are you that you think the "old days" were a bunch of people in "Africa" on a bunch of buggies?? Do you have an image of some fucking Mormon in a buggy somewhere in Pennsylvania??

And I asked them to prove Gods existence because they keep banging on like he exists, so they should prove that, yet I find it ironic that a Christian never feels the need to prove his existence. 

Everything else in life requires proof and generally provides proof, science, nature etc.......except God's faith, for some reason it does not stand accountable for that...so it stands to reason that if it cannot be proved then perhaps their is no evidence of it.

Why did so many miraculous things happen back in the day yet we see no burning bushes or parting seas in modern times, where is Jesus or God if their religion and word is losing ground to the worlds population, why do they not come and try to reinvigorate it. 

The truth is there is no such thing, it was all made up, your Christian religion is based on a Pagan calender that worships the sun, nothing more. It has been embellished for 2000 years which is why we have so many dumb fucks that think they have to live a certain way or God will punish them when they try to go to heaven and instead banish them to hell....what a load of shit.

If only the dead could speak because they would probably tell you that a relationship with God helps you with emotion but nothing more, it's spirituality that matters not a religion or a book. 

Now you can keep arguing and trying to defend religion but it is the worst thing that ever happened to civilisation without a doubt!


----------



## deprave (Apr 25, 2011)

right on man, I understand your hatred and frustrations, I am not religious either and I have much of the same feelings as you but I am still open to discuss it and study it but it seems you made up your mind already - "africa and buggies" thing was a joke......you missed the main points in my post and that was at your statement asking for proof of god which you have to admit, youve made up your mind about this subject obviously(close minded) and you don't want to discuss it so why are you discussing it? And the second important point you missed is that there is lots of things in this world that can't be proven, simple as that.

and really watch some more zeitgist with your 'pagan sun worshiping comment' lol


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

you got something against shoe makers?

what has a cobbler ever done to you to warrant such an outburst anyhow?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Where are the "missing links the "transitional links" that are suppose to back evolution's * theory *? you got nothing-nothing. For evolution to exist there should be thousands and thousand of these little links spread throughout the fossil record. Are you so dense that nothing can get through to you? Are maybe you have your head somewhere else and you can't see straight. lol lol lol




i think the simple thing that your failing to see is that every fossil as well as every animal here today are in transitional form 
vestigial limbs in stuff like snakes is proof of transition


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

2 more cents.

There is nothing wrong with the Bible or following it's teachings. It's RELIGION that causes the problem.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

I heard a good explanation regarding the books left out of the Bible. The scholarly gentleman explained that to get the most accurate assessment of the life of Jesus, who DID exist, they chose to look at the accounts of those closest to him, i.e. the disciples, rather than take ALL of the writings including those of some that never met Him.


----------



## jimmy jones (Apr 25, 2011)

The devil only exsits because of your belief in him. Same goes for that other guy. Gods not a woman. He's a bitch.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

jimmy jones said:


> The devil only exsits because of your belief in him. Same goes for that other guy. Gods not a woman. He's a bitch.


How very respectful of you. I feel sorry for you, not b/c you don't believe, but rather for your immature, selfish, self-loathing, hatred.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

i maintain tis a fine craft


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> 2 more cents.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the Bible or following it's teachings. It's RELIGION that causes the problem.


Howbout that bit about keeping slaves or condemning homosexuality?


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

I view the Bible as basic rules to live by that were inspired by God through man. The simple fact that man had his hand in it means it CANNOT be perfect or a 100% accurate representation of the original meaning. It was THEN passed down from generation to generation and ammended time and again to suit each generations needs and biases. THEN each religion got ahold of it and twisted it even more for their own self-serving reasons(money and power come to mind). So when I go to Walmart and get a new Bible, King James, King James Revised, New International Version, etc. I am not receiving the words as they were originally written. HOWEVER, I have read the Bible cover to cover 3 times now(a pretty dry read at times and a very interesting one at others) and can say without a doubt that the overall message is one of peace, love, compassion, and health.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

depends entirely on your upbringing...some see no issue

being enslaved does not mean you have to be miserable you know


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

A true slave owner, while by very existence is witholding anothers freedom, STILL wants a productive servant. I believe that is something like what you were referring to Chubby?


----------



## jimmy jones (Apr 25, 2011)

Immature, selfish and self- loathing huh? Because its all a bunch of bullshit? Because I'm supposed to live my life a certain way (in fear of some "god") because a BOOK says so? A novel that somebody wrote and says its "gods" words in order to control and manipulate others into acting a certain way and follow rules of life handed down by the all knowing and powerful? Religion is nothing but a scare tactic and a system of control. If god does exist he is the hateful one not I. Natural disasters, starvation, rape, murder, child molesting. What good "god" allows that to happen? And don't feed me that "he gave us free will to choose our own ways" bullshit either. Gave me free will yet condemns me for choosing wrong? I call bullshit.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

indeed....if the master is clever enough, the slave never need realize they are enslaved to begin with...
they will be happy AND productive...all on their very own.
Masters need not be cruel....many aren't.
Parenting is just another form of slavery when you really get down to it...i see plenty of happy productive kids out there

this god fellow mastered that trick long ago...why you think he go so mad about the whole tree of knowledge thing?
besides...until the vast majority understand the only reason we got kicked out of the garden was to keep us away from the tree of life there's not much to argue about...


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

jimmy jones said:


> Immature, selfish and self- loathing huh? Because its all a bunch of bullshit? Because I'm supposed to live my life a certain way (in fear of some "god") because a BOOK says so? A novel that somebody wrote and says its "gods" words in order to control and manipulate others into acting a certain way and follow rules of life handed down by the all knowing and powerful? Religion is nothing but a scare tactic and a system of control. If god does exist he is the hateful one not I. Natural disasters, starvation, rape, murder, child molesting. What good "god" allows that to happen? And don't feed me that "he gave us free will to choose our own ways" bullshit either. Gave me free will yet condemns me for choosing wrong? I call bullshit.


Not immature, selfish, and self-loathing because you don't believe, as was said in the previous post. Those traits are the ones that you display by feeling the need to bash what someone believes instead of living and let live. What does his belief in the Bible matter to you? Why would you viciously attack someone that is TRYING to better there existence on this rock we call Earth? The overall message of the Bible is acceptance and love. Heck, love is one of the most common words used in the Bible. So, when you jump up and spew hate and vulgar insults, I feel sorry for you. Because you are living a VERY unhealthy, uptight, closed-minded, unhappy existence.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> indeed....if the master is clever enough, the slave never need realize they are enslaved to begin with...
> they will be happy AND productive...all on their very own.
> Masters need not be cruel....many aren't.
> Parenting is just another form of slavery when you really get down to it...i see plenty of happy productive kids out there
> ...


That last line is going to keep me awake tonight....


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

LIES! (i will attempt to distract you)
...the most common are 'and', 'the', and 'be'.
followed closely by,
'lord' 7970 times
'god' 4094 times
'man' 3323 times
'king' 2504 times
'sin' 1016 times

'love' appears a scant 314 times, however i am willing to allow variations on that word...
'love's' 1 time
'loved' 98 times
'lovedst' 2 times
'lovely' 4 times
'lover' 4 times
'lovers' 23 times
'loves' 2 times
'lovest' 12 times
'loveth' 65 times
'loving' 3 times
'lovingkindness' 26 times
'lovingkindnesses 4 times

giving us a grand total of 558....

*squints suspiciously*

...i counted....


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

I DID say ONE.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

I didn't search it, just based on my 3 readings. If you include IMPLICATIONS and STORY LINE, well....


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

yep. roflmao!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

Too many people view it as the unadulterated, never questioned, set in concrete, word of God. I see that as silly. Totality of the circumstances. That's my view anyways.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

aaahhhh....the promise of heaven...

no wants, no needs, no desires, no pain, no discomfort....no choices
we could be stacked up like old magazines in a closet and be perfectly cool with it...forever
all mine for the taking if i give up those things while i live.

sounds very much like slavery to me.
taking away those things from me devalues me...makes me less than human...less than nothing...

i don't like that idea.
not at all.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

I prefer to think of it as being able to do just about anything I want. With no worries of sickness, death, repercussions.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

i do that in my dreams...

O__o


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

deeee....emmmmm.....teeeee. That's what I hear anyway. Never tried.


----------



## jimmy jones (Apr 25, 2011)

I wasn't bashing anybody. I was giving my opinion. If you wanna live your life based on false hopes by all means go ahead. What you do with your life doesn't affect me one bit and I have no reason to bash somebody. Especially some internet user who I have never met nor probably ever will. If I bashed anything it was a book and the ideas it trys to force on us. Live like this or go to hell. I'm not buying it one bit. That's what I said then that's what I'm saying now. Did I ever resort to name calling like a damn 4 year old? No. But you did. If that makes u feel better or if you think ur "god" likes that behavior then keep acting like a little kid about it. Or accept the fact that once u die you're dead and that's that. Look who's bashing someone before you start talking shit about someone you know nothing about.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

I didn't intend to direct my description of your reaction(disrespectful to some regardless) to be an indictment. Just a simple observation of the language and it's root causes based on a post that called someone's God a bitch. Go ahead and continue this irrational and immature thought process if you'd like. Really it's not your thoughts that are the problem, rather how you choose to volatilly(?) express them. Acceptance of opposing beliefs not as YOUR truth, but his.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

newworldicon said:


> Why did so many miraculous things happen back in the day yet we see no burning bushes or parting seas in modern times


Because those things happened under the "Mosaic Law" and where done away with, because they had served their purpose-mainly to convince his followers to follow him and his father.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

deprave said:


> ". . .you missed the main points in my post and that was at your statement asking for proof of god which you have to admit, youve made up your mind about this subject obviously(close minded) and you don't want to discuss it so why are you discussing it? And the second important point you missed is that there is lots of things in this world that can't be proven, simple as that.
> 
> and really watch some more zeitgist with your 'pagan sun worshiping comment' lol lol


I notice that many in this thread miss the point!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How bout that bit about . . . condemning homosexuality?


I knew you had an agenda . . . The book of Isaiah mentions this subject. I'm sure you already knew, the one written on copper scrolls.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 25, 2011)

it's 23 pages long....in a stoner forum of all places....what did you expect?


----------



## Howard Stern (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Because those things happened under the "Mosaic Law" and where done away with, because they had served their purpose-mainly to convince his followers to follow him and his father.


So with so few people following the Bible why not throw out some more Miracles? My problem is that these TV preachers get on TV and swindle little old ladies out of their money! LOL Doesn't sound to christian to me. I believe the Bible was written to controll the masses and now they are using it to take advatage of people and get money from them. JMHO The reason you don't see miracles today is because they never happened, it is just a story. I find " religious " people are the most hipocritical deceptive people i have ever met. As soon as I find out people believe ever word in the bible I do loose respect for them and know that they don't have the ability to think for themselves. Every religion is the same, some make believe all powerfull entity up in the sky that you don't want to piss off or you will pay! Believing in God is as silly as worshiping a rock. Actualy I would rather believe in a rock, at least you can see a rock!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Totality of the circumstances. That's my view anyways.


That's a cope's view!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> That's a cope's view!


Took me a second, and I thought WTF??? LOL!!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> I view the Bible as basic rules to live by that were inspired by God through man.


It's good to see that yournot "straddling" the fence.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> It's good to see that yournot "straddling" the fence.


Well, some view it that way. Others view it more positively. 

MY personal belief is that MY God would want me to be independent and think for myself. That's why we have the choice to accept Him or not. I CANNOT put my faith in man, but am confident in my faith in God. And MAN has coddled, re-written(translated from the original Hebrew language without a full grasp of said language), and edited beyond anything NEAR what was originally written. Have you ever played that game where 10 friends sit around, one telss a secret and passes it to the right(kinda like a chiefing session!)? I have. And the end result has NEVER been the same as the original. MANKIND CORRUPTS THE INTENT/MEANING OF THE BIBLE, imho.


----------



## jimmy jones (Apr 25, 2011)

Corrupts the meaning? The meaning of it is CONTROL. There isn't much choice. Believe or be condemned. Its the same scare that wife beaters and slave owners use. Do as I do and do what I say or worse things will happen. Some savior. You CHOOSE to buy into it and be controlled. Dude you're being brainwashed. How much do you donate every week? The same ten percent my coworker gives EVERY week? What does "god" need my money for? All knowing, all powerful just can't seem to handle money. Does giving every week make you a good person? Does that get you a good seat in heaven?


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

jimmy jones said:


> Corrupts the meaning? The meaning of it is CONTROL. There isn't much choice. Believe or be condemned. Its the same scare that wife beaters and slave owners use. Do as I do and do what I say or worse things will happen. Some savior. You CHOOSE to buy into it and be controlled. Dude you're being brainwashed. How much do you donate every week? The same ten percent my coworker gives EVERY week? What does "god" need my money for? All knowing, all powerful just can't seem to handle money. Does giving every week make you a good person? Does that get you a good seat in heaven?


I guess it depends on perspective. There's no control from what I gather, disregarding man's hand. It's love and freedom for me.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

jimmy jones said:


> Corrupts the meaning? The meaning of it is CONTROL. There isn't much choice. Believe or be condemned. Its the same scare that wife beaters and slave owners use. Do as I do and do what I say or worse things will happen. Some savior. You CHOOSE to buy into it and be controlled. Dude you're being brainwashed. How much do you donate every week? The same ten percent my coworker gives EVERY week? What does "god" need my money for? All knowing, all powerful just can't seem to handle money. Does giving every week make you a good person? Does that get you a good seat in heaven?


When I give, it is for a cause I believe in. Have you never donated to a cause you deemed worthy? Please do.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

How much do you REALLY need anyway? Not much if you are living a respectable life, imho.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

Okay *budlover*, I'm going to see things as you do atm.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Okay *budlover*, I'm going to see things as you do atm.


Not trying to sway you in your belief. Just callin' it as i sees it.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

You can't get up that early to sway me. lol lol lol


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

Didn't think so brother!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

Howard Stern said:


> So with so few people following the Bible why not throw out some more Miracles?


Close your eyes and imagine anyone doing *supernatural* act in a populated city. What do thing would happen to that person?

Yeah! You see the picture?


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Close your eyes and imagine anyone doing *supernatural* act in a populated city. What do thing would happen to that person?
> 
> Yeah! You see the picture?


I THINK they would be a celebrity myself.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

Dead or missing celebrity.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

The Jews called Jesus all kinds of names, then handed him over to Pontius Pilate, for death.

I think you better "think" again bud.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

Pontius Pilot was keyholed as a scapegoat according to history. THEY wanted to not be seen as his persecutors, but as symapathisers. According to the church.

HISTORY, however, tells a different story. The Romans killed Jesus as a political move. The Jews had nothing to do with it.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 25, 2011)

I could show you Scripture to the contrary, but the point is that people did not like him even though he was admired.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 25, 2011)

Unless I saw said scripture in the original Hebrew, I would have a hard time believing.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

Pilot was a worn out, tired old man forced to choose between giving up an odd, relatively harmless, trouble making healer, or having Roman legions permanently swarm over his city....
I assure you he did not enjoy a comfortable nights sleep after that...


EDIT:
given the two evils.....what would you have chosen?


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

If it's a situation of kill one or many will die? Bye-bye to that one.


----------



## canada (Apr 26, 2011)

I have had alot of friends say that religion is causing all these problems in the middle east!!! Is there anyone on here that would agree that man causes war not religion.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

right...plus the dude he gave up just respawned after some lag....and all souls were then savable due to some glitch...
win win.....i guess...


how it was the Jews fault is beyond me though...but if you want to blame them, it really doesn't seem so bad given the context.
it really WAS the best move...


EDIT:
i remain in the boat that religion is the main cause of human warring...war is a natural state if you watch the animals....but we have no excuse...we can choose.

man created religion since our small mammal ancestors had a great need for imagination....and finding patterns in otherwise random events
being tiny and easily edible, it was important we didn't just assume that noise we just heard was just the wind....
the one's who imagined a predator made the noise obviously did better...it's a survival trait.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

I don't blame the Jews entirely. But DO believe that they had a hand in it. Jesus was destined to die either way. I mean he WAS going throughout the land and teaching morals/values/lessons on life and healing. All in direct opposition to not only the Romans, but to the Jewish religious leaders. Heck, he even got righteously angry and upturned the tables in the temple. I think he had a few enemies to watch out for.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

It's funny though b/c I was raised in the Nazarene church and VIVIDLY and CLEARLY recall all the teachings that focused on Pilot "washing his hands" of Jesus' blood. And therefore put 100% of the blame on the Jewish leadership of the time. Falsely, imho.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> EDIT:
> i remain in the boat that religion is the main cause of human warring...war is a natural state if you watch the animals....but we have no excuse...we can choose.


It was said that we don't have fee will. Have you flipped?


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

Matthew 27: 11-25...i remember well my parochial school teachings

yes...Pilate had a tough choice...washing his hands did not relive him of the death to me however.
when 10 people kill a person, each is not responsible 1/10th, but for the whole murder, deny it as they may.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> ". . .CLEARLY recall all the teachings that focused on Pilot "washing his hands" of Jesus' blood. And therefore put 100% of the blame on the Jewish leadership of the time. Falsely, imho.


It's false because it says so at *budlover 7:1-5* lol lol Please . . .


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

Me? flipped? 
...maybe...takes another person to make that call.....maybe i am...

The problem with those who say that once a person is saved he cannot lose his salvation is that such a doctrine necessarily requires the belief that man does not have free will...

they tend to use scripture to support this notion
Acts 13:48
Romans 8:29-30
Timothy 1:9
Ephesians 1:4-5
Thessalonians 2:11-13
Jude 4
I can see their point to be honest...however...
Logically, one could argue that it makes no sense for God to give commandments to men if they have no choice in following them or not. 
One could not sin, because sin implies a choice to obey. 
If one has no choice but to violate a command, then logic says they can not be held accountable for the sin. 
However, that is logic, not scripture....

Fortunately, the scriptures also say man has free will. 
Deuteronomy 30:19
Joshua 24:15
Proverbs 3:31
James 4:17
there are others of course...but i won't include them to save on time...scripture quite clearly says we have a choice

the contradicting nature of the book itself FORCES one to choose what is right for them...and if that isn't enough, well...

god approached man by offering a savior for sin. 
Now it is up to man to accept that offering. 
We must approach god in the way that he has designated, in response to his approaching us. 
We must CHOOSE to do so.
It&#8217;s a mutual kind of thing, except God came the farthest in his approach to man. 

all depends how you were raised, which view you hold to...they are both in the good book


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

...plus if we didn't have a choice....well... a lot of priests certainly have been wasting their time up on the ol pulpit eh?


----------



## redivider (Apr 26, 2011)

fuck the church.

if you want to believe in god and jesus that's fine.

you should not have to give 10% of your salary if it was really all about faith. but it's not.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> It's false because it says so at *budlover 7:1-5* lol lol Please . . .


Huh?????????


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> Me? flipped?
> ...maybe...takes another person to make that call.....maybe i am...


Bullshit, you flipped big time. Now you're dodging. Incidentally, the bible doesn't teach being saved.

Would you like to try again?


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

Sure why not? I don't believe any of it anyways...

imho, no place in scripture can answer your question quite like Acts 2:38. 

Acts 2 is an ideal place to study salvation for several reasons. 
To start with, it is the first place that God&#8217;s complete plan of salvation is announced. 
Secondly, it contains the preaching of an inspired apostle, Peter, who spoke exactly what the Holy Spirit told him to say. 
Third, and most important to our study, Acts 2 begins with unsaved people and ends with saved people. 
What happens to them in this chapter that moves them from a state of being lost to a state of being saved is of primary importance. 

you do not agree?
o__o


----------



## sso (Apr 26, 2011)

yes...Pilate had a tough choice...washing his hands did not relive him of the death to me however.
when 10 people kill a person, each is not responsible 1/10th, but for the whole murder, deny it as they may

text like that is especially suspicous, knowing that the roman empire became the roman church, because all their soldiers had turned christian, the emperor pretended to have a dream where their soldiers won and under a cross, so he had them make a flag with a cross on it.

besides its full known (by scholars anyway) that the bible was much altered when put together by the roman empire. (formerly the enemy of all christians lol)

knowing somewhat about the roman emperors does explain abit about the numbers of pedophiles within their ranks. and knowing somewhat about them and later churchleaders makes one think that the whole bible is totally cast in doubt as anything but fiction, one would need to learn the ancient languages and get your hands on the oldest texts to see whats what (and they usually have lots of text missing and or using language that makes little sense today)

the bible has some philosophical truths, but is mostly a dry collection of boring stories and jewish linealogy, the jews on the other hand possibly invented bullshit artists and knowing somewhat about their priests, casts the whole old testament in doubt as political propaganda, inspired by true events and a thinker or 2 and then spundoctored into this fancy tale.

the new testament, is possibly and probably based on a real life person, but since the first records were written 80 years later and tampered with by the roman empire and possibly its original writers, everything is cast into doubt except the message of compassion and love.

and even that could have been stolen from buddhist teachings. predating jesus by 500 years.

all the surviving records about this time (and the mention of jesus) were roman, bunch of unscrupulous bastards. can not really trust them, the history is written by the victors, as they see fit.

as many scholars see it, the roman empire sculpted a faith, combing elements from many faiths (for example christmas, formerly the festival of the light, a very "pagan" festival, easter as well, the festival of fertility (why do you think they got the bunnies on easter, bit of a coincidence "christ" being born and killed onthose festivals? and says alot about the roman empire and their politicans)

its an adaptive religion, much of what is part of modern christianity is fairly new, though ideas like heaven and hell were invented around 600 ad.
though i doubt the line "heaven is all around you(meaning heaven is on earth, if you make it so)" was invented by the romans,they just took alot of good stuff (or it wouldnt have captured peoples imagination so) that people allready believed in or much, put it all together edited what didnt fit them and made a nice stew out of it.

not essentially a bad thing, it unified the world a bit, but few years down the line they got really drunk on power and started selling absolution and torturing people.

making statements like the pope is basically god on earth (still in effect actually)
or was it nr 2, forget lol.

aside from some philosophical tidbits its a rather boring nonsense and i fail to see how this could have generated so much hoopla, but i suppose people are just really afraid and insecure about their lot in life and really jumping at the chance of someone bossing them around and telling them what to do, the higher the authority the better.

like having giant parents (single father this case lol) all the time, with strict rules and guidelines and you have to please them to get the cookies (heaven)
if you are bad you get the belt (hell)

of course this one has the power to make it forever (scaring a shitload of people with the idea)

semisick insane idea, (speaking mildly) but it sure has garnered a lot of loot and power to alot of people.
though i suppose it also makes a lot of people feel good too. so not all bad (if you dont take into consideration that even happy religious people tend to make atheists miserable)

blablabla, i get bored even writing about this claptrap.


----------



## sso (Apr 26, 2011)

to put it simply, the bible is a big piling steam of turd with a single nugget of gold in it.

the message of truth and love.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

incidentally, star trek/star wars conventions and church gatherings pretty much look the same to me if it helps any...

*looking*


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

Very well thought out sso. At first, I agreed wholeheartedly, but towards the end not so much. But, I believe in God. You HAVE however, VERY accurately described the true history of the Bible and the reason I NEVER cite it in a debate as being an absolute truth. I refer to it and I try to live by it's themes of love and peace, but I don't cite it as fact. Because if ANY other text had been as manipulated and twisted as the Bible, it wouldn't make it into a first grade classroom. Just saying. I like to be able to defend my position with solid facts. Faith may give me inner peace, but it doesn't win debates.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

LOL Chubby!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Very well thought out sso. At first, I agreed wholeheartedly, but towards the end not so much. But, I believe in God. You HAVE however, VERY accurately described the true history of the Bible and the reason I NEVER cite it in a debate as being an absolute truth. I refer to it and I try to live by it's themes of love and peace, but I don't cite it as fact. Because if ANY other text had been as manipulated and twisted as the Bible, it wouldn't make it into a first grade classroom. Just saying. I like to be able to defend my position with solid facts. Faith may give me inner peace, but it doesn't win debates.


The above is taken from,* budlover* *13:6-9* Give me a break and read the entire thread.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

Uhmmm, I have buz. Been continuing to read it. Haven't understood it all, but read it. Just as I did with the Bible. But with both, I take into account where the info is coming from and give it logical and sensible weight accordingly.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

It sounds like I have my own book now. I'm a poet and didn't know it!


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

it's not good to be swayed by a finger wearing an acorn cap....just saying

dwell long and hard....you'll figure it out.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> I've unsubscribed to this thread 4 times now,


You lie, just like the *cop* you're


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> I'm a poet and didn't know it!


You sir are a lier and everyone knows it.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

i like cabbage.

....good solid plant


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> i like cabbage.
> 
> ....good solid plant


No sir, you like bullshit hot on a platter, eaten with a fork. That's how you like it.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

*stamps foot outraged*
i prefer the title: shit on a stick, thank you very much...

no...wait...

drippy shit on a broken stick....yes.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You sir are a lier and everyone knows it.


*Ad Hominem* (the argument against the man) 
Attacking the person's _character_ instead of attacking the _argument_.
Examples:
"Why should I listen to your opinion on philosophy, you barely graduated high school."
"You think you are capable of debating evolutionary theory while you sit there and smoke weed all day?"


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> No sir, you like bullshit hot on a platter, eaten with a fork. That's how you like it.


*Red Herring*
An attempt to _divert_ the argument or _change the subject_
Examples:
Person A- "Bush should have been tried as a war criminal."
Person B- "What about all the other people in the world that commit crimes and get away with it? What about that justice not served? In fact, the murder rate in Romania is bla bla yack yack....."


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

Both classic examples of a person that argues from a weak position.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

^^^ How can anyone trust what you say, when you've already "perjured" yourself. People see this in the thread;you can't hide it - *cop*!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

Perjured? Where? Two conflicting quotes that prove perjury in the same post. Show everyone how much I lie.

Oh yeah. Ad Hominem, yet again.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

*I choose you! GO!
Non Sequitur!
**Argumentum ad populum!

*pamft pamft*

TACKLE! D:
*


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

Yeah, idk. I may have some stoned rambling somewhere in the thread, but....LOL!!!


----------



## Maximus cannabis (Apr 26, 2011)

We're an alien experiment gone wrong. Everyone just admit it.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ How can anyone trust what you say, when you've already "perjured" yourself. People see this in the thread;you can't hide it - *cop*!


Nice edit. You know, people USED to get shot for falsely impuning a man's character. Good thing you live in this day and age. The vitriolic garbage you spew all the time would've made for a very short life expectancy in 1800.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Nice edit. You know, people USED to get shot for falsely impuning a man's character. Good thing you live in this day and age. The vitriolic garbage you spew all the time would've made for a very short life expectancy . . ."


You should know *cop!* I bet you've shot many peaceful budlovers in your career.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 26, 2011)

Hey *budlover*, you fuck with the bull, you get the horn-every time.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

Uhhmmmm, I never denied being an ex-cop. If THAT'S your beef with me, well, grow up. So you impune by lying about me lying, spread hatred, lies and the delusions in your head, and have a problem with me because I was a cop 15 years ago. Sums up your history fairly well I believe. Come back when you can ACT like an adult, regardless of your age.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

And I didn't need to know you're horny either, thank you very much.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

soooo....ever get around to finding salvation and free choice in the ol book there yet?
i provided specific passages for your inspection and everything.... 


I'd sure hate for you to miss out on all that....
i know it's a lot...and you have a whole barrel full of other questions you have yet to answer from other users, so if you need more study time, please just let me know.

o__o


----------



## KlosetKing (Apr 26, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> i provided specific passages for your inspection and everything....


 I did it on multiple occasions as well, and got nothing. Then only after i left the thread did he start with more bashing, and in so many words, claiming he won. He is only going to continue with insults and dodging until you ask so many questions you forget all about ones you asked earlier. As someone said before, spinning wheels here.

I know i said i was done but i couldn't resist. Your trying to reason with the unreasonable. He must be pretty proud of having 30 pages of successfully trolling and dodging.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

no worries...he can't edit the rest of our posts.....if i forget, i'll just page back

I'm thoughtlessly enjoying myself...been good practice


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 26, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> no worries...he can't edit the rest of our posts.....if i forget, i'll just page back
> 
> I'm thoughtlessly enjoying myself...been good practice


It is good practice. Gotta sharpen the old debate knife on solid rock once in awhile! LOL!


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

seems our friend is napping....onward then!

who among us remaining knows the ten commandments? I mean REALLY knows them? 
Seems a silly question, i know...

What if i where to say every Decalogue you have seen is totally bogus?
Every fight and public protest over where they are displayed is for naught.....pointless
Madness surely, one might say....i wouldn't blame you...let's see what the good book has to say....it should know.

Let us begin this study by turning to Exodus 20:2-17 in our king james bible
Here we see that all to familiar list of rules about having no other gods, honoring your parents, not killing or coveting, and so on. 
At this point, though, Moses is just repeating to the people what God told him on Mount Si&#8217;nai. 
These are not actually written down in any form.
I know....shocking....so what of it?

Exodus 31:18, that's what....Moses journeys back where God gives him two &#8220;tables of stone&#8221; with rules written on them.
A tired Moses comes down the mountain lugging his heavy load, an sees the people worshipping a statue of a calf... 
Exodus 32:19 in fact, he throws a tantrum of epic proportions, and goes on to force the fools to eat their false god
....most importantly though, he has smashed his tablets in his rage.
oops, and oh shit....poor Moses...

...point being, in neither of these cases does the Bible refer to &#8220;commandments.&#8221; 
In the first instance, they are &#8220;words&#8221; which &#8220;God spake,&#8221; while the tablets in the second instance contain &#8220;testimony.&#8221; 

Exodus 34:28 is where the proverbial poo hits the fan...
An embarrassed Moses goes back for new tablets...this is when we finally see the phrase &#8220;ten commandments&#8221;.
Hold on to your hat!

In an interesting turn of events, the commandments on these ver. 2.0 tablets are significantly different than the ten rules Moses recited for the people.

anyhow....here they are, the ten commandments as per the bible...it's a riot for me....
*I.* Thou shalt worship no other god.​ *II.* Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.​ *III.* The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.​ *IV.* Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.​ *V.* Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year&#8217;s end.​ *VI.* Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.​ *VII.* Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.​ *VIII.* Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.​ *IX.* The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.​ *X.* Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother&#8217;s milk.
​


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm selfish.....i just like to let everyone know that they are going to hell with me?

no disrespect of course.....it may prove useful for someone


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

Yes, I declare YOU, ChubbySoap...........The CHAMPION!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsxRbgswds

Which Bible are you reading Chubby? Those aren't the words I've read. I copy and pasted this to save typing:

*12*Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 
*13*Thou shalt not kill. 
*14*Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
*15*Thou shalt not steal. 
*16*Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. *17*Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And this is the 10 Commandments listed in Deutronomy Ch 5:

*2*The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 
*3*The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 
*4*The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, 
*5*(I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount saying, 
*6*I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 
*7*Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 
*8*Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 
*9*Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 
*10*And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 
*11*Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 
*12*Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. 
*13*Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: 
*14*But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 
*15*And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 
*16*Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 
*17*Thou shalt not kill. 
*18*Neither shalt thou commit adultery. 
*19*Neither shalt thou steal. 
*20*Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 
*21*Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. 
*22*These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. 
*23*And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; *24*And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 

I'm not finding what you're quoting.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

Heh! Got a surprise smiley in there! It must be a hidden message from God.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 27, 2011)

XD

king james of course...mine is a rather older copy....but the internet provides

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Exodus&chapter=20&verse=
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Exodus&chapter=31&verse=
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Exodus&chapter=32&verse=
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Exodus&chapter=34&verse=


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

Wow Chubby. I've never thought of it that way. VERY interesting. It seems as though I have some more research to do.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 27, 2011)

i do jokes derived from the bible too! 

Job: &#8230;
God: Well, this is awkward.


God: Abraham, you must circumcise yourself.
Abraham: As you wish, my lord! *grabs knife* 
God: Oh my Me... He&#8217;s totally going to do it!


EDIT:
ignore me i'm stoned to the gills...i already regret posting that
:facepalm:

Dx


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

No, it was funny. More people need to loosen up when speaking of the and discussing the Bible. I mean, I believe in God. And while he's a vengeful, jealous God, so am I. Naturally. I view God as less of a Father and more as a friend. And when I talk to/with friends, I joke. It's my personality. It helps me not take the world so darn serious. And most of my friends agree that they like this newer me. SOME think I'm irreverent and going to hell. Some think I should do standup. Others think I'm just stoned. And their right about that! But love me or hate me, I'm still going to joke around.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 27, 2011)

even i got to learn something today
i had forgotten about that bit in Exodus 34:14....God's name is revealed.......Jealous...

that might explain a few things...or at the very least provide some food for thought during journeys


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

He who stops learning, stops growing. He who has no faith in anything, will find that he is wandering in circles.

My new quote(found it today on another thread) for my son when I am trying to enlighten him either through showing him how to work on the car or speaking to him about the deeper aspects of life:

Son, pay attention or pay tuition.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> even i got to learn something today
> i had forgotten about that bit in Exodus 34:14....God's name is revealed.......Jealous...
> 
> that might explain a few things...or at the very least provide some food for thought during journeys


BrotherBuz: See where a calm, logical, polite conversation can lead to good things. Chubby and I, while we don't hold the exact same beliefs, have conducted ourselves in a respectable manner and both walked away learning something new. Amazing how it works that way.

And people wonder why the world is going to hell in a handbasket.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 27, 2011)

Damn rebels......

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 27, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Wow Chubby. I've never thought of it that way. VERY interesting. It seems as though I have some more research to do.


Check out this website
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Check out this website
> http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm


Just the first comparison was very interesting THAT is what I was looking for in my earlier posts. Bookmarked for future study. Bedtime now. 

Thank you!


----------



## Shadydude (Apr 27, 2011)

People Revere the Bible as the "Word of GOD, because most people, don't know no better.
GOD is bigger than the Bible, Quran/Koran or the Torah.
When people understand that we all have the same LIFE FORCE as the Supreme Creator,
People won't put some much value on those man made books.
GOD Dwells in all beings and experiences all things through Man.
The Bible and Quran are supposed to be used as tools to help Man on his day to day struggles here on Earth, in this physical plane.
They are all interpretations. 
Go do your history on King James. He translated the Bible into his own point of view to control the masses of the people.
The most important books are missing from the Bible!!!
God is bigger than Christianity, Islam or any other religion.
The word religion means to bind back to your source of Creation.
Meaning....man is on a spiritual quest to understand what and who GOD is.
God dwells in all of us, most people don't understand what this means and what powers they really have within.
Since there is so much confusion here on earth, most people on will never will awaken the true God qualities and potentials that they have.
We all get caught up in foolishness, which keeps our true Godiness dormant.
In the Bible and the Quran, they both say...Ye are all gods. Meaning, we have the same oneness and qualities as the Supreme Being.
Most people will never understand this.


----------



## Shadydude (Apr 27, 2011)

Those are man made rules. Those are rules set by King James, not GOD THE CREATOR~~!


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 27, 2011)

i understand until we break back in and steal some fruit from the tree of life that god peep has hiding, we will be nothing like gods....
the spark of life bestowed by a particular god is nothing like the life force it possesses.
though the mere idea is delightful in of itself...

i don't need the king james version....i'd be happy to poke at any version, but i warn you i have limited dialects.
they all basically boil down to tools alright....like a gun that fires from both ends simultaneously whenever you pull the trigger
...real helpful and straight forward when you have the right point of view....whatever that is.

god's simple words were lost long ago....we much each wait until he gets around to us personally to tell us himself
that's all there is.

*holds out hands innocently*


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 27, 2011)

take the whole praying bit...
nearly all gods are all knowing and have some sort of super secret squirrel plan....for it all...
so we pray to them, to assist our journeys, plead for whatever, give thanks, and so on...like they don't already know any better....

as if our praying will suddenly make the god in question go, "oh yeah...donno why i didn't think of that...sorry bout that....here you go little jiggly. *piff* seahawks win this year" or "you're welcome."

riiiiiight....
O__<


EDIT:
who actually takes the time to face Mecca correctly now that we know the earth is a sphere? seriously....who?

EDIT2:
.....oblate spheroid....whatever....the point is still valid


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 27, 2011)

I view praying in more of a reverence thing. If you are going to ask, God already knows. As I know when my son wants a given item. And instead of asking "Dad can I have this?" he quite often will say "Oh wow, that sure looks good." or "That's neat dad! It sure would be nice to have one!". I feel that God is much the same. I rarely(occassionally) get him a toy or candy or w/e without him asking for it. And when he's done beating around the bush, I say "Well, all you've got to do is _ask."_


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 27, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> I know i said i was done but i couldn't resist. Your trying to reason with the unreasonable.


Like a moth, drawn to the flame.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 27, 2011)

Shadydude said:


> Those are man made rules. Those are rules set by King James, not GOD THE CREATOR~~!


What you say does not hold water, because if it did, the *Dead Sea Scrolls *would be filled with errors. But instead, after 2,000 of translating, no error were found. This is not made up; this is physical evidence-not made up shit. Where is your Beef man?


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 28, 2011)

hey now! play fair...

only half....the new testament wasn't written yet...
oh, and the Book of Esther is missing for some odd reason....
*winks*

the only issue after that is the nagging detail the Dead Sea manuscripts have been scientifically dated and are known to have been written before the time of Christ.
most notably The Book of Isaiah, 100 to 250 years before Christ was tottering around...the very same person whom it portrays! 
The text is indeed virtually identical to what we can read today in our Bibles.
the implications are uncomfortable to say the least after a clear moments thought
...
but it's okay....we can spin this to your benefit and sow more seeds of confusion...allow me a chance to craft the reply.....here we go...

God is merciful, He preserves His Word, and diligently provides proof of His existence to those who earnestly seek Him.
This only PROVES the Dead Sea Scrolls God has given us an_ authentication of the authentication_. 
First, for authentication of Jesus as the true Messiah, He provided many prophecies that were fulfilled only in Him and no-one else. 
Now, to a later unbelieving generation, He has proved to us that these prophecies were exactly what they claimed to be, because we now have clear evidence that they were written well before the time Jesus Christ came to this earth. 
First God authenticated His Son and His Word by the fulfillment of these prophecies. 
Now He has further sealed this authentication with the stamp of time and history. 
Nothing can now change this.
mahahaha....

indeed...
my response is simple distraction in such cases....such as,
the OTHER manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls prove very interesting as well...they have opened wide a door to the culture, thoughts, ideas, customs and religious practices of the Jews living at the time of Christ. 
This ignored information has showed clearly that the Books of the New Testament were not out of context to the time of Christ....and regrettably not the hogwash myth as claimed by more liberal interpretations

EDIT:
*squints suspiciously*
..as far as my research allows so far...i seem to be finding a 5% deviation twixt the texts....it's marginal to be sure....but it's no 100%


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 28, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> but it's okay....we can spin this to your benefit . . .


Okay! . . . Now spin it to your benefit. Lets see it.


----------



## Stalwart (Apr 28, 2011)

Essentially the answer to the original question is: People are habituated to life. Beyond any other thing you could say is that! So as it says in the bible "Bring up a child in the way he must go and when he is old he will not depart from it" So it's part just practice that keeps these folks stuck but it starts with the other thing we can say about folks and that's they are vulnerable/fearful/scared and anything that brings comfort including drugs pot or religion and that people are habituated to and they are gonna do it. My question is why aren't pot heads organizing to spread that good news!


----------



## mccumcumber (Apr 28, 2011)

Hmm fosil records state that humans are only 5k years old do they...

Well, this piece of art was found in Austria in 1908, due to carbon dating (I know you deny science, but this is how we measure how old fossils are so you're fucking yourself denying this) we found out that this was made in ~25000 BCE, this time period is known as the stone age, where modern humans in EUROPE (they had been around for a while to make it to Europe) started using stone tools to develop, showing evidence of intelligence. These are believed to be our ancestors (if you are of European decent):
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/venus-of-willendorf.htm

As far as evolution is concerned... are you completely ignoring the fossils that were discovered in Africa that found three prehuman ancestors? Maybe do some research before bring up fossil records.
I know you won't trust the chronicle because it's far too liberal and from San Francisco but, here's a link to an article that will show you everything to look up:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/12/FOSSIL.TMP

So now onto the bible. Well how did any religion start. You have two cavemen, unkk and joe.
Lets start at 25000 BCE, the same time that the art piece was made.
Unkk and Joe wonder why caveman are on earth.
Joe does shrooms or some sort of hallucinogen and discovers answers to everything from powers that are beyond human comprehension.
Prehistoric religion is born.
20000 BCE
People who do hallucinogens regularly are considered the wise and the shamans. They "know the will of the gods."
5000 BCE
Concentrated groups of humans form small civilizations, shamans play larger rolls and have temples built in their gods honor. 
3000 BCE 
Horus is born through Egyptian Myths... Who's story is extremely similar to Jesus'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIMFz5ZKDVo
~1300
Moses is born, frees the Jews from Egyptian slavery, all Jews know the story of Horus very well after being slaves for so long.
Moses goes to Mount Sinai and sees God and is given the 10 commandments. Funny thing about Mount Sinai, one the largest areas where shrooms grow naturally in the world is Mount Sinai. Hmm...
~3 ACE
Jesus is born, his life is very similar to Horus
~200 ACE 
New testament is finished.
~500 ACE
Emperor Constantine moves Rome's epicenter to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) changes the religion and bible so that the dates of birth of the gods coincides with the Jewish and christian holy men. Thus Christmas and Easter are born. This eliminates thoughts of heresy because of the similarities. Constantine raises church's position in empire. 
Orthodox and Catholic religions split.
~1000 ACE
Religion goes from holy practice to governing rule of the united nations of Europe after the Roman Empire has fallen completely. They call themselves the Holy Roman Empire.
The bible is altered NUMEROUS times to better benefit the pope and papacy. The pope was considered to be a "ruler anointed by God" much like the Egyptian pharaohs 3000 years before.
~1500 ACE
Martin Luther is tired of how corrupt the church is and forms the protestant religion. The papacy, still a very controlling part of Europe, change the bible to stop mass conversion and loss of power.
Gutenberg creates printing press, first book to go out on public record is the bible, they take a version from Rome that had just been altered, because it is considered to be the most accurate. From here the bible was not significantly altered because it was in wide circulation, and any large changes would be very noticeable.

Just my .02, don't mean to offend you man. It's impressive that you have so much faith, something I know I couldn't have.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 28, 2011)

didn't mean to steal your thunder yo...

;___;


----------



## ChubbySoap (Apr 28, 2011)

I already said i don't believe either side anyhow...i have no need for benefits in this particular arena 
i tend to treat debates and chess the same way....it's a hell of a lot easier to play when you never have the intention of winning the round for yourself....all one need really do is to keep the opponent from winning

you seemed to have missed my question in the second part concerning those scrolls you're always thumping about as well...
how bout the rest of documents laying with the copper scrolls yo? you get around to reading those yet?
i absolutely hate to waste others pain...lol

i thought you said there was no errors...and there is a 5% deviation 
Please clarify your position


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 30, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> I already said i don't believe either side anyhow. . .


Yeah! Whichever way the wind blows


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 30, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Yeah! Whichever way the wind blows


Dude, I know you're just trollin', and doing a fine job at it, but for the love of your fake god, please try to put an original thought together... You know, words strung together in an organized fashion completing a sentence... You can do it, I have _faith_ in you!


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 30, 2011)

^^^ You best watch it buddy . . . I love to impale dudes like you!!


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 30, 2011)

With *logic*. lol. You really are a pitbull. I don't agree, but admire your tenacity.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 30, 2011)

^^^ What you think isn't important to me.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 30, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ What you think isn't important to me.


GOOD! Then you MAY have started on your path of enlightenment. If not, clear your mind of the ego that seems to be so prevalent in there.


----------



## BrotherBuz (Apr 30, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Well, this piece of art was found in Austria in 1908, due to carbon dating (I know you deny science, but this is how we measure how old fossils are so you're fucking yourself denying this) we found out that this was made in ~25000 BCE, this time period is known as the stone age . . ."
> 
> Just my .02 . . ." It's impressive that you have so much faith . . . "


Okay I'll give you 95% of it. I found this:


I understand how radioactive dating works, but something about it concerns me. Let me illustrate. If we have a rock and assume that it was 100% carbon-14 at formation, and we now measure it to be 25% carbon-14 and 75% nitrogen-14 (I know nitrogen is a gas, but bear with me), then we can calculate that the rock has been around long enough to pass through 2 half-lives (2 x 5,730 years = 11,460 years). That makes the rock 11,460 years old. 

However...

This measurement seems to hinge on the fact that we <i>know</i> that the rock was originally 100% carbon-14. If, in fact, the rock was 50% carbon-14 and 50% nitrogen-14 at its formation, then it would actually be only 5,730 years old (only half the originally calculated age). It goes without saying that this is a significant deviance.

So then, how do scientists know what the original composition of rocks were?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 30, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Okay I'll give you 95% of it. I found this:
> 
> 
> I understand how radioactive dating works, but something about it concerns me. Let me illustrate. If we have a rock and assume that it was 100% carbon-14 at formation, and we now measure it to be 25% carbon-14 and 75% nitrogen-14 (I know nitrogen is a gas, but bear with me), then we can calculate that the rock has been around long enough to pass through 2 half-lives (2 x 5,730 years = 11,460 years). That makes the rock 11,460 years old.
> ...


We don't date rocks using radioactive carbon. We only date things of organic origin. When something dies, it stops incorporating carbon into its system. The only source of carbon-14 is from CO2 in the atmosphere. The only assumption that has to be made is that that level of carbon-14 has been relatively stable over the last 60,000 years or so. 
One of the ways that carbon dating has been supported is by dating an item of an age that is known from historical documents. This was done by Libby who ended up winning the Nobel Prize. It has been consistent when cross-checked to other samples as well. 

With other radiometric dating techniques, the sample selection is important to avoid contaminants to avoid the problem you just outlined. When hot magma is cooled creating igneous rock, both the parent and the daughter isotopes are trapped and neither can leave or enter the material. Only when re-heated is the clock set back to zero.


----------



## budlover13 (Apr 30, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Okay I'll give you 95% of it. I found this:
> 
> 
> I understand how radioactive dating works, but something about it concerns me. Let me illustrate. If we have a rock and assume that it was 100% carbon-14 at formation, and we now measure it to be 25% carbon-14 and 75% nitrogen-14 (I know nitrogen is a gas, but bear with me), then we can calculate that the rock has been around long enough to pass through 2 half-lives (2 x 5,730 years = 11,460 years). That makes the rock 11,460 years old.
> ...


Ahhh, Brother. You are seeing my belief! NOTHING is true, unless you believe it is. Both sides have a stake in science/logic. But only because they BELIEVE. In other words, those that are devout Atheists(as an example since I know quite a few. And "devout" infers "faith") STILL have faith in the unknown, therefore their opinion is no more valid than mine.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> We don't date rocks using radioactive carbon. We only date things of organic origin.


This was part of my point you to *Mccumcumber!*


----------



## mindphuk (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> This was part of my point you to *Mccumcumber!*


 How exactly was that part of your point when the only thing you mentioned was rocks? Rocks are not organic in case you didn't know.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 1, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Ahhh, Brother. You are seeing my belief! NOTHING is true, unless you believe it is. Both sides have a stake in science/logic. But only because they BELIEVE. In other words, those that are devout Atheists(as an example since I know quite a few. And "devout" infers "faith") STILL have faith in the unknown, therefore their opinion is no more valid than mine.


There is a fundamental difference in the definitions of faith in science and faith in religion, you must agree with that, right?

The logic presented in the theists position is constructed using blind faith, belief for that with isn't there to test/measure. The only faith ever observed in the scientists position is a natural consequence of the reality we occupy - in other words, there is nothing we can do, as a conscious organism, to be absolutely certain about anything.

Life, in itself, must be taken with some degree of faith (brain in a vat), but there are tools weve invented to overcome the constraints this faith presents to us. This is one of the main reasons the scientific method is so important.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> How exactly was that part of your point when the only thing you mentioned was rocks? Rocks are not organic in case you didn't know.


Read the thread man!!


----------



## mindphuk (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Read the thread man!!


I only have to read your post to know you don't understand what you are talking about. Your typical response seems to be that everything you say is self-evident yet no one actually agrees with you on that. I answered you problems with carbon dating and the only response was more avoidance and deflection. Do you actually know how to have a mature dialogue with another person? So far it appears the answer is "no."


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I answered you problems with carbon dating and the only response was more avoidance and deflection.



Does my post to *Mccumcumber* indicate I don't know about carbon dating?


----------



## Leothwyn (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Does my post to *Mccumcumber* indicate I don't know about carbon dating?


Yeah, it does. You were talking about carbon dating a rock.



BrotherBuz said:


> I understand how radioactive dating works, but something about it concerns me. Let me illustrate. If we have a rock and assume that it was 100% carbon-14 at formation, and we now measure it to be 25% carbon-14 and 75% nitrogen-14 (I know nitrogen is a gas, but bear with me), then we can calculate that the rock has been around long enough to pass through 2 half-lives (2 x 5,730 years = 11,460 years). That makes the rock 11,460 years old.


----------



## mindphuk (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Does my post to *Mccumcumber* indicate I don't know about carbon dating?


Your post indicates that you think that we radiocarbon date rocks. We don't. I was merely trying to be helpful and explain the difference between carbon dating and other forms of radiometric dating that we do use to date rocks. Instead of actually recognizing your error (again) and modifying your position as to why carbon dating is unreliable based on the new information I posted, you merely post your one-liner response that doesn't actually address the points I made. As I said, if you want to disagree, that's fine but at least have the courtesy to dialogue rather than monologue and assume everyone understands everything you say even with the errors (such as citing Job when you meant Isaiah and act as if it should have been obvious to everyone).


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> We don't date rocks using radioactive carbon. We only date things of organic origin.


Again, this was my point to *Mccumcumber*, concerning the _Venus of Willendorf_, which is a piece limestone rock.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The logic presented in the theists position is constructed using blind faith, belief for that with isn't there to test/measure.


The logic presented here is fixed in bedrock via fossils, which can be measured and tested. What do you have to show? You got nothing-nothing!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> The logic presented here is fixed in bedrock via fossils, which can be measured and tested. What do you have to show? You got nothing-nothing!


You are, and continue to be, the ONLY person here with, as you so eloquently say, 'nothing-nothing!'

Those fossils back up evolution theory FAR more often than they disprove it, on ANY level of bedrock. Just saying 'you got nothing' in a post, then saying 'nailed it' to yourself while walking away from your pc does NOT make you right. And your 141 posts trying to make it so have been fruitless.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 1, 2011)

Lets call those fossils, say, verses in the bible.

Then, lets say, each of those verses are referencing the Earth.

Now lets say you dumbed it all down to 10 verses. Let us also say that, Creationism, would be one of those verses referencing the earth as a 'sphere', and Evolution would be those verses referring the world as flat and/or 2 dimensional. For every NINE verses you find that calls the Earth 'flat' (fossils that support evolution), you only find ONE that DOESN'T support it.

So again, im led to believe that 'faith' is really only about belief in the impossible/improbable. You say the bible called the Earth a sphere because of ONE verse (though EVERY other verse other than the one you provided contradicts it), and yet you say it makes it fact. You say that Evolution is not possible for the very same reason. Catch my drift? 

One level of bedrock has some questions still unanswered, and that's all the doubt you need to shrug off evolution. ONE verse defies ALL others in the bible, and you still reference it as if its the word of god himself.

Your something else man.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

^^^ Just running your mouth does not show me nothing. I have physical evidence and you?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> One level of bedrock has some questions still unanswered, and that's all the doubt you need to shrug off evolution. ONE verse defies ALL others in the bible, and you still reference it as if its the word of god himself.Your something else man.


Have you read the entire Scripture? If you did you would know that that its harmonious, with a very big theme-no bullshit talking in circles like you.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Just running your mouth does not show me nothing. I have physical evidence and you?


 Oh im over giving you physical evidence fool. Its like giving a monkey toolset. He'll look it over for a bit, get angry when he realizes he cant figure out how to use them, then start throwing them angrily at other monkeys.

We have provided you links on mulitple occasions, all of which you completely ignore or throw out some wild anecdotal claim with NO link to back it up.

I ran my mouth, and you could only tell me its nothing, AGAIN. Try answering the question? Try actually reading the thread? Other people are reading it, and they are understanding it, and continuing with posts like 'just running your mouth' 'nothing-nothing' 'are you seeing the light' isnt getting you anywhere.

I really cant wait, i say by 400 posts, your reputation will have fallen to nothing, and you will, im sure 'coincidentally' have more people with 1-5 posts popping in to back you up.

Time to make some popcorn.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Have you read the entire Scripture? If you did you would know that that its harmonious, with a very big theme-no bullshit talking in circles like you.


 Actually, i gave you a QUOTE from the SAME bible as yours. You ignored it. It showed very clearly that it is NOT harmonius.

In fact, hasnt that been the biggest problem of the church and the great book? A lack of continuity. Perhaps you would like to shed some light on ALL (not just the ones that back up your ideals) the reasons why the catholic church BANNED several books from the DSS?

GAH! I did it AGAIN! I referenced a post i made with actual QUOTES (facts for the simplicity of the convo) and then asked you ANOTHER QUESTION! Why wont i learn! If I keep doing this, my OTHER questions will never be answered.


----------



## budlover13 (May 1, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Oh im over giving you physical evidence fool. Its like giving a monkey toolset. He'll look it over for a bit, get angry when he realizes he cant figure out how to use them, then start throwing them angrily at other monkeys.
> 
> We have provided you links on mulitple occasions, all of which you completely ignore or throw out some wild anecdotal claim with NO link to back it up.
> 
> ...


And THIS is how the ignorance continues. You did a VERY good job of proving your science. And i liked your posts, they broaden MY mind.

See, i believe in God, but not the one generally described in the Bible b/c of several earlier stated reasons. This thread has QUICKLY evolved my thoughts regarding the Bible. It's not the complete change of mind many hope for, as i STILL believe a greater power than you or i created this universe. But you HAVE given me MUCH food for thought and knowledge. 

Do not run from these discussions! That's how the ignorance that i used to believe and he STILL believes continues. i implore you to continue to post, not to change his mind, only HE can do that, but to continue to disseminate facts that refute the man-made perversion of faith that we call the Bible.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 1, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And THIS is how the ignorance continues. You did a VERY good job of proving your science. And i liked your posts, they broaden MY mind.
> 
> See, i believe in God, but not the one generally described in the Bible b/c of several earlier stated reasons. This thread has QUICKLY evolved my thoughts regarding the Bible. It's not the complete change of mind many hope for, as i STILL believe a greater power than you or i created this universe. But you HAVE given me MUCH food for thought and knowledge.
> 
> Do not run from these discussions! That's how the ignorance that i used to believe and he STILL believes continues. i implore you to continue to post, not to change his mind, only HE can do that, but to continue to disseminate facts that refute the man-made perversion of faith that we call the Bible.


Thank you for the kind words, and im glad i have provided some food for thought. It was only meant as such, it was never meant to 'change' anyones mind about anything.

If you have been following from the beginning with me and him (actually it may have been Slojo, or Weed4Cash, i cant really remember anymore) but i actually also believe in 'God'.

Now take that as you will, it is not 'god' as the bible puts it, but it IS a higher power. Big bang? That was 'him' showing up in style! Evolution? Math? The 'tools' he required for his 'sandbox' (or 'lab' if you prefer). Nothing about science in my eyes has EVER disproved god, but it HAS disproved the bible. At least so much as to show us that we cannot, nay WILL not, take it at face value, or we will never progress. You must read it like any other book, take from it what you can, and if you are a good person with a good heart, it may help you lead a good life. Hell, if your a bad person with a bad heart, it may help even more. But again, like any tool, the bible in the wrong hands is dangerous if not deadly. Especially to those that are, for politeness sakes lets say, Naive (but i think we both know the type im talking about).

I want to reiterate. Nothing about science has EVER disproved god, nor has that ever been a goal. So why is it that faith is so hellbent on disproving science all the time?


----------



## budlover13 (May 1, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Thank you for the kind words, and im glad i have provided some food for thought. It was only meant as such, it was never meant to 'change' anyones mind about anything.
> 
> If you have been following from the beginning with me and him (actually it may have been Slojo, or Weed4Cash, i cant really remember anymore) but i actually also believe in 'God'.
> 
> ...


This is what i've been TRYING to convey in my posts here and also on FB. i have a friend that just ABSOLUTELY refuses to believe in Creationism. Period. We get along VERY well, but religion is a subject we *just don't see eye to eye on *yet, anyways. Kinda a BrotherBuz antithesis But he understands my philosophy and agrees that whatever i need to do to continue being the kind, peace-seeking, loving individual, it can't all be bad.

He and i are getting ready to meet up for a beer in a few months when he swings through town. Speaking of which, i live in Central Cali. Whereabouts are you, if you don't mind me asking. i like your thinking and again, you REALLY summed up how i believe. i'd appreciate being able to compensate you for your wisdom.


----------



## mindphuk (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Again, this was my point to *Mccumcumber*, concerning the _Venus of Willendorf_, which is a piece limestone rock.


The problem is that your point was based on mccumcumber's incorrect statement that this particular object was radiocarbon dated. It was not. It was dated using stratigraphy. 

Even so, I still thought it was prudent to explain why the ratio of C-14 to N-14 will be essentially the same when an organism dies. Likewise, for other radiometric dating techniques, when rock is heated any elements that are gases escape and when the lava cools, the clock is reset to zero allowing accurate radiometric dating of igneous rocks. This can be confirmed experimentally in the laboratory. 

Basically, your objections to radiocarbon dating are based on faulty assumptions.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 1, 2011)

^^^ Granted, I could have presented that a little better. I thought the point was clear.


----------



## mindphuk (May 1, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Granted, I could have presented that a little better. I thought the point was clear.


 And you have yet to acknowledge that your point is still wrong.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> And you have yet to acknowledge that your point is still wrong.


 Nor will he ever. 

Incoming! More dodging, a few confusing quotes from posts that didn't make sense the first time, and then shortly after he'll be preaching that its what 'he's been saying all along'.

Its really quite predictable. He ignores, dodges, insults, and just as you've forogotten what youve asked, he twists up the facts and 'interprets' it to his own advantage, then tells you that whatever the argument was, its still backing up his argument.

He lives in a delusional world, where everything backs his personal opinions up, and if it doesnt at first, give him some time, he'll MAKE it work.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Those fossils back up evolution theory FAR more often than they disprove it.


How is this true when the links are missing? I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or other body parts found, claiming to be the links, but millions of small *transitional links* should litter the fossil record if evolution took millions of years. Plain and simple. But instead, their are no transitions in the fossil record - nothing!


*Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species *

Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.

Do you understand the implications of this?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> How is this true when the links are missing? I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or other body parts found, claiming to be the links, but millions of small *transitional links* should litter the fossil record if evolution took millions of years. Plain and simple. But instead, their are no transitions in the fossil record - nothing!
> 
> 
> *Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species &#8211;*
> ...


Darwin wrote that, thats right, 150 years ago. So, as you would imagine, and its been referenced already in this thread, there ARE transitional links. In fact, at this point, there are thousands of them.

The problem lies in the fact that you want millions of links. Ive already stated this. You are impossible to please, and will take ANY small loophole you can as an out, even if all other evidence outweighs it (thus your opinion on the 'sphere' debate). If we had 100,000 proven transitional links, you would want 500,000. If we had 500,000, you would want a million.

The links are there, you will just never have enough is all. But congrats on your half baked attempt at actually addressing one of the MANY questions that have been presented to you in this thread, almost all of which you so have readily just glossed over.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> ". . . and then shortly after he'll be preaching that its what 'he's been saying all along'


You betcha, the fossil record does not support evolution. Plain and simple.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You betcha, the fossil record does not support evolution. Plain and simple.


 You can say it a thousand times sir, it doesn't make it true. And i wont be bothered to post MORE information as to why you are wrong. Your going to need to try harder.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> ". . . there ARE transitional links. In fact, at this point, there are thousands of them.


You obviously don't have a concept of *transitional links*. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it? 

Now, I'm going to give the viewers a chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide examples of 7 *transitional links*, since according to you, there are thousands.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Actually, i gave you a QUOTE from the SAME bible as yours. You ignored it. It showed very clearly that it is NOT harmonius.



Its not harmonious to you, because it cramps your live style.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You obviously don't have a concept of *transitional links*. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?
> 
> Now, I'm going to give the viewers a chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide examples of 7 *transitional links*, since according to you, there are thousands.


 Oh i get it quite well! SO here ya go buddy, MORE LINKS! Yet STILL, you havnt provided ONE! BTW this is my FIRST google of it, ripped straight from wiki, but there were plenty of other references if you need them:
*Examples*

Main article: List of transitional fossils
See also: Evolution of the horse, Evolution of cetaceans, and Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles
The reconstruction of the evolution of the horse and its relatives assembled by Othniel Charles Marsh from surviving fossils that form a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types, is often cited as a family tree. However, modern cladistics gives a different, multi-stemmed shrublike picture, with multiple innovations and many dead ends. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" _Ambulocetus_, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish _Tiktaalik_[4] and various hominids considered to be proto-humans.
A middle Devonian precursor to seed plants from Belgium has been identified predating the earliest seed plants by about 20 million years. _Runcaria_, small and radially symmetrical, is an integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened distal extension protruding above the mutlilobed integument. It is suspected that the extension was involved in anemophilous pollination. _Runcaria_ sheds new light on the sequence of character acquisition leading to the seed. _Runcaria_ has all of the qualities of seed plants except for a solid seed coat and a system to guide the pollen to the seed.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#cite_note-4
Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record because the fossil record is nowhere near complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, which suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Furthermore the fossil record is very uneven. Certain kinds of organisms, for example those without hard body parts like jellyfish and worms, are very poorly represented.[6]


BrotherBuz said:


> Its not harmonious to you, because it cramps your live style.


And again back to your insults. Your starting your meltdown buddy. That primal rage is beginning to dwell deep inside the monkey. Nearby monkeys beware! Tools will be thrown soon!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

Ive got a great link for you BrotherBuz. This may shed some light, i hope it gets you SOME results that you desperately need.

Here ya go!


----------



## boneheadbob (May 2, 2011)

ATTENTION!!!

I have two things to say to you.

1) Evolution is a lie from the devil
2) If you are not sure about the Creator of the universe, ask Him in prayer to reveal Himself.

P.S. You may not have much time left


----------



## Derple (May 2, 2011)

i think the original idea of god and everything has gotten WAAAAAAAY out of whack, i mean honestly, people killing other people your "brother man" or "gods children" all because you worship the same guy up in the sky in a slightly different way. and who knows? maybe the bible or quran were originally written by a childs book writer in 4000 BC as fiction?  anyways, i think its just f*cked up and idiotic in general. grow the f*ck up humanity.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Do not run from these discussions!


You can't save him. He just stepped into the Lyons den.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

boneheadbob said:


> ATTENTION!!!
> 
> I have two things to say to you.
> 
> ...


 LOL. No, seriously, LOL. You provide about as much insight as BrotherBuz does. I HAVE tried that, hundreds if not thousands of times, still no go buddy. But i can ask a scientist to give me a few good reasons why evolution makes sense, and he floods me with info. I must be a fool to believe someone who has actual information and tangible facts. Everyone knows REAL knowledge comes from thousands of years old anecdotal 'stories'.


BrotherBuz said:


> You can't save him. He just stepped into the Lyons den.


 You are just flowing with links and facts aren't you? Please, stop giving me so much documented information, i can't sort through it all!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

I want to point out on a side note, that i truly do pity anyone closely related to you BrotherBuz. I can only imagine that this kind of attitude (total dismissal of ANYTHING that doesn't fit your incredibly tiny world view) probably makes you quite difficult to live with. I imagine you run your household as if YOU were god, most of the extremely religious do. Its part of the power complex. They don't understand (or fear) mortality, so they turn to 'god'. When they turn to 'god' they have to embrace how 'powerless' they are, and that's where the tyranny begins. If you can't lead later, you better lead now right?

I am finding this all quite entertaining. Enjoy your 2 supporters friend, because the other 200 people that have visited this thread either didn't care, or disagreed with you. How do i know that? Well, we all know that you guys are the loudest, even if you ARE the minority anymore. I highly doubt that even ONE person who agreed with you, or shared your ideals, has made it to this thread without voicing their opinion. Not one.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record because the fossil record is nowhere near complete.


As I said before, these are not *transitional links*, but instead fully developed fossils. In order to be transitions, the fossils should show gradual changes in skeletal structure, for example, sea creatures developing a pelvis in order to walk up right-do you get it now? Thousand of such small transitional fossils should be in the ground, but are not. What goes up, must come down


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

Transitional Fossil FAQ

*PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS: 

Introduction:
Types of transitions
Why are there gaps?
Predictions of creationism & evolution
What's in this FAQ
Timescale
 
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds
 *PART 2* has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you're particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ. 

Overview of the Cenozoic
Primates
Bats
Carnivores
Rodents
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
Elephants
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
Conclusion:
A bit of historical background
The major features of the fossil record
Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best?
The main point.
 
References


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> As I said before, these are not *transitional links*, but instead fully developed fossils. In order to be transitions, the fossils should show gradual changes in skeletal structure, for example, sea creatures developing a pelvis in order to walk up right-do you get it now? Thousand of such small transitional fossils should be in the ground, but are not. What goes up, must come down


 You still aren't actually reading anything anyone is linking are you? You really don't WANT the truth, so you don't even bother looking for it. Im losing my respect rather quickly fool, your quite pathetic. Your still twisting words. My very fucking post even addressed your concern! Fossils are rare for a reason, if we collected every fossil in existence we would have less than 5% of the total amount of species that have ever lived on this earth! You will NEVER get EVERY link, and no matter how many people provide, you will always require more.



mindphuk said:


> Transitional Fossil FAQ
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> 
> ...


 Absolutely brilliant! Great information there! +rep for the LINKS! ;D


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record because the fossil record is nowhere near complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, which suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Furthermore the fossil record is very uneven. Certain kinds of organisms, for example those without hard body parts like [/URL]jellyfish and worms, are very poorly represented.[6]


 What part of that is confusing you? The part that says that implies fossils are RARE? Or the part that refers it being less than 1% of all species that have ever lived? Iam guessing the latter, as that just doesn't fit your view right? I mean, Noah couldn't have possible fit them all. There had to be less.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> I want to point out on a side note, that i truly do pity anyone closely related to you BrotherBuz.


Insults won't help you, since your reasoning has failed.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Insults won't help you, since your reasoning has failed.


 Thanks for laugh, but i have only barely displayed my disgust towards you. Besides, i figured since its all you do (other than dodging), you might actually read it that time (which you did!). SO do i just need to keep lacing insults into my posts to get you to actually read them?

YOUR melting down. YOUR reasoning has failed, YOUR the one that throws out insults as readily as your opinions, and YOUR the one whos reasoning is failing.

Your the captain of one gigantic fucking failboat sir, its been obvious since your first post, and your only getting closer that iceberg of fail.

Keep deflecting. Keep dodging. Keep trying. But just know, i have a feeling that your spot in heaven isn't as guaranteed as you think it is.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> What part of that is confusing you? The part that says that implies fossils are RARE? Or the part that refers it being less than 1% of all species that have ever lived?



There are thousand of fossils, they just don't show transitional links. What part of that is confusing to you?

*Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species *

Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

You keep quoting Darwin, like that means anything. He opened our mind to the idea of evolution, but his science and facts and 'statements' that you keep quoting are long since outdated. I, and Mindphuk, have both shown you actual evidence with links and citations included.

Yet you continue to ignore those facts. You dont actually read them, you just say 'nope', throw an insult out, and 'NAILED IT AGAIN!'.

Seriously, stop repeating your same old tired outdated quote. Charles Darwin was the discoverer of evolution, but any real scientist knows that 150 year old anecdotal evidence can only be taken so literally. Things have changed since then, our methods of testing have changed, and the amount of fossils and 'links' discovered since then have been *abso-fuckin-lutely exponential*.

So real scientists have trouble taking a book thats 150 years old at face value, yet you continue to defend your fables that are over 2000 years old. Your not helping yourself here.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2011)

pay attention now brother buz....



BrotherBuz said:


> There are thousand of fossils, they just don't show transitional links. What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> *Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species &#8211;*
> 
> ...





mindphuk said:


> Transitional Fossil FAQ
> 
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

[video=youtube;kfTbrHg8KGQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ[/video]

[video=youtube;QWVoXZPOCGk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVoXZPOCGk[/video]


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You obviously don't have a concept of *transitional links*. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?
> 
> Now, I'm going to give the viewers a chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide examples of 7 *transitional links*, since according to you, there are thousands.


See he's a dodger!!

*Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species 
*

Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2011)

pay attention now brother buz....



BrotherBuz said:


> There are thousand of fossils, they just don't show transitional links. What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> *Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species &#8211;*
> 
> ...





mindphuk said:


> Transitional Fossil FAQ
> *PART I* has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> pay attention now brother buz....


 Ive been trying to get him to for sometime now. This is not the first time real data was put in front of him.

His answer is always the same though. It falls into one of the following responses:

A. Flat out insult.
B. Disappearance. He disappeared for 2 days before, then he came back when he thought i was gone and made some comment about 'anyone else wanna come at me, he couldn't hack it'.
C. Spinning. He is one pro spinner that's for sure! On multiple occasions he has taken the very facts provided to him in argument of his debate, and manipulated the words to sound as if it were for his benefit.
D. Dodging. He wants us posting continuous info. He wants us to ask more and more questions. The more WE think about the debate in a logical, rational, level headed way, the more 'perplexed' we get about the convo, the less HE has to think. The less he has to think, the less actual meaningful posts we will get from him.

There are a few others that pretty much scream the exact stereotype i pegged him for, but i think you get the idea.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> ". . . but any real scientist knows that 150 year old anecdotal evidence can only be taken so literally. Things have changed since then, our methods of testing have changed . . ."


Nothing has changed! transitional links were missing then and their missing now.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> &#8220;Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.&#8221;


So out of the whole book, thats the only thing you could take from it? Let me use your logic with the bible and see what i take from it, shall we?

Deuteronomy 25:11-12. &#8220;If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.&#8221; Dont even need the powers of personal interpretation for that one!

Leviticus 19:19: &#8220;You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.&#8221; So, no polyester, no mixing breeds of cattle and you can only farm one plant!

Exodus 21 is clearly too long to bother quoting here, but if you know the bible half as well as you say you do, you know how it advocates slavery, and removes the '6 year limit' on a hebrew slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.

Lets just keep picking the things we like and ignoring the things we dont like shall we?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Nothing has changed! transitional links were missing then and their missing now.


Pay attention now BrotherBuz.... this is only one of many posts that have shown you that that is a FALSE statement. Keep saying it, its still wrong.


mindphuk said:


> [video=youtube;kfTbrHg8KGQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ[/video]
> 
> [video=youtube;QWVoXZPOCGk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVoXZPOCGk[/video]


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> This is not the first time real data was put in front of him.


 . . ." You gotta be fucking kidding me.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> . . ." You gotta be fucking kidding me.


 ahem......


KlosetKing said:


> D. Dodging. He wants us posting continuous info. He wants us to ask more and more questions. The more WE think about the debate in a logical, rational, level headed way, the more 'perplexed' we get about the convo, the less HE has to think. The less he has to think, the less actual meaningful posts we will get from him.


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> There are thousand of fossils, they just don't show transitional links. What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> *Darwin had noted the same problem in The Origin of Species &#8211;*
> 
> ...


 Yes, Darwin exposed with brutal honesty, the problems with his hypothesis. Not just fossil records but also means of inheritance. 
However, he appealed to future scientists to come up with the answers...and they have!

[video=youtube;-Jd4NXDSXXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jd4NXDSXXg[/video]


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yes, Darwin exposed with brutal honesty, the problems with his hypothesis. Not just fossil records but also means of inheritance.
> However, he appealed to future scientists to come up with the answers...and they have!
> 
> [video=youtube;-Jd4NXDSXXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jd4NXDSXXg[/video]


 He cant get around to clicking a link, or even thoroughly reading any of our posts. I highly doubt you will get him to not only watch but LISTEN as well to something that doesnt fit his 'view'.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Leviticus 19:19: You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together. So, no polyester, no mixing breeds of cattle and you can only farm one plant!
> 
> Exodus 21 is clearly too long to bother quoting here, but if you know the bible half as well as you say you do, you know how it advocates slavery, and removes the '6 year limit' on a hebrew slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.


FYI: These instructions were given under the Mosaic Law, which has come to pass. If you were a bible scholar, you would have known this. Instead, you run and dodge behind bullshit.


----------



## thexception (May 2, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> I want to point out on a side note, that i truly do pity anyone closely related to you BrotherBuz. I can only imagine that this kind of attitude (total dismissal of ANYTHING that doesn't fit your incredibly tiny world view) probably makes you quite difficult to live with. I imagine you run your household as if YOU were god, most of the extremely religious do. Its part of the power complex. They don't understand (or fear) mortality, so they turn to 'god'. When they turn to 'god' they have to embrace how 'powerless' they are, and that's where the tyranny begins. If you can't lead later, you better lead now right?
> 
> I am finding this all quite entertaining. Enjoy your 2 supporters friend, because the other 200 people that have visited this thread either didn't care, or disagreed with you. How do i know that? Well, we all know that you guys are the loudest, even if you ARE the minority anymore. I highly doubt that even ONE person who agreed with you, or shared your ideals, has made it to this thread without voicing their opinion. Not one.





KlosetKing said:


> Originally Posted by *KlosetKing*
> Actually i never said i believed ANY of that story cuz i dont. I was merely using a specific example, i dont want to speak in generalities like you guys are so pro at doing.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeh, so WHERE did u break apart my argument???

ur truly ridiculous. This will be my last post in this thread & u will be added to my ignore list. u have said probably 5-10x in this thread, how many pages another member has dodged questions, how they basically have no merit, etc. & so on. How it is all "entertaining to u" & all kinds of other drivel. u continue on with how many pages exist in this thread, u continue to spew out insult after insult, u act like u basically see urself as the authority on all that is...this is ur attitude.

The TRUTH is....(let me throw ur crap back at u & with ur condescending attitude) back around page TWENTY that would be a TWO and a ZERO, I answered ur supposed questions, I responded to a discussion we were suppose to be having. 

(AS POSTED BELOW)

U DISAPPEARED for several days, (too hot get out of the kitchen), only to return when YOU thought maybe I had gone away & you didnt have to respond. WHO is "dodging"? YOU. I gave you nothing but SPACE & OPPORTUNITY to reply.

Now u can reply all u want, I wont be back because I am unsubscribing to this thread & once ur on my IGNORE LIST I wont be able to see/read any of ur DRIVEL. So u can keep trying to act like ur intelligent, articulate, educated, & the like, but U completely avoiding my reply to u, PROVES u cant handle the crap u dish out & when u dont have a reply, u simply run & hide & avoid, & all the other things u have accused others of in this thread. And again, since u love to point out how many pages r in this thread, how many people have read it, how others should "try to keep up" because u r reading every bit, it is damn well clear, u didnt miss my last post to u, u simply DODGED & RAN. LMAO...u r really pathetic. u pick n choose what YOU have wanted to respond to.

The fact is you ran from & couldnt break apart what I had to say. 
-------------------------------------
*Originally posted by: thexception*

Oh, more insults. No surprise there eh?
I addressed all comments u made, I didnt pull any "generalities" out of the air. You said, u believe Jesus to have been a man, not u say u dont believe any part of the "story"; he is the MAIN party of the "story" (Bible)

Now where did I say, I didn't accept evolution as being anything? Now I am speaking directly to your comments, where did u get that from. But since u brought it up specifically in reply to me, I do indeed believe evolution happened as well. But alas, evolution or no, the beginning was STILL made by God, & all things beginning, so while man may as well evolved, lets say from ape, God made ape; all God's work or doing just a different form. And it seems u sir r not replying directly to my reasonable or in ur words plausible argument. I SAID, I believe there were maybe only a couple hundred....just my thoughts on the interpretation, let me say once again. And again, u want to pick apart single things but r missing for those that believe in God, all things are one. No, one old man didnt build an ark himself, God laid his hands upon that old man & in effect used him as his "tool" if u will to build the ark...again, u just want to seem to interpret everything to need a specific answer. That is the BASE of believing in the bible, which you actually don't which is fine. But no one needs to prove or is every going to prove that to you, ever. There is no answer to what was before God, nothing, God always was, period, end of story. It is hard for humans to believe because humans in their inherent nature needs X+Y to = XY. There is NO explanation for many things, they just ARE. U want people to bring proof to u, bring proof that they are just stories, bring proof that this outdated information is not as important or doesnt have as much meaning as it did...2000 years ago. I will give you proof, the mere acceptance by the larger majority around the world on planet earth that do believe in a higher power and in Jesus, & in the bible. The acceptance that has been & will continue to be for another 2000 years if earth last that long. What more proof do u need?

Again, God killed many before. Again God came down to man, spoke from the heavens to man, etc etc etc. and even after he sent his son to perform all the miracles thereafter, etc. etc. there were still those that wouldnt believe, didnt believe, and those that will never believe or until they see more miracles with "their own eyes". That is why gave up on convincing many, he did too good a job on this species of man, & his need for proof proof proof. he gave man free will, told man he could believe & accept or not, & called it a day. Afterall he wants all man to come to heaven & will have an eternity to wait for each one, but man must CHOOSE, and what a gracious & loving God in the end to let you & me, do that.

The burden in your opinion lies in the ones making the claim. imo, the burden lies in the ones saying what has been written & believed in & told throughout the centuries has no basis of truth. Prove it!

U didnt say history was fact, you said the bible is part of history. well in any definition I have ever known of history, history is something that happened in the past on record, as something that HAD happened, DID occcur, WAS. I looked it up though, quick definition: History...1. The study of past events, particularly in human affairs. So again, you said, bible was literature, & then YOU said in the same sentence it was simply a part of history at which point I said, exactly...you said it (being facicous). The bible is part of human history (again please refer to the meaning of history), history doesnt mean what may have happened, it doesnt mean mythology, it means HISTORY which the bible is part of, a book of history.

I cannot say u dont have points with ur final banter about war, & hate, & murder, etc. you absolutely do, BUT, all that doesnt come from the Bible, belief therein, or from God's or Jesus teachings. That comes from CHURCH, & church & the bible or church & the word of God, & church and anything else that u can equate to religion of any sort are two ENTIRELY different animals. Church=man (at least in the present day age & age that has been for the last several hundred years at least) Bible=God, Jesus=God. Now THAT is where all the problems come in as far as I am concerned the teachings of any one "denomination of faith/ Church".

That's where, after the bible, for some "men" the bible wasnt good enough OR as the years passed on the arguments ensured over the interpretation of the bible, thus new religions formed, old ones changed & added their own laws/rules, etc. then changed them again to relate to the masses at large, at that time, to keep their set followers to find more rules, "laws", that appealed to more people, & it was a big ugly bubble that grew & grew & broke apart into another & another & another & another & this continues to this day. But there is but ONE word of God, it is written in a book of historical fact called the bible. And while this book will always & forever be the most highly debated book ever as to what is the meaning of this that or the other, the central meaning for the lay person has always & will forever be the same. 

There is a God, he created everything, all mankind & all living things, that ever were or will be after him, in his image. And as God made mistakes & learned, we are not unlike him at all, much very much like him. He made you, he had no one to guide him along the way, he made mistakes. He learned from them, he blessed man with his knowledge of love, anger, vengence, etc. and so forth & with the story of his mistakes and his OWN repentance, & of his own conclusion, that the only way to get through to man is through love & in that end the only way to him is through love. We are so much of everything that God is, it is beautiful. Now, like him, we must find our own way, but unlike him, (who had no one) we have had him there to lead us & guide as, long long after his own trials & tribulations with his creation in man; we have the bible everlasting, his word everlasting, as he is everlasting, to help us, to maybe not make all the mistakes he did if we CHOOSE to listen. Sounds very much like parenting...no? And anyone who is a parent knows exactly what that means? Some people, in fact most all people, no matter what, HAVE to find their own way. You can teach them, guide them, love them, & let them go. The rest is up to them




God sinned, (although God is without sin, because sin is something of man, same equivalent in man's terms.) God murdered, God showed anger, God tested his "sheep", God bestowed the worst plagues on lands, peoples, nations, God was jealous, so on & so forth. But in the end, God was I believe, the way he hopes all mankind "might" choose to be from jumpstart, just a simple good hearted person, out to love & be loved, out for peace & beauty, & have life in this manner everlasting, one of which is better shared!


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2011)

thexception said:


> Yeh, so WHERE did u break apart my argument???
> 
> ur truly ridiculous. This will be my last post in this thread & u will be added to my ignore list. u have said probably 5-10x in this thread, how many pages another member has dodged questions, how they basically have no merit, etc. & so on. How it is all "entertaining to u" & all kinds of other drivel. u continue on with how many pages exist in this thread, u continue to spew out insult after insult, u act like u basically see urself as the authority on all that is...this is ur attitude.
> 
> ...



lol that was drivel when you first posted it and its still drivel now

the popular vote doesnt prove good it doesnt matter how many idiot believe something it still doesnt make it true

while the bible is "part of history" it is far far from a historical document it isnt an accurate detailing of events 

the old "humans cannot conceive an everlasting god" is crap too 

god by any definition i have heard is all knowing (how could something so knowledgeable make mistakes?)


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

boneheadbob said:


> ATTENTION!!!
> 
> 1) Evolution is a lie from the devil


You betcha it is. Evolution was used justify conditions of the poor, in order appease the rich.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 2, 2011)

pay attention brother buz



BrotherBuz said:


> FYI: These instructions were given under the Mosaic Law, which has come to pass. If you were a bible scholar, you would have known this. Instead, you run and dodge behind bullshit.





mindphuk said:


> Yes, Darwin exposed with brutal honesty, the problems with his hypothesis. Not just fossil records but also means of inheritance.
> However, he appealed to future scientists to come up with the answers...and they have!
> 
> [video=youtube;-Jd4NXDSXXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jd4NXDSXXg[/video]


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

thexception said:


> ur truly ridiculous. This will be my last post in this thread & u will be added to my ignore list. u have said probably 5-10x in this thread, how many pages another member has dodged questions, how they basically have no merit, etc. & so on. How it is all "entertaining to u" & all kinds of other drivel. u continue on with how many pages exist in this thread, u continue to spew out insult after insult, u act like u basically see urself as the authority on all that is...this is ur attitude.


I stopped reading there. Congratulations, you are officially the first person in this thread that im not even going to give the time of day to actually read what you said. You clearly have NOT been following the thread, or you would know that i have never insulted anyone without being insulted first. You would know that I all i have done is provide evidence as i have seen it.

You have made a total of 3 posts in this entire thread, and yet you act as if ive been on you this entire time. Are you really brotherbuz? You have fare more contentment towards me than you should in my opinion. And i lied, i just skimmed a bit more of that, and i can only laugh. All you did was cloud your opinion in blocks of text, but in the end it was the same, what did you call it, 'Drivel' that we have heard this entire time. Let me summarize:

"Im not those christians, they dont represent me. You arent all that smart, your science is flawed. The tide comes in, the tide comes out, NO MISCOMMUNICATION!"

Also, id like to point out, that by your very definition of 'History' both the bhagavad gita and the kuran are JUST as factual.

You say: *The burden in your opinion lies in the ones making the claim. imo, the burden lies in the ones saying what has been written & believed in & told throughout the centuries has no basis of truth. Prove it!* Your logic here is so utterly fucking flawed its insane.

Now i can list at least 5 different places in that post alone that you directly insulted me, please, PLEASE, provide me with ALL the insults i sent your way? I would like to tally them up. And please, do me the same favor i do you, and clean your goddamn quotes up you lazy bastard! (joke intended =P)


----------



## mazand1982 (May 2, 2011)

RyanTheRhino said:


> Why is the Bible so Revered as the "Word of GOD". It's not like god wrote a book and placed it down for a prophet to find it. The bible is just stories that where told orally until someone that actually knew how to read and write turned it into a book. So how do we know The bible is not just a really famous fiction novel that a roman solider brought back to Italy and said god wrote this so follow it with me.
> Because as you may notice all the origins of Christianity are based in the middle east, yet there are hardly any Christians over there.
> 
> It's easier to believe your friend won a fight if you weren't right there watching him get his ass beat. know what I mean.




christianity and religion in general is just a way to scare the masses into believing they will go to hell if they didnt do right, its a great concept and it does nothing but good for society so im all for it....although now today with the scientific technology we have its pretty easy to see that the bible is just that, a book of stories.... the proof is in the pudding, evolution....


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You betcha it is. Evolution was used justify conditions of the poor, in order appease the rich.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YOU DIDNT SERIOUSLY JUST FUCKING SAY THAT DID YOU? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you are honestly justifying this in your mind as if the religious are the ones that live in squalor and the atheists-infidels-nonbelievers are the rich ones, you are in an even darker cave than i thought sir.

Please please please please please start citing some more sources. I sure would love to see where you drew this conclusion!

-edit- Actually i take that back, your cave couldn't possibly be that dark. My conclusion? Your a troll. Plain and simple, its the only answer. That sentence had so much, jeez i cant even word it. Its like you honestly have NO foot in reality whatsoever.

Just in case you really didn't know, religions are the ones that HAVE money. Its the very reason that they can become the minority of populations more and more each day, yet still sound, look, and vote like a full blown majority.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

thexception said:


> ". . . when u dont have a reply, u simply run & hide & avoid, & all the other things u have accused others of in this thread. And again, since u love to point out how many pages r in this thread, how many people have read it, how others should "try to keep up" because u r reading every bit, it is damn well clear, u didnt miss my last post to u, u simply DODGED & RAN. LMAO...u r really pathetic. u pick n choose what YOU have wanted to respond to.


Come on now, lets be gentle.  Lol Lol


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

_Klosetking-_

Your mentors . . . can't save you now! Looks like *thexception* exposed you-Game over!


----------



## budlover13 (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You betcha it is. Evolution was used justify conditions of the poor, in order appease the rich.


Your assertion that it may have been USED by MAN to justify said conditions, that does no exclude evolutions explanations completely either. Evolution happens. Physical, mental, spiritual, etc. NOTHING in this universe is static. NOTHING. Except God. And only because he will never fail me, imho.


----------



## budlover13 (May 2, 2011)

I mean cannabis came from God and was used to control the poor and enrich the already wealthy. So by this theory, cannabis is evil as well. Correct?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> while the bible is "part of history" it is far far from a historical document it isnt an accurate detailing of events


So, the *Dead Sea Scroll* does not exist then, chronicling 2,000 years of the same bible test, which hasn't changed. This is physical evidence-no bullshit. People werent born last week Friday.


----------



## budlover13 (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> So, the *Dead Sea Scroll* does not exist then, chronicling 2,000 years of the same bible test, which hasn't changed. This is physical evidence-no bullshit. People weren&#8217;t born last week Friday.


Umm, yeah. They exist. And those that edit the Bible chose which scrolls to accept and which ones to reject. The churches theory is they only wanted to keep the writings of those closest to Jesus in order to keep the picture accurate. HOWEVER, how can you completely discount the writings of Mary Magdelan? The VERY FIRST PERSON that Christ appeared to after resurrection. You CAN'T and still maintain historical accuracy.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

mazand1982 said:


> ". . . although now today with the scientific technology we have its pretty easy to see that the bible is just that, a book of stories . . ."



And the *Dead Sea Scrolls* are fiction?


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 2, 2011)

Fiction? naww... no more so than a star trek technical manual....


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> And the *Dead Sea Scrolls* are fiction?


 So you're okay that there are books found in the DSS library that are not included in orthodox canon? 

I know i have asked you before but can you please explain what you believe the significance of the DSS are wrt authenticity of the stories in them? IOW, why do you think scribes would be unable to copy documents successfully over a number of centuries? Problems tend to arise when these books are translated to other languages but most of the scrolls found in Qumran were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. 

Do you think the words of Shakespeare have been altered over the centuries? How about Chaucer? If they can remain intact, why not biblical texts?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Your assertion that it may have been USED by MAN to justify said conditions, that does no exclude evolutions explanations completely either. Evolution happens. Physical, mental, spiritual, etc. NOTHING in this universe is static. NOTHING. Except God. And only because he will never fail me, imho.


At least you can understand meanings, unlike your protégé, *klosetking*.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

thexception said:


> ". . .bring proof that they are just stories, bring proof that this outdated information is not as important or doesnt have as much meaning as it did...2000 years ago. I will give you proof, the mere acceptance by the larger majority around the world on planet earth that do believe in a higher power and in Jesus, & in the bible. The acceptance that has been & will continue to be for another 2000 years if earth last that long. What more proof do u need?


He' just running and dodging-very typical of of *klosetking*-runs in his family.


----------



## budlover13 (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> At least you can understand meanings, unlike your protégé, *klosetking*.


Ad Hominem. There are more eloquent ways to express the exact same opinion.

Read this thread. The whole thread.

https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/428887-petition-change-insult-rule-malicious.html


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> I mean cannabis came from God and was used to control the poor and enrich the already wealthy. So by this theory, cannabis is evil as well. Correct?


Dodging, running, you don't know what you believe-talking in circles again.


----------



## budlover13 (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Dodging, running, you don't know what you believe-talking in circles again.


Actually, it is call analytical, logical, critical thinking.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So you're okay that there are books found in the DSS library that are not included in orthodox canon?
> 
> I know i have asked you before but can you please explain what you believe the significance of the DSS are wrt authenticity of the stories in them? IOW, why do you think scribes would be unable to copy documents successfully over a number of centuries? Problems tend to arise when these books are translated to other languages but most of the scrolls found in Qumran were written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
> 
> Do you think the words of Shakespeare have been altered over the centuries? How about Chaucer? If they can remain intact, why not biblical texts?


 I also asked you this, as well as why some of them were banned from the bible, and you have yet to answer. How do you respond instead?


BrotherBuz said:


> At least you can understand meanings, unlike your protégé, *klosetking*.





BrotherBuz said:


> He' just running and dodging-very typical of of *klosetking*-runs in his family.


 And im the dodger? LOL.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> _Klosetking-_
> 
> Your mentors . . . can't save you now! Looks like *thexception* exposed you-Game over!


Lol. Even more quality debate! His post was garbage, as pointed out by other people already. No game-over dude, just bad grammar and poor writing style.


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Dodging, running, you don't know what you believe-talking in circles again.


 Dude, why do you insist on claiming everyone is dodging and running when you have failed to answer about 90% of the questions posed to you in response to your posts? 

You are the King of avoidance. I guess this it what the psychologists call transference.


----------



## budlover13 (May 2, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Dude, why do you insist on claiming everyone is dodging and running when you have failed to answer about 90% of the questions posed to you in response to your posts?
> 
> You are the King of avoidance. I guess this it what the psychologists call transference.


Red Herring. When you hold an untestable, unprovable opinion and are entering debate, it is SOMETIMES effective short-term to change the topic. Concruent with his circular logic.


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Red Herring. When you hold an untestable, unprovable opinion and are entering debate, it is SOMETIMES effective short-term to change the topic. Concruent with his circular logic.


 It's more than a red herring when he continually accuses others of what he does himself. The fact is that neither KK, gingawarrior, or I have avoided any of his claims and have taken them head-on. He, OTOH, has avoided just about every post that gives evidence that he is full wrong and refuses to even acknowledge those. He acts exactly like a troll, yet I think he actually believes his own delusions.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

^^^ You obviously don't have a concept of *transitional links*. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?


----------



## mindphuk (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ You obviously don't have a concept of *transitional links*. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?


This is ridiculous. I have a very good concept of what a transitional link is. It appears that you do not. 

Did you read the FAQ or watch the videos? They do show gradual changes of skeletal features from one species to the next. For example, the reptile-mammal transitions show a steady movement of the bones of the jaw become the inner ear. Interestingly, we see the basal form of the reptiles and mammals, the early synapsids transition into both the diapsid reptiles and the therapsids which include mammals. We have fossils from not only all of the branches but also the earlier parent forms. 

Why exactly would fully developed skulls not fit the definition of intermediates? Each animal must have a skull and it better be fully formed if it was to live. There are many bones in the skull, it isn't just a big single bone. There are significant differences (as well as similarities) in the skulls of animals that allow us to categorize them taxonomically, even if we don't have the whole skeleton. 

It is the combination of similarities along with the differences that define a transition. It is not up to you to provide the definition of transitional forms, it is up to the biologists. However, I am curious what you think would be a good example of a transitional form. Pick any transition you like, fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale, or whatever, and explain what exactly what you think would be a defining characteristic of a transitional form. If you are unable to even provide a clear example, how would you know when you come across one? If you watched the videos, you would have seen examples of transitionals that were predicted to be part of the fossil record and then later examples were found, confirming the links between two different clades.

Do you get it?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 2, 2011)

^^^ Show me a *transitioning* amphibian pelvis bone, since it&#8217;s needed for being upright. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons; instead small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons; *instead small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for.*


Exactly. you dont want hard evidence that shows the transition in thousands of species across the entire board of organisms. You want small, almost impossible to find details of things that for all intents and purposes would not have continued because they did not help, or even hindered, the lifeform. Therefore there wouldnt have been very many 'transitional fossils' (at least your definition) to find.

In 2004, three American palaeontologists, Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins, came across a group of Tikataalik roseae fossils. 
Tikataalik roseae is a &#8215;transition species&#8216; between primitive fish and the earliest amphibians, which lived in the Devonian period. Jenny Clack (another palaeontologist who specializes in fish evolution) said, &#8213;the fossil combines features of fish and tetrapods such that it fits perfectly between the two.

There are plenty others, that describe how fish transitioned to apmhibians, and how amhibians became landwalkers. There are so many obvious links you want to block it out, and you choose specific examples to defend your case (such as the pelvis).

What is even funnier about it, is how you use the same tactic to defend your book. Choosing one small example and claiming it represents cohesiveness (reference earlier debate about 'Sphere').


----------



## mccumcumber (May 2, 2011)

Ah I thought this thread died sorry.
To clarify. I'm pretty sure archaeologists dug this up (and by pretty sure I mean 100% positive) and the soil that the dug up around dated back to 25000 BCE.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 2, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Ah I thought this thread died sorry.
> To clarify. I'm pretty sure archaeologists dug this up (and by pretty sure I mean 100% positive) and the soil that the dug up around dated back to 25000 BCE.


 Seeing as how there is already evidence of housing and tools around that time, your number is far off. For it to be a fossil of relative age it would have to be around 300m years old.

If you can find a link to an article or something that mentions that fossil though, please do provide it. But remember we are trying to keep this factual, and leave out the anecdotes. As far as i can tell, your statement is as inaccurate as his are.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 3, 2011)

I never said it was a fosil so I don't know where you going with this.
It was an art piece that was made in 25000 BCE
Brother Buzz said that there was no evidence of humans 5000 years ago, I begged to differ.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 3, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> I never said it was a fosil so I don't know where you going with this.
> It was an art piece that was made in 25000 BCE
> Brother Buzz said that there was no evidence of humans 5000 years ago, I begged to differ.


My apologies, I thought you were referring to the 'pelvis' that he was asking for.


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Show me a *transitioning* amphibian pelvis bone, since it&#8217;s needed for being upright. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons; instead small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for.


What exactly do you think the amphibian transitioned into? Humans are the first animal with a pelvis for walking upright. Amphibians are basal to reptiles. Here's some of the transitions from amphibian to reptiles-- 

The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (198 and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 198 


_Proterogyrinus_ or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
_Limnoscelis_, _Tseajaia_ (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
_Solenodonsaurus_ (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
_Hylonomus_, _Paleothyris_ (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in _little_ amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 3, 2011)

Hynerpeton have more advanced legs and pelvic girdle than Ichthyostega as well.... (Carroll, 1996, p. 19) The coronoid fangs are not present. It lacked internal gills (Daeschler et al, 1994, p 641). The shape of the pectoral girdle implies both an aquatic and a terrestrial lifestyle. Hard to miss really...


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons; instead small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for.


 This is the part that you haven't made clear. What kind of transition do you think doesn't have a fully developed skeleton besides invertebrates? Small changes are exactly what we are showing you. It appears you expect partially formed parts or something. Your posts indicate that you don't understand what qualifies for a transitional form, which is anything intermediate between two clades, i.e. have characteristics of more than one.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

^^^ Actually, your dodging and running again, which is typical of you. You said that you would provide, so where is it? lol lol


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

*mindphuk-*

Darwin had noted the same problem in *The Origin of Species &#8211;*

&#8220;Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.&#8221;

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectlative after 150 years.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

If evolution took "millions" of years, then there should be literally thousand of *transitional links* scattered throughout the fossil record. It only makes sense. You can dodge and run all you want, but you can't hide.


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> If evolution took "millions" of years, then there should be literally thousand of *transitional links* scattered throughout the fossil record. It only makes sense. You can dodge and run all you want, but you can't hide.


 Again, if you won't give an example of what you think is a transitional, no one is able to help you. A transitional form is merely one that is in-between two others showing some evolutionary progress. We have literally thousands of examples, you are just not seeing it. 

The problem seems to be that you are requiring more and more intermediates even though we have presented many. 
If we have a basal species A and a present species D, we have shown you transitional species B and C. The problem is that now you want the transition between A and B and B and C. If we show you those, you complain that there aren't transitions between those transitions. 

What you have done is set up an impossible task, one that you know has to fail. Considering the rare conditions that must occur for fossilization to take place, most normal people can see that we have clear transitions for many species. Some admittedly are more complete than others but what you seem to be asking for is unrealistic.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> If evolution took "millions" of years, then there should be literally thousand of *transitional links* scattered throughout the fossil record. It only makes sense. You can dodge and run all you want, but you can't hide.


 The only dodging being done is by you sir. As Mindphuk has stated, like I have many times, you simply want more than could realistically be given. You will never have ENOUGH links. You want impossible amounts of evidence to support the theory, yet require NONE to believe your fabled story-book.

Then you turn around and accuse others of dodging even though we have respectfully answered every question of yours to the best of our ability.

Surely by now you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?


----------



## budlover13 (May 3, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> The only dodging being done is by you sir. As Mindphuk has stated, like I have many times, you simply want more than could realistically be given. You will never have ENOUGH links. You want impossible amounts of evidence to support the theory, yet require NONE to believe your fabled story-book.
> 
> Then you turn around and accuse others of dodging even though we have respectfully answered every question of yours to the best of our ability.
> 
> Surely by now you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?


Ahhhh, the difference between faith and BLIND faith.


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> The only dodging being done is by you sir. As Mindphuk has stated, like I have many times, you simply want more than could realistically be given. You will never have ENOUGH links. You want impossible amounts of evidence to support the theory, yet require NONE to believe your fabled story-book.
> 
> Then you turn around and accuse others of dodging even though we have respectfully answered every question of yours to the best of our ability.
> 
> Surely by now you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?


 The thing is, his accusations of dodging and running when we are obviously trying to be accommodating is pure trolling. Answering his questions head-on is obviously not dodging. He might not like the answers given, but it in no way amounts to running or avoiding. 

@brotherbudz- your inability to have an adult conversation/debate has been quite evident since this thread started. Do you honestly think your immature tactics are working? You continually act like a troll by accusing but not engaging. Why don't you grow up and drop your high-and-mighty, superior attitude and come back to reality? Do you want to learn about evolution from an expert or would you rather continually dismiss it without cause and remain ignorant?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

^^^ Sir, you should pay attention to the point. I told you "explicitly" the definition of *transitional links* and still you have failed. Just face it, you failed, then start dodging. Lol lol


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Sir, you should pay attention to the point. I told you "explicitly" the definition of *transitional links* and still you have failed. Just face it, you failed, then start dodging. Lol lol


 You should pay attention. Your definition of transitional is full of shit. You don't know what you are talking about. You cannot give an example of what this small gradation would look like by using real examples. You have no concept of reality and are asking for something that evolution does not predict. The only thing that we expect if evolution is true is that we should see progressive changes from an earlier form to a later form of an animal and that is exactly what you have been given.

Every time you complain about others running and dodging when you fail to provide a clear indication of what you think we actually should find just demonstrates how you are unable to support even your own belief but instead thrive on trying to dismiss everyone else. 



> A transitional fossil is any fossil which gives us information about a transition from one species to another. (Or, about a transition from one group of species to another group of species.) A transition simply means that, down through time, there was some sort of change. The change must be big enough so that each non-transitional fossil can be easily be sorted into either a "before the transition" pile, or a "after the transition" pile. A transitional fossil is one that falls between the two piles.


----------



## budlover13 (May 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You should pay attention. Your definition of transitional is full of shit. You don't know what you are talking about. You cannot give an example of what this small gradation would look like by using real examples. You have no concept of reality and are asking for something that evolution does not predict. The only thing that we expect if evolution is true is that we should see progressive changes from an earlier form to a later form of an animal and that is exactly what you have been given.
> 
> Every time you complain about others running and dodging when you fail to provide a clear indication of what you think we actually should find just demonstrates how you are unable to support even your own belief but instead thrive on trying to dismiss everyone else.


My 8th grade graduation was PRETTY small.........


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

*mindphuk*-



BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ You obviously don't have a concept of *transitional links*. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons;instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?


Darwin had noted the same problem in *The Origin of Species &#8211;
*
&#8220;Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.&#8221;

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.


----------



## budlover13 (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *mindphuk*-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As Christianity has for 2,000yrs?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

^^^ Care to explain, instead of dodging.


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *mindphuk*-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Darwin did not have the fossil evidence that I have shown you. It is up to you to explain why the gradual changes that we have in all of the various species are not sufficient to be considered transitional. Repeating the same thing over and over does not help your case. There have been 150 years worth of fossils that Darwin did not know about. It is you that keeps dodging and running. Step up or shut up.


----------



## Beansly (May 3, 2011)

'Jesus loves me this I know...for the bible tells me so.'

Duh.
Your over-thinking it man.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *mindphuk-*
> 
> Darwin had noted the same problem in *The Origin of Species *
> 
> ...


meh i take your 150 years and raise you 2300 years 

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?*



this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born


----------



## KlosetKing (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz: Evolution is false because you cannot provide an infinite amount of fossil links that fit a definition of 'transitional' that i will not fully elaborate on!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> meh i take your 150 years and raise you 2300 years


Be reasonable!


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Be reasonable!


 avoidance dodging? looks like i got you on the ropes LOLOLOL

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

**this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born


*


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

brotherbudz is a lot like that shar-pei in his avatar. They are an aggressive and tenacious breed but not very bright.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> BrotherBuz: Evolution is false because we cannot provide a reasonable amount of *transitional links.*




Don't feel bad because *Darwin had noted the same problem* in The Origin of Species &#8211;

&#8220;Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine "gradations" between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.&#8221;

Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Don't feel bad because *Darwin had noted the same problem* in The Origin of Species &#8211;
> 
> &#8220;Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.&#8221;
> 
> Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.


keep up boy can you read or do i need to type slower lololololol

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born
*
sheesh you can lead a horse to water but you cant make lemonade with oranges


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> brotherbudz is a lot like that shar-pei in his avatar. They are an aggressive and tenacious breed but not very bright.


i dont know why but i imagine him to be bald + wrinkly like avatar too


----------



## mindphuk (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Don't feel bad because *Darwin had noted the same problem* in The Origin of Species 
> 
> Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.
> 
> Without physical evidence, the mechanism for this critical evolutionary step remains unresolved and spectulative after 150 years.


 How many times does it have to be said that 150 years ago it was true. At least most creationists are able to articulate what they believe is wrong with the evidence you have been shown. You aren't even able to explain what you think is wrong with the transitions we presented. They all show gradual changes in the skeleton over time such as the nostrils moving backward to create a blowhole in whales all at the same time front legs turned into flippers and rear legs disappeared. There are hundreds of examples of these gradual changes, not just a single structure either, simultaneous, gradual changes in many areas of the animal. This is what you asked for, gradations from past to present species. You don't honestly think that there are going to be infinite variation and that it will all fossilize do you? If you do, you have an incorrect idea about how evolution and fossilization actually works. 

If you want me to continue to be helpful in providing the evidence you are asking for, at least have the courtesy to respond like an adult and drop with the idiotic and overused accusations of dodging. You are sounding like a broken record. You should probably take a break from here and learn how to debate and learn some critical thinking skills. Of course science class is where this objective method of evaluating evidence is best taught. I don't fault you for not learning these skills as many people didn't do well in science or just had no real interest. But let's not continue to pretend you understand these issues when you obviously don't understand why these examples I have given are true transitional forms. The very fact that scientists can hypothesize what features an intermediate species would have and then go out and find fossil evidence of those extinct species is a complete vindication of the problem that Darwin wrote about. Until you can give us some examples of what you think hypothetical transitions would look like, you are merely blowing smoke and everyone here can see that.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> i dont know why but i imagine him to be bald + wrinkly like avatar too


I imagine you to be a "dumb blond".


----------



## LordWinter (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Because long before Christopher Columbus and his mother was born, the book of Job said: "The earth is round and it hangs upon nothing." Job 26:7
> 
> Now you think about the implications of this statement for a moment. Advise like this is throughout the scriptures. Do you see the light?


Nice try, but that statement validates the "word of god" no more than the presence of advanced mathematics and advanced astronomy in Mayan civilization validates their purported claims of extraterrestrial visitation. All that is established in that sentence is that knowledge outside the expected domain of a "primitive" culture is present. Sorry, but a duck is a duck. Some things have to be taken on faith alone, Spirituality is just one of those things.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 3, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I imagine you to be a "dumb blond".


hmm LOL are you able to read? theres a big old clue in my name LOLOLOLOLOL

stay in school kids dont wanna end up like this one

OH and stop dodging 

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

**this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born*


----------



## KlosetKing (May 4, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> hmm LOL are you able to read? theres a big old clue in my name LOLOLOLOLOL


We have something in common friend =D



ginjawarrior said:


> OH and stop dodging
> 
> *Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> ...


I have heard this often and always found it fascinating. It would be wonderful it *Brotherbuz* would indulge us and provide us with just ONE _meaningful post_ that actually addresses it in a mature fashion, and doesn't reference bible verses that are contradicted by OTHER bible verses.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> hmm LOL are you able to read? theres a big old clue in my name LOLOLOLOLOL


You still a dumb blond!!


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You still a dumb blond!!


name calling and avoidance yet again...
if nothing else you can say you were consistent

anyway back to matter at hand

i typed this extra slow so you'd understand 
*keep up boy can you read or do i need to type slower lololololol

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

this has been deemed impossible to answer by any theologian for the LAST 2000+ years and as such disproves jesus before he was even supposed to be born

sheesh you can lead a horse to water but you cant make lemonade with oranges *


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> They all show gradual changes in the skeleton over time such as the nostrils moving backward to create a blowhole in whales all at the same time front legs turned into flippers and rear legs disappeared. There are hundreds of examples of these gradual changes . . ."


At best you're describing "variety" within a particular species, other than that, they aren't in the fossil record! Sorry! Did these *transitional links* float up to space? Lol lol


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

Absolutely no *transitional forms* either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world. Sorry!


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 4, 2011)

"verity"
(noun)
1. truth


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Absolutely no *transitional forms* either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world. Sorry!



you just copied and pasted the first paragraph of the first like that google chucked up at ya eh?

have you got an orignal thought of your own?


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 4, 2011)

"flout"
(verb)
1. To treat with or show scorn; scoff (at)


----------



## del66666 (May 4, 2011)

bible?............is that the new stephen king book?


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 4, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> "flout"
> (verb)
> 1. To treat with or show scorn; scoff (at)


i like 
*disparagingpresent participle of dis·par·age *

Verb: Regard or represent as being of little worth.


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> At best you're describing "verity" in species, other than that, they aren't in the fossil record! Sorry! Did these *transitional links* flout up to space? Lol lol


Explain yourself. this made no sense whatsoever


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 4, 2011)

del66666 said:


> bible?............is that the new stephen king book?


stephan king writes books now?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

*ChubbySoap- *


Thanks for the correction.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> you just copied and pasted the first paragraph of the first like that google chucked up at ya eh?
> 
> have you got an orignal thought of your own?


Dumb blond, I've been saying this all along.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> *Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> ...


What were you saying about me cutting and pasting, not having an original thought-dumb blond. Lol lol


----------



## KlosetKing (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I imagine you to be a "dumb blond".


 Troll.


BrotherBuz said:


> You still a dumb blond!!


 Fucking troll.


BrotherBuz said:


> Dumb blond, I've been saying this all along.


 Stupid fucking troll.


BrotherBuz said:


> What were you saying about me cutting and pasting, not having an original thought-dumb blond. Lol lol


 Now im just pissed. Your a fucking cocksucking troll. How many insults is this now? Im done showing you respect.

Once again, you have not answered it, just dodging and FUCKING TROLLING.

Your a fantastic piece of shit, and ive grown tired of the circles and games you play. Congrat-u-fucking-lations for making you and your kind look even dumber than normal. You have no credibility, you are incapable of logical thought, and debating with you is like arguing with a car salesmen. Your not in the business of learning, or expanding your own mind. Your in the business of brainwashing dodging, recruiting and manipulating. Are you a pastor? Do you own stock in some sort of religious staple, such as a major holy water conglomerate? Do you manufacture and sell confessionals? Perhaps you have a few sisters in the perish?

I can't wait until people like you are finally bred out. At this point it should be within the next century or two.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Your a fucking cocksucking troll.


Sounds like you're having a full-blown melt down.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Your a fucking cocksucking troll.


You do enough of that for both of us.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Your a fucking cocksucking troll.


Have I ever called you a disgusting Faggot? Well, have I . . .


----------



## Beansly (May 4, 2011)

Man you guys are really sad.
I haven't heard any new evidence in this whole 47 page thread that hasn't been argued to death in a philosophy 101 community college class.
Seriously, I've had more interesting debates in high school

Faithful; don't you see it's pointless to try and explain religion to the Godless? That's why it's called faith. You _can't _prove it, and those without it are confounded by it. I've noticed most evolutionists/atheists are unhappy people. Even if they're generally happy, all they have to is see someone worshiping or praying or even just having an honest to God good, and they start bitching..."What an idiot..How could you believe in blah blah blah..."
Plus we live longer statistically, not to mention all the things the church does in times of crisis. I bet if their house got washed away in a flood, and the church had cots and food and shelter, they'd be in there quick. Don't be drawn into pointless arguments with atheists. Debate is one thing, but this degraded into a brawl.


----------



## budlover13 (May 4, 2011)

Yes it did unfortunately. And you're right about faith being just that. Faith. A belief in something not provable.

You're also right about the happiness. i always see atheists as being angry people too. And when i ask them what's making them angry, they usually say something about the faithful. The funny thing is, they are trying to own someone else's issues. No WONDER they're always upset.

But i still say that a debate such as this, with no POSSIBLE solution helps to sharpen debate skills. Which can come in handy when dealing with trolls.


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> At best you're describing "variety" within a particular species, other than that, they aren't in the fossil record! Sorry! Did these *transitional links* float up to space? Lol lol


You are so clueless it's not even funny anymore. 

Do you honestly think that a land animal that is the ancestor to the hippopotamus with feet and legs is the same species as a whale? I'm talking about major transitions between different classes like reptile to bird, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal. Those are the transitions that we have shown you. Now you cut and paste a comment that says that those don't exist? Please. You won't even explain why you think the examples I gave are not transitions. You won't because you can't.


----------



## budlover13 (May 4, 2011)

Funny how when one gets backed into a corner, he hurls insults.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 4, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Man you guys are really sad.
> I haven't heard any new evidence in this whole 47 page thread that hasn't been argued to death in a philosophy 101 community college class.
> Seriously, I've had more interesting debates in high school
> 
> ...


If you honestly think that real evidence hasn't been provided by our side of the argument in the last 43 pages, your as blind and misguided as our friend Brother.

Your right, this did degrade into a brawl. Frankly, *because im sick and fucking tired of reading Brotherbuz insulting other people when they present him with facts he cant provide an explanation for.*

If you had come in here, said your piece without revealing your bias, i would have just let this one go. But you couldn't hide it, and its very obvious you are in the exact same line of thinking as Brother. There have been many other reasons shown as to why religious people live longer. Let me sum it up, its called the *fear of death*. They get to a point where they start eating right, or stop smoking, or don't like to fly planes,etc. Plus they have entire congregations that shift the weight, like the Amish (technically considered the 'faithful') who never touch anything modern made, and live off their own goods.

How could you possibly say we have provided pointless arguments? The only pointless arguments here have been presented by him in defense of our evidence. *Your post is as lacking in anything substantial as his are.*

But at least you didn't resort to blatant name calling. I give you credit for that. I can tell you now, not one more post of mine will be directed towards Brother without calling him a cocksucking troll, hes lost all respect i ever may have had, and now im just going to stoop to his level. Its less aggravating that way.

-edit- you also don't understand atheists half as well as you think you do. A. Im an admitted AGNOSTIC, and B. We (they) don't GIVE A FUCK what you believe in, s*o long as you stop passing your 'word' as fucking FACT to anyone who is dumb enough to not know the difference.*


----------



## Leothwyn (May 4, 2011)

Beansly said:


> I've noticed most evolutionists/atheists are unhappy people. Even if they're generally happy, all they have to is see someone worshiping or praying or even just having an honest to God good, and they start bitching..."What an idiot..How could you believe in blah blah blah..."


I can't help wondering if you actually know any atheists in real life, or is this just based on your experiences in online debates? The majority of my friends are atheist or agnostic, and I have to say that my experience has pretty much been that we aren't especially concerned about you, or your worship. Sure, I get annoyed when zealots go around trying to shove their crap down everyone else's throats, and I'll occasionally stop into a debate here on RUI to kill a little time while I'm having a smoke... but other than that, I couldn't really care much less about your worship. On my list of concerns, you're way, way, way down there at the bottom. BTW, I'm a happy person too.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And you're right about faith being just that. Faith.
> 
> You're also right about the happiness. i always see atheists as being angry people too. And when i ask them what's making them angry, they usually say something about the faithful.


Said like a diplomat. Where does that leave you-straddling the fence?


----------



## budlover13 (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Said like a diplomat. Where does that leave you-startling the fence?


Diplomat, scientist. It's true. True faith is the belief in the not-understood. Therefore, if you have true faith in something, you admittedly don't fully understand it. i have no reason to NOT straddle the fence in my posts. It's called conflict avoidance and maturity as well as being respectful of other's opinions and beliefs. Something you would be wise to emmulate.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> ^^^^^ Troll!


 Sir, I never once called you a name.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 4, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> And you're right about faith being just that. Faith.



The Bible, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God&#8217;s Word says: &#8220;Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.&#8221; &#8212; *Hebrews 11:1*


----------



## budlover13 (May 4, 2011)

*Faith*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Faith (disambiguation).

Mino da Fiesole, _Faith_.


*Faith* is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true,[3] belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.[4]
Religious faith in a theological context is a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. Thus, religious faith disqualifies reasoning in favor of "transcendent reality". However, atheists and agnostics generally consider religious faith to be simply superstition.
Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, *it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence*."[5][6]

Informal usage of the word _faith_ can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for* trust* or _*belief*_. The English word is thought to date from 1200&#8211;50, from the Latin _fidem_ or _fid&#275;s_, meaning trust, derived from the verb _f&#299;dere_, _to trust_.[1]


----------



## budlover13 (May 4, 2011)

*Faith*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Faith (disambiguation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_gallery_in_washington_d.c.,_mino_da_fiesole,_fede,_1475-1480.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_gallery_in_washington_d.c.,_mino_da_fiesole,_fede,_1475-1480.JPG 


*Faith* is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true,[3] belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.[4]
Religious faith in a theological context is a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. Thus, religious faith disqualifies reasoning in favor of "transcendent reality". However, atheists and agnostics generally consider religious faith to be simply superstition.
Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, *it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence*."[5][6]

Informal usage of the word _faith_ can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for* trust* or _*belief*_. The English word is thought to date from 120050, from the Latin _fidem_ or _fid&#275;s_, meaning trust, derived from the verb _f&#299;dere_, _to trust_.[1]


----------



## KlosetKing (May 4, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I imagine you to be a "dumb blond".





BrotherBuz said:


> You still a dumb blond!!





BrotherBuz said:


> Dumb blond, I've been saying this all along.





BrotherBuz said:


> What were you saying about me cutting and pasting, not having an original thought-dumb blond. Lol lol


Drumroll please........


BrotherBuz said:


> Sir, I never once called you a name.


You must LOVE the taste of your foot, cuz you've had it in your mouth for about 45 pages of trolling now.

-edit- I suppose to be fair, that was Ginjawarrior, now that i look back. But trying to defend yourself by saying that by not insulting HIM you have been innocent in this, is a fallacy.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 4, 2011)

Some more foot for you to taste Brotherbuz;

From page 7 of this thread:


BrotherBuz said:


> I bet *Dumbphuk*, believe in evolution, without a fossil record - billions and billions of years.


You know what is even funnier? You said this, THREE PAGES LATER! That's right, LATER!
From page 10 of this thread:


BrotherBuz said:


> *Mindphuk*
> 
> "*Ha, I'm talking in circles? You're fucking delusional.*"
> 
> ...


----------



## mccumcumber (May 4, 2011)

Edit: You is meant to interpreted generally, not singling anyone out. 

If you believe he's a troll, then he's doing a great job because he's pissing you the fuck off. Calm down man, it's pointless. He's obviously given up on converting people a while ago. The fact of the matter is, he's making egregious claims solely to make you respond with hostility. While he "plays it cool." 
Normally this would just be a lame face to face argument tactic, but on paper it holds far more weight.
You see, by associating your anger with your arguments, even a high school-er could argue that you are being irrational and highly emotional. While brothabuzz keeps his cool and comes of as logical and keeps his emotions detached from argument. However, he is simply feeding off of your emotions by expecting your next move and further pissing you off. If this argument were a game of chess, he would be slowly wiping out your pawns. 
Don't fight back with anger fight back with evidence.

This doesn't really have too much to do with the bible, but an interesting point: Most fundamentalist Christians believe that Jesus was white. You'll notice that most portraits and pictures of Jesus to this day depict a white Jesus. The funny thing about that is there were no native White people in Bethlehem at Jesus' birth. You had some Romans who conquered the lands, they weren't natives, and most certainly were not Jewish. Jesus was actually most likely black or middle eastern in appearance. Since the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt for a fair amount of years, the Egyptian men most probably had intercourse with the Jewish women at the time. After a fair amount of breeding, and killing off of Jewish males, the resulting offspring probably looked pretty similar to a modern day black or middle eastern man. Fun fact I guess.


----------



## budlover13 (May 4, 2011)

Rules of debate, huh?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 5, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Edit: You is meant to interpreted generally, not singling anyone out.
> 
> If you believe he's a troll, then he's doing a great job because he's pissing you the fuck off. Calm down man, it's pointless. He's obviously given up on converting people a while ago. The fact of the matter is, he's making egregious claims solely to make you respond with hostility. While he "plays it cool."
> Normally this would just be a lame face to face argument tactic, but on paper it holds far more weight.
> ...


 Trust me, this isnt lost on me ;D
Truth be told, my post will reflect a different mood depending completely on what time of day and how high i may be. But in the end, really i just wanted to stoop to the level he has been for a while.
We've been providing evidence since page once =D

And great point on the ethnicity of jesus, it is often overlooked.


----------



## Luger187 (May 5, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What you have to do is use your intellect. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's, which chronicles many books of the bible. Some of these books date back to 300 B.C. That's damn now near the beginning of recorded human history and yet there were to discrepancies when compared with todays Scriptures. Do you understand the implications of this?


LOL you're funny


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> *Faith*Informal usage of the word _faith_ can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for* trust* or _*belief*_.


This is found where, at *Wikipedia 5:2 * Give me a break.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I'm talking about major transitions between different classes like reptile to bird, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal. Those are the transitions that we have shown you. Now you cut and paste a comment that says that those don't exist? Please. You won't even explain why you think the examples I gave are not transitions. You won't because you can't.



"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." 

"If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world."

There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.

"All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record."

*Case closed.*


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> This is found where, at *Wikipedia 5:2 * Give me a break.


*Faith*(per Oxford English Dictionary)

<LI id=m_en_us1246069.001 class="sense sense-type-core scrollerBlock">1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something:_this restores one's faith in politicians_
<LI id=m_en_us1246069.002 class="sense sense-type-core scrollerBlock">2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. 
<LI class="subSense scrollerBlock">a system of religious belief:_the Christian faith_
<LI class="subSense scrollerBlock">a strongly held belief or theory:_the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe_

i used the shorter, dumbed down version for your ease of reference. Still says the same thing in more words. 


Try again.


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> "Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures."
> 
> 
> *Case closed.*


absolute nonsense you need look no further than your garden to find examples.

find a flightless beetle any one will do now you will notice its back is one solid shell no? wouldnt the formed wings underneath of it be proof of transition?

of the snakes that still have traces of hind limbs?

are these not transitions from one state to another? 
or are they mistakes that god has tried to cover up?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 6, 2011)

No matter how much explaining anyone does, this troll will keep denying it because that's what trolls do. He knows your right, he sees the evidence, he's just denying it to get all of you to keep posting so he can keep trolling. 

Stop posting in this thread guys, it's nothing more than a waste of your time.

Unsubscribed. 

BB, hope you realize by trolling you're doing much more harm to your cause than any of the people destroying your fairy tale creation ever could, so congratulations on being ignorant to yet another piece of information that could be useful to your life. When your voice starts changing and that acne comes in, just remember, that's just your body TRANSITIONING into adulthood, asshat.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> This is found where, at *Wikipedia 5:2 * Give me a break.


Lol, and now he dismisses Wikipedia as if it has no basis in fact either. I got news for you buddy, if your book had 1/1000th the amount of facts as Wikipedia, we would have never had this argument to begin with.

Oh, and the multiple books all intentionally left out from the bible because they didnt 'fit', according to some. Id love a more detailed and thought out explanation on EACH ONE if you would like to provide them. History Channel and the internet has already told me why, but id love to hear YOUR version.



The Life of Adam and Eve
The Book of Enoch
The Book of Jubilees
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Proto-Gospel of James
The Gnostic Scriptures of Nag Hammadi
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Apocalypse of Peter
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

Excellent post KK!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> When your voice starts changing and that acne comes in, just remember, that's just your body TRANSITIONING into adulthood, asshat.


I won't be transitioning into a different species - fool.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> of the snakes that still have traces of hind limbs? Are these not transitions from one state to another?


If what you say is even remotely close to the truth, such "creatures" would have died and left a fossil record of its *transition*. What's so fucking hard about that blondy?


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> If what you say is even remotely close to the truth, such "creatures" would have died and left a fossil record of its *transition*. What's so fucking hard about that blondy?


Organic matter decays Buz. Small bones too. Keep trying.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Lol, and now he dismisses Wikipedia as if it has no basis in fact either. I got news for you buddy, if your book had 1/1000th the amount of facts as Wikipedia, we would have never had this argument to begin with.


Dude, did you realize that Wikipedia could be added to by anyone? That doesn't sound very authoritative to me. 

You must be a puppy. LOL


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Dude, did you realize that Wikipedia could be added to by anyone? That doesn't sound very authoritative to me.
> 
> You must be a puppy. LOL


How about the OED? Can i add my own definition there?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Dude, did you realize that Wikipedia could be added to by anyone? That doesn't sound very authoritative to me.
> 
> You must be a puppy. LOL


Actually its what they call 'peer edited' and has moderators. Now please, point out one place in your book, where someone can find something that is factually incorrect, and fix it? Oh wait.....

Your argument against Wikipedia is as flawed as any of your arguments. For every 1 person that is out there trying to add false info to Wiki, there are 100 that are out trying find and fix it. You lose.

Also, still waiting on explanations of those banned books, fool.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

All insults and fallacies, no valid argument at all. You are quite possibly the worst religious debater i have ever met BB. Better take an extra class at sunday school this weekend.


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

i keep posting here b/c i can't make a better anti-religion argument than he does. Makes it pretty easy, imho.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Organic matter decays Buz. Small bones too. Keep trying.


Sir, you should leave this subject to *paleontologist*, because you clearly don't know what you&#8217;re talking about. These scientists have found not only small and large fossils (bones), but fully entomb animals, reptiles, mammals etc. Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Sir, you should leave this subject to *paleontologist*, because you clearly don't know what you&#8217;re talking about. These scientists have found not only small and large fossils (bones), but fully entomb animals, reptiles, mammals etc. Are you fucking kidding me?


Some of 'em anyhow. Go look at an 1800's cemetary and tell me how many intact skeletons you find. And THEY were somewhat protected from the natural elements.


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

You don't need to be a paleontolgist to possess common sense.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> All insults and fallacies, no valid argument at all. You are quite possibly the worst religious debater i have ever met BB. Better take an extra class at sunday school this weekend.


You keep coming back, Koset man!! LOL LOL


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You keep coming back, Koset man!! LOL LOL


B/c you keep proving his point with your circular logic. Seriously, if you TRULY believe in God, you are doing WAY more harm than good for your opinion. But, continue. i've already sent this thread-link to many friends as evidence of obstinate Christians. Carry on.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Some of 'em anyhow. Go look at an 1800's cemetary and tell me how many intact skeletons you find. And THEY were somewhat protected from the natural elements.


 Trying to get him to understand this would be like trying to teach a dog math. Remember, he understands fact as being the impossible (chance). Evolution will never be about what we have found to him, it will always be about what we are still (and in his eyes, always will be) missing.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Some of 'em anyhow. Go look at an 1800's cemetary and tell me how many intact skeletons you find. And THEY were somewhat protected from the natural elements.


Sir, just like I said, you should leave this subject to *Paleontologist*, because you sound like a fool!
No wonder you're no longer on the force, your too damn dense. LOL LOL


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You keep coming back, Koset man!! LOL LOL


 I have left the other thread permanently sir, and i intent to keep it that way. This one is at least still slightly about the original topic.

You keep losing, Brother man! LOL LOL


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Sir, just like I said, you should leave this subject to *Paleontologist*, because you sound like a fool!
> No wonder you're no longer on the force, your too damn dense. LOL LOL


More fodder for the religiously blind.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Sir, just like I said, you should leave this subject to *Paleontologist*, because you sound like a fool!
> No wonder you're no longer on the force, your too damn dense. LOL LOL


 A fossil normally preserves only a portion of the deceased organism, usually that portion that was partially mineralized during life, such as the bones and teeth of vertebrates, or the chitinous or calcareous exoskeletons of invertebrates._* Preservation of soft tissues is rare in the fossil record*_. Fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint or feces (coprolites) of a reptile.

You are the fool sir.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> More fodder for the religiously blind.


Keep dodging.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Keep dodging.


How is it dodging if you didnt ask anything?
But guess what, i WILL keep asking.

1. Why were several books, (including several from the DSS) banned from the bible because they didnt fit?
2. Why do you think that fossils are so readily available that thousands and thousands of samples for each and every of millions of transitions would be available?

Ive left these here in case it aids you in your research:
A fossil normally preserves only a portion of the deceased organism, usually that portion that was partially mineralized during life, such as the bones and teeth of vertebrates, or the chitinous or calcareous exoskeletons of invertebrates. _*Preservation of soft tissues is rare in the fossil record.*_ Fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint or feces (coprolites) of a reptile.

Banned from bible:


The Life of Adam and Eve
The Book of Enoch
The Book of Jubilees
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Proto-Gospel of James
The Gnostic Scriptures of Nag Hammadi
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Apocalypse of Peter
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
The Testament of Solomon
The Zohar (The Book of Splendor)
The Alphabet of Ben-Sira
Joseph and Aseneth
The Septuagint
Bel and the Dragon
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
Mar Saba letter and The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Judas


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> A fossil normally preserves only a portion of the deceased organism, usually that portion that was partially mineralized during life, such as the bones and teeth of vertebrates, or the chitinous or calcareous exoskeletons of invertebrates._* Preservation of soft tissues is rare in the fossil record*_. Fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint or feces (coprolites) of a reptile.


Hey puppy, you sound confused again. First, read buds comment about 18OO&#8217;s cemetery, before sounding like a fool.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 6, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Some of 'em anyhow. Go look at an 1800's cemetary and tell me how many intact skeletons you find. And THEY were somewhat protected from the natural elements.


You are dense!!


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Keep dodging.


Her you go Brother. My 2 cents:


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> How is it dodging if you didnt ask anything?
> But guess what, i WILL keep asking.
> 
> 1. Why were several books, (including several from the DSS) banned from the bible because they didnt fit?
> ...


 Answers please. I shouldnt have to explain to you how in a cemetary of thousands of people, far less than 1% of them would have become 'fossils' in any manner. And thats WITH embalming fluid!

Or are you also not bright enough to understand what an embalming fluid is and what it does.


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Answers please. I shouldnt have to explain to you how in a cemetary of thousands of people, far less than 1% of them would have become 'fossils' in any manner. And thats WITH embalming fluid!
> 
> Or are you also not bright enough to understand what an embalming fluid is and what it does.


It keeps one in a suspended state right? Like, never advancing, moving forward, etc?

Yeah, he's probably familiar with it.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 6, 2011)

Notice hes rather busy in that other thread trashing me while still dodging so many questions. He sure grows some balls when he thinks im gone.
Do i need to repost them BB? Or were they not clear enough?


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Notice hes rather busy in that other thread trashing me while still dodging so many questions. He sure grows some balls when he thinks im gone.
> Do i need to repost them BB? Or were they not clear enough?


Meh. Let him bash. Makes our job of showing the insanity of his position a lot easier.


----------



## Sinsay (May 6, 2011)

People have a follow the herd way about them How many god fear`in people really read more then a half page of that bullshit King James had it translated
& had the 1st 2 guys who translated it killed That to have some bear`in on the 3rd writer


----------



## Sinsay (May 6, 2011)

no he dont read hes a bible man They dont read the "good book" 
Here some some bible he forgot 
All of the negative emotions which most cultured people consider unacceptable seem to be found in God

For the Lord is a devouring fire,a jealous God(Deut. 4:24)

Nothing makes God more jealous then when people worship other gods & tells them that they must even kill
our own children if they do this 

If your brother,the son of your mother,or your son,daughter,the wife of your bosom or the friend of your own
soul,entices you secretly saying "let us go & serve other gods" which neither you nor your
fathers have known,some of the gods of the people that are around you whether near or far ,
from one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him,
nor shall your eyes pity him,NOR SHALL YOU SPARE HIM,nor shall you conceal him ,BUT 
YOU SHALL KILL HIM Your hand shall be the first against him to kill him & after that the 
others can strike him (Deut. 13:6)

The bible tells us that there is a time for hate & a time for war (Ex. 3:8 )

The Lord is a man of war (Ex. 15:3)

The bible contains dozens of examples of God helping his devotees to slaughter civilian 
populations Military commanders doing this today are considered war criminals 
(Num. 21:1-3 Num 31:1-12 Deut. 2:32-34 Deut 3:3-7 Josh 11:6-11) 

God is easily angered 

Serve the Lord with fear & trembling,kiss his feet or else he will get angry & you will perish in the way ,for his wrath
is quicky kindled (Ps. 2:11)

Jesus taught that the world would end within his own lifetime or very soon afterwards

I tell you the truth,this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (Lk.21:25-33)

On another occasion he again told people

I tell you the truth,some who are standing here will not taste death before they see 
the son of man coming in his kingdom (Matt. 16:2

That generation passed 2000 years ago His prophecies have Long been proved to be wrong


----------



## budlover13 (May 6, 2011)

Ok. i have a theory. Correct me if i'm wrong BB.

NOBODY could be this obstinate unintentionally.

Despite MANY comments that state he's hurting the "religious" cause, he continues.

i propose that he is a true atheist that is DELIBERATELY trying to make religion look like it is a bunch of fools. Like reverse psychology. IF this is his game, he's done well. If it's NOT his game, well, he's done well anyway.


----------



## Beansly (May 7, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> If you honestly think that real evidence hasn't been provided by our side of the argument in the last 43 pages, your as blind and misguided as our friend Brother.
> 
> Your right, this did degrade into a brawl. Frankly, *because im sick and fucking tired of reading Brotherbuz insulting other people when they present him with facts he cant provide an explanation for.*
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point about angry evolutionists/atheists. Why are you cursing?



KlosetKing said:


> Lol, and now he dismisses Wikipedia as if it has no basis in fact either. I got news for you buddy, if your book had 1/1000th the amount of facts as Wikipedia, we would have never had this argument to begin with.
> 
> Oh, and the multiple books all intentionally left out from the bible because they didnt 'fit', according to some. Id love a more detailed and thought out explanation on EACH ONE if you would like to provide them. History Channel and the internet has already told me why, but id love to hear YOUR version.
> 
> ...


 Kloset, your silly.




KlosetKing said:


> Also, still waiting on explanations of those banned books, fool.


You saw the special and so did I. And I know that you know that they explain exactly why each of those books was _likely_ kept out of the original canon. 
Either because the story wasn't written by the author who claimed they did, or they stories were to fantastical. So why are you asking questions you
already know the answers to? Don't like how they edited it? Complain to the council of Hippo.


----------



## Beansly (May 7, 2011)

My posts lack substance to non-believers because I don't need facts and figures to assert my beliefs. 
You say I got nothing substantial, but your asking for something inherently impossible to produce.
How do I prove I believe in God? How do I prove I believe in the Bible?
How would I show you God's work in my life? I can't. That's why you don't bother me. Remember, Faith. You can't prove it. Why are you trying?
You call me dumb, but you the one arguing something you can't prove either way.

I'm gonna make sure and pray for you real hard tonight; in fact I'm gonna pray for you now.
_"Dear Lord. Thank you O God for the all the things you provide for us in our lives and things you provide to those that don't even appreciate it._
_Forgive those Father that would denounce your name, for they desire your love the most. Guide these hurt souls to you and your glorious kingdom
so that they may receive your loving light and favor. In your name, Amen"

_That one's for you guys; Kloset, budluv and Sins


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 7, 2011)

Mark 11:12-14

God hates figs...I've heard enough...


----------



## Harrekin (May 7, 2011)

To the OP, the Bible is revered as the word of God because the Church says it is/should be. Its pretty much as simple as that.

To the guy arguing that "transitional links" dont exist...can you explain why humans have a "tail bone" and an appendix? Also, out of the thousands of TRILLIONS (actually its probably an incomprehensibly high number) of individual animals that have ever lived on the Earth in hundreds of millions of known life, you think the fossil record is gonna have all of them?! The Earth would be about 100x the size it is now purely from the stacks of fossils.


----------



## Sinsay (May 7, 2011)

agreed god people dont need facts *figures or reason to assert your beliefs.Its what grandma & grandpa thought so you carry it on 
*


----------



## KlosetKing (May 7, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Thanks for proving my point about angry evolutionists/atheists. Why are you cursing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I watched those specials.
The stories were too fantastical? But Noahs Ark wasnt? Adam and Eve, a talking serpent. These things all made sense to them, but not THOSE books. But that STILL isnt the point. The point is they chose what fit their agenda, and discarded what didnt, and he STILL uses it as a reference of fact. You cant reference a study long proved false as fact.

Your reasoning is flawed, and all you can do is call me silly then AGREE with me. Your still lacking anything substantial, but whatever.

I take your prayer with a smile. Prayers are simply (usually) good thoughts about people, and i dont hate on that. I hate on passing belief on as fact. If you were to claim that the prayer had any effect on my life, THAT'S when i would start to argue.

Also, point out my cussing all you want. I say the word fuck in my text as often as i say it in my speech, and it is quite often. Doesn't mean im angry, just means im, 'excited' to say the least.

When the direct, personal insults start flowing from my mouth (which they haven't, at least not to you) then you will know. Until then, keep your mouth shut,


----------



## Leothwyn (May 7, 2011)

ChubbySoap said:


> Mark 11:12-14
> 
> God hates figs...I've heard enough...


What's wrong with figs? I love a good fig newton. Oh well, to each his own. If god hates figs, I guess it's his choice.

Edit: Funny, I thought you just misspelled 'fags'. Turns out there really is a bit in that silly book about god not liking figs.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 7, 2011)

I fuckin' lol'd at that shit!


----------



## Beansly (May 7, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> I watched those specials.
> The stories were too fantastical? But Noahs Ark wasnt? Adam and Eve, a talking serpent. These things all made sense to them, but not THOSE books. But that STILL isnt the point. The point is they chose what fit their agenda, and discarded what didnt, and he STILL uses it as a reference of fact. You cant reference a study long proved false as fact.
> 
> Your reasoning is flawed, and all you can do is call me silly then AGREE with me. Your still lacking anything substantial, but whatever.
> ...


truth is we probably agree on a lot of things.
I just don't like how ppl like you think your so much smarter than people with religion.
And I know praying for people works. Cause if it didn't I would be dead or in jail by now. So yeah, I do think my prayer will affect you. 
I accept your apology.

And in case you haven't noticed, every book has an agenda. Or do you believe everything you read?


----------



## mindphuk (May 7, 2011)

Beansly said:


> truth is we probably agree on a lot of things.
> I just don't like how ppl like you think your so much smarter than people with religion.


If you continually demonstrate flawed critical thinking skills and poor judgment, maybe your intelligence should be questioned. 



> And I know praying for people works. Cause if it didn't I would be dead or in jail by now. So yeah, I do think my prayer will affect you.
> I accept your apology.


Right, because the only reason that you aren't dead or in jail is because someone prayed.  

Funny that many religious people consider atheists arrogant when they believe they have a personal relationship with the creator of the fucking universe and he actually gives two shits about their life.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 7, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Thanks for proving my point about angry evolutionists/atheists. Why are you cursing?
> 
> Kloset, your silly.
> 
> ...


Klosetman, your silly. I'll second that!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 7, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Also, out of the thousands of TRILLIONS (actually its probably an incomprehensibly high number) of individual animals that have ever lived on the Earth in hundreds of millions of known life, you think the fossil record is gonna have all of them?!


Silly, you don't need all of them, a third will due!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 7, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I fuckin' lol'd at that shit!


Sir, you should be laughing at yourself . . ."


----------



## budlover13 (May 7, 2011)

He's LOVING this 54th page!


So am i. Good proof for my position. Linking it all over guys. Don't say anything to incrimiate you brothers. i think BB may be famous b4 too long.


----------



## Beansly (May 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> If you continually demonstrate flawed critical thinking skills and poor judgment, maybe your intelligence should be questioned.
> 
> Right, because the only reason that you aren't dead or in jail is because someone prayed.
> 
> Funny that many religious people consider atheists arrogant when they believe they have a personal relationship with the creator of the fucking universe and he actually gives two shits about their life.


Your confusing critical thinking with "book smarts."
Critical thinking is the ability to extrapolate an objective opinion from a subjective statement, and give your own opinion without diluting it (or defeating it in your guy's case) with emotional statements (like cursing and name calling) and opinions.

Even if you could back everything you say with facts, you're demeaning your argument by becoming emotional. The ability to know that, is critical thinking..._smart guy_
My critical thinking skills, so far, have been shown to be greater than the sum total of all the know-it-all's in here screaming at me "GOD ISN'T REAL!!!" with tears in their eyes.
I had daddy issues too you guys, I got over it. 

Why does it anger you SO much that I have a personal relationship with The Creator, or the idea that he/she would want to talk to me?
You should presume to believe that God is anything like you. God is Grace. Grace is when someone gives you something you don't deserve. And besides I don't believe that you wouldn't care about something you created. I'm sure if you bred seeds and sold them you'd be interested in how other people grew them and how they turn out. You'd probably even give growers advice on how to grow their seeds better (if you follow my analogy).

I don't feel sorry for you people because you don't have a God or whatever; it's cause you have nothing to turn when all else fails. All you have is your little existence, and your little perception of how everything is and isn't, and your fragile human spirit. God help you when the shit goes down as they say. We'll see who's stronger and who goes running to who's side when shit get's REALLY bad. I promise you there wont be any Christians converting to atheists.

Keep posting this elsewhere too. I'm sure all the 15 year olds on the forums at www.Iknoweverythingandyoudont.com will get a kick out of this.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 8, 2011)

> Why does it anger you SO much that I have a personal relationship with The Creator?


How. Do. You. People. Not. Get. It?

Let me break it down for you...

Imagine I tell you I believe in an alien race that seeded life on earth a few billion years ago. They created us, they are essentially gods. Our alien masters have given us rules and guidelines to live by. Me, and billions of other people believe this genesis story is true, IN SPITE OF all of the evidence against it. This belief divides people, anyone who doesn't accept it is outcast, or worse, killed. Even the ones that do believe it disagree with exactly where they came from, what they look like, and what is required of us to join them after death. 

...

... ...

If it was just you, with your own little personal belief in adult Santa Clause, it wouldn't be a problem at all. Your free to be as crazy as you want, this is America. But it isn't, and I hope you can be man enough to admit it. 

That's the problem, you guys have to project your crazy onto the rest of us who dont buy the bullshit.


----------



## Beansly (May 8, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How. Do. You. People. Not. Get. It?
> 
> Let me break it down for you...
> 
> ...


Wha..?
Ok so what is it you beleive? I didn't get the alien analogy.
Are you saying that people in this country that don't beleive in God are outcasts?
I think you might be exaggerating a little about the whole death thing. 
More people in America are killed for being what others consider the "wrong religion" than those that have no religion (Protestants, Methodists, and Mormons killing Catholics, Jews, Muslims etc). 
the only reason atheists/agnostics are kind of looked at funny is because you insist on asserting your beliefs on us!
If you kept your mouth shut and just believed whatever you wanted to believe in silence then nobody would bother you.

And what am I supposed to admit now? That I'm not the only one who believes in God. Big revelation...
I know this country is secretly religious even though it tries to pretend it isn't. The country was founded on it. It's something they can't deny.
They write laws that say separate church and state, yet most of our laws are written based on religious morals.
So I understand why you guys get mad. But your taking it out on the wrong people. It's not our fault.
Atheists/agnostics are a minority in this country. It's hard being a minority. I know. I'm Mexican. But I don't blame white people for all my problems.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

Beansly said:


> _smart guy_
> My critical thinking skill have been shown to be greater than the sum total of all know-it-all's in here screaming at me "God isn't REAL!!!" with tears in their eyes.
> I had daddy issues too you guys, I got over it.


Hey smart guy*(MP)*, your really looking a bit dumb!! I think you best back off-last chance.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 8, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Your confusing critical thinking with educational intelligence.
> Critical thinking is the ability to extrapolate an objective opinion from a subjective statement, and give your own opinion without diluting it (or defeating it in your guy's case) with emotional statements (like cursing and name calling) and opinions.


Seriously dude, you need to get over yourself. I have not gotten emotional, ive gotten bored with BB. Have i cussed at him? Sure, but at that point it was LONG after HE threw out insults. Read the fucking thread man, he is ALWAYS the one to start with insults. same goes for the other thread he trolls. He starts it, and i roll with it. Nuff said.



Beansly said:


> Even if you could back everything you say with facts, your demeaning your argument by becoming emotional. The ability to know that, is critical thinking..._smart guy_
> My critical thinking skill have been shown to be greater than the sum total of all know-it-all's in here screaming at me "God isn't REAL!!!" with tears in their eyes.


Your critical thinking skills are not as good as you think they are if A. Your believe in Noahs Ark, or B. You honestly think that i give more than a rats ass about what he feels. I don't. But i will make a post using correct grammar, links, and data to back up my opinions, without spewing a bunch of "its my opinion" bullshit. Opinions are for those that cant understand, arent willing to accept, or plain dont know, the facts.


Beansly said:


> I had daddy issues too you guys, I got over it.


Is that where your faith stems from, daddy issues? I assure you, my parents have nothing to do with my faith.


Beansly said:


> Why does it anger you SO much that I have a personal relationship with The Creator?


You SERIOUSLY need to get this through your head. We DON'T have a problem with you or your 'relationship with the creator'. We (I) have a problem with you spreading your opinions about that relationship around to others as if they are undying proof that what you belief is fact. It is not.


Beansly said:


> Like somehow..._I would be unworthy_...


Seems your bent on finding a problem where there is none. Never said you weren't worthy, merely said you should stop representing your beliefs as facts. Plain and simple.



Beansly said:


> Keep posting this elsewhere too. I'm sure all the 15 year olds on the forums at www.Iknoweverythingandyoudont.com will get a kick out of this.


 You really are on some high and mighty horse aren't you? Its like, you get a few paragraphs in, you start making a LITTLE sense, then you just fucking end it on some troll note that is no better than the last 5 comments BrotherBuz has made. You're despicable sir.


----------



## Beansly (May 8, 2011)

Sir.
[video=youtube;y3Z2MP8vMWU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU[/video]


KlosetKing said:


> Seriously dude, you need to get over yourself. I have not gotten emotional, ive gotten bored with BB. Have i cussed at him? Sure, but at that point it was LONG after HE threw out insults. Read the fucking thread man, he is ALWAYS the one to start with insults. same goes for the other thread he trolls. He starts it, and i roll with it. Nuff said.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills are not as good as you think they are if A. Your believe in Noahs Ark, or B. You honestly think that i give more than a rats ass about what he feels. I don't. But i will make a post using correct grammar, links, and data to back up my opinions, without spewing a bunch of "its my opinion" bullshit. Opinions are for those that cant understand, arent willing to accept, or plain dont know, the facts.
> 
> ...


what's the name of this thread?
It's not "why are atheists retarded?" or something.
It's a challenge.
It's a challenge to anyone to explain when the bible is so revered.
If anyone started shit it was you guys. 
And yeah we say it's the truth because to us it is the truth an we'll tell it to anyone that wants to listen. The truth to you is that God doesn't exist an you guy try just as hard to prove your point.
But Jesus even says that if people don't want to hear you preach, then move on to the next house/town. Whoever these people are that are hounding you with religion (you make it sound like the Christian paparazzi is after you) aren't true Christians. 
For me it's more about spreading Christ through example than by arguing endless semantics. 'the bible say this'---'this scientist said that'...
To me either you believe or you don't. The fact that you can't even respect my POV is the reason I keep it up with you. It's ok tho. I kinda like arguing with the pig-headed. It's a good way to keep my chops up for serious debate.

You call me a troll because of what? 
Every personal remark I've made has been in response to another.
I know because the way I win these arguments is NOT to fight or start flaming.
I don't ant to have to document each one but I will if you don't believe me.
I said that because it seems really childish that your using a thread full of anonymous people's statements
and somehow use that to prove your agenda.
Like where in any serious academic circle would forum banter hold up as an argument?
_Christ on cracker...
_


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

Beansly said:


> If you kept your mouth shut and just believed whatever you wanted to believe in silence then nobody would know what you think.


*Padawanbater -*
Hey,don't ask don't tell. LOL


----------



## mindphuk (May 8, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Your confusing critical thinking with "book smarts."
> Critical thinking is the ability to extrapolate an objective opinion from a subjective statement, and give your own opinion without diluting it (or defeating it in your guy's case) with emotional statements (like cursing and name calling) and opinions.


Actually no. I am not the confused one here. 


> Even if you could back everything you say with facts, you're demeaning your argument by becoming emotional. The ability to know that, is critical thinking..._smart guy_


Wow, so if you claim your opponent is emotional you get to win the debate? Merely asserting your opponent is emotional and therefore weak is a poor substitute for actually attacking the substance of a post but I guess when that's all you got...



> My critical thinking skills, so far, have been shown to be greater than the sum total of all the know-it-all's in here screaming at me "GOD ISN'T REAL!!!" with tears in their eyes.


Except the part where you give an incorrect definition for critical thinking. As well as the strawman you just made there. 



> I had daddy issues too you guys, I got over it.


Ah yes, the ad hominem, seemingly the most abundant arrow in the quiver of the theist. 



> Why does it anger you SO much that I have a personal relationship with The Creator, or the idea that he/she would want to talk to me?


More accusations about the emotions of your opponents. Even if I was angry at you, it doesn't support your delusion.


> I don't feel sorry for you people because you don't have a God or whatever; it's cause you have nothing to turn when all else fails. All you have is your little existence, and your little perception of how everything is and isn't, and your fragile human spirit. God help you when the shit goes down as they say. We'll see who's stronger and who goes running to who's side when shit get's REALLY bad. I promise you there wont be any Christians converting to atheists.


So you agree then that most people believe this nonsense because of fear and not logic and reason.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 8, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Sir.
> what's the name of this thread?
> It's not "why are atheists retarded?" or something.


More insults, your just as good at this as BB.


Beansly said:


> It's a challenge.
> 
> It's a challenge to anyone to explain when the bible is so revered.


No, it was a question, by someone who came off as an atheist i might add.



Beansly said:


> If anyone started shit it was you guys.


Once again, wrong. Go back and read the thread PLEASE. I don't know why i have to say it so many goddamn times. HE started with the insults. Get with the program.



Beansly said:


> And yeah we say it's the truth because to us it is the truth an we'll tell it to anyone that wants to listen. The truth to you is that God doesn't exist an you guy try just as hard to prove your point.


The truth is not how YOU see it. The truth requires facts. What you have is belief not truth. What is so hard to understand about that?



Beansly said:


> But Jesus even says that if people don't want to hear you preach, then move on to the next house/town. Whoever these people are that are hounding you with religion (you make it sound like the Christian paparazzi is after you) aren't true Christians.


Duh, we said multiple times the ones in question (in regards to that) are usually JW's and Mormons. Christians are the 'lethargic of the faithful'. They live life by enough gray areas, they tend to not be too oppressing anymore.



Beansly said:


> For me it's more about spreading Christ through example than by arguing endless semantics. 'the bible say this'---'this scientist said that'...
> To me either you believe or you don't.


You still misunderstand. This isn't about faith, its about representing your faith as scientific fact. *It isn't, why cant you understand this*?



Beansly said:


> The fact that you can't even respect my POV is the reason I keep it up with you. It's ok tho. I kinda like arguing with the pig-headed. It's a good way to keep my chops up for serious debate.


Insult me, tell me i cant provide meaningful debate, then say that the combination of those things keep your skills honed? Im truly lost now. I respect your point of view (opinion) all i need to. What i don't respect is misrepresentation.



Beansly said:


> You call me a troll because of what?
> Every personal remark I've made has been in response to another.


Lies. You have insulted me twice now sir. Please, go back and show me where i started it.



Beansly said:


> I know because the way I win these arguments is NOT to fight or start flaming.


Really? Cuz if i went back and quoted everything youve said since you joined this thread, im betting it would contradict that.



Beansly said:


> I don't ant to have to document each one but I will if you don't believe me.


Please do! Because i havnt insulted you sir, but you have insulted me several times. Your the one feeling hurt and offended here and lashing back out, not I. I am not so insecure in by beliefs.



Beansly said:


> I said that because it seems really childish that your using a thread full of anonymous people's statements
> and somehow use that to prove your agenda.


And yet you use a book full of anonymous peoples 'stories' and reference it as fact to back your faith up? _*Your hipocrisy never ends.*_



Beansly said:


> Like where in any serious academic circle would forum banter hold up as an argument?


And for ONCE you say something i agree with. Holy shit.



Beansly said:


> _Christ on cracker...
> _


Is that like, a Jesus Snack? Comes with the wine at communion right?


----------



## Harrekin (May 8, 2011)

So BB, you still aint answered the fact we actually have "transitional links" in our bodies right now. God just give us these pointless organs/skeletal structures for the laugh? 

Is it not possible that a "higher power" just lit the fuse to the Big Bang? Or that "God" set the evolution ball rolling? 

Fossils are extremely rare as they require very exact conditions to form, its the same reason why graveyards never actually fill up 

Im agnostic btw, so Im not agreeing or disagreeing with anyones beliefs, but saying evolution never happened (and isnt happening right now) is just foolish, faith or not. 

And believing the Bible word for word is even more foolish, a priest or a minister would be the first person to tell you the Bible should NOT be taken word for word, its supposed to be more of a guideline book to ensure people lived good lives. And these people have degrees in theology, I doubt you do.

Also just as a sidenote to all the Christians on here...your aware the Old Testiment is actually a Jewish sacred scripture, right?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 8, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> So BB, you still aint answered the fact we actually have "transitional links" in our bodies right now. God just give us these pointless organs/skeletal structures for the laugh?
> 
> Is it not possible that a "higher power" just lit the fuse to the Big Bang? Or that "God" set the evolution ball rolling?
> 
> ...


Very well said sir. Your ideas and beliefs fall almost exactly into mine. I am also agnostic, and i merely see the Big Bang, evolution, Math, you name it, as all being merely tools the 'creator' used.

To say there is NO god is as foolish as blindly believing that 'his' hand is in every action WE take every day.

Ive said it a thousand times. Science is not in the business of 'disproving god'. It's in the business of removing 'opinion', replacing it with DATA, and drawing educated decisions therein. So again I ask BB and others, why is religion so bent on disproving science?

Simple: Science WANTS to be wrong. *Its how it betters itself.* _*

Religion, doesn't benefit from being wrong, at ALL.*_


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> ". . . ive gotten bored with BB. Have i cussed at him? Sure, but at that point it was LONG after HE threw out insults. Read the fucking thread man, he is ALWAYS the one to start with insults.


I have read the post, and its clear to all who should read the *Fucking* thread-klosetman! 




mindphuk said:


> You're fucking delusional.


Hey Klosetman, this is Post #61, which illustrates your "mentor" hurling the very first insult at me.


----------



## mindphuk (May 8, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I have read the post, and its clear to all who should read the *Fucking* thread-klosetman!
> 
> 
> Hey Klosetman, this is Post #61, which illustrates your "mentor" hurling the very first insult at me.


Nice red herring. Now maybe no one will notice all of the posts that you have avoided answering.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

^^^


mindphuk said:


> Nice red herring. Now maybe no one will notice all of the posts that you have avoided answering.


Sir, don't sit there like a stuck-up chicken with egg on your face. Your protégé got caught in a lie, face it. LOL


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 8, 2011)

Neanderthal?

Not yet homo sapien.

Transition from our earlier ape ancestors and current humans.

More than 100 have been discovered.

How do you explain that?

Seems pretty cut and dry if you can't, you lose.

Take your time...


----------



## mindphuk (May 8, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^
> 
> Sir, don't sit there like a stuck-up chicken with egg on your face. Your protégé got caught in a lie, face it. LOL


 Face it. Calling you delusional is not an insult but an accurate observation.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Now maybe no one will notice all of the posts that you have avoided answering.


You mean the post I asked you to provide concerning a *transitioning amphibian pelvis bone*, since its needed to advance from the sea to land. Also, it's one of many links need to substantiate the Theory of Evolution. As I said before, I don't want you to provide videos of fully developed skulls or skeletons; instead, small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for. 

Now I'm going to give the viewers another chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide just one, transitioning amphibian *pelvis bone*, since according to the theory of evolution, there should be literally thousands.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

*Beware of red herring!!* LOL


----------



## KlosetKing (May 8, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^
> 
> Sir, don't sit there like a stuck-up chicken with egg on your face. Your protégé got caught in a lie, face it. LOL
> Hey Klosetman, this is Post #61, which illustrates your "mentor" hurling the very first insult at me.


Sir, how dare you call me a liar. You are only now molding your definition of an insult. Saying your being delusional is a personal insult is it? Well by that definition, you technically started it 4 posts before that, *Post 57 (4 posts before calling you delusional)*:



BrotherBuz said:


> What are the odds that this copper scroll, the book of Issah, read today as it did then, 2,000 year-ago?
> *Now, when you take your head out of your ass, you think about that!!*


Frankly, its just as much of a personal insult by YOUR definition. Twist it all you want, call me a liar all you want, but your wrong, plain and simple.

To be clear, i still wouldn't call either of those insults, you calling him Dumbphuk was the first true insult. Those posts, are hostility at MOST. But the facts are right in front of your face. Call it what you want, insult, hostility, 'temper', whatever, YOU started it.


----------



## mindphuk (May 8, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You mean the post I asked you to provide concerning a *transitioning amphibian pelvis bone*, since it&#8217;s needed to advance from the sea to land. Also, it's one of many links need to substantiate the Theory of Evolution. As I said before, I don't want you to provide videos of fully developed skulls or skeletons; instead, small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for.
> 
> Now I'm going to give the viewers another chance to see what a "dodger" you are, by asking you to provide just one, transitioning amphibian *pelvis bone*, since according to the theory of evolution, there should be literally thousands.


 You have already been provided with the evidence. It is up to you to refute it. When you keep asking for something that has been given to you, it becomes clear you don't understand it.

It is now up to you to explain in detail why those small changes in skeletal formation are not good enough for you. How about you detail for us the features of a pelvis that would satisfy you and your requirements? Should the acetabulum be shallow or deep? What about the position of the sciatic notch compared to a real amphibian? Would the iliac crest be wider or longer? 

I don't think you can tell the difference between an amphibian pelvis and and a coffee mug let alone a pelvis that has features of both amphibians and reptiles. Why should anyone listen to you tell them what a pelvis should or should not look like in a transition species? 

So far I think the viewers have already concluded you are not only a dodger but don't understand what you are talking about and trying to discuss something you don't understand just makes you sound stupid. You sound like you think a transitional animal changes its form and morphs into something else like in a cartoon.


----------



## budlover13 (May 8, 2011)

Schizophrenia must suck.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

^^^ Lying Cop is worst!


----------



## budlover13 (May 8, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Lying Cop is worst!


LOL! the ONE thing you can count on is that i won't lie. Unlike YOU'RE twisted posts, i am honest. EX-cop. Get it straight BroBuz.


----------



## budlover13 (May 8, 2011)

Oh yeah. Wors_e._


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 8, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You have already been provided with the evidence.



Can't you even fucking read!! Fuck man, you are too dense.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 8, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Lying Cop is worst!





BrotherBuz said:


> Can't you even fucking read!! Fuck man, you are too dense.


 BB Says:


----------



## budlover13 (May 8, 2011)

Like Chernobyl. Or more recently, Toyota, errrp, Japan.


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Can't you even fucking read!! Fuck man, you are too dense.


 So I guess that means you won't (or more appropriately, can't) ]answer the questions. Call me all the names you want, you're only bringing more attention to your stupidity. 
Quit being such a whiny dumb ass and explain to everyone what's wrong with those fossils. Use the proper Latin names so we can all follow along.


----------



## budlover13 (May 9, 2011)

He's running and dodging guys. He's defensive, vile, and religious. Kinda like the rest of the thread.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 9, 2011)

^^^ Read the thread man and stop dodging smart guy!!


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

Here's some transitioning pelvic bones. Care to detail what's going on here?
View attachment 1590787


----------



## KlosetKing (May 9, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Read the thread man and stop dodging smart guy!!


Aren't you supposed to be burning witches, and not just melting down like them? =P

Your sounding like your in a corner. Post 57? Comments on fossils using real terms? How many other things will you be dodging and/or deflecting today?

God i feel like a McDonalds commercial...... "Im Lovin' It" lol


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Read the thread man and stop dodging smart guy!!


 Read your own posts and be consistent for once in your fucking life. Detail what changes you need to see. Be specific and quit dodging.


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ Read the thread man and stop dodging smart guy!!


 You know when you can't even post more than a sentence without stealing your words from someone else in a cut and paste, it's time to give up. Have you ever had an original thought?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You know when you can't even post more than a sentence without stealing your words from someone else in a cut and paste, it's time to give up. Have you ever had an original thought?


 Obviously not, because the only meaningful debate to come from his 'side' in the last 55 pages were from other people trying to defend him. Rather pathetic really.


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

It has long been known that the first backboned land animals or "tetrapods" - the ancestors of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including ourselves - evolved from a group of fishes about 370 million years ago during the Devonian period. However, even though scientists had discovered fossils of tetrapod-like fishes and fish-like tetrapods from this period, these were still rather different from each other and did not give a complete picture of the intermediate steps in the transition.

In 2006 the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of an almost perfectly intermediate fish-tetrapod, Tiktaalik, but even so a gap remained between this animal and the earliest true tetrapods (animals with limbs rather than paired fins). Now, new fossils of the extremely primitive tetrapod Ventastega from the Devonian of Latvia cast light on this key phase of the transition.






http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-fossils-of-extremely-primitive-4.html


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Obviously not, because the only meaningful debate to come from his 'side' in the last 55 pages were from other people trying to defend him. Rather pathetic really.


His only response is to accuse everyone else of dodging. Regardless of what they wrote, it's 'dodging.' Prolly 'cause he is too stupid to even understand the counter-arguments to his inane "no transitional fossil" bullshit, he cannot make any answer appear even somewhat intelligent, so instead he reflexively sticks with what he knows even if it becomes a non-sequitur.


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

Have you noticed he even has trouble using the quote feature here and instead relies on "^^^^" Not too bright if he can't even figure out how to post.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Have you noticed he even has trouble using the quote feature here and instead relies on "^^^^" Not too bright if he can't even figure out how to post.


 I have! =D

I have often wanted to point this out to others but it would be lost on them. I see it like this: We clearly separate quotes, form complete and grammatically correct (mostly) sentences, and provide facts. 'They' reply with giant blocks of texts (that can easily be perceived as more of a *rant* than a rational response), then as you pointed out, accuse others of dodging the topics and ideas that you 'didn't catch' in the rant (or didn't interpret their way).


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Read your own posts and be consistent for once in your fucking life. Detail what changes you need to see. Be specific and quit dodging.


I bet your mama must be real proud of you. LOL


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I bet your mama must be real proud of you. LOL


 Don't bother posting anymore unless you decide to step up and quit dodging. No one cares what you write. Your posts have just been a big fail since you started in this thread.


----------



## Harrekin (May 9, 2011)

I provided transitional links in humans (ie. anyone reading this!) living right now and he ignored them.

Want to know of a transitionary species? Ever heard of a newt? Oh sorry, I forgot, God made them exactly that way on purpose.

EDIT: Heres some linkage, http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm You can verify it elsewhere too, this is just a good collection for disproving the traditional Bible obsessed Creationists.

Double EDIT: (Lets go for the double tap in the face...it seems to be doing well this week  )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html?full=true
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/08/tech-fossil-human-ancestor.html

Bet he ignores everything I posted and starts throwing the insults, even tho Iv said nothing offensive. Wait and see.

And you know the funnier thing? Im not even saying that a higher power didnt set the ball rolling and didnt set all the laws of the uinverse, I just think that as a human trying to consider an omnipotent being...I mean a human brain cant even contemplate the size of the Universe, let alone what some people claim made said Universe. So I dont speculate anymore, Ill just live my life as a good human being and if Im rewarded when I die, awesome, and if not at least I didnt build it up!

And to try put a name on such a potential being, now that is arrogant!


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 9, 2011)

it's true....


----------



## Harrekin (May 9, 2011)

For the record agnostic is not equal to athiest

I dont know if there actually is a God or not, Im agnostic, Iv realised I can never really know (until I die, and theres a 50/50 chance I wont know then!  ) and that religion is a waste of time if people just treat each other well.

Athiests believe there is NO God.

Just making that distinction there.


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> For the record agnostic is not equal to athiest
> 
> I dont know if there actually is a God or not, Im agnostic, Iv realised I can never really know (until I die, and theres a 50/50 chance I wont know then!  ) and that religion is a waste of time if people just treat each other well.
> 
> ...


An atheist does not make a claim about the existence of a god, therefore an atheist does not say there is no god. Atheist is the label given to someone that does not accept the claim that there is a god. 
An agnostic is one that doesn't think that we can know either way. Gnosticism is about knowledge. Theism is about belief. They are different answers to two different ontological questions. 
A person can be an atheist and still be agnostic. In fact most atheists are also agnostic.


----------



## Harrekin (May 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> An atheist does not make a claim about the existence of a god, therefore an atheist does not say there is no god. Atheist is the label given to someone that does not accept the claim that there is a god.
> An agnostic is one that doesn't think that we can know either way. Gnosticism is about knowledge. Theism is about belief. They are different answers to two different ontological questions.
> A person can be an atheist and still be agnostic. In fact most atheists are also agnostic.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+agnostic


----------



## mouthmeetsoap (May 9, 2011)

If gnosticism is about knowledge, then why haven't agnostics came to terms with lack of any evidence suggesting a "god". If you are knowledgeable, you will not spend you life unsure if there is a god or not. Agnostics are scared Atheists.


----------



## Harrekin (May 9, 2011)

Agnostics are unsure, but generally dont really care either way! To say there is NO God for sure is just as ignorant as to say that there definately IS a God for sure...but we wont know till we're gone, (or not!) so lets just enjoy the ride.

EDIT: I thought the purpose of smoking was to assist in the above enjoying the ride btw?


----------



## mouthmeetsoap (May 9, 2011)

Smoking only makes me more angry as I think about things a lot harder and realize the impact and damage that religion has had on our culture. I hope people start giving so much credit and stop blaming so many things on god. Instead of thanking god next time you do something great, pat yourself on the back. When we praise our own kind and treat each other with the respect we'd treat "god" with the world will be a better place.


----------



## Harrekin (May 9, 2011)

I did say religion was a waste of time, I just didnt preclude the possibility (however out there) that there MAY be a "grand design", but we cant see it, so just live a good life.


----------



## mindphuk (May 9, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+agnostic


 The very first link:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena


Next one:
*Agnosticism* is the view that the truth value of certain claims&#8212;especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims&#8212;is unknown or unknowable.


If you were trying to prove my definition wrong and yours correct, you didn't do so well.

Also from that link:
Agnostic atheism Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[16]

Agnostic theism The view of those who do not claim to _know_ of the existence of any deity, but still _believe_ in such an existence.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Read your own posts and be consistent for once in your fucking life. Detail what changes you need to see. Be specific and quit dodging.


Hey smart guy read the thread!! How many times must I tell you? What do you need, a notarized affidavit, pinned to your fucking forehead?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 10, 2011)

i believe it's called self willed ignorance...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Hey smart guy read the thread!! How many times must I tell you? What do you need, a notarized affidavit pinned, to your fucking forehead?


Ne an der thal?

Come on Patches O'hoilihan, where's ur explanation for that?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Hey smart guy read the thread!! How many times must I tell you? What do you need, a notarized affidavit pinned, to your fucking forehead?


 After that long of a Hiatus and you come back with even less quality in your post. Your losing ground fast BB, this thread will be dead within a week.

Neanderthal? Tailbone? Banned books? Still waiting on LOTS of answers man.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Your losing ground fast BB, this thread will be dead within a week.


You're saying, I had that much ground. Thanks!! I really mean that. LOL


----------



## Detroit J420 (May 10, 2011)

The universe is built off mathamatical law, there are even some classes in universities that are proving there is a God, being a straight up hardheaded closed minded athiest is just dumb, at least be a wonderer. As far as sceince and fossil records im not gonna believe everything i read just cause i was told fact" Fact' i say maybe yes maybe no. as far as school theres always new ways to figure things out, be open minded


----------



## Penknifelovelife (May 10, 2011)

Years, upon years of 'don't ask' mentality have allowed it to become so revered. It's been the nature of theists to immediately become extremely defensive as soon as anything questionable is brought up about the root of their beliefs and thus has become an avoided subject out of fear of hurting someone's feeling, or fear of ridicule. "You don't believe in God!? What do you believe in then!?" Lol.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 10, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> The universe is built off mathamatical law, there are even some classes in universities that are proving there is a God, being a straight up hardheaded closed minded athiest is just dumb, at least be a wonderer. As far as sceince and fossil records im not gonna believe everything i read just cause i was told fact" Fact' i say maybe yes maybe no. as far as school theres always new ways to figure things out, be open minded


How, I'd love to know, are universities "proving" God exists?

Should I be 'open minded' to the idea invisible polar bears exist?

What about fire breathing sharks?

No right? Why no? Because there is nothing to support those ideas, so were I to consider them actual possibilities, I would not be investigating with an 'open mind', I would be an idiot, wasting my time. 

Investigation into observations unfounded in reality is not being 'open minded', and conversely, dismissing ridiculous claims isn't being 'close minded'.

Please understand the difference, it'll benefit us all greatly!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> The universe is built off mathamatical law, there are even some classes in universities that are proving there is a God, being a straight up hardheaded closed minded athiest is just dumb . . ."


There you have it . . . the *theory* of evolution is just that- a theory.


----------



## Penknifelovelife (May 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How, I'd love to know, are universities "proving" God exists?
> 
> Should I be 'open minded' to the idea invisible polar bears exist?
> 
> ...


Amen. By the very definition of god (theistic definition), it's unprovable.



BrotherBuz said:


> There you have it . . . the theory of evolution is just that- a theory.


I don't know if you're serious or playing devil's advocate, but the Theory of General Relativity is also a theory and is our working model of explaining gravitation.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Your losing ground fast BB, this thread will be dead within a week


Not before the viewers got a chance to see what an "asinine" theory evolution really is and what thankless blind guides your two mentors *(minphuk & budlover)* are.


----------



## mindphuk (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Hey smart guy read the thread!! How many times must I tell you? What do you need, a notarized affidavit, pinned to your fucking forehead?





BrotherBuz said:


> Not before the viewers got a chance to see what an "asinine" theory evolution really is and what thankless blind guides your two mentors *(minphuk & budlover)* are.


I didn't think anyone could be this stupid...


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> there are even some classes in universities that are proving there is a God


 That is a bold faced lie sir, PROVE IT (link, article, anything). You can't. Why? Because not one of the classes you THINK you are referring to would say they are 'proving god'. They would say they are proving that it may not have been as random as we think. That is NOT proof of god. Math works in weird ways, and any number of 'random' things could merely be a culmination of odd numbers and strange properties of numbers, and thats just the FIRST possibility.



BrotherBuz said:


> Not before the viewers got a chance to see what an "asinine" theory evolution really is and what thankless blind guides your two mentors *(minphuk & budlover)* are.


What i find funny is that you think a 'theory' with AMPLE evidence behind it is false, yet you still refer to your book as fact, as if it were anything more than a theory with FAR LESS EVIDENCE (than evolution).

Your too predictable, and i guarantee you no one left this thread on your side unless they came in *without* the intent of actually being open -minded. I don't need mentors, or leaders, because im _comfortable with my own thought processes and critical thinking_. Those that AREN"T comfortable with those things, need leaders, or *gods*.

You call it asinine, but all we have done is provide facts for our side, while you can only reference the same thing over and over, the bible. Someone says something about gays, you refer to a verse in the bible. Someone says your theories about evolution are unfounded, and you refer to the bible. Someone tells you that the earth is round, and you refer to the bible.

If a scientist referred to the same exact document, for every argument ever presented to him, he would be the laughing stock of the community. Just like you.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> After that long of a Hiatus and you come back with even less quality in your post.


Well! . . . I'm not at home with mother. I must work you know.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> That is a bold faced lie sir, PROVE IT (link, article, anything). You can't.



That's funny, because I've provided many links and the only think I get from you is dodging.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Well! . . . I'm not at home with mother. I must work you know.


If you WERE at home with mother, id tell you to sit down and have a nice chat with her about interpersonal relationships, manners, and possibly get a few tips on staying consistent when debating your beliefs.

In fact, id be MORE interested in meeting HER, and figuring our exactly what kind of person/upbringing it requires to turn into what you have. Most of the things that people claim 'lead' to your condition, i went through as well. But we sure didn't come out the same...... nowhere near.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> That's funny, because I've provided many links and they only think I get from you is dodging.


 Heres what ill do buddy. Ill go through this entire thread for the 20th time, and ill collect EVERY link and reference to data we have provided.
THEN, ill do the same with every link YOU have provided.

How do you suppose that post is going to look? hmmmm?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

Post 150:


BrotherBuz said:


> This is the *Cambrian explosion*.
> It&#8217;s a deathblow to evolution. The fossil record does not support evolution - Sorry!!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg
> http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html


Post 157:


BrotherBuz said:


> http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html
> 
> Anthropologist went searching and found a layer of fossil called the * Cambrian Explosion*, because it refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in this geologic column. You see, evolutionist claim that humankind took millions of years to establish, after crawling out of the sea. But this fossil layer proves that humankind had a sudden appearance and did not take millions of years to evolve
> 
> You sir should pay attention to the point.


 
Pretty sad right? THREE LINKS in the ENTIRE thread. 

I also want to add, of those links, we can break it down. One, came from a Christian website that flouts the same lies you do. The other two, came from, and this makes me laugh, WIKIPEDIA. Weren't you JUST telling me we couldn't trust wikipedia?

Ill have another post here in a minute, but i have to quote TONS more than 3 posts to get all of our links in one post. In fact, i might not finish it today, because we have provided you with SO MUCH information already that you have ignored.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

*Klosetman-*

You remind me of a person who has lived in a cave, chained to the wall, since birth. Someone comes along and leads you out of the cave, into the sun. The light is too bright, so back into the cave you go, watching shadows on the wall, thinking its reality. That's sad LOL


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Klosetman-*
> 
> You remind me of a person who has lived in a cave, chained to the wall, since birth. Someone comes along and leads you out of the cave, into the sun. The light is too bright, so back into the cave you go, watching shadows on the wall, thinking its reality. That's sad LOL


HOLY SHIT. If that isnt the pot calling the kettle black i dont what is! Your a joke dude, and posts like this only show how backed into a corner you truly are.

Your a master of spin as well. Going through this thread again, its AMAZING how stupid you look. Twisting words, paraphrasing, quoting ONLY the bible. Hell on page 10 you tried to twist the words of someone who was INSULTING you, into something that was your defense. He actually had to post again just to let you know it was directed at you. Kinda absurd really.

You cant spin everything, and your days are numbered. Start peeling the stickers off of your Christmas calendar, oh wait, even THAT was stolen by the church and spun to fit their agenda! Damn! You learn from the best!

-edit- The only 'shadow' here is your god, the only 'wall' your bible, and the only 'cave' the Church. But way to try to take something i said to you 20 pages ago and spin it to your advantage. You dont have an original bone in your body.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

Also, if your THREE links is 'The Light', then it finally makes sense why you are still debating. The amount of info we have sent your way by now would equivilate to 10 Hydrogen Bombs worth of light. Did it melt your eyes back into their sockets? Was it too powerful?

I thought so.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I didn't think anyone could be this stupid...


 I didnt either.....

Iam sold now though!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ That shit is weak.


 And so is every post you have ever made. Even in other threads.

Keep those lame ass, meaningless, garbage comments coming tho!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> You really are on some high and mighty horse aren't you? Its like, you get a few paragraphs in, you start making a LITTLE sense, then . . ."


This is hilarious because, you've never made any sense, even though being propped up by your mentor *mindphuk*. 

He'll probably chime in to rescue your puppy-ass.


----------



## budlover13 (May 10, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td4RHvyAFsM


----------



## Heisenberg (May 10, 2011)

Why are you guys debating someone who is only interested in contradiction? I've not seen brotherbuzz post one original thought, valid counterpoint, or much of anything except petty teasing. It's silly to take the time to offer reasonable debate to someone who is beyond approach. Don't you guys enjoy real challenge? Debating him is like shooting fish in a barrel.

*EDIT: he proves my point with the next two posts. Ask yourself, do these really inspire a reply?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Pretty sad right? THREE LINKS in the ENTIRE thread.


Do Bible quote count ? Oh! I'm sorry LOL


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 10, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I've not seen brotherbuzz post one original thought, valid counterpoint, or much of anything except petty teasing. It's silly to take the time to offer reasonable debate . . ."


Yet you continue to follow like a damn hypocrite-right LOL


----------



## KlosetKing (May 10, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Do Bible quote count ? Oh! I'm sorry LOL


They sure dont.



BrotherBuz said:


> This is hilarious because, you've never made any sense, even though being propped up by your mentor *mindphuk*.
> He'll probably chime in to rescue your puppy-ass.


 Lol, typical.



Heisenberg said:


> Why are you guys debating someone who is only interested in contradiction? I've not seen brotherbuzz post one original thought, valid counterpoint, or much of anything except petty teasing. It's silly to take the time to offer reasonable debate to someone who is beyond approach. Don't you guys enjoy real challenge? Debating him is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> *EDIT: he proves my point with the next two posts. Ask yourself, do these really inspire a reply?


Your bring a very valid point, that others have pointed out as well. To be honest, i see it this way: i left the other thread, because it was no longer on topic (the debate no longer had anything to do with knocking on doors). This thread, while it is exactly as you describe, it is at least still on topic (to some mild degree). And admittedly, I enjoy watching him make a fool of himself. 

I suppose im a troll for his stupidity ;D


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I didn't think anyone could be this stupid...


Just because I don't believe in the "theory" of evolution-I'm sorry!!


----------



## Happiness (May 11, 2011)

[video]http://youtu.be/qLRIbEQaTvc[/video]

SATANIST are real people. Christians are so blind.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> i left the other thread, because it was no longer on topic . . ."


You left the other thread because we exposed your agenda, you couldn't take the heat, so, you left-face it!!


*edit* In other words, I ran your ass out of the thread!!


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

Are you gonna answer my posts now that your back? "Conveniently" miss them? 
BB, your not actually addressing any of our posts with any sort of facts. Quoting the Bible is ridiculous, its mostly a book of fairy tales designed to guide ancient people to be good people, not to be quoted as historical fact. (Even Priests,Bishops or Cardinals will tell you this, and the Bible was put together by the Vatican, that is a fact).

Actually just answer me one question, do you genuinely believe every single word written in the Bible is ABSOLUTE fact? If not, what criteria do you apply to "pick and choose" whats true and false? 

Please note none of the above is in any way aggressive, just questions, so insults arnt warranted.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> ". . . its mostly a book of fairy tales . . ."


How are the *Dead Sea Scrolls* and the *Cambrian layer* of our geologic column made up? These are "physical" and "tangible" pieces of evidence, from the mouths of Paleontologists. What part of this do you not understand? This is profound in itself.


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> How are the *Dead Sea Scrolls* and the *Cambrian layer* of our geologic column made up? These are "physical" and "tangible" pieces of evidence, from the mouths of Paleontologists. What part of this do you not understand? This is profound in itself.


 Neither of these things prove the Bible, that assertion is a complete distortion of both the facts and reality.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written hundreds of years after the fact, after being passed by word of mouth and are infact part of the Bible and not proof of it.

The Cambrian layer actually completly disproves the Bible which states God made all the species at the same time in 7 days (which is a human measurement by the way, why would a timeless being take 7 days?!). And actually the current calender measurements arnt even what they were back when the Bible was written!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> The Dead Sea Scrolls were written hundreds of years after the fact, after being passed by word of mouth . . . "


Why is it that todays Scriptures read the same as it did 2,000 years ago? What are you going to do, put your head in the sand and ignore physical evidence?


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

Lol, your Bible isnt even translated properly from the Dead Sea Scrolls...and even so theres some of those very same scrolls left out of it too...talk about selective political editing by the Vatican. Also, the Christian Bible isnt 2000 years old just so you know, the Old Testament (or by its proper name the Torah, its a Jewish script by the way) is over 2000 years old, but the New Testament, sure here, read it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Dates_of_composition was written years after the death of Jesus.

EDIT: And you mentioned the Copper Scroll earlier, that is laughable man. First of all it was a treasure map, not a biblical text. Second of all, most generally accept that it is a copy of a different work, transcribed by a novice scribe because the writing style and actual text itself is written completly unlike the rest of the scrolls. Its full of mistakes too and random Greek lettering yet you try to use it as proof of validity of your argument?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> And you mentioned the Copper Scroll earlier, that is laughable man. First of all it was a treasure map, not a biblical text.


What are you talking about? I understand know why I ignored you before.


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

The Copper Scroll, found in Cave 3? The one you claimed earlier "survived better" than the rest? You forgot to mention it doesnt actually contain any biblical texts and actually contains references to the location of stashes of silver, gold, and "priestly robes". 

Rebuttal please?

EDIT: Actually, answer my previous posts, dont just claim why you ignored me. If my logic is "ignorable" or wrong, you should be able to poke holes in it. Fact is you cant actually retort ANY of my points.

Double EDIT: Actually, why'd you edit my post in your quote? My posts are intended to be taken as a whole thanks.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

^^^ Oh boy! The one that fell through the cracks!! LOL


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

Seriously, you lose the debate right there, you cant actually point to anything other than blind faith and what the priest stuck up your ass (possibly literally). 

You havnt even tried to counter my points, you just talk rubbish. You havnt offered anything to the debate, your VERY FEW weak points are pulled apart instantly by logic. Your an example of the perfect candidate for a Darwin award (ha, the irony!), because you provide nothing. However you could prove me wrong with some *actual debate* (go on, please, Im begging you to even try), but I think your just a troll looking to get their post count up and/or are just blatantly stupid.

The Bible itself describes you and the rest of your Bible worshipping kind as you really are, "sheep". 

Just so you know, everytime you post an insult to someone who actually has rational points, your doing the typical "blind faith hates logic" thing and sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la la cant hear you". You're exactly the same kinda person who thinks pot is harmful cos "someone told you".

EDIT: Seems I actually know more about religion than you do aswell, cos you cant even counter my points about YOUR supposed evidence.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> It has long been known that the first backboned land animals or "tetrapods" - the ancestors of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including ourselves - evolved from a group of fishes about 370 million years ago during the Devonian period. However, even though scientists had discovered fossils of tetrapod-like fishes and fish-like tetrapods from this period, these were still rather different from each other and did not give a complete picture of the intermediate steps in the transition.
> 
> In 2006 the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of an almost perfectly intermediate fish-tetrapod, Tiktaalik, but even so a gap remained between this animal and the earliest true tetrapods (animals with limbs rather than paired fins). Now, new fossils of the extremely primitive tetrapod Ventastega from the Devonian of Latvia cast light on this key phase of the transition.
> 
> ...


One of the many problems with this is that geologist can prove by way of the Cambrian Colum, of fossilized rock, that life had a sudden and abrupt start. In other words, life didnt take million of years to adapt. This is found in bedrock-fossilized sediment.

Despite all the dogmatic statements to the contrary the theory of evolution remains a theory. Nowhere on earth do we find visible evidence of creatures that are partially formed coming into existence. Nowhere on earth do we find animals visibly changing from one kind into another. The genetic (DNA) barrier has fixed the boundaries of the species or kind and this is a scientific fact. 

http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/darwins-dilemma.php


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

Did you actually read the link in that?! 
ROFL @ you!
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-fossils-of-extremely-primitive-4.html

Btw, heres a quote from one of your links about the Copper Scroll

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]_The famous Copper Scrolls were discovered in Cave 3 in 1952. Unlike most of the scrolls that were written on leather or parchment, these were written on copper and provided directions to sixty-four sites around Jerusalem that were said to contain hidden treasure. So far, no treasure has been found at the sites that have been investigated.
_[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Btw, this references articles from major peer reviewed studies in prestigious scientific journals, so dont dismiss it as "Wiki".


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> ". . . you cant actually point to anything other than blind faith and what the priest stuck up your ass (possibly literally).


I already know what they stuck up your ass; you're suffering from the effect as you type.


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

You provide more illogical gibberish and pious chest beating with out of date data, Ill just keep posting links. Lets see who looks better at the end. 

And my comment about the priests was fair, they do have a massively disproportionally large amount of paedophiles in their ranks, suppose this is a lie set in motion by a twelve headed dragon living in a fiery lake?

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

Im not even disagreeing with your religion, each to their own, but trying to tell all and sundry that:
1; Evolution is a myth

2; The Bible is absolute fact

is just blind man. I suppose I should go right now and bury a copy of the Lord of the Rings, maybe some idiot in 3000 years might think its fact


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> You havnt even tried to counter my points . . ."


Because you're absurd!!


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

So the person posting proven fact is absurd, the guy quoting from a religious text with NO facts and outta date data is correct?

I bet you've never been outside your country of birth, cos your view of the Universe is SO small its sad, I suppose the Sun orbits the Earth does it? Thats what the people who wrote the bible thought.

EDIT: Just gonna post this again incase you missed it, it has pictures incase you need them  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> ". . . what the priest stuck up your ass (possibly literally).



Were you ever choir-boy and the . . . did bad things to you? I'm sorry!


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Were you ever choir-boy and the . . . did bad things to you? I'm sorry!


 Once again man, address the points...insults are pointless if you've no substance to your argument to back them up. You just look like a fool grinding $h1t outta their mouth to be honest. 
Forget the insults, I propose a game; I make a point, you counter it (you can even go first if you want), then it goes on for there. No ignoring, no insults. Care for the challenge?


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You're full of shit!!


 Seriously? Is that all you have? Ok, Ill play along, tell me exactly how Im "full of shit" by answering some of my points maybe?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> You left the other thread because we exposed your agenda, you couldn't take the heat, so, you left-face it!!
> 
> 
> *edit* In other words, I ran your ass out of the thread!!


LOL! You didn't run me out of shit, it became off topic. Plain and Simple.

You have never ONCE shown me anything of merit, and you are not CAPABLE of running me out of shit. 

How does that corner smell? You've been in it for a LONG time.


----------



## budlover13 (May 11, 2011)

Piss and shit i would imagine.


----------



## Detroit J420 (May 11, 2011)

Man i was atheist then i dropped acid and i now Believe in the abanable Snow man and the tooth fairy, possibilities are endless now lol. i dont believe in anything i can't touch see or smell like oxygen we can't see or smell it but without it we Die


----------



## Detroit J420 (May 11, 2011)

LoL no im not retarded just a lil more open minded in believing what i cant see like God, the Universe even aliens after all in the beggining of the bible it says God created the stars and planets. Theres just a ton a shit out there and God is mysterious.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 11, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> Man i was atheist then i dropped acid and i now Believe in the abanable Snow man and the tooth fairy, possibilities are endless now lol. i dont believe in anything i can't touch see or smell like oxygen we can't see or smell it but without it we Die


Ummmm..... Oxygen is a gas. Not only does it have a scent (though i would describe it close to the 'taste' of water), but it CAN be seen (in places) and can even be touched (when brought to a cool enough temperature).

I recommend you put down the acid, and pick up a chemistry book.


----------



## budlover13 (May 11, 2011)

Canaries!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjSzjoU7OQ


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> L0L no im not retarded just a lil more open minded in believing what i cant see like God . . ."


Not to mention *Gravity* itself.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> It has long been known that the first backboned land animals or "tetrapods" - the ancestors of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including ourselves - evolved from a group of fishes about 370 million years ago during the Devonian period. However, even though scientists had discovered fossils of tetrapod-like fishes and fish-like tetrapods from this period, these were still rather different from each other and did not give a complete picture of the intermediate steps in the transition.
> 
> In 2006 the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of an almost perfectly intermediate fish-tetrapod, Tiktaalik, but even so a gap remained between this animal and the earliest true tetrapods (animals with limbs rather than paired fins). Now, new fossils of the extremely primitive tetrapod Ventastega from the Devonian of Latvia cast light on this key phase of the transition.


One of the many problems with this is that geologist can prove by way of the Cambrian Column, of fossilized rock, that life had a sudden and abrupt start. In other words, life didnt take million of years to adapt. This is found in bedrock-fossilized sediment.

Despite all the dogmatic statements to the contrary the theory of evolution remains a theory. Nowhere on earth do we find visible evidence of creatures that are partially formed coming into existence. Nowhere on earth do we find animals visibly changing from one kind into another. The genetic (DNA) barrier has fixed the boundaries of the species or kind and this is a scientific fact.

*Note link* http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/darwins-dilemma.php


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

*Let the truth be known.*


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

I rest my case. Amen, all praise go to *Jah*


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 11, 2011)

Lmao keep talkin to yourself Patches..


----------



## budlover13 (May 11, 2011)

"Jah jah!" Isn't that what Swedish models say?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Lmao keep talkin to yourself Patches..



I know . . . indisputable knowledge like this cramp your life style.


----------



## budlover13 (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I know . . . refutable knowledge like this cramp your life style.


Exactly. Refutable.


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2011)

Did you just completely ignore my links (with photos of) hundreds of transitional creatures? Seriously,just how deep can you actually bury your head in the sand?Or do you only believe what you read in "God approved" websites. Guess you really can't debate with an idiot,never believed it until now.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I know . . . indisputable knowledge like this cramp your life style.


Even if adult Santa Clause was real my lifestyle wouldn't change one bit. 

I don't live a good honest life because I fear punishment after death, I live it because it's the right thing to do.

Ponder that for a while...


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 11, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Exactly. Refutable.


Go ahead; refute it, if you can. I know the subject of *paleontology* is way over your head; this I know.


----------



## Kmart (May 11, 2011)

lol this guy gets his bud from a mittys dealer


----------



## budlover13 (May 11, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Go ahead; refute it, if you can. I know the subject of *paleontology* is way over your head; this I know.


Been done multiple times. And the intelligent ones here have seen that.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 11, 2011)

Also, I'd like to point out, are you really so stupid to think that an omniscent being will favor blind obedience over honest, genuine inquiry into the true nature of reality? 

Rhetorical. We already know the answer to that..

This is the kinda shit that makes believers ACTUALLY dumber than everybody else.

Carry on bro, you are SHINING!! lmao


----------



## KlosetKing (May 11, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Did you just completely ignore my links (with photos of) hundreds of transitional creatures? Seriously,just how deep can you actually bury your head in the sand?Or do you only believe what you read in "God approved" websites. Guess you really can't debate with an idiot,never believed it until now.


Yes he did.

Now he is busy rambling to himself about being 'right' and 'holy'.

I wonder if that's how that Christian who ran into the church and shot that abortion doctor to death (in front of his family) feels? You know, self empowered, with nothing you can say that can ever possibly make him second guess his ideals.


----------



## Harrekin (May 12, 2011)

Ill just reply with these links again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And one especially for you BrotherBuz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

They are all referenced, so dont say they're bullshit. At least pick apart the info before dismissing it with your high and mighty dogmatic dribble.

EDIT: This is for your Cambrian Explosion argument too


> It is currently debated whether the Cambrian explosion represents a sudden increase in diversity or merely a sudden increase in fossilization probability. Some paleontologists believe that most of the diversification of body plans occurred before the Cambrian explosion, but happened in soft-bodied organisms less amenable to fossilization. During the Cambrian era, however, global environmental changes created selection pressure for hard shells, which increased the probability of fossilization. According to this account, which receives some confirmation both from Precambrian fossils and from molecular clocks, the apparent "explosion" of body forms in the Cambrian era is an illusion.


_Drawn from: http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5-8.html_
This article is also referenced


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 12, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.[3] This is the beginning of _history_, as opposed to prehistory, according to the definition used by most historians. *"ripped from wiki"*


You seem to have been on the right track, but then deviated; what happened?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Ill just reply with these links again...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
> 
> ...


Yes I'm sure for this post he will take the time to read those links. Did you guys miss the clues? Do you think he will suddenly develop an intellect? This guy is choosing ignorance. He only responds to those lines which offer a route to taunt and tease. He barely puts any thought into his own posts, hasn't it become clear that he is putting even less thought into yours? 

The purpose of debate should be to find common ground. If both parties start with the same premise, use consistent logic, then both should end up with the same conclusions. By debating we can learn where those opinions diverge and why, and gain an understanding of another's position. At no point should the goal of debate be to win. 

The understanding that this debate should have provided you is that this particular person has his head so far into the sand he can not hear you shouting at him to remove it. His goal is not to understand, but to grief. The best option, stop shouting and move on. He is obviously a lost cause but you should know better.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 12, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Been done multiple times. And the intelligent ones here have seen that.


 The only thing you've done is dodge and run, like you're doing now!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 12, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Because long before Christopher Columbus and his mother was born, the bible said: "The earth hangs upon nothing." and "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth . . ." *Job 26:7* & *Isaiah 40:22*


The earth is round, hanging upon nothing. This is profound! Think about the implications.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 12, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Quoting himself!!! LOL!!!


I'm quoting the Scriptures. LOL


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 12, 2011)

Okay guys and girls, I just made post & views. I'd like to give a special thanks to *mindphuk* & *budlover* 

Thanks!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 12, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Okay guys and girls, I just made post & views. I'd like to give a special thanks to *mindphuk* & *budlover*
> 
> Thanks!


Who would have thought his superiority complex would spill over into his online persona? Astounding.


----------



## Harrekin (May 13, 2011)

And he still hasnt addressed ANY of my points (transitional links, Cambrian Explosion, Golden Scrolls). 

For the record, if the Bible says the Earth is round, how come none of the people back then knew it was?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> For the record, if the Bible says the Earth is round, how come none of the people back then knew it was?


Are you fucking dumb are what? You better put the acid down.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> And he still hasnt addressed ANY of my points (transitional links, Cambrian Explosion, Golden Scrolls).



Read the thread idiot!!


----------



## budlover13 (May 13, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Are you fucking dumb are what? You better put the acid down.


i would've expected better than this from you Buz.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

This guy is ticking me off with "asinine" questions.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

*Harrekin-* 

You must put the drugs down sometimes man. Here, read this link: http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/darwins-dilemma.php


----------



## Harrekin (May 13, 2011)

Ok you wanna try link to something that isnt based on data thats 150 years outta date? 
Not gonna look at the links I provided? They show pictures, I thought maybe you'd need them.

Darwin said there wasnt enough transitional links, since he died they have discovered hundreds of intermediate species. Considering the small percentage of the total number that would've become fossilised, thats already a HUGE number. 

And considering before the Cambrian layer most organisms were soft bodied, that means far far far less species are expected to be observed as fossilised. 

Seriously, insults cant help you now, and documentaries written by religious nuts with old information are FAIL compared to scientific research.

Not only will your kind never admit evolution happened, but your actually slowing it down by being allowed to live. You know that?

EDIT: Im ticking you off with my questions? YOU HAVNT ANSWERED ONE OF THEM! Iv retorted ALL of the points you've presented, and you just keep spewing the same rubbish, your like a broken toilet man...spewing out $h1t&#8364;.


----------



## Harrekin (May 13, 2011)

And you realise at the bottom of your link their whole argument is based on a reference to a book written in 1869, lol!

Heres the ONE reference provided in your link:


> Chapter IX, &#8220;On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,&#8221; _On the Origin of Species,_ fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.


You think we havnt learnt anything since then?

EDIT: The lightbulb/electricity were brand new when that was written btw.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 13, 2011)

I'm going to post BrotherBuzz's response so you guys will get an idea about what he's doing.



> *And you realise at the bottom of your link their whole argument is based on a reference to a book written in 1869, lol!*


Psh... sounds like dodging to me.


> *And considering before the Cambrian layer most organisms were soft bodied, that means far far far less species are expected to be observed as fossilised. *


Put the drugs down man! Bones are hard LOLOLOLOL!


> *Seriously, insults cant help you now, and documentaries written by religious nuts with old information are FAIL compared to scientific research.*


Dodging with bias, very nice!


> *
> EDIT: Im ticking you off with my questions? YOU HAVNT ANSWERED ONE OF THEM! Iv retorted ALL of the points you've presented, and you just keep spewing the same rubbish, your like a broken toilet man...spewing out $h1t&#8364;*


All of you anger proves my point that atheists are bad people and shouldn't be trusted. Now excuse me while I molest some children.


----------



## Harrekin (May 13, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> I'm going to post BrotherBuzz's response so you guys will get an idea about what he's doing.
> 
> 
> Psh... sounds like dodging to me.
> ...


 This is actually a more comprehensive answer than Iv received from BrotherBuz, and you were saying it in jest, lol.

And for the record Im not biased against him having religious views/faith, just trying to come on here and tell everyone that the Bible is absoloute truth and that what we/science believes is complete fairytale nonsense is offensive to anyone with half a brain.

EDIT: Also, has he not heard that science and religion actually go hand in hand mostly nowadays? Most intelligent religious people would claim that due to the complexity of the very process of evolution that its clearly a sign that there was an intelligent hand in the creation of the universe, and whilst speculative at least it doesnt depend on the writings of primitive people with small thoughts.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 13, 2011)

The only way to beat a troll, is to troll harder than a troll. Just troll him long enough and he'll leave and you'll have your thread back.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Seriously? Is that all you have? Ok, Ill play along . . ."


Dude, you'll be playing with yourself, not me-fool.


----------



## Detroit J420 (May 13, 2011)

The Holy bible is the most printed popular Book in the world... "Fact" 
Wich means it must have some interesting wisdom and instructions on life in there. Period
Maybe God's trying to get a message across figuring thats its sooooooo old yet the most famous..


----------



## Detroit J420 (May 13, 2011)

Every courtroom has a bible..
Money In God We Trust..
The measurements taken from building noahs ark would have fit all the animals in pairs, they have even scanned the mountain they believe the ark is sittin on and found the Ark, but the government wont let them digg. And for the athiests who think Religion makes u weak in turn the other cheek dont forget Jesus instructed his apostles to get swords before judas betrayed him with a kiss thats how Peter cut the romans ear off, Soo live by the Gun Die by the gun goes the story...


----------



## KlosetKing (May 13, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> And he still hasnt addressed ANY of my points (transitional links, Cambrian Explosion, Golden Scrolls).
> 
> For the record, if the Bible says the Earth is round, how come none of the people back then knew it was?





BrotherBuz said:


> This guy is ticking me off with "asinine" questions.


Lol.

Buz: "Goddamnit man your pissing me off! Stop trying to use logic with me! I would much rather insult you and dodge the question."


----------



## KlosetKing (May 13, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> Every courtroom has a bible..
> Money In God We Trust..


Yep, and our forefathers would be ashamed.



Detroit J420 said:


> The measurements taken from building noahs ark would have fit all the animals in pairs, they have even scanned the mountain they believe the ark is sittin on and found the Ark, but the government wont let them digg.


Holy shit, are you just flat out making shit up now? Thats a bunch of bullshit and you and I both know it. They wont let them dig because every single seismograph they have taken has been inconclusive (in the spot they THINK it may be). Second of all, every scientist in the world has conceded that it would be impossible to fit two of every kind of animal on a Man made boat. Measurements taken? WHAT measurements, we have no boat! (you find a way to make a boat that dimensionally has a way to fit 2 of MILLIONS of species into one boat, you will be labeled an architectural genius.



Detroit J420 said:


> And for the athiests who think Religion makes u weak in turn the other cheek dont forget Jesus instructed his apostles to get swords before judas betrayed him with a kiss thats how Peter cut the romans ear off, Soo live by the Gun Die by the gun goes the story...


Is that supposed to sell me on the whole thing? It actually does quite the opposite. Hypocrites.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 13, 2011)

Detroit J420 said:


> The Holy bible is the most printed popular Book in the world... "Fact"
> Wich means it must have some interesting wisdom and instructions on life in there. Period
> Maybe God's trying to get a message across figuring thats its sooooooo old yet the most famous..


Just read this, and I realize you are no different than Buz. 'Its the most popular book, so god must favor it!".

No wonder organized religion has you fools tied around their finger, you just open wide and let them shove that spoon right in don't you.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2011)

First off, BB is clearly a troll. I suggest you guys all just completely ignore him, stop responding, it's as simple as that. He's not interested in anything except running around in circles, even real believers aren't as retarded as he's portraying himself to be.



Detroit J420 said:


> The Holy bible is the most printed popular Book in the world... "Fact"
> Wich means it must have some interesting wisdom and instructions on life in there. Period
> Maybe God's trying to get a message across figuring thats its sooooooo old yet the most famous..


"cuz if you go platinum, it's got nothing to do with luck
it just means that a million people are stupid as fuck!"

-Industrial Revolution - Immortal Technique

Appeal to numbers. Logical fallacy. Just because the bible is the most popular book in the world doesn't mean it's true. If you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.. The second most printed book in the world is the next most true document? The book printed half as much as the bible is only 50% true? No, that's not how we figure out what is true or false, only what is popular. 



Detroit J420 said:


> Every courtroom has a bible..
> Money In God We Trust..
> The measurements taken from building noahs ark would have fit all the animals in pairs, they have even scanned the mountain they believe the ark is sittin on and found the Ark, but the government wont let them digg. And for the athiests who think Religion makes u weak in turn the other cheek dont forget Jesus instructed his apostles to get swords before judas betrayed him with a kiss thats how Peter cut the romans ear off, Soo live by the Gun Die by the gun goes the story...


You are just all over the place here man.. 

Courtrooms, money... ok, so because courtrooms keep bibles and money has the phrase "in God we trust" on it, that makes it true?... So were we to remove the bibles from the courtrooms and the phrase from the money it'd be false? 

Think.

If you believe the world flooded and a 900 year old man captured and kept two of every kind of animal on the planet inside a boat to survive, you need to go back to school and pay attention.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "cuz if you go platinum, it's got nothing to do with luck
> it just means that a million people are stupid as fuck!"


Sir, this is stupid;hands down: 

". . . and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. *Romans 1:27*


----------



## mccumcumber (May 13, 2011)

Haha way to put up a post for shock value.


----------



## wanabe (May 13, 2011)

didnt read the whole thread but who cares im athiest


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

*Padawanbater-*

Be careful where you tread.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Haha way to put up a post for shock value.


Yes it is shocking, revolting and disgusting!


----------



## mccumcumber (May 13, 2011)

> *Yes it is shocking, revolting and disgusting! *


Well, as Jesus said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 13, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> No wonder organized religion has you fools tied around their finger, you just open wide and let them. . ."


This sounds nasty coming from you.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 14, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> First off, BB is clearly a troll. I suggest you guys all just completely ignore him, stop responding, it's as simple as that. He's not interested in anything except running around in circles, even real believers aren't as retarded as he's portraying himself to be.


Word, I'm all for debate, but this thread has the feel of several smart guys yelling and making fun of a retarded person.

After being explained why argument from popularity is logically invalid, he responds with this



> *Sir, this is stupid;hands down:
> 
> ". . . and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. Romans 1:27*


 The response he gives does not even pertain or begin to make sense as a counter point to argument from popularity. His response here and most everywhere else suggests BB is near borderline schizophrenic with his logical connections. The fact that you guys continue to make sport out of the mentally challenged is quite disappointing to see in people who I considered enlightened.


----------



## ChronicObsession (May 14, 2011)

HighLowGrow said:


> I predict we will have a terrorist attack within the next 25 years. And it will be al Qaeda related. While I'm predicting that, we will also see a huge earthquake in this time frame. It's in writing now. Print this out or you can purchase my book. It is all spelled out in there. Crap, I forgot about the tsunami in my book. But I was imagining one and it did happen.
> 
> If you believe in me please join my cult. Pay me and I will preach my book to you. If any of you would like to preach my book, there is a 10% franchise fee.


Don't forget to get some tax exemption, because you don't want the Government getting his clammy hands on your God Money. And how can you believe in Al Qaeda? Don't you think that is some word that lovely ex president Bush Douche made up so we get behind his back like donkeys for some war games in the sandy butthole of our planet? Government made up the word *Marijuana* for us a long while back, we know it's real name is cannabis. Al Qaeda's real name is blow up your own towers to get the support of the people, PEACE


----------



## ChronicObsession (May 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The fact that you guys continue to make sport out of the mentally challenged is quite disappointing to see in people who I considered enlightened.


 Well said Ganja Friend. The mentally challenged can not control passing a stool in their own pants just as they can not control what they put up on the boards. It is a wonder that they found out how to get on rollitup and register and everything and they even taught themselves how to post and make threads. Curious George was originally a story about a mentally handicapped boy that lived with the Man in the Yellow Bicycle Helmet, but when it finally got published, it was changed to an adorable monkey story instead. BTW i'm not bringing up this wonderful and intense children's literature to cast a shadow of greatness over the bible... I just like books


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 14, 2011)

_Heisenberg-_

I was about to give a rebuttal to your lame as reasoning, but *ChronicObsession* just wrapped it up beautifully- hands down.


----------



## Tenner (May 14, 2011)

ChronicObsession said:


> Don't forget to get some tax exemption, because you don't want the Government getting his clammy hands on your God Money. And how can you believe in Al Qaeda? Don't you think that is some word that lovely ex president Bush Douche made up so we get behind his back like donkeys for some war games in the sandy butthole of our planet? Government made up the word *Marijuana* for us a long while back, we know it's real name is cannabis. Al Qaeda's real name is blow up your own towers to get the support of the people, PEACE


Exactly, they are still confiscating those CCTV`s.... I don`t understand how people can have faith in such a government and celebrate the death and revenge of all the people dead in 9/11... And a great trust for trust example with marijuana too!! +Rep!

See thats the problem with having a government system, we are being controlled by the mentally handicapped... By that I mean the people who make it to the highest government positions are power hungry and they just thrive and control us as a government. Nothing really changes, POWETHIRST!! ALWAYS!!




But calling Christians mentally handicapped isn`t too right, its all about feeding your mind the right things in this sensless life. I`m Atheist to my roots, but if somebody is claiming to be better from a Christian, I`d like to hear why they think such a thing?

Becase you can understand science better? (That doesn`t mean much, science provides no ethics or happines more than Christianity)

Because you are happier? (Nice Christians are very happy, and so are nice Atheists)

Becase you are friendlier? (A Christian following his book properly is very friendly, find out for yourself.)

Becase you are more open? (I can tell my Christian friend about my psychedelic trips and he listens with a big smile, he is hyperconfident of his religion and very happy)

There isn`t really a reason to demonize such a thing, its not like we have a great deal of reason to be Atheists and continue with the vast journey of science or logic, its not like its going to get us anywhere in an "ultimate" sense... 

Be nice to them, a Christian I`m living in my block with is one of the nicest people I`ve met, even though I still half dislike religion I agreed to go to the church with him, just for funs  He understands that and welcomes me for free food at the church without asking me to convert every day  You can say his still trying to convert me, but everybody encourages their points and visions in life to a degree, my children are going to have an Atheistic input from me, my friends get an Atheistic input for me, its all fair... 

Ease up guys! Everyone knows there are plenty of religions in this world and some have to be wrong


----------



## Heisenberg (May 14, 2011)

I do not conclude religious people to be mentally handicapped. My conclusion is based on 10+ pages of responses that do not make sense, one of which I outlined before stating my opinion. It is based on posts that resemble word salad more than any sort of coherent statement, and complete misunderstanding of nearly every point that has been made. This is not debate, it is meaningless tauntings of a griefer.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The response he gives does not even pertain or begin to make sense as a counter point to argument from popularity.


*Padawanbater* mentioned the word &#8220;stupid&#8221; in his rebuttal, so I built on that same word in order to unveil his agenda. Truth be known, I don't like peeps walking around incognito. He's in the wrong thread and so are you!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> It's silly to take the time to offer reasonable debate to someone who is beyond approach.



Yet you continue to post-hypocrite!


----------



## Harrekin (May 16, 2011)

As has been said many times, noone is griefing the "special user" that is BrotherBuz, we just dont like the fact he's trying to tell us that his Bible is a word for word, absolute truth history book and that the likes of evolution is just made up. 

Its an insult to my intelligence personally, because its a book of (mostly Jewish) fairytales that has been used for hundreds of years by the Vatican and others to control the masses. "Book" is even a shakey term for it, its more of an "anthology of psuedo-ficticious stories".

Also the fact he cant actually retort a single point anyone has made but he continues to spewn his totally *irrelevant* psychotic religious babble. (He must be a Westboro member or something, I think they all lick windows too)

Nothing wrong with the idea of religion, just people need to use their brains too. (In some cases trying would be a start)

Think about it from the theoretical deity's point of view, if we are his/her children, would he really want us to be so blind/downright fucking stupid? Would you not want your children to broaden their minds?

So BrotherBuz, care to actually post something relevent to the discussion? 

Cos if you can actually post a point that actually makes sense and is backed up by something relevent, I will accept it. 
Iv always wanted a religion/liked the idea of it, just never actually believed in one.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 16, 2011)

Jus to be clear, I wasn't referring to you as a griefer. A griefer is defined as "Someone who does things in an online community (game, forum, chat group) to deliberately cause annoyance ("grief" in the sense of "giving someone grief") for the griefer's own enjoyment (or "lulz"). A griefer is purposely inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic with the primary intent of provoking others into an emotional response. (usually anger)

There is only one person posting here that fits the description.



> So BrotherBuz, care to actually post something relevent to the discussion?
> 
> Cos if you can actually post a point that actually makes sense and is backed up by something relevent, I will accept it.


I admire your appeal to reason. It is a path I try to take with opposition and has enabled me to learn from others in the past, but like most things, I am afraid it is lost on fools. It only gives the griefer a chance to waste more time, time that is better spent on actual learning.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 16, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> So BrotherBuz, care to actually post something relevent to the discussion?


Seriously, listen to Heis, give it a rest man, stop asking for stuff, he will not provide it, you know he wont, he'll just run around in more circles FISHING for you to ask more and more shit so he can waste more and more of your time. Don't give in to that shit, stop responding and let this useless thread die.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 16, 2011)

^^^ I'm surprised that you even have the balls to show your handle. LOL


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 16, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Long before Christopher Columbus and his Great grand-parents were born, the Scriptures said: ". . .earth hangs upon nothing. . ." *Job 26:7* & "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth. . ." * Isaiah 40:22*


The earth is round, hanging upon nothing. Think about the implications.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 16, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> The earth is round, hanging upon nothing. Think about the implications.


Thread begins to die, so he starts quoting himself. Classic!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 16, 2011)

^^^ If you were paying attention, you would have noticed I said post closed. But then again, you've never payed attention, that's why you're still here. LOL


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 16, 2011)

I'm surprised your mentor (*budlover*) allow you to play in the Lyons den alone. Do you feel safe?


----------



## budlover13 (May 16, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I'm surprised your mentor (*budlover*) allow you to play in the Lyons den alone. Do you feel safe?


Mmmmmm..... http://lyons5.com/


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 16, 2011)

^^^ Are you here to save your cub?


----------



## budlover13 (May 16, 2011)

No, he's good. Not a cub, but good. i just heard Lyon's ( http://lyons5.com/ ) and got hungry.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 16, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> ^^^ If you were paying attention, you would have noticed I said post closed. But then again, you've never payed attention, that's why you're still here. LOL


 Post closed? I dont see that anywhere....



BrotherBuz said:


> I'm surprised your mentor (*budlover*) allow you to play in the Lyons den alone. Do you feel safe?


Lol. I swear, your like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lyons den? Only thing i see here is scaredy cat Brother tucking his 'cat' tail between his legs and hissing. Any second you will piss yourself and run into the shadows....

Or we could use a dog analogy. Like how most of your ideas sound like they came from a brain the size of which your avatar would possess. Or its squinty eyes, acting as blinders as it goes through its infancy.

The analogies go on and on, but the entertainment doesn't. If you want your thread to reach 1000 posts you better start making it interesting.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 16, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Word, I'm all for debate, but this thread has the feel of several smart guys yelling and making fun of a retarded person.
> The response he gives does not even pertain or begin to make sense as a counter point to argument . . ." His response here and most everywhere else suggests BB is near borderline schizophrenic with his logical connections.


_You're just smoke & mirrors._


Sir, I understand you better now; you&#8217;re the same dude that found it odd that anyone, would hate the act of homosexuality. You&#8217;re found on p.42, (people knocking on your door), right below this thread, trying to convenience a young man that homosexual acts are considered normal and shouldn&#8216;t make him feel repulsed.

As I said before, no one should explain to another, why homosexuality is a creepy thought. You should already know that!!

Listen carefully "deviant", just because *Klosetman*, *Padawanbater* and yourself find it okay or normal for a man to stick his penis in another man&#8217;s ass doesn&#8217;t mean that most condone this act or find it okay. Most find it sickening. 
So, there you go, you _Klosetman_ and _Padwanbater_ are in the wrong thread!!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 16, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Listen carefully "deviant", just because *Klosetman*, *Padawanbater* and yourself find it okay or normal for a man to stick his penis in another mans ass doesnt mean that most condone this act or find it okay. Most find it sickening.


 I dont even know where to begin with this. You are SO wrong. MOST people speak against intolerance now, not against gays. Your hayday of gay bashing ended a few decades ago, and now you are trying to keep grasp to one of the very last intolerances you have left. We took your right of segregation away, we took your right to force prayer in school away, and the gay rights movement is making extreme headway.

Your world must feel shattered more and more as time goes on. Progression means only one thing for you: the end of life as YOU know it.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 16, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> he'll just run around in more circles FISHING for you to ask more and more shit so he can waste more and more of your time. Don't give in to that shit, stop responding and let this useless thread die.


^^context

And so when the thread gets no attention he struggles and casts his lure over and over until sure enough he gets more bites. KK can't seem to resist the bait and allows the griefer to successfully reel in his catch. Do you think that blather about gay posts means anything to BB other than a route to illicit more anger? Do you think a response means anything to him other than satisfaction? I admire your tenacity when defending your principals, but may I suggest your not let your buttons be pushed so easily. Perhaps try the satisfaction that comes from watching the fisherman struggle when his hook comes back empty.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 16, 2011)

Oh i resist the bait, ive left another thread of his already. Keep in mind, you've claimed to leave several times as well ;D

The idea is, I dont care for him much. At this point in time, i feel more like im griefing him than anything. But hey, make this about me instead, i dont mind ;D


----------



## Heisenberg (May 16, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Oh i resist the bait, ive left another thread of his already. Keep in mind, you've claimed to leave several times as well ;D
> 
> The idea is, I dont care for him much. At this point in time, i feel more like im griefing him than anything. But hey, make this about me instead, i dont mind ;D


Never claimed to leave, jus to not debate him. Indeed I have yet to respond to him directly despite his personalized taunts. I have posted the last few pages out of confusion as to why his tricks are working, and to implore you let the griefer starve. I think this is a good practice in general anytime someone has proven themselves to have no worth beyond grief. But now that you've heard me, i'll let the subject rest.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 16, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Never claimed to leave, jus to not debate him. Indeed I have yet to respond to him directly despite his personalized taunts. I have posted the last few pages out of confusion as to why his tricks are working, and to implore you let the griefer starve. I think this is a good practice in general anytime someone has proven themselves to have no worth beyond grief. But now that you've heard me, i'll let the subject rest.


Meant no offense, and your point has always been well taken here =D (by all but Buz of course).

I admit, and continue to admit, that i stay for the kicks.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 16, 2011)

If being gay is so wrong, then why do priests molest male children? I don't get it?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 16, 2011)

Common sense would tell you "murder is wrong" (along with a list of other things), yet it's what goes on in the bedroom that deserves their attention.

I don't get it...

Who would believe a *perfect being* would hold this opinion?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 16, 2011)

Uh Oh! More bad news for Buz.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255


----------



## Leothwyn (May 17, 2011)

This post is perfect... Heisenberg basically points out that BrotherBuz isn't capable of having a real debate, and that he doesn't seem to be able (or willing) to respond directly to other peoples points. So, BrotherBuz quotes him, and responds with...... a rant about gays.  Hilarious.




BrotherBuz said:


> Sir, I understand you better now; you&#8217;re the same dude that found it odd that anyone, would hate the act of homosexuality. You&#8217;re found on p.42, (people knocking on your door), right below this thread, trying to convenience a young man that homosexual acts are considered normal and shouldn&#8216;t make him feel repulsed.
> 
> As I said before, no one should explain to another, why homosexuality is a creepy thought. You should already know that!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrekin (May 17, 2011)

Ok, Im finally gonna give in and admit you cant argue with an idiot, so I aint gonna try argue with BB anymore.

Its like trying to teach a dog to play piano, he'll just sit there and bark.

Sad thing is, he probably thinks he won...
[email protected]


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 17, 2011)

heisenberg said:


> but now that you've heard me, i'll let the subject rest.


LoL . . .


----------



## Dankster4Life (May 17, 2011)

I am satan.........and want to do you in the dook shoot.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 17, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Keep in mind, you've claimed to leave several times as well.


*^^^context:* This is Klosetman talking to Heisenberg.


I'm sorry, but I just can't resist LOL . . . This has to be the funniest shit on the net.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 17, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *^^^context:* This is Klosetman talking to Heisenberg.
> I'm sorry, but I just can't resist LOL . . . This has to be the funniest shit on the net.


Keep trying buddy, but we have showed you that your petty religion will no longer divide 'us'. How long will you let it isolate you from rational discussion and logical thinking?

Oh wait, you've been trained to NOT want that. I forgot.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 17, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Keep trying buddy,but we have showed you that your petty religion will no longer divide 'us'.





Heisenberg said:


> And so when the thread gets no attention he struggles and casts his lure over and over until sure enough he gets more bites. KK can't seem to resist the bait and allows the griefer to successfully reel in his catch.


Sounds like your already divided. Time to move in for the Kill. See what happens when a boy wonders into the Lyons' Den.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 17, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Sounds like your already divided. Time to move in for the Kill. See what happens when a boy wonders into the Lyons' Den.


Your grasping at straws now....

Oh, and its 'wander'.


----------



## Harrekin (May 18, 2011)

And its also Lion's Den, not Lyons' Den. Lyon is a very beautiful place in France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 18, 2011)

...and a lovely romanesque stainless steel flatware making company....

perhaps he meant them....pretty mean cold meat fork they make...


----------



## Harrekin (May 18, 2011)

And you never know when you could need a high quality cold meat fork...better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it!

EDIT: Nice plant in your avatar KlosetKing by the way, it smoke up nice?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 18, 2011)

*Klosetking-*

If homosexuality is so benevolent, gay and normal, why is it that they can't procreate? 

Please, no smoke & mirrors.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 18, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> *Klosetking-*
> 
> If homosexuality is so benevolent, gay and normal, why is it that they can't procreate?
> 
> Please, no smoke & mirrors.


Someone only has to think about this question for 10 seconds to see the error contained within. This is both a flawed premise and a flawed conclusion. What we have here is another statement that has had enough thought put into it to cause emotion, but not enough thought to determine if the question is valid.

After 10 seconds thought it should occur to someone, homosexuals are able to procreate. 

After 20 seconds thought it should occur to someone that if we condemn acts which do not lead to procreation, then we must include, masturbation, oral sex, condom use, pulling out, ect.

So following his own logic, either BB is a virgin who's never masturbated or else his sexual encounters have always led to pregnancy...or hes a hypocrite. 

If BB puts less than 10 seconds thought into his own posts, how much time do you think he spends on others? This sort of critical thought, the act of thinking the idea through and exploring it's implications, is what BB calls smoke and mirrors; dodging.

BB's posts can have some value. He does a great job of demonstrating logical fallacies. It's been pointed out how he uses ad hominem attacks and red herrings. I wonder, can anyone pick out a much more subtle form of ad hominem attack called 'poisoning the well'?

_Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say._

Hes used it many times but perhaps it is too boring to go back and find it. No worries, I am sure he will commit this and other fallacies in future posts since he can't seem to understand why fallacies are invalid. Perhaps when this thread is finished it can be printed out and used for a critical thinking class. (I know mine could have used new material)

As I said, debating him is useless, but perhaps we can use the opportunity to actually teach some people about critical thinking. The beauty is, we don't actually have to respond directly to him and yet the fallacies will still keep coming.


----------



## karri0n (May 18, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Someone only has to think about this question for 10 seconds to see the error contained within. What we have here is another statement that has had enough thought put into it to cause emotion, but not enough thought to determine if the question is valid.
> 
> After 10 seconds thought it should occur to someone, homosexuals are able to procreate.
> 
> ...


I just don't like the whole 1-2 sentences, double spacing thing....


----------



## KlosetKing (May 18, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> EDIT: Nice plant in your avatar KlosetKing by the way, it smoke up nice?


Well due to some late stress, it actually ended up hermy'ing, but aside from that, ya it turned out pretty chron =D



Heisenberg said:


> Someone only has to think about this question for 10 seconds to see the error contained within. This is both a flawed premise and a flawed conclusion. What we have here is another statement that has had enough thought put into it to cause emotion, but not enough thought to determine if the question is valid.
> 
> After 10 seconds thought it should occur to someone, homosexuals are able to procreate.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself. Going back over the thread, it becomes obvious that what little support he has had has come and gone very quickly, while others have stuck around to watch him dig deeper into the hole.

I feel we 'all' have learned a little something from this, if only at the very least honing conversation skills. Your point about his posts being designed strictly to arise emotion is 100% on as well, its just too bad he hasn't realized that he hasn't stirred any emotion for quite sometime now, and there are very little rises left to get out of people.

Also, this can be a learning experience for other religious type, to possible open their mind a bit. Realize that 'his' style of thinking only makes you look foolish, and lashing out with no purpose other than to anger and upset others, does not further your cause. Speak softly, think thoroughly, and remember that it is 'just debate'. Not one person here expects to 'convince' anyone else of anything (aside from maybe BB), its more about providing intelligent discussion.



karri0n said:


> I just don't like the whole 1-2 sentences, double spacing thing....


Well, imo, would you rather some split up, easily readable sentences? Or one giant block of text that's almost unreadable? Ill take the split sentences, thank you =D (oh and its single spaced btw)


----------



## Heisenberg (May 18, 2011)

Ever wonder about his frequent use of the term 'smoke and mirrors'? I think it's because when he tries to hold in his mind a logical conclusion which conflicts with his beliefs his mind gets all cloudy and starts reflecting back to him the ideas which brought him comfort in the past. He interprets this as smoke and mirrors; better known as cognitive disequilibriume. 

A critical thinking mind tends to relieve cognitive dissonance by changing attitude, beliefs, and actions. A self-centered mind tends to handle dissonance by justifying, blaming, and denying/ignoring. It's clear to see which group BB falls into.

When we strive to understand why some people hold and defend erroneousness conclusions, understanding cognitive dissonance can help a lot. Next time your mind experiences cognitive dissonance pay attention to the way you resolve it.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 18, 2011)

> *If homosexuality is so benevolent, gay and normal, why is it that they can't procreate?
> 
> Please, no smoke & mirrors. *


You still haven't answered why priests, the holy ones of religion, seem to be homosexual pedophiles.

Also, not being able to procreate is a very good thing in our day and age. Have you noticed how overpopulated the world is? Stephen Hawking predicted that we'd run out of resources in the next 50 years to support the amount of people we have! Funny enough, Newton predicted, by studying the bible, that the world would end some time around 2050...


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 18, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I just don't like the whole 1-2 sentences, double spacing thing....


HB, is all about smoke & mirrors, wrapped up in his deviant passions.


----------



## ChronicObsession (May 18, 2011)

Homosexuality defined in 3 simple sentences. Butt encounters Penis. Penis Make Camp inside of Butt's Anus. Penis takes a shower with soap. So... From which orifice does the baby come out of? Well, that question just doesn't make any sense, does it? Hehe... guide your penis into... a vagina !


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> After 20 seconds thought it should occur to someone that if we condemn acts which do not lead to procreation, then we must include, masturbation, oral sex, condom use, pulling out, ect.



Professor, dude STOP all the hyperbole, do you think peeps here were born last week Friday are something? Say what you mean and quit the nonsense talking in circles.

Let me break it to you this way. If homosexuality is right, why can't a man impregnate another man? Did you understand that!


----------



## KlosetKing (May 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> That's the point.


The point was to provide a question void of logic or critical thinking, with the strict purpose to try to antagonize someone, while simultaneously sounding like a complete idiot?

Well shit Buz, consider your mission a success, cuz you've been doing that for about 75 pages now.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Professor, dude STOP all the hyperbole, do you think peeps here were born last week Friday are something? Say what you mean and quit the nonsense talking in circles.
> 
> Let me break it to you this way. If homosexuality is right, why can't a man impregnate another man? Did you understand that!


No one is saying its right, we are saying its not 'wrong', at least not morally, like you claim it is.

Do i need to provide some information that shows the countless times animals in nature have performed 'gay' acts? I bet the puppy in your avatar has humped a male dog or two in its time..... is it going to puppy hell?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> The point was to provide a question void of logic or critical thinking . . ."



So you think that homosexuality isn't void of critical thinking? I know it does nothing to support evolution. Hands-down.


----------



## Harrekin (May 19, 2011)

Stop picking and choosing sentences people have posted and using them out of context. 

What does homosexuality do to harm you in anyway? Get over yourself BrotherBuz, Mr "Moral Authority". 

Im not gay, not paticularly fond of gay guys coming onto me but once they know your not gay they completly lose interest. In what way am I harmed in the exchange? Not at all. Have I a problem with homosexuals? No, why the fuck would I? Some of the genuinely nicest people Iv ever met were gay, would you tell them to their faces you think they're destined for hell? If I heard you say that Id be embarrassed for you.

Why dont you just go rejoin "the flock" and stay out of the public, where there's a growing number of people who can actually think, cos you're just making yourself look stupid.

You remind me of Brick from Anchorman, except Brick wasnt a dickhead and did actually make more sense than you have here.

Oh and for the record, how was the "Lyons' Den" BB?


----------



## ChubbySoap (May 19, 2011)

the correct response to someone finding you even mildly attractive is to beat the fear of god into them....?


----------



## filtereye (May 19, 2011)

oho the homosexuality topic nice lol 

so why do guys have G spot in their ass

[video=youtube;ggl5ZGaJFFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggl5ZGaJFFM[/video]

why why why why )


----------



## ChronicObsession (May 19, 2011)

Men have Gspots in their asses because the Gay Devil put them there?


----------



## ChronicObsession (May 19, 2011)

I missed the part where this thread moves from The Bible being word of God to... packing fudge in a fudge making factory?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> HB, is all about smoke & mirrors, wrapped up in his deviant passions.


I am sorry that this statement offers nothing new to learn. It's his classic "smoke and mirrors' line which we already examined and identified as him feeling inferior, followed by another ad hominem attack. Either BB does not read material others provide, or he doesn't understand why ad hominem attacks are invalid, or else he just doesn't want to give up what he sees as his best debate tactic. I guess what we can take away from this is how desperate and futile fallacies make someone look.




BrotherBuz said:


> Professor, dude STOP all the hyperbole, do you think peeps here were born last week Friday are something? Say what you mean and quit the nonsense talking in circles.
> 
> Let me break it to you this way. If homosexuality is right, why can't a man impregnate another man? Did you understand that!


*Translation:* I can't wrap my brain around your points and your ideas make me feel uncomfortable. I am upset my red herring of homosexuality isn't sufficiently distracting from my inability to form a valid point. I will pretend that you do not understand my question and repeat it, hoping to deflect from the fact that you already answered it. This allows me to not address the points you made.



BrotherBuz said:


> So you think that homosexuality isn't void of critical thinking? I know it does nothing to support evolution. Hands-down.


Apparently BB hasn't examined his own sexuality enough to realize sexual preference requires no thinking, critical or otherwise, better known as instinct. *For pages hes been trying to convince us that evolution is thoroughly wrong, and now he brings it up to support his point.* I am sure if someone pointed out examples of how homosexuality benefits evolution it would be lost on him, since he changes his beliefs to fit his arguments. This is someone who is supposed to be firm in their beliefs? It would seem the motivation is grief and not expression. 

Once again we see BB ignoring anything that he can't easily answer with a quick insult and appeal to ignorance. I was really hoping we all could learn from BB the pitfalls of not thinking critically, but I guess I was giving him too much credit, he just keeps on doing the same old song and dance, and quite frankly, the song sucks and the dance is boring.


----------



## filtereye (May 19, 2011)

the devil ahhh right  

"god is gayyyyyy" - kurt cobain <3

"Teacher said, your eyes! Preacher said, Dont have nothing for you!"


----------



## Heisenberg (May 19, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> No one is saying its right, we are saying its not 'wrong', at least not morally, like you claim it is.
> 
> Do i need to provide some information that shows the countless times animals in nature have performed 'gay' acts? I bet the puppy in your avatar has humped a male dog or two in its time..... is it going to puppy hell?


Lets not forget that whether homosexuality is or isn't moral is not the issue. BB is saying any arguments made here, despite them being totally removed from sexuality, are invalid because they are stated by homosexuals. Now we can argue that none of us are homosexual, and that sexuality has nothing to do with logic, but this is what red herrings do, cause the opposition to argue morality and defend their own sexuality instead of focusing on the flaws of BBs original logic. He was unable to answer the many valid questions about scripture and the bible, and he successfully caused others to leave the topic behind with the red herring of homosexuality.

Am I suggesting we get back to more god talk? Nah I don't really care, I just get excited when I see fallacies organically and in the wild. It's one thing to read about them on a web page or in a book, but to see them in practice is fascinating.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 19, 2011)

BB keeps dodging my questions


----------



## IceCreamOctopus (May 19, 2011)

I'm not sure if the Bible is the word of God in it's entirety,
but I believe the diction God holds is in the every day miracles around us


----------



## Harrekin (May 19, 2011)

IceCreamOctopus said:


> I'm not sure if the Bible is the word of God in it's entirety,
> but I believe the diction God holds is in the every day miracles around us


 See this BB? An intelligent believer, welcome to the discussion IceCream, your kind have been sorely missed around here.

Would you believe the Bible is more of a guidebook or a historybook?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 19, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> BB keeps dodging my questions


I'll explore your question with you mccumcumber. Bill Maher's is known for saying something like, if priests have a holy ear and are directed by gods word, and a disproportionate amount of priests molest male children, then it must mean that god is a homosexual pedophile. These are after all, people who have given themselves over to divine influence. God is effectively the head of an army of boy-fuckers.

I would like to know if it's true that a disproportionate amount of priests are pedophiles, as compared to any other random group of males. I suspect the numbers are average and pretty much what we would expect to find in any random sampling, but I don't know. If it is true that more priests are pedophiles than an average group, that would be very interesting indeed.

It would also be fair to state that not all, or even most, men who molest boys are homosexual. In many cases it is more about power and dominance than sexual preference/attraction.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 19, 2011)

Well what I'm more disturbed about is the papacy's (are they still called that) stance on the issue. Letting priests get away molestation is absurd, those men ought to be arrested, but since the Pope said it was ok that they did this, they get away free of consequence. And by doing so, the Pope has (maybe unintentionally) approved child molestation... wtf?!?!?!?


----------



## IceCreamOctopus (May 19, 2011)

thank you Harrekin, you flatter me so :3
-just like any form of historical writing or documentation, there are discrepancies. that can't be helped.
those whom would like to dismiss the bible entirely use this fact to their advantage,
but what they have to realize is that history is technically an interpretation,
think of it this way: we believe that Christopher Columbus found America because that is deemed "history".
is there any way to know that for sure? -probably not.
and I think the same holds true for the bible, history is never ever definite. 
personally, I do believe many of the things in the bible to be true, but I think it's meant to be more of a tool for teaching.
christians, or anyone for that matter, don't read the bible because they want a history lesson, they read the bible because it's stories (whether fictional or fact)
convey the most important life lessons about treating fellow humans and loving the people we have in life.


----------



## Harrekin (May 19, 2011)

Vatican City has it own law and the Pope is the big cheese there...simple as that! Current Pope was also a member of the Hitler Youth with Iron Cross award, you aware of that?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 19, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I'll explore your question with you mccumcumber. Bill Maher's is known for saying something like, if priests have a holy ear and are directed by gods word, and a disproportionate amount of priests molest male children, then it must mean that god is a homosexual pedophile. These are after all, people who have given themselves over to divine influence. God is effectively the head of an army of boy-fuckers.
> 
> I would like to know if it's true that a disproportionate amount of priests are pedophiles, as compared to any other random group of males. I suspect the numbers are average and pretty much what we would expect to find in any random sampling, but I don't know. If it is true that more priests are pedophiles than an average group, that would be very interesting indeed.
> 
> It would also be fair to state that not all, or even most, men who molest boys are homosexual. In many cases it is more about power and dominance than sexual preference/attraction.


OMG, Bill Maher is one of my heroes! =D (no doubt saying that will invite much flaming lol) and an awesome point nonetheless.



mccumcumber said:


> Well what I'm more disturbed about is the papacy's (are they still called that) stance on the issue. Letting priests get away molestation is absurd, those men ought to be arrested, but since the Pope said it was ok that they did this, they get away free of consequence. And by doing so, the Pope has (maybe unintentionally) approved child molestation... wtf?!?!?!?


Pretty much dude, but peeps like BB just kick their feet a bit, jiggle their body, and dig their head another inch or two under the sand and put it out of their mind. Pretty predictable behavior imo. They just deny, quote scripture, and deflect.

IceCream, i forgot to quote you, but thank you for your intelligent and meaningful response. I wish more believers could take such a 'gentle' approach to their faith. The die-hard ignorance you see from others is just so un-becoming nowadays.


----------



## IceCreamOctopus (May 19, 2011)

dear Heisenberg,
that's an ignorant statement. I apologize for being blunt, but it is.
firstly, just because a man wears a cloak and carries a bible does not make him influenced by the divine.
humans are just that, human. 

furthermore, where do you hear about all of these cases involving men of the cloth molesting young boys?
I'll tell you: Internet, television, radio, it's about media coverage.(note that I am NOT defending child molesters) 
if a priest rapes/molests a boy of course it's gonna be a news story!
if a poor farmer in the middle of nowhere molests a boy do you really think it's gonna be on the front page of the news?

- I honestly don't know why individuals choose to try to strip the beauty from everything they lay eyes on.
God is not the problem, it's his perfectly imperfect creations.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 19, 2011)

IceCreamOctopus said:


> thank you Harrekin, you flatter me so :3
> -just like any form of historical writing or documentation, there are discrepancies. that can't be helped.
> those whom would like to dismiss the bible entirely use this fact to their advantage,
> but what they have to realize is that history is technically an interpretation,
> ...


Well im pretty sure that we do know it 'wasnt' Christopher Columbus, it was actually Amerigo Vespucci, or maybe even the Vikings or Chinese much much earlier =D

But, that doesn't make your point invalid, in fact it only further proves it, and i do agree with you for the most part. The lessons in it can be used to mold a good life, and for the most part, yep, that's what 'most' people do with it.

Of course theres two sides to any coin, and the same book is used as a tool of power, segregation, and oppression. And yes, while there are MANY stories in the bible that i could say that i know with 99.9% certainty are not true, there are plenty of stories that sound totally normal and easily could be true.

You have brought very pleasant conversation from the other side of this topic to us, and i think i can speak for all of us when i say 'Thank You!'.

Your sig says it all too, i couldn't agree more =-D


----------



## Heisenberg (May 19, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> OMG, Bill Maher is one of my heroes! =D (no doubt saying that will invite much flaming lol) and an awesome point nonetheless.


Heh, Bill Maher has interesting critical ideas like most comedians, but I thoroughly disagree with his view of alternative medicine and homeopathy. But that is for another thread eh?



IceCreamOctopus said:


> dear Heisenberg,
> that's an ignorant statement. I apologize for being blunt, but it is.
> firstly, just because a man wears a cloak and carries a bible does not make him influenced by the divine.
> humans are just that, human.
> ...


You never have to apologize for being blunt around here, it's appreciated. If you read my post again, I stated the conclusion (god is a boy fucker) and then I stated doubt. As I said, I don't know that the rate of pedophilia is higher among priests than it is any other random group, and my suspicions are that it isn't. I tend to think that it is a matter of exposure, as you said. But bottom line is, I don't know. And as I am also an atheist, I would never conclude that god has real influence over priests to begin with, I was simply exploring the question and using Bill Maher's idea for context. I think that it is a comedic and interesting point, I think it uses about the same level of logic that most religious conclusions use, but ultimately I find it to be invalid.


----------



## Harrekin (May 19, 2011)

You've obviously never seen the news if you dont think theres a disproportionatly large number of paedophiles amongst the clergy as opposed to ANY other group. Its like Joseph Fritzl levels of fucked up shit going on in the Church man!


----------



## karri0n (May 19, 2011)

I don't know whether or not the incidence of child molestation is higher amoung the clergy than any other control group or not, but forced abstinence from sex and masturbation will cause some major disturbances to the psychological health of a person. The same is true of power, as well as the responsibility for not only your own problems but the problems of many other people. All three of these are associated with the clergy.

What are Bill Maher's views on alternative medicine?


----------



## KlosetKing (May 19, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> You've obviously never seen the news if you dont think theres a disproportionatly large number of paedophiles amongst the clergy as opposed to ANY other group. Its like Joseph Fritzl levels of fucked up shit going on in the Church man!


I think thats the point bud. The news can make minorities sound like majorities. Like right wing extremists, crackpot liberals, and fascist leftists. DOES the clergy contain an abnormally large amount of pedophiles? The news may make it seem that way, but id be interested in seeing actual numbers (though im not sure those numbers would ever be accurate if they WERE provided).


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Perhaps when this thread is finished it can be printed out and used for a critical thinking class. (I know mine could have used new material)


What do you teach your students? Do you convenience them during office hours, that homosexual acts are normal, like your found doing on p.42 of the thread *(People that knock on your door).* 

I think you're just a nasty old "deviant." I had many encounters with so-called instructors like you.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I am sure if someone pointed out examples of how homosexuality benefits evolution it would be lost on him


I guess so, since I don't believe in the theory of evolution.


----------



## budlover13 (May 19, 2011)

*Blinders firmly in place*


----------



## Heisenberg (May 19, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> What do you teach your students? Do you convenience them during office hours, that homosexual acts are normal, like your found doing on p.42 of the thread *(People that knock on your door).*
> 
> I think you're just a nasty old "deviant." *I had many encounters with so-called instructors like you.*


I guess old dogs have no new tricks. More ad hominem red herrings, more circular invalid logic (with a dose of schizophrenia) but at least this one made me chuckle. The class I was referring to was the ultra boring critical thinking class I took a few quarters ago, as a student. Interesting though that he chose to close his post with a confession. I think we are beginning to see a little further into BBs psyche than we really want, in other words TMI!!


----------



## budlover13 (May 19, 2011)

The SUPPLY closet!!!! LOL!!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> You still haven't answered why priests, the holy ones of religion, seem to be homosexual pedophiles.



Sorry about that m8, so many *red herring* flying around here, it's distracting.

Anyway, it&#8217;s just liked the Scripture say, "one is drawn out and enticed by his own desire." Its like any other wrong, these guys are apparently predisposed to pedophilia and arrange opportunities to be along with choirboys during choir practice etc.

Personally, I think they should be beaten till there unconscious then shot in the head. Lord help the poor soul who even attempts abuse my child. It would have been better if he were not born.


----------



## mccumcumber (May 19, 2011)

Ah good response, makes sense.
I still don't see why the Pope gave them a get out of jail free card though.That disturbs me more than anything else.


----------



## budlover13 (May 19, 2011)

i hear you Brother. idk WHAT the rate is vs. the non-priests. Doubt it's much different though. Media makes the difference in perception.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> Well shit Buz, consider your mission a success, cuz you've been doing that for about 75 pages now.


You sound like a broken record. LOL


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Now we can argue that none of us are homosexual


Now you can't based on your post in other threads. Don't lie


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 19, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> ". . .and that sexuality has nothing to do with logic. . ."


Homosexuality has nothing to do with your logic.


----------



## KlosetKing (May 19, 2011)

Yes Buz, we are ALL gay. And we are ALL coming to get you.



The fact that homosexuality is worth your contempt and adamant bashing, shows just how petty and small your mind truly is.


----------



## GardenOFire (May 20, 2011)

My biggest this with god and religion isn't really a problem with any one religions beliefs or views, but with all of the books that were left out of the bible, then later found, and the fact of who allowed what to be put in the bible to begin with, to me its just a book that was put together long ago to help the people in power gain more control over the sheep....i mean people that they were ruling over


----------



## filtereye (May 20, 2011)

screw beliefs, let em think the way they want. theres enough documentaries about this topic and lots of facts and info to feed on there 

we have love of pot in common tho

puff puff hold itttttttt ahhhhhh


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

KlosetKing said:


> And yes, while there are MANY stories in the bible that i could say that i know with 99.9% certainty are not true . . ."


This guy talks like he knows, even though he was just born yesterday. Youre like morning dew, on a blade of grass, gone in an instance!


----------



## Harrekin (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> This guy talks like he knows, even though he was just born yesterday. You&#8217;re like morning dew, on a blade of grass, gone in an instance!


 And you "know"? Lol, what do you "know"?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> If you read my post again, I stated the conclusion (god is a boy fucker) and then I stated doubt.


Just smoke & mirrors!!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Now we can argue that none of us are homosexual, and that sexuality has nothing to do with logic . . ."


Sir, you are a *pervert*, in sheep clothing, your post show this.


----------



## Harrekin (May 20, 2011)

Ever been "touched by God/Angel/Priest" BrotherBuz? Sounds like you got Stockholm Syndrome.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Homosexuality has nothing to do with your logic.


I don't know what this means. It seems he tried to construct a witty comeback based on the line "sexualty has nothing to do with logic" but unfortunately he didn't take the time to have his statement make sense. BB has already admitted to being molested many times, and as sad as that is, there is no reason to take it out on me.



BrotherBuz said:


> I think you're just a nasty old "deviant." I had many encounters with so-called instructors like you.



I am also amused by this line



BrotherBuz said:


> Personally, I think they should be beaten till there unconscious then shot in the head. Lord help the poor soul who even attempts abuse my child. It would have been better if he were not born.


Jesus taught: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, do not repay evil with evil, do not seek revenge on those who wrong you, turn the other cheek.

_I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ._
-Mohandas Gandhi

I also find it mildly amusing that he thinks red herrings fly. (they swim)

I am leaning back towards the conclusion that BB is at least mildly retarded. (no sarcasm intended) In which case I am uncomfortable continuing to make him look foolish. I have a young cousin with downs whom I love very much, and when he argues about something it's quite similar to the way BB argues. I would hate to think that there is a group of people somewhere making fun of his ideas and expressions, as retarded as they may be.


----------



## Harrekin (May 20, 2011)

Yeah but he hasnt got anything as far as we know, so its game on!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 20, 2011)

And the idiot comes back for more, no need to feel uncomfortable 

Ps. BB, I'm definitely a pervert, and pretty happy about it to tell you the truth!


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Jesus taught: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, do not repay evil with evil, do not seek revenge on those who wrong you, turn the other cheek


I'm not perfect, but I try.


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I'm not perfect, but I try.


Waiting......waiting......and..........


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I also find it mildly amusing that he thinks red herrings fly. (they swim)


I used red herring as a figure of speech, so it doesn't matter if it sings, dace, swim or fucking fly. Do you get it?


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I have a young cousin with downs whom I love very much, and when he argues about something it's quite similar to the way BB argues.


Sounds like youre that cousin, incognito.


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

brotherbuz said:


> red herring is a figure of speech, so it doesn't matter if it sings, dace, swim or fucking fly. Do you get it?


surprise!!!!


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Sounds like you&#8217;re that cousin, incognito.


Ad Hominem. Surprise......


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I am leaning back towards the conclusion that BB is at least mildly retarded



Ive concluded that HB is a harden *pervert* looking for young ass on the net. Based on a few of his post, hes a nasty *deviant*, much like a sick dog.


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> I&#8217;ve concluded that HB is a harden *pervert* looking for young ass on the net. Based on a few of his post, he&#8217;s a nasty *deviant*, much like a sick dog.


Ad HOMINEM!!! And reported this time.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 20, 2011)

Finally it's dissolved into name calling, now maybe someone will close this endless game of retardation.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 20, 2011)

Eh there has been some legitimate debate in the thread recently, and don't we all have an ignore option? No need to report poor Buzz. I see his statements as evidence that he is beyond approach; immune to logic and reason. He lives in a world where insults and smart ass comments determine validity. Lets let him be the king of the game no one wants to play.

I think after 80 pages one thing we have learned is that the word of god is pretty subjective and treated with different attitudes based on situations. Most who defends god's word do so with actions his son taught against. Most of all we see once again how Christianity is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, ever reconsider conclusions, or ever change to keep up with current collective knowledge. Christianity discourages doubt and suggests people be satisfied with ignorance.


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Eh there has been some legitimate debate in the thread recently, and don't we all have an ignore option? No need to report poor Buzz. I see his statements as evidence that he is beyond approach; immune to logic and reason. He lives in a world where insults and smart ass comments determine validity. Lets let him be the king of the game no one wants to play.
> 
> I think after 80 pages one thing we have learned is that the word of god is pretty subjective and treated with different attitudes based on situations. Most who defends god's word do so with actions his son taught against. Most of all we see once again how Christianity is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, ever reconsider conclusions, or ever change to keep up with current collective knowledge. Christianity discourages doubt and suggests people be satisfied with ignorance.


Agreed. And i requested a warning/infraction first. There are rules.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

budlover13 said:


> Ad HOMINEM!!! And reported this time.


Does the truth hurt your ears?


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Does the truth hurt your ears?


No but personal attacks based on homophobic tendencies do.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Lets wander deeper into the den, shall we ?


----------



## budlover13 (May 20, 2011)

BrotherBuz said:


> Lets wander deeper into the den, shall we ?


Into your hole more like it.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Finally it's dissolved into name calling, now maybe someone will close this endless game of retardation.


Not before you're exposed. I'm going to take that scarf of your head.


----------



## BrotherBuz (May 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Most who defends god's word do so with actions his son taught against.


Now it's God's word. LOL


----------

