Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: HotSnoJ on October 11, 2002, 05:02:32 am
-
For the heck of it I'd like to start this again.
I was in biology class the other day, we were discussing evolution and darwin and the likes and the inevitable question "I am *insert religous beleifs here* , i think this is blashpemy, can i be excused?" question came up, and responsivly i thought of darwin and evolution and how things evolved from the first single celled creatures.
So Evolutionism (or is it Evolutionaryism? wow i sound like Bush now ) bassically states that animals adapt their bodies to suit their enviroments with each generation, having the weak links die out due to not mating. now creationism (Sp? context?) says that god created the animals in one day and that they did't evolve from single celled organisms. correct?
So my theory, if i remember correctly, went sometihng along the lines of; maybe God did create animals in a evolutionist fashion but explained it to early humans in a way they could understand. Lemme see if i could clarify.. lets say God created the Dog right? Well evolution says that the dog evolved from wolves which came form earlier forms which came from fish stuff or something (sorrry for my lignorance, work with me here) but it is known that there are wolves and dogs today, wolves were tamed and nutured by humans, so they becamse less fierce and such like the wolves, so when different races of wolves around the world were tamed, those wolves had already adapted to their individual enviroments, and with that, and cross breeding, there are many different types of dog today. But that didn't start till about 10,000 B.C. if i remember my hisrotry correctly, so essentially back in the time of Adam and Eve, there were no dogs, only wolves.
now whiel writing this i was trying to keep some of my ideas from possibly conflicting while trying to get it out before forgetting it so hang in there.
What i am trying to get at is, that there very well could have only been single celled organisms in life with God there, and he gave them the essentials and knowledge and ability to grow and evolve and adapt to their surrondings as needed to stay alive and further their race. It evolved and evolved and did the whole process to where it is now the animal kingdom of the earth. Now you say "no, he created each animals" like i beleive it said in Genesis (i haven't read my bible in a long time, someone help me) well, think of it this way, if you were the a human, the very first human, didn't even kow shame enough to wear clothing , woudl you know about advanced molecular biology? Well the basis behind what i was theoriesing was that God could have explained it to where they would understand it. After all, even if they were all one, single celled organism at one time, he did create them, even before they evolved and changed into what he presented to Adam and Eve.
Now for the last item, you say "well in the bible it states that the earth was created in 6 days and the animals in two days, (first the ocean life and then the rest) evolution takes millions of yeas" Well i think , once again i think God used siplification so that the humans would understand him. He started off with the Ocean life, correct? well the first cells and creatures formed in the ocean, and then they adapted for land as they needed. As for the time discripency, God is Omnipotent (everywhere, anywhere , all the time, any time, all knowing, all powerful) right? so essentially, he does in fact exist out of time. i don't know the exact calculations and ai don't know if anybody could, but perhaps the 11 Billion years or so that the Universe has been around for, was only the equivilant of 6 days worth of work for God ( pondering what he wanted to make, and doing it )
Alright, that is my theory basically, i'm sure there are plenty of holes in it. Feel free to bring in objective commenting, poke holes if you any possible
1. Your "Thoery" has been thought of before. And Basicly what you are doing with it is trying to make evolution fit in the Bible. Not only is this theory ludacris but it denies the whole purpose of creation (which you are semi-acknoledging is true), not to mention God. You see if there was death before Adam and Eve then God's rule about not eating the fruit was empty. Therefore even if they didn't eat it they would die.
2. If you are/were a Christian you should have rejected the whole idea about evolution from the start. And you'd have never thought up this already thought up theory.
3. Yes there are kinds, for instance Dogs, cats, and humans. Now within those kinds are species. Now we all know there are different species of dog (canine) like wolf, dingo, and the comman lab. Yes a wolf species could have eventuly been bred to produce a new species (varity). I agree with that because it can be explained with Biblical principles.
4. With the days you start with the Biblical creation and then fit in the evolutionary creation. This is totaly a bad design, because in the first place says the man knows when things happened (eg. when dinos died or when other things that have happened that we find with archology). Now we really don't know those date because we weren't there to see then happen our selfs.
If you are a Christian then you'd believe God is all powerful (this has been said in the other tread). Now you try to explain him to make him seem more and more less powerful. And that is totaly wrong, GOD IS ALL POWEFUL. Just because a murderer isn't found out doesn't mean that he didn't kill. It doesn't change the fact that he killed someone, even if he wasn't convicted or if he was.
Now lets seperate the Christian Bible, science, and Evolution like this - [Bible] [science] [Evolution].
Some if not all try to slam the Bible down by using one part of it and then slaming it with their aguments. In the process the acknowldge that part of the Bible is true but then ignore other parts. Like creation in the previous tread. You took the creation days and then claimed that God got things the way they are by Evlolution. Well that doesn't work because if there are pillars holding up a roof and half of them are granite and the other half sponge the building wouldn't stay up for long.
In the theory pf Evlolution people say that everything changed and changed. Then they claim science proves that it happened. But if science can prove Evolution happened how come it can't prove that the Bible it true?
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.
I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess.
And thats all I have to say for now.
-
:rolleyes: :wtf: The bible was written to be understood and is symbolic, and many parts such as the creation should not be taken at face value, its a sort of parable. Anyway, this topic IMO was a bad idea.
-
What does IMO mean? :confused: And the Bible should be taken at face value.
-
IMO = In My Opinion. Basic |33+ speak.
Anyways, saying the Bible is a metaphor, and more of an analogy than an accurate history book is basically a way of excusing Christianity from all the contradiction, ambiguity and scientifically-proven inaccuracy the Bible contains. Frankly, it's a pretty lame attempt to reconcile a collection of ancient texts and wildly varying intrepretations thereof with the youth of a skeptical modern society.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
IMO = In My Opinion. Basic |33+ speak.
Anyways, saying the Bible is a metaphor, and more of an analogy than an accurate history book is basically a way of excusing Christianity from all the contradiction, ambiguity and scientifically-proven inaccuracy the Bible contains. Frankly, it's a pretty lame attempt to reconcile a collection of ancient texts and wildly varying intrepretations thereof with the youth of a skeptical modern society.
What inaccuracy? And you won't be able to find one either. Unless you can prove God doesn't exist, but we all know that is impossible.
[edit] Thanks for telling me what IMO is!
-
The argument runs something like this:
"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Ah," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh", says Man, "that was easy," and goes on to prove that black = white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing...
Originally posted by hotsnoj
What inaccuracy?
Birthin' babies without getting knobbed aside (pardon the expression), astronomers have dated the comet which supposedly lead the three kings to Bethlehem as being several years out form the Bible. Course, that's a fairly minor point, but since I left my pocket Bible (dead handy in a religious arg... debate) at home I cannae give you any more right now.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
The argument runs something like this:
"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah, says man, but the Babel Fish s a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Ah," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh", says Man, "that was easy," and goes on to prove that black = white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing...
What?! That doesn't have anything to do with inaccuracy in in the Bible? Faith is the belief in that which something exists without proof that it does. For instance I believe that you exist even though you could, for all I know, be my brother. If something has been proved then you still can believe in it.
Now your statement has been crushed like sandstone, easily.
-
Birthin' babies without getting knobbed aside (pardon the expression), astronomers have dated the comet which supposedly lead the three kings to Bethlehem as being several years out form the Bible. Course, that's a fairly minor point, but since I left my pocket Bible (dead handy in a religious arg... debate) at home I cannae give you any more right now.
You are forgeting that God can do anything he wants. So stop trying to prove the Bible is wrong with useing part of it (admitting it's true) and then deny that another part is true (i.e. God is all powerful).
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
What?! That doesn't have anything to do with inaccuracy in in the Bible?
Nope, but it is a quote from a far more entertaining book. There is life outside of religious dogma, you know...
Faith is the belief in something that exists without proof that it does. (edited for grammer - no offence)
Yup. For example, I believe in the little grey fellas with the big eyes, even though there is no concrete proof. However, because of this faith I am labeled a UFO nut and a conspiracy theorist. Evidently belief in invisible yet all-powerful being up in the sky is different...
For instance I believe that you exist even though you could, for all I know, be my brother.
Um... well, to let me start by saying :wtf:. I'm pretty sure I exist, hold on...
*pokes self*
Yup, I seem to exist all right. And I don't think I'm your brother, unless my dear ole ma's bin telling me porkie-pies...
If something has been proved then you still can believe in it.
[/b]
YAY LOGIC!
Something can be proven but still be believed in, you say. Like, for example, gravity?
Now your statement has been crushed like sandstone, easily.
Don't you try that on with me sonny Jim, I just came out of a three hour geology lab - THREE BLOODY HOURS LOOKING AT SANDSTONE. THREE!.
Sorry, just a little stressed by the THREE HOURS OF I'm doing it again, sorry
Any case, since you're sandstone remark is in response to a quote from a piece of satirical fiction I'll let you off, but in the interests of geology I'd like to point ou that sandstone is not easily crushable. If you want to go crushing roch (I'm assuming with your bare hands here), then try a lump of kaolinsed granite - that stuff crushes up real good :nod:
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You are forgeting that God can do anything he wants. So stop trying to prove the Bible is wrong with useing part of it (admitting it's true) and then deny that another part is true (i.e. God is all powerful).
Sorry, I'm a bit tired and I'm struggling to wrap my brain around this - which part did I 'admit' was true? The Immaculate Conception bit? The all-powerful God bit? Cos I' don't believe any of that is true, no offence to yourself.
Hold on - the bit about the three kings? I'm not saying that the Bible has no factual basis (it's a big ole book and nobody would sit down and write/complile that much BS), and what I meant was that a comet was visible in the area around the time of the supposed birth, but not in the year that the Bible says. Sorry if that confused you... my bad.
-
No offence taken.
Sorry, I'm a bit tired and I'm struggling to wrap my brain around this - which part did I 'admit' was true? The Immaculate Conception bit? The all-powerful God bit? Cos I' don't believe any of that is true, no offence to yourself.
Hold on - the bit about the three kings? I'm not saying that the Bible has no factual basis (it's a big ole book and nobody would sit down and write/complile that much BS), and what I meant was that a comet was visible in the area around the time of the supposed birth, but not in the year that the Bible says. Sorry if that confused you... my bad.
No you don't quite understand. What you're trying to do is make me think that God is not all powerful. He could have made a star for the three kings. We don't know that answer. Well you do have some good points, but still you're wrong.
What I don't get is how people can say thing got here by random chance. But there is so much order. How can that be? When you look at a building do you think someone designed it? Or do you think that it just happened?
-
Well, some of the buildings here at Leicester Uni... *shudder*
Well you do have some good points, but still you're wrong.
Ah, right. That would explain a lot of things. Well, as long as one of us is right, that's the main thing. Just make sure you let every one know that you're the one that's right, just in case they think it's them (you never know, it could happen...)
Right, I'm off to a lecture but I'll be checking in here in an hour or so - this is the most fun I've had over the net in some time :)
[EDIT] Hi Hills *waves*
-
I'm going to regret getting involved in this...
Originally posted by hotsnoj
2. If you are/were a Christian you should have rejected the whole idea about evolution from the start. And you'd have never thought up this already thought up theory.
I feel insulted at this comment. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but this is presumption and arrogance of a high order. Where does it say that I must believe in God et al, yet reject science? Why the hell is everyone so obsessed with the debate of Science versus Religion, rather than exploring the universe with both?
I want to ask a question - who wrote The Bible? Was it God himself? Or people? Fallable, imperfect, forgetful, regular people. The same people who misinterpret and mistranslate texts all the time. My personal opinion is that The Bible, while certainly an influential and well meaning book, is't necessarily perfect as God may have wanted. Therefore it is up to us to look into and beyond the book.
Now I will go back to my rut in the middle of everything, with religious people calling me a cold hearted scientist, and scientists calling me a religious freak. If someone thinks I'm not christian, they can take it up with God. If they think I'm not scientifically minded, then they can listen to me talk about physics until their ears bleed.
Sorry to intrude.
-
*points*
Religious freak!
:D Sorry, that amused me. Ah, small things...
Anyway, good for you. I always liked the X-Files where they mixed science and religion, like in the one with the Seraphim and the Devil...
-
I think the universe was created to party. It's a blanket statement and a phillosophy for life. :yes:
-
Not cactii, then
-
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.
I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess.
:lol: :D
Sorry, but I'm not even going to bother arguing with you... :p
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Not cactii, then
I never said that, Cactii are an integral part of the party plan. What better (drunken) party game than "throw the cactus at random people on the street from a third floor window". :nervous:
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess.
And thats all I have to say for now.
Shame he didn't give you a sense of humour to boot eh? I've read the "comics"
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.
Wowser, I must have missed that one.
*points at hotsnoj and laughs heartily*
Sorry mate, but mentioning that you don't (for want of a better word) 'believe' in evolution within earshot of me is just asking for trouble. One of my student friends holds similar views, so now we're banned from discussing religion cos we just end up taking the piss out of each other :)
You know, my housemate Steve once mentioned, during a discussion about religion, that since I didn't believe in God that I was going to Hell. He said it didn't matter what kind of person I was, wether I gave money top the poor and was kind to animlas or not, I would still go to Hell if I didn't aknowledge God's authority.
Now, I don't believe in an after life, certainly not the Christian Heaven and Hell setup, so I'm not overly bothered. But still, I was slightly miffed that he had basically told me I was going to Hell, like it or not. I wasn't overly suprised since he's a very opinionated chap anyway, but all the same, I have to live with him now and every time I think about what he said I get a little bit cross.
Still, joke's on him, eh?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Still, joke's on him, eh?
Possibly not, who really knows?
But I like to think if I'm going to hell then I better have a pretty ****ing good time here sinning.
::mumbles::
Hell gets the hot chicas anyways
-
Originally posted by 01010
But I like to think if I'm going to hell then I better have a pretty ****ing good time here sinning.
Exactly
*rolls a phat one and loads shotgun*
-
(Christian) Fanatics, if they were muslim they'd be Al-Quaeda :rolleyes:
-
I would like to go to hell for two reasons: there would be just as much to learn there as in heaven, and all the sensible people who refused to fall for this stuff would also be there. :D
-
Oh, perfect timing. The creationist bus is coming to town soon, and I need religious hole poking practice.
Originally posted by hotsnoj
For the heck of it I'd like to start this again.
1. Your "Thoery" has been thought of before. And Basicly what you are doing with it is trying to make evolution fit in the Bible. Not only is this theory ludacris but it denies the whole purpose of creation (which you are semi-acknoledging is true), not to mention God. You see if there was death before Adam and Eve then God's rule about not eating the fruit was empty. Therefore even if they didn't eat it they would die.
Yep, it was an empty threat. Death did occur before people. We have the fossils to prove it (and I'm fairly sure they aren't alive)
2. If you are/were a Christian you should have rejected the whole idea about evolution from the start. And you'd have never thought up this already thought up theory.
[/b]
If you are/were a christian, then you mustn't believe in dinosaurs, trilobites, wooly mammoths, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, sabre toothed cats, etc. etc. because we know that God would never let one of his species die out. I doubt that even the pope would reject the concept of evolution. Modern theologians know not to interpret the bible literally, and there is so much proof of evolution that it has been factored into the bible, mainly in the way stated above. You belong in an earlier century my friend.
3. Yes there are kinds, for instance Dogs, cats, and humans. Now within those kinds are species. Now we all know there are different species of dog (canine) like wolf, dingo, and the comman lab. Yes a wolf species could have eventuly been bred to produce a new species (varity). I agree with that because it can be explained with Biblical principles.
And which priciples were those? (Yes, this is a blatant attempt to find more ammunition :D)
4. With the days you start with the Biblical creation and then fit in the evolutionary creation. This is totaly a bad design, because in the first place says the man knows when things happened (eg. when dinos died or when other things that have happened that we find with archology). Now we really don't know those date because we weren't there to see then happen our selfs.
[/b]
Actually, dinosaur study is the realm of palaeontology, but hey, who cares, it's a technicality. Just a point of note here - you weren't there when jesus was supposed to have walked on water, yet you obviously believe it happened. Same thing, only we have better evidence (Radioactive isotope dating and stuff, not just "It happened that way because I say it did")
If you are a Christian then you'd believe God is all powerful (this has been said in the other tread). Now you try to explain him to make him seem more and more less powerful. And that is totaly wrong, GOD IS ALL POWEFUL. Just because a murderer isn't found out doesn't mean that he didn't kill. It doesn't change the fact that he killed someone, even if he wasn't convicted or if he was.
[/b]
OK, Kind of I lost you with the murderer stuff, but hey, I've used a bad analogy below, I'll let you get away with it here. :nod:
Now lets seperate the Christian Bible, science, and Evolution like this - [Bible] [science] [Evolution].
[/b]
OK, why not? But it should be more like this
[Science[Evolution]]
[Bible]
As Evolution is a part of science.
Why were we doing this whole separation thing again?
Some if not all try to slam the Bible down by using one part of it and then slaming it with their aguments. In the process the acknowldge that part of the Bible is true but then ignore other parts. Like creation in the previous tread. You took the creation days and then claimed that God got things the way they are by Evlolution. Well that doesn't work because if there are pillars holding up a roof and half of them are granite and the other half sponge the building wouldn't stay up for long.
[/b]
Depends on where you placed the pillars I suppose. Anyway, the majority of the bible is stories and proverbs right? Where people don't do impossile things, so we can ignore them. And as for the rest, I'm yet to hear a shred of scientific evidence that any of them are true or even possible. So, ignoring them shouldn't really be a problem. We could attack all of them in good time if you want us too, but it'd get boring after awhile,as we'd be repeating the same things and you'd keep saying "But God is all powerful so he can do things like that!!!". BTW, while I'm on the subject, how exactly do you know that God is all powerful? Read the circular logic stuff below (in the long story quote). It might just be able to convince you to think a little about the motivations behind your blind faith. But probably not.
In the theory pf Evlolution people say that everything changed and changed. Then they claim science proves that it happened. But if science can prove Evolution happened how come it can't prove that the Bible it true?
[/b]
:lol: Because it isn't, you silly boy. You can't prove the bible anymore than you can prove that the sun rises in the west. You can tell people it rises in the west, but when they go and have a look for thmselves, they will be able to prove that it doesn't (well, not technically I suppose, but it's a bad analogy :) ). You can't prove what isn't true.
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.
[/b]
Science? Based on the principles of the bible? Let me give you a little history lesson. Science existed before the bible, before the existence of Jesus, or Mary, or any of tht lot. Science existed in Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, Messopotamia. Science was one of the most significant legacies of the ancient Greeks and Romans, before any of their thinkers had read the bible. Science existed in the middle east, in China, in India, where other religions held sway and the bible was heretical. Science owes nothing to biblical teachings. Science transcends biblical teachings. Science is based on the accumulation of fact from undeniable experimental evidence, and refuses to rely on taking someones word. How can you say that science is based on the bible? They're complete opposites.
I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess. [/B]
Well, maybe, but if I were you, I'd ask for a trade in. (Yes this was designed to be offensive. His comments on science and the bible have offended me).
Take a look at this. You may not understand it, because it's not meant to be taken literally, but hey, at least the rest of the board members (the ones that haven't seen it before, I know it's fairly old) might get a giggle out of it.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the **** out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the **** out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?
John: "Hank has certain ‘connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the **** of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of Karl letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
1.Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million
dollars when you leave town.
2.Use alcohol in moderation.
3.Kick the **** out of people who aren't like
you.
4.Eat right.
5.Hank dictated this list himself.
6.The moon is made of green cheese.
7.Everything Hank says is right.
8.Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9.Don't drink.
10.Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11.Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the **** out of
you.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the **** out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says ‘Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says ‘Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says ‘Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says ‘Eat right,' and item 8 says ‘Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says ‘Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says ‘The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying ‘Hank's right
because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the **** out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Oh, and one other thing. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Assuming that you don't, I'd like to know why. He's in a lot of books, and for years people told me (and probably you) that he was real, and that he did great things that seemed impossible (how does one dude get all around the world in such a short period of time?). Is anyone else getting recognition vibes here?
Oh, and one other thing. Run your posts through a spell checker please. It'll make this so much more pleasant.
-
I'll just be sitting here LMAO, then
That was... unspeakably funny. I... really don't have the words... it'll have to be smilies: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:lol: :D
Sorry, but I'm not even going to bother arguing with you... :p
Oh, how many times did I feel that way...
-
I usually argue anyway if the other guy is ready to listen to reason with an open mind, regardless of how ridiculous his points may sound, but it is obvious that this is not the case here. :p
Black wolf: :D :D :D
-
first off; Props Black Wolf, that was great fun :D :D :lol: :D :D
HotSno: :wtf: What the **** dude...
1. Your "Thoery" has been thought of before. And Basicly what you are doing with it is trying to make evolution fit in the Bible. Not only is this theory ludacris but it denies the whole purpose of creation (which you are semi-acknoledging is true), not to mention God. You see if there was death before Adam and Eve then God's rule about not eating the fruit was empty. Therefore even if they didn't eat it they would die.
First off, i wasn't going to go around at 12 30 in the morning looking for theories and who thought of them first. Does it really even care if its bee thought of before, you could have simply said sometihng just as full of Stuck up **** as "This has been said and dissproved before. next" instead of strewing this whole bag of crap out..
2. If you are/were a Christian you should have rejected the whole idea about evolution from the start. And you'd have never thought up this already thought up theory.
So if i am christian then that means i am not alloud to try to think, bring to things together perhaps. If i am not allowed to dream or think on my own.. perhaps i should think twice about christianity..
4. With the days you start with the Biblical creation and then fit in the evolutionary creation. This is totaly a bad design, because in the first place says the man knows when things happened (eg. when dinos died or when other things that have happened that we find with archology). Now we really don't know those date because we weren't there to see then happen our selfs.
:wtf:
If you are a Christian then you'd believe God is all powerful (this has been said in the other tread). Now you try to explain him to make him seem more and more less powerful. And that is totaly wrong, GOD IS ALL POWEFUL. Just because a murderer isn't found out doesn't mean that he didn't kill. It doesn't change the fact that he killed someone, even if he wasn't convicted or if he was.
****, stop telling me what i have to beleive in. oh and please tell me where i said god was less powerful? i'd like to know.
damn, that is a bad analogy. at least in america, a murderer isn't a murderer until proven to be so. If you are using this to explain god, then you could also say that there's no physical proof other than word of mouth. Just because people say he killed jim, doesn't mean he did. There is only two people ... in most cases that know who killed who. The Murderer, and the murdered. In this case, i'd say the murdered was sniped off.. he has no clue who did it for sho.. the poor bastard :p
But if science can prove Evolution happened how come it can't prove that the Bible it true?
um.. i'd think a scientist who sticks with facts in the strictest sense would say simply.. because it is false.
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.
" highly doubt that " to quote a relative of mine
for the record.. to anyone who cares, or just happesn to be reading this, i was raised in Heavy christianity. My moms side are Super Christian, grandpa is Minister/Misionary, can quote bible like that. My dad was oretty much religon-less untill he met my mom ... i'm not sure how much into it he is deffinitly not as much as my mom. For me.. i'm not really sure where i stand. If you are "dedicated" enough.. the idea of God and such can be great form of support... "stability" perhaps, but when it comes to actual tangible facts.. science seems to rule that realm. We have evidence of Pre Human, Pre Bible dated stuff, fossils and such... you can't say dinosaurs didn't exist.. we have their remains.. that would be stupid to say that. And their remains go back as far as 250 Million BC.. possibly even farther for all i know.. i don't think there was humans around back then. So trying to support religous beleifs ... so i can personally feel more secur.. i came up with the above. Obviously it wasn't Completely thought out in 30 minute,s but that was my bassic idea. Now apparently, it's been thought of before by lots of other peoel, as are most things... but don't tell me what i beleive in or not or be so ignorant as to completely discount one side of the story, simply because the other says its not true.
Black, that's some funny stuff. Gonna have to save it :D
-
heh, If i have to, maybe i'll just convert to Judaism.. they don't even have hell :D
-
Originally posted by hotsnoj
And the Bible should be taken at face value.
"The only winged insects you may eat are locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets. All other winged insects that crawl are too distgusting for you to eat." -Leviticus 11:45:20-23 (American Translation)
"Then I looked and saw a lamb standing in the center of the throne that was surrounded by the four living creatures and the elders. The lamb looked as if it had once been killed. It had seven horns and seven eyes." -Revelations 5:9:6 (American Translation)
...This sort of thing goes on. There are many even sillier tidbits, utterly foolish if taken literally. There are thousands of similar passages, I just happened to open to these. Anyway, before you go and stick your foot in your mouth, why don't you actually READ the central document of the faith you profess to know so much about. Then, you're free to go have a nice, appetizing bowl of crickets (remember though: no fish!), and worship a mutant seven-headed sheep.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
*is tempted to lock this thread and unlock Theory v1.0*
Keep it civil, guys, or I will.
-
OK, sorry. Maybe a bit overmuch there, with the reading bit. But I honestly don't think he has, or at least has skipped over a good 2/3 of it (which isn't suprising, it's duller than a dictionary). All bible quotes are 100% genuine, not originally written by me (though I may or may not have dictated them to the authors), and speak for themselves.
-
bwah all this fundi stuff is SPAM :p
I don't care what they believe in, but in return they have to shut up about it (in other words: I don't want to hear about it either).
The moment they open their mouth (and that goes for everyone on every topic in a place with freedom of speech, or relaxed laws of speech like here) I reserve for me the right to critisize them.
Or as some good people on another good BB (where this stuff comes up regularly, together with equally crazy stuff):
"Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of being ridiculised for that speech."
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
"Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of being ridiculised for that speech."
Surely that should read "freedom from being ridicul[is]ed".
:p
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Surely that should read "freedom from being ridicul[is]ed".
:p
LOL!!! How about: "Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom to Abuse the Language" :D
-
Take note, You-Know-Who... ;)
-
Blimey, Kellan! There's somebody we don't see every day
(http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/legionxs/wavey.gif)
-
I've been settling in at University. Should have more time to arse about on the net now that things are getting settled (and I don't feel like drinking tonight, if you know what I mean).
After all, it's only first year.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
LOL!!! How about: "Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom to Abuse the Language" :D
let's debate that when you write dutch as well as i write english :p
anyway, thanks for pointing out the error :) :yes:
-
Actually, I thought that the error was a deliberate joke.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Actually, I thought that the error was a deliberate joke.
LOL, I'd wish :D
-
You crazy foreigners... you guys crack me up
:)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
I've been settling in at University. Should have more time to arse about on the net.
Not now UT2003 is out......?
-
Oops- forgot my personal favorite (outside of the entire Book of Revelations, which is apocryphal and thus doesn't necessarily count)
"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let they cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: thou shalt not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
-
All this reminds me of my favourite part of an0ns siggy...
I believe it goes something like:
"Here's the church, here's the steeple, kill the parishioners (sp), power to the people!"
:D :nervous: :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Not now UT2003 is out......?
Oh yeah, that too... :D