Originally posted by Draenor Not to be a big fat Buttinskii...but Kai, weren't you the one debating me about Catholicism in another thread? Weren't you the one who was talking about knowing more about the Bible than I do? Weren't you the one who is Catholic, and follows the "Catholic Bible" ? Correct me if I'm wrong...or show me where I'm mistaken...but as the devout Catholic that you seem to be, how is it that you justify a belief that Genesis is a lie? I don't believe that your Catholic Bible teaches that the Earth was created over billions of years, and that Humans somehow evolved from other animals. According to you, the Catholic Bible was the origional one...and since you seem to claim to know so much about it, you will also know that the Hebrew used in Genesis is used to denote literal translation, not metaphor. So what I am getting from you is this: You are a devout Catholic, who is willing to defend his Catholic beliefs regarding various Catholic sacraments, but you believe that the book of Genesis is a lie. Knowing what I just told you about the Hebrew in Genesis, that is all that there is left to believe...knowing that the Bible means 6 days when it says 6 days...it renders the whole "God is on a different time scale" theory useless doesn't it? So where does that leave your faith? So you believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died on a cross so that your sins may be forgiven, but you believe that Genesis is just a bunch of hooey? Explain how you justify your vast knowledge of the Bible, coupled with your disbelief of Genesis itself, also coupled with your belief in Jesus Christ? Tell me where I'm going wrong here, or are you not even a Catholic and has this all been for nothing?
Yep I am a catholic because people need structure, they need rules or they will run around crazy. But there are things in the catholic church I dont believe. The one thing I learned is that no religion is perfect. Too bad most people think whatever relgion they chose is perfect and everyone else is damned.
One of the first things that got me is that the Bible is full of alot of parables and stories. They arent all meant to be taken at face value as facts. What matters is the message the Bible tells us. Too many people want to take the Bible as 100% fact. That everything in it happened exactly as its written. And sadly that isnt the message the Bible is trying to convey. Do you think God wants us here arguing over the Bible? No but we do. I wasnt arguing with you over the Bible but why Catholics do what they do.
I never said the Catholic Bible was the original. But its about as close to the original as you can get. The Latin Vulgate was a direct translation into latin from the original greek and hebrew texts. And the Jerusalem Bible is an english version taken straight from the original texts. Both are Catholic.
I dont want to restart the old argument again because I hate talking to walls but I am going to bite the bullet again. Look at the New King James version of the Bible. Its a conservative rewrite of the King James Version. And the King James Version is a rewrite of all the other Bibles that were around back then. And finalized by a guy who said the Pope was the Antichrist and the Church were devil worshippers. Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the NKJ version.
Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Written by Hebrews. The Old Testament is the book of the Hebrew people. The New Testament is the book of our people. So when a Hebrew Scholar and Rabbi tells me "Hey some of that is made up just to scare the jewish people of the time because they were doing insane things" who do you think I am going to believe?
I do this really stupid thing. Its called thinking. God gave me this ability and I am going to use it. I am a catholic and I have met many people who are fossil hunters or evolutionists who are catholics, presbeterians (sp?), babtists, and more. Why is that so hard for some to understand?
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. Look at grimm fairy tales. They teach moral values in kids. But did those events happen? No. There is a few facts behind those stories. But they arent true. But a child can still come away with alot of good learning experiances from them. That is what some of the stories in the Bible were meant to be taken as. IMO at least.
I do believe in some things in the bible as actually happening. There is solid proof that some events did take place. Our beliefs are changing all the time. You cant tell me that you believe exactly the samethings you believed last year, 5 years ago, or even 10 years ago. We are human. Last year if you had asked me if the story of Moses happened I would have said probably not. Because there wasnt alot of proof in that. But it was recently found that the Pharaoh in question wasnt Ramses but Ahmose. And alot of evidence has been found showing the events of Moses took place during his reign. So if you ask me now if the story of Moses happened I would say quite possibly yes.
But some events like Noah's flood have been scratched off. So no I dont believe that happened. At least not to the scale the Bible says or when the Bible says.
kk, im back. had a good 8 hrs of sleep and im fresh. and since you cant end this without being proven or disproven, im going to keep discussing this with you. for no other reason then the fact that i feel like its a good thing to talk about God and the Bible even if no one changes their minds.
you say youre Catholic because you need structure in your life. good reason except that the Catholic religion is about as varied in "structure" as one can get. ive met Catholics that believed the Bible so strongly that they endeavored to never sin (to the best of their knowledge). and ive met Catholics that believed that they could do anything they wanted as long as they told a man about it afterwards (confession). they believed that they could go out and kill someone and as long as they confessed about it to a "man", everything is forgiven. is that the structure that youre referring to?
point of referance, its the Catholic church that fought against scientific findings for several hundred years. its the Catholic church that oppressed and killed anyone that tried to teach contrary to what they believe the Bible taught. ironic that you, the thinking scholar, would be a Catholic that is trying to convince others that Catholic=structure.
i too, dont believe any religion is "perfect", i never claimed that i did. in fact, i dont currently go to church, so im not claiming any religion. but if i were to go to church, i dont believe i would choose a church that actually killed people for teaching others doctrine. you said yourself that there were things in Catholicism that you didnt believe or agree with, 500 years ago, you would have been killed. sound like that kind of church is even close to "perfect". to be honest, there are so many contradictions in Catholicism(bad spelling i know), thats its not even worth going into. but one thing i do wanna point out, you mentioned that the New King James Version and any other version of the Bible were not as accurate as the Catholic Bible. we are talking about the same Catholics that decided that the common man was too stupid to understand the Bible. and the same people that decided what did and did not go into the Bible, remember. and without getting too deep into this, changed the way baptism had been done for over 300 years. Ulterior motives, maybe? Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the Catholic version. same thing you said about the KJV.
yes, youre right, the Bible is full of parables and stories. no one is debating that. what were debating is which ones are considered fables. you mentioned a Hebrew Scholar that admitted that some of the stories were fables, wow, im convinced. a man said that the stories that he teaches were fables, i should just take his word for it, eh? why? because hes a Hebrew Scholar? you said yourself that you didnt believe in the story of Moses for a long time, then evidence came forth and verified his existance, and now you believe. what if we had been having this conversation before the evidence had come forth? you would be arguing that he never existed and that the story is nothing more than a fable. see where im going with this? if you didnt believe before and would have argued tooth and toenail about it, why should we believe what you say now. no doubt that back then you would have quoted scientists as proof that Moses never existed. and you would have been wrong. so.....how do you know that youre not wrong now.
you say that some things in the Bible have been disproved, period. im not convinced. not too many years ago, scientists were saying that eggs were bad for you, now theyre not.....hmmmmm.........
i agree with you about taking the Bibles message, thats an accurate assessment. but one of the messages that the Bible teaches throughout the text is Faith, and that seems to be one message that youve missed. Old testament and New both teach this as one of the most important religious beliefs. before the scientists could do DNA testing, what were you suppose to go on? before scientists could "prove" or "disprove" anything, what did people believe? were christians just stupid back before science revealed anything? is that what you think?
the New testament was also written by the Jewish people. and yes, sometimes "thinking" is stupid. when you do it too much. it is possible to think about something too much. not telling you to not think, just saying that it is possible to overanalyse sometimes. even scientists will admit this.
But I think I found something. This might be more to your level. Reading through some of my old papers from grade school. Science has never been able to completely prove anything. That is a fact. Scientist have to approach their theories with alot of skepticism. They have to try to disprove every theory. They have to take a theory then do everything possible to make it untrue. With me so far? Well basically what we have is the theory of evolution and the theory of a billion year old earth. Ready for a shock? No one has been able to disprove either. Plain and simple and to the point. this was a good one, i rather enjoyed this insult to me inteligence, however; i find it funny that you would use the arguement that the theory of evolution and big bang as not being disproved, lol, how exactly would one go about proving that there was or was not a big bang, lol. hard to prove without a time machine, wouldnt you agree. however, most theorys are not considered fact without being proven, evolution and big bang are the only theorys that are accepted without question. Odd, isnt it? i think that the burden of proof lies solely on proving them true, not the other way around.
btw, there are Creationist Scientists. 1000s of them. if you would have actually checked that site that i put up here instead of just dismissing it (like you have done with anything that anyone has put up here that you dont automaticly agree with), you would have known that. Creationism is actually a major player in the scientific world right now. thats why you have met so many of them. it would do you some good to actually do some research on it. hence the website that i mentioned, it wasnt just a clever website by "one" guy. its the website for a major organization that has been around for many many years. look it up, if you dont believe me.
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. your definition of "structure"? funny, even in the scientific world that would be considered dumb. and just so you know, ive never had to "adjust" me beliefs to conform to new proofs by scientists. i still believe exactly the same way i did 15 years ago. unlike you, i dont put all of me trust in men (scientists). men are fallable. God isnt.
you say that now you believe that Moses might have existed and the events of his life taken place. well, then you know that the events of Moses' life were pretty unscientific, to put it mildly. parting of Red sea, raining Quail and mana, Rod to serpent and back again, and such. so you believe that those events took place, but you cant believe that God could have flooded the whole earth? wow, talk about selective reasoning. you are aware of the fact that the story of Noah was actually penned by Moses, whom you do believe existed. so what, Moses made the story of Noah up, but wrote his life as fact? scientificly, doesnt it make more sense that his writing style was the same throughout.
this is all for now, i know that you will respond with your side of this. i wait patiently. i would have been content to take this discussion to pm, but you seem to think that you have to disprove and discredit me and anyone else that says contrary to what you say publicly. so whatever. bring it on. however, if you were as solid in your beliefs as you say that you are, you would have been content to take it to pms.
Well, I can prove your article wrong right there. Those folks can believe what they want, but I am not a demon. Nope, no marks of the beast on me or desire to take over the world or someone elses soul. I'm just happy to have a person that I'm capable of actually truly loving and who loves me back.
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
no one is calling you a demon, that wasnt even about christian beliefs. it was a different religion. the point that the OP was making was that most world religions condemn homosexuality. thats all. no, youre not a demon.
Originally posted by naldric I wonder why ppl still debate religion, there is nothing to debate, people only believe what they want, and nobody will change his opinion about religion on a forum.... "you can bring the horse to the river, but you cant force him to drink"
Its good to debate these things at times, even if noone changes his mind about anything at all. Why? It forces people to think about their position and how to defend it analytically. Knowing the salient points of your beliefs is always better than blindly following them. totally agree.
Yep I am a catholic because people need structure, they need rules or they will run around crazy. But there are things in the catholic church I dont believe. The one thing I learned is that no religion is perfect. Too bad most people think whatever relgion they chose is perfect and everyone else is damned.
One of the first things that got me is that the Bible is full of alot of parables and stories. They arent all meant to be taken at face value as facts. What matters is the message the Bible tells us. Too many people want to take the Bible as 100% fact. That everything in it happened exactly as its written. And sadly that isnt the message the Bible is trying to convey. Do you think God wants us here arguing over the Bible? No but we do. I wasnt arguing with you over the Bible but why Catholics do what they do.
I never said the Catholic Bible was the original. But its about as close to the original as you can get. The Latin Vulgate was a direct translation into latin from the original greek and hebrew texts. And the Jerusalem Bible is an english version taken straight from the original texts. Both are Catholic.
I dont want to restart the old argument again because I hate talking to walls but I am going to bite the bullet again. Look at the New King James version of the Bible. Its a conservative rewrite of the King James Version. And the King James Version is a rewrite of all the other Bibles that were around back then. And finalized by a guy who said the Pope was the Antichrist and the Church were devil worshippers. Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the NKJ version.
Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Written by Hebrews. The Old Testament is the book of the Hebrew people. The New Testament is the book of our people. So when a Hebrew Scholar and Rabbi tells me "Hey some of that is made up just to scare the jewish people of the time because they were doing insane things" who do you think I am going to believe?
I do this really stupid thing. Its called thinking. God gave me this ability and I am going to use it. I am a catholic and I have met many people who are fossil hunters or evolutionists who are catholics, presbeterians (sp?), babtists, and more. Why is that so hard for some to understand?
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. Look at grimm fairy tales. They teach moral values in kids. But did those events happen? No. There is a few facts behind those stories. But they arent true. But a child can still come away with alot of good learning experiances from them. That is what some of the stories in the Bible were meant to be taken as. IMO at least.
I do believe in some things in the bible as actually happening. There is solid proof that some events did take place. Our beliefs are changing all the time. You cant tell me that you believe exactly the samethings you believed last year, 5 years ago, or even 10 years ago. We are human. Last year if you had asked me if the story of Moses happened I would have said probably not. Because there wasnt alot of proof in that. But it was recently found that the Pharaoh in question wasnt Ramses but Ahmose. And alot of evidence has been found showing the events of Moses took place during his reign. So if you ask me now if the story of Moses happened I would say quite possibly yes.
But some events like Noah's flood have been scratched off. So no I dont believe that happened. At least not to the scale the Bible says or when the Bible says.
Kai
So despite the fact that I have told you that the Great flood and the creation were written in a form of hebrew used to denote literal translation, you still choose to believe that they are a lie, because the overall message is what is important. I fail to see how someone can choose to believe that Jesus died for their sins, but that other parts of the Bible are a lie. It's not about being educated, because I am educated. I know enough about the Bible and my faith to sit here and debate people about the scientific merits of what is contained within the Bible. Whereas you seem to be dead set on preaching what you believe, which is a mishmash of belief and disbelief in the Bible. I am very sorry, but I do not believe that you can pick and choose what to believe from the Bible. If the Creation and Great Flood had been written down in the poetic or metaphorical style of Hebrew, then you would have ground to stand on...as it stands now though, you are saying that those stories are lies...I don't believe that you can believe one part of the Bible, and not another, because when you claim that one part is a lie, it brings the rest of it into question. As a christian, you are implored to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and the translation of the Bible that you read really doesn't matter with the overall point of the Bible as you have said, nor do any translations mince words with the story of creation and the great flood, they are all told in essentially the same way...and the new translations don't matter anyway, since you have to look to the origional Hebrew in order to really know the intent. I have told you what the origional Hebrew's intent was, and yet you still choose to believe otherwise.
also: your little attacks on Plano and myself are very immature, if you want to debate like an adult, keep the little snide comments like "I hate talking to walls" to yourself...if you don't want to discuss this, then don't discuss it. But don't stick little jabs like that in...it just causes you to lose credability when you stoop to that level.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by Blurr From the wikipedia articles themselves: Zororastrianism: However, many Zoroastrians accept the entire Avesta as their religious guide, including the Vendidad, a collection of 22 Fargards or precepts concerned with religious purity (only very conservative Zoroastrians continue to abide by all of these laws). The Vendidad states: "The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas" This passage has been interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a form of demon worship and thus sinful. Ancient commentary on this passage suggests that those engaging in sodomy could be killed without permission from the Dastur.
Well, I can prove your article wrong right there. Those folks can believe what they want, but I am not a demon. Nope, no marks of the beast on me or desire to take over the world or someone elses soul. I'm just happy to have a person that I'm capable of actually truly loving and who loves me back.
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
You're not a demon dude. Don't worry about what these people call you. Most of them are hypocrits in their condemnation anyhow.
I wonder how many of them have had sex and aren't married yet. And I bet they felt just enough guilt to brag about it to their friends. Or enough guilt to never do it again after that. I doubt that seriously.
I've only known one guy that was a virgin when he got married. And I know plenty of single guys who have sex with multiple partners in a year, yet still run their mouth about how evil gay men are.
So, don't listen to them. Their actions speak much louder than their words.
Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by Blurr
Well, I can prove your article wrong right there. Those folks can believe what they want, but I am not a demon. Nope, no marks of the beast on me or desire to take over the world or someone elses soul. I'm just happy to have a person that I'm capable of actually truly loving and who loves me back.
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
no one is calling you a demon, that wasnt even about christian beliefs. it was a different religion. the point that the OP was making was that most world religions condemn homosexuality. thats all. no, youre not a demon. Those were Zoroastrian beliefs. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all spring from Zoroastrianism. Check out the Zoroastrian stories and then compare them to the Biblical stories. Carbon copies.
Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by Blurr From the wikipedia articles themselves: Zororastrianism: However, many Zoroastrians accept the entire Avesta as their religious guide, including the Vendidad, a collection of 22 Fargards or precepts concerned with religious purity (only very conservative Zoroastrians continue to abide by all of these laws). The Vendidad states: "The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas" This passage has been interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a form of demon worship and thus sinful. Ancient commentary on this passage suggests that those engaging in sodomy could be killed without permission from the Dastur.
Well, I can prove your article wrong right there. Those folks can believe what they want, but I am not a demon. Nope, no marks of the beast on me or desire to take over the world or someone elses soul. I'm just happy to have a person that I'm capable of actually truly loving and who loves me back.
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
Here, if you are a Christian then this should make you feel better. Don't believe what these other jackasses tell you. Live your life and love God. You'll be forgiven.
According to Catholicism, if I sin, I'm going to Hell.
Catholicism teaches that no one can judge what will happen when someone dies. Catholics believe that when we sin, God forgives us if we ask for forgiveness. Catholics also believe that no one goes to Hell unless they do not want to be with God. God gives us a free will to decide how to act in the world. If we make a mistake, we should seek forgiveness. Catholics also believe in Purgatory. We are cleansed from sins before we enter Heaven if we seek God.
i decided to add these links to free videos about Creationism. whether you believe it or not, thats your choice, but i know that you wont look for it yourself, so i decided to make it more readily available.
the Fossil Record videos are at the bottom of the list. especially watch those vids as they apply here.
EDIT: and thank you Porkie, for proving me point for me, lol. i wish i could just believe whatever i wanted to. but alas, i must actually follow me heart and what i know to be true. so nice for you to have such a convienent religion. (example: do whatever you want to in this life, then just confess to a priest, and youre forgiven) wow, that would so rock, then i could come over to your house......and well you get the idea.
Originally posted by PlanoMM i decided to add these links to free videos about Creationism. whether you believe it or not, thats your choice, but i know that you wont look for it yourself, so i decided to make it more readily available. http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/ the Fossil Record videos are at the bottom of the list. especially watch those vids as they apply here. EDIT: and thank you Porkie, for proving me point for me, lol. i wish i could just believe whatever i wanted to. but alas, i must actually follow me heart and what i know to be true. so nice for you to have such a convienent religion. (example: do whatever you want to in this life, then just confess to a priest, and youre forgiven) wow, that would so rock, then i could come over to your house......and well you get the idea.
It's Porgie. LOL. I'm far from fat. Can't gain weight if I eat all day.
In response to your statement, do you really think that God put us here with the limited knowledge he has given us to make such a huge decision as the eternal fate of our soul? Seriously, you make one wrong decision and follow the wrong religion and you're damned for eternity in hell????? That's some serious stuff for the little minds we have. I have a feeling he's a little more forgiving than that. I couldn't imagine someone creating something just to put it in a confusing place not knowing which way to turn and then tell it's new creation, "hope you make the right decision, pick the right religion, follow the right book, etc., or I'm gonna drop you in the flames for eternity. That's nuts.
Just live your life the best you can. It's in our nature to know what is right and wrong for each of us individually. Do the goodness in your heart that God gave you and don't let the complexities of other men weigh you down. They don't know you and you don't know them.
Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by kaibigan34 Originally posted by Draenor
kk, im back. had a good 8 hrs of sleep and im fresh. and since you cant end this without being proven or disproven, im going to keep discussing this with you. for no other reason then the fact that i feel like its a good thing to talk about God and the Bible even if no one changes their minds.
you say youre Catholic because you need structure in your life. good reason except that the Catholic religion is about as varied in "structure" as one can get. ive met Catholics that believed the Bible so strongly that they endeavored to never sin (to the best of their knowledge). and ive met Catholics that believed that they could do anything they wanted as long as they told a man about it afterwards (confession). they believed that they could go out and kill someone and as long as they confessed about it to a "man", everything is forgiven. is that the structure that youre referring to?
I have also met babtists, protestants, and pentecostals that think they can do whatever they want as long as they pray afterwords and ask for forgiveness. Nothing new here dude. And all the religions are about as varied in structure as you can get. I chose Catholic because I was raised that way and I feel closer to it.
point of referance, its the Catholic church that fought against scientific findings for several hundred years. its the Catholic church that oppressed and killed anyone that tried to teach contrary to what they believe the Bible taught. ironic that you, the thinking scholar, would be a Catholic that is trying to convince others that Catholic=structure.
Oh so because the Catholics did horrible things in the past or tried to stamp out science before that means they are just as bad now? Sounds alot like the whole racist thing. Right now the worst you can be in america is a white guy with a few bucks in the bank. I show up and forget me the party is over. Whats past is past.
i too, dont believe any religion is "perfect", i never claimed that i did. in fact, i dont currently go to church, so im not claiming any religion. but if i were to go to church, i dont believe i would choose a church that actually killed people for teaching others doctrine. you said yourself that there were things in Catholicism that you didnt believe or agree with, 500 years ago, you would have been killed. sound like that kind of church is even close to "perfect". to be honest, there are so many contradictions in Catholicism(bad spelling i know), thats its not even worth going into. but one thing i do wanna point out, you mentioned that the New King James Version and any other version of the Bible were not as accurate as the Catholic Bible. we are talking about the same Catholics that decided that the common man was too stupid to understand the Bible. and the same people that decided what did and did not go into the Bible, remember. and without getting too deep into this, changed the way baptism had been done for over 300 years. Ulterior motives, maybe? Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the Catholic version. same thing you said about the KJV.
What is past is past. Again your trying to argue your side using things that happened hundreds of years ago. Yes the Catholic church did some awful things but have you seenor heard of them burning anyone at the stake for teaching other doctrines in the past 100 years? Seriously have you?
yes, youre right, the Bible is full of parables and stories. no one is debating that. what were debating is which ones are considered fables. you mentioned a Hebrew Scholar that admitted that some of the stories were fables, wow, im convinced. a man said that the stories that he teaches were fables, i should just take his word for it, eh? why? because hes a Hebrew Scholar? you said yourself that you didnt believe in the story of Moses for a long time, then evidence came forth and verified his existance, and now you believe. what if we had been having this conversation before the evidence had come forth? you would be arguing that he never existed and that the story is nothing more than a fable. see where im going with this? if you didnt believe before and would have argued tooth and toenail about it, why should we believe what you say now. no doubt that back then you would have quoted scientists as proof that Moses never existed. and you would have been wrong. so.....how do you know that youre not wrong now.
Why? Because he is a Hebrew Scholar and Rabbi. He has probably forgotten more about the old testement then you and I will ever know put together. He is what I would call an authority.
Your rigth I would have argued it tooth and nail. Because at the time there was nothing there. No proof or disproof to say either way. There was nothing. But with Moses now there is proof and with Noah there is disproof. Real simple concept there.
you say that some things in the Bible have been disproved, period. im not convinced. not too many years ago, scientists were saying that eggs were bad for you, now theyre not.....hmmmmm.........
Yep your right. I am convinced. Because scientists said eggs were bad for you now they are saying they are good that is a perfect reason to decry all science no matter what. "Hey Archeologists I cant believe anything you say anymore because some scientists changed their view on eggs." hmmm that what your trying to say?
i agree with you about taking the Bibles message, thats an accurate assessment. but one of the messages that the Bible teaches throughout the text is Faith, and that seems to be one message that youve missed. Old testament and New both teach this as one of the most important religious beliefs. before the scientists could do DNA testing, what were you suppose to go on? before scientists could "prove" or "disprove" anything, what did people believe? were christians just stupid back before science revealed anything? is that what you think?
Back a hundred years ago there was nothing there. Nothing to go on. Were christians stupid? No. Because there wasnt anything to go on. You have to form your beliefs from what you know.
the New testament was also written by the Jewish people. and yes, sometimes "thinking" is stupid. when you do it too much. it is possible to think about something too much. not telling you to not think, just saying that it is possible to overanalyse sometimes. even scientists will admit this.
Some of the writers were Greek actually. And a few were other races.
But I think I found something. This might be more to your level. Reading through some of my old papers from grade school. Science has never been able to completely prove anything. That is a fact. Scientist have to approach their theories with alot of skepticism. They have to try to disprove every theory. They have to take a theory then do everything possible to make it untrue. With me so far? Well basically what we have is the theory of evolution and the theory of a billion year old earth. Ready for a shock? No one has been able to disprove either. Plain and simple and to the point. this was a good one, i rather enjoyed this insult to me inteligence, however; i find it funny that you would use the arguement that the theory of evolution and big bang as not being disproved, lol, how exactly would one go about proving that there was or was not a big bang, lol. hard to prove without a time machine, wouldnt you agree. however, most theorys are not considered fact without being proven, evolution and big bang are the only theorys that are accepted without question. Odd, isnt it? i think that the burden of proof lies solely on proving them true, not the other way around.
It wasnt an insult. I see now why you would have thought so. I meant I was putting in more simply to be easier to understand. Because it seems we are having problems with understanding each other. No insult was intended.
And No the burden of proof doesnt enter into it. There is plenty of proof. I am staring at one right now on my desk as I write this. Its a chunk of meteorite that fell to the earth some 300,000 years ago. I look to my left and on a shelf I have three big meggie teeth. Megalodon was around between 25 million and 1.6 million years ago. Around my neck I have a small vial with a bit of mammoth tusk in it. I found that one here where I live. Mammoths were around from 1.6 million years ago to about 3,000 years ago.
So there is lots of proof. But no one has been able to disprove it. Find me a T-Rex skeleton that is buried at the 100,000 year range or an ovaraptor skeleton that isnt fossilized. Do that and you will have the beginnings of evidence to debunk alot of this. Until then...... well you know the next line so I wont say it.
btw, there are Creationist Scientists. 1000s of them. if you would have actually checked that site that i put up here instead of just dismissing it (like you have done with anything that anyone has put up here that you dont automaticly agree with), you would have known that. Creationism is actually a major player in the scientific world right now. thats why you have met so many of them. it would do you some good to actually do some research on it. hence the website that i mentioned, it wasnt just a clever website by "one" guy. its the website for a major organization that has been around for many many years. look it up, if you dont believe me.
I know about AIG. I have met a few. I know of one guy that follows them. He is also a fellow fossil hunter.
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. your definition of "structure"? funny, even in the scientific world that would be considered dumb. and just so you know, ive never had to "adjust" me beliefs to conform to new proofs by scientists. i still believe exactly the same way i did 15 years ago. unlike you, i dont put all of me trust in men (scientists). men are fallable. God isnt.
Men wrote the Bible. How can you sit there and say you put your trust in God not in men when the view of God in the Bible is Men's interpretation of God?
you say that now you believe that Moses might have existed and the events of his life taken place. well, then you know that the events of Moses' life were pretty unscientific, to put it mildly. parting of Red sea, raining Quail and mana, Rod to serpent and back again, and such. so you believe that those events took place, but you cant believe that God could have flooded the whole earth? wow, talk about selective reasoning. you are aware of the fact that the story of Noah was actually penned by Moses, whom you do believe existed. so what, Moses made the story of Noah up, but wrote his life as fact? scientificly, doesnt it make more sense that his writing style was the same throughout.
Actually it was found that during the time of Ahmose there was a volcano eruption near Egypt. Water turning to blood? Well as was seen in another volcano eruption in South America a few years ago the water for miles around turned red as blood. Because of some chemical that was released. And guess what? It killed everything that couldnt get out. But one creature could get out and got in droves. Frogs. There was a gas produced that came up out of the ground. It was a heavy gas. And extremely poisonious. Since Egyptian first borns were considered royality they slept on special beds that were close to the ground. Guess what jewish people slept on? They slept up high. Even on their roofs. Also after the eruption the earth had many quakes. Some even caused beds of rivers to thrust up above the water line. Then go back down. Parting of the Reed Sea anyone? That is just few things. I would have to dig out my papers and such on it and its late so sorry if I dont do that right now.
this is all for now, i know that you will respond with your side of this. i wait patiently. i would have been content to take this discussion to pm, but you seem to think that you have to disprove and discredit me and anyone else that says contrary to what you say publicly. so whatever. bring it on. however, if you were as solid in your beliefs as you say that you are, you would have been content to take it to pms.
You havent sent me a PM. Want this to go to PMs then send your reply to this in PM and we can continue this there.
lol, sorry for the fun at the expense of your name. i meant no offense. all good fun, you get it im sure.
God put us here with the ability to reason and understand the complexities of life and such. if you dont believe that, fine, im not twisting your arm. not knowing something is one thing, knowing it and not acknowledging it is quite another. when something is revealed to you, the ball is in your corner, to borrow from the cliche'. btw, im not arguing doctorine with you anyway, i was just pointing out the Catholic dogma to prove a point to kai, who wants to teach us all that the Catholic religion is the closest to being "perfect". and just so you know, im not judging you or anyone else for that matter. far be it from me to judge at all. believe me i know.
so i have no problems with you at all. and if me play on words with your name offends you, i apologize. again, thats not me intent.
no pm coming, friend. you wanted to continue this in public, so im continuing this in public. if you really mean that you can continue this in pm then you be the first to send the pm. remember, i already said you could pm me, but youre too bend on debunking me and creationism in the public light, that you cant bring yourself to do it. so.....
now to the issues, so you chose Catholic based solely on the fact that you were taught it from your youth, not any Doctorine, yet youre going to claim that its the closest to being "perfect".
no, the Catholic church doesnt kill anyone now, however; they do excommunicate members that dont follow the "rules". theres still one man that is considered next to God (Pope). i know people that would love to burn SOE at the stake for "past" mistakes. if Hitler was still alive, where do you believe he would be right now, would you be able to forgive him and say, "hey, whats past is past." the Catholic churches past is way bloodier. and just so im understanding this correctly, are you saying that yes, the Catholic church used to be corrupt, but now its not? does that even make sense to you?
the key words in your explanation about why we should take this Hebrews word for it, is "he has forgotten", lol, no thats just a joke (albeit a bad one), i couldnt resist. sorry, but one hebrew scholar that comes forward and denounces his faith in the Bible hardly qualifies it as fact. how many scientists have denounced evolution? answer? many, i know several of them meself. but that wont be proof enough for you will it? why? because one person denouncing or saying that its false, doesnt make it false.
now about the proof and no proof, so you admit you would have argued that Moses didnt exist? but thats ok, and acceptable because at the time there wasnt any proof? huh? i think ive already proven me point, you would have been WRONG, by your own admission. whos to say youre not wrong now? where did this, its gotta be proven true before i believe it crap, come from anyway? thats not science, friend. thats faith, whether you believe it or not, if you dont have evidence to support it, yet you still believe it, thats faith. believing in evolution is a faith based endeavor. because there is no evidence. its not been proven. the burden of proof does indeed lie with proving it true, not false. its impossible to prove it false. its also impossible to prove that its true. because there is no evidence.
and the grade school textbook thing, that wasnt meant as an insult? lol, ok. you took an example out of a grade school textbook to try to bring it down to "my level", remember, lol. sure no insult there. just so you know, i dont feel like we have any trouble understanding one another. i understand your side perfectly, ive been on your side. you seem to understand what im saying too. but then im not treating you like a grade school child either.
staring at a meteorite doesnt prove anything, friend. there are hundreds of them, just because you say they are millions of years old doesnt prove anything either. in fact, you really should watch those videos that i linked to, they deal with the mammoth a bit in there. now you said in an earlier post that if i gave you something you would check it out. yet, twice now, i have given you links to sites that will explain things better than i can. and both times you have shot them down siting one stupid reason after another, yet im expected to take what youre sitting next to, or what on your shelf as definitive proof of evolution. work with me here, im not going to quote entire publications and/or act out entire videos for you, if i link to them and youre serious about doing some research on it. follow the link, watch the videos, and then we can discuss them.
btw, i put me trust in God, not men. ive intentionally left this sort of thing out of this discussion. because as someone that always needs proof, i knew that you couldnt grasp the concept of just believing in God. so i chose to use scientific models and concepts to discuss this with you, instead of using the typical, "God said it, i believe it," idealogy. not denouncing it, just not using it.
now about the volcano thingie. personnally, i do believe God used very natural disasters to create the plagues. i never claimed otherwise. see, God is all power and everything that is or has power comes from Him. therefore, natural disasters and earthquakes and such are all under his command. so yes, i can definitely say that some of the plagues were prolly done by a very natural disaster. however; the parting of the Red Sea, sorry, that is the only one that i cant take that way. one of the very few places where the Bible is specific about the fact that the ground that they walked across on was dry, and that the walls of water stood up on high. no amount of shifting or whatever is going to cause that. that is unexplainable. and the leprosy, that Moses had on his hand, changing it back and forth right before their eyes, unexplainable. now, youre just going to say that those events that cant be explained by science just didnt happen, but see thats just a cop out.
and again, if youre serious about letting this go to pm, fine i can do that. but dont think that im just going to be like ok, you can run me into the ground, uh duh, i dont mind.
I was once in the same shoes as Kai...believing in the bigger picture, but very few of the specifics...and then I started to believe in the message, but not he specifics or even the bigger picture...and then I decided to look at what evolution actually had to offer in terms of proof. Not evidence, because creationism has just as much "evidence" as evolution...but PROOF. There was none. If anything, evolution does a good job of disproving itself. At that point I decided that I would be more open minded and receptive to what both sides have had to offer. Evolutionists generally offer "this is the evidence and if you don't believe it then you are stupid" type stuff...whereas creationists tend to offer "this is the evidence, do with it what you will but we think that THIS is what it means"
Which would you be more receptive to?
I become very tired of people citing vague and doctored evidence such as the Lucy skeleton and a mutated Dolphin as proof of evolution...I wish that they would stop.
I could write on and on about Lucy...wow what a joke of a find that is.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor leprosy I was once in the same shoes as Kai...believing in the bigger picture, but very few of the specifics...and then I started to believe in the message, but not he specifics or even the bigger picture...and then I decided to look at what evolution actually had to offer in terms of proof. Not evidence, because creationism has just as much "evidence" as evolution...but PROOF. There was none. If anything, evolution does a good job of disproving itself. At that point I decided that I would be more open minded and receptive to what both sides have had to offer. Evolutionists generally offer "this is the evidence and if you don't believe it then you are stupid" type stuff...whereas creationists tend to offer "this is the evidence, do with it what you will but we think that THIS is what it means" Which would you be more receptive to? I become very tired of people citing vague and doctored evidence such as the Lucy skeleton and a mutated Dolphin as proof of evolution...I wish that they would stop. I could write on and on about Lucy...wow what a joke of a find that is.
If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong".
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution.
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
Originally posted by Draenor leprosy I was once in the same shoes as Kai...believing in the bigger picture, but very few of the specifics...and then I started to believe in the message, but not he specifics or even the bigger picture...and then I decided to look at what evolution actually had to offer in terms of proof. Not evidence, because creationism has just as much "evidence" as evolution...but PROOF. There was none. If anything, evolution does a good job of disproving itself. At that point I decided that I would be more open minded and receptive to what both sides have had to offer. Evolutionists generally offer "this is the evidence and if you don't believe it then you are stupid" type stuff...whereas creationists tend to offer "this is the evidence, do with it what you will but we think that THIS is what it means" Which would you be more receptive to? I become very tired of people citing vague and doctored evidence such as the Lucy skeleton and a mutated Dolphin as proof of evolution...I wish that they would stop. I could write on and on about Lucy...wow what a joke of a find that is.
If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong".
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution.
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
completely false and you think that a "project" making fun of creationism is proof............ seems kinda like an insult to me, or maybe im just stupid, eh? oO wait, thats the point. i get it. good one.
Originally posted by PlanoMM To Kai: no pm coming, friend. you wanted to continue this in public, so im continuing this in public. if you really mean that you can continue this in pm then you be the first to send the pm. remember, i already said you could pm me, but youre too bend on debunking me and creationism in the public light, that you cant bring yourself to do it. so..... now to the issues, so you chose Catholic based solely on the fact that you were taught it from your youth, not any Doctorine, yet youre going to claim that its the closest to being "perfect". no, the Catholic church doesnt kill anyone now, however; they do excommunicate members that dont follow the "rules". theres still one man that is considered next to God (Pope). i know people that would love to burn SOE at the stake for "past" mistakes. if Hitler was still alive, where do you believe he would be right now, would you be able to forgive him and say, "hey, whats past is past." the Catholic churches past is way bloodier. and just so im understanding this correctly, are you saying that yes, the Catholic church used to be corrupt, but now its not? does that even make sense to you? the key words in your explanation about why we should take this Hebrews word for it, is "he has forgotten", lol, no thats just a joke (albeit a bad one), i couldnt resist. sorry, but one hebrew scholar that comes forward and denounces his faith in the Bible hardly qualifies it as fact. how many scientists have denounced evolution? answer? many, i know several of them meself. but that wont be proof enough for you will it? why? because one person denouncing or saying that its false, doesnt make it false. now about the proof and no proof, so you admit you would have argued that Moses didnt exist? but thats ok, and acceptable because at the time there wasnt any proof? huh? i think ive already proven me point, you would have been WRONG, by your own admission. whos to say youre not wrong now? where did this, its gotta be proven true before i believe it crap, come from anyway? thats not science, friend. thats faith, whether you believe it or not, if you dont have evidence to support it, yet you still believe it, thats faith. believing in evolution is a faith based endeavor. because there is no evidence. its not been proven. the burden of proof does indeed lie with proving it true, not false. its impossible to prove it false. its also impossible to prove that its true. because there is no evidence. and the grade school textbook thing, that wasnt meant as an insult? lol, ok. you took an example out of a grade school textbook to try to bring it down to "my level", remember, lol. sure no insult there. just so you know, i dont feel like we have any trouble understanding one another. i understand your side perfectly, ive been on your side. you seem to understand what im saying too. but then im not treating you like a grade school child either. staring at a meteorite doesnt prove anything, friend. there are hundreds of them, just because you say they are millions of years old doesnt prove anything either. in fact, you really should watch those videos that i linked to, they deal with the mammoth a bit in there. now you said in an earlier post that if i gave you something you would check it out. yet, twice now, i have given you links to sites that will explain things better than i can. and both times you have shot them down siting one stupid reason after another, yet im expected to take what youre sitting next to, or what on your shelf as definitive proof of evolution. work with me here, im not going to quote entire publications and/or act out entire videos for you, if i link to them and youre serious about doing some research on it. follow the link, watch the videos, and then we can discuss them. btw, i put me trust in God, not men. ive intentionally left this sort of thing out of this discussion. because as someone that always needs proof, i knew that you couldnt grasp the concept of just believing in God. so i chose to use scientific models and concepts to discuss this with you, instead of using the typical, "God said it, i believe it," idealogy. not denouncing it, just not using it. now about the volcano thingie. personnally, i do believe God used very natural disasters to create the plagues. i never claimed otherwise. see, God is all power and everything that is or has power comes from Him. therefore, natural disasters and earthquakes and such are all under his command. so yes, i can definitely say that some of the plagues were prolly done by a very natural disaster. however; the parting of the Red Sea, sorry, that is the only one that i cant take that way. one of the very few places where the Bible is specific about the fact that the ground that they walked across on was dry, and that the walls of water stood up on high. no amount of shifting or whatever is going to cause that. that is unexplainable. and the leporcy(bad spelling i know), that Moses had on his hand, changing it back and forth right before their eyes, unexplainable. now, youre just going to say that those events that cant be explained by science just didnt happen, but see thats just a cop out. and again, if youre serious about letting this go to pm, fine i can do that. but dont think that im just going to be like ok, you can run me into the ground, uh duh, i dont mind.
Ok lets talk about science and the Bible a little more. From what I gather. Basically if science debunks anything in the Bible its your belief that science must be wrong? Am I correct in this? My contention is that science does debunk a few things and prove others in the Bible. Neither of us can agree here.
Well let me tell you a little something about me and my family. I just thought of this when you mentioned leprosy or however its spelled. I want to tell you about my father. My father was certifiable. He was completely and totally nuts. The clinical word for it was paranoid schizophenia. He actually believed there was a multibillion dollar government agency called the Behemoth. And its sole purpose was to make sure he never succeeded. He would spent nights sitting in the middle of the living room, gun in his lap, waiting for these agents to come and get him. He even shot a cop in 1980 after the cop took his firearm that he was brandishing in a McDonalds. But my father wasnt always like that. See my dad spent some time in a prison camp in SE Asia. While there he was beaten about the head with a metal rod. I know this because after his death the doctor that performed the autopsy said he had over 40 marks in skull from it. He was permenantly punch drunk. His brain was slowly dying because of this one incident.
Now why do I bring this up. Had my father existed in the time of the Bible how would he have been seen? Possessed most likely. Maybe even a messiah if it was during the time he started thinking he was Jesus Christ. But he wasnt possessed. He was psychotic. He was insane. There was a very clear medical cause and reason behind his delusions. But during that time he probably wouldnt have been percieved that way.
And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.
Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong. If they could percieve a man that is now considered insane to be, back then, possessed its quite possible they could have said that the waters rose up and the ground was dry when in fact the ground rose up.
One thing I realized just a bit ago. You love to shove the whole "men are fallible" thing in my face. Fine. Thats true. But its also a double edged sword against yourself. If men are fallible its quite possible that God doesnt exist and that those fallible men made Him up. I dont believe that myself. I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.
We cant even begin to understand who or what God is. We cant even get semi close to what He is. The God in the Bible is man's perception of God. Men of that time I might add. For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Maybe God did allow Moses to change his hand from one way to another. Or maybe it was a parlor trick that over time got exarragerated. Or maybe it didnt happen at all and it was just added by those fallible men to lend "spice" to the story. Things like that we dont know. Because, as you put it, we cant go back in time in a time machine and see it for ourselves.
But I can find a fossil of a million year old sabertooth. I can see E Coli Bacteria evolving right in front of my very eyes through a microscope. I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado.
And what scientific models and concepts did you use? You mean the one about carbon dating can be wrong by a million years when it cant be?
As for arguing about Moses, a year ago there was no proof or disproof. But now there is proof. With Noah there is disproof. And that Hebrew Scholar didnt denounce his faith. He simply said that some stories in the Old Testament didnt happen. They were written to scare the hell out of hebrew people because they were doing whacko things.
And how could you have been on my side once when you said your beliefs hadnt changed in 15 years? Alot of this has just hit the world. Maybe because your beliefs have changed and you just wanted to denounce something else I said? Hmmmm
Ok lets talk about science and the Bible a little more. From what I gather. Basically if science debunks anything in the Bible its your belief that science must be wrong? Am I correct in this? My contention is that science does debunk a few things and prove others in the Bible. Neither of us can agree here.
Well let me tell you a little something about me and my family. I just thought of this when you mentioned leprosy or however its spelled. I want to tell you about my father. My father was certifiable. He was completely and totally nuts. The clinical word for it was paranoid schizophenia. He actually believed there was a multibillion dollar government agency called the Behemoth. And its sole purpose was to make sure he never succeeded. He would spent nights sitting in the middle of the living room, gun in his lap, waiting for these agents to come and get him. He even shot a cop in 1980 after the cop took his firearm that he was brandishing in a McDonalds. But my father wasnt always like that. See my dad spent some time in a prison camp in SE Asia. While there he was beaten about the head with a metal rod. I know this because after his death the doctor that performed the autopsy said he had over 40 marks in skull from it. He was permenantly punch drunk. His brain was slowly dying because of this one incident.
Now why do I bring this up. Had my father existed in the time of the Bible how would he have been seen? Possessed most likely. Maybe even a messiah if it was during the time he started thinking he was Jesus Christ. But he wasnt possessed. He was psychotic. He was insane. There was a very clear medical cause and reason behind his delusions. But during that time he probably wouldnt have been percieved that way.
And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.
Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong. If they could percieve a man that is now considered insane to be, back then, possessed its quite possible they could have said that the waters rose up and the ground was dry when in fact the ground rose up.
One thing I realized just a bit ago. You love to shove the whole "men are fallible" thing in my face. Fine. Thats true. But its also a double edged sword against yourself. If men are fallible its quite possible that God doesnt exist and that those fallible men made Him up. I dont believe that myself. I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.
We cant even begin to understand who or what God is. We cant even get semi close to what He is. The God in the Bible is man's perception of God. Men of that time I might add. For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Maybe God did allow Moses to change his hand from one way to another. Or maybe it was a parlor trick that over time got exarragerated. Or maybe it didnt happen at all and it was just added by those fallible men to lend "spice" to the story. Things like that we dont know. Because, as you put it, we cant go back in time in a time machine and see it for ourselves.
But I can find a fossil of a million year old sabertooth. I can see E Coli Bacteria evolving right in front of my very eyes through a microscope. I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado.
Kai
ah, now were getting somewhere. couple different things, sorry if i jump around a bit.
first thing, im sorry for your father, thats a sad story.
Ok lets talk about science and the Bible a little more. From what I gather. Basically if science debunks anything in the Bible its your belief that science must be wrong? Am I correct in this? My contention is that science does debunk a few things and prove others in the Bible. Neither of us can agree here.
this is exactly me point, nothing that has been brought into this discussion has been proven as scientific fact. im not debunking science, in fact, i love science. but what youre expecting me to believe is speculation, not science. i could (not going to) pull up some actual quotes from scientific pub. that actually say, "we believe", these are scientists. thats not fact, friend. or "its possible that", come on, how can we base our trust on these types of assumptions. thats asking me to change me faith, not believe in science. i already have a faith, i dont need another one, especially one that isnt even supported at all.
And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.
this i can agree with, however; its alittle different when talking about events on a global scale. when John refers to a metal beast in the Heavens, yes i can say that he lacked the knowledge to call it what it was, but that doesnt mean that he didnt see it. when the Bible specifically states, "and they walked across on dry ground", thats not a matter of perception.
Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong.
this is quite possible, just as possible as carbon dating is wrong and/or evolutionary models are wrong. all done by men, im not the one putting all me trust in men. see, for me to believe in God and know Him intimately, it doesnt require me faith in men, all it requires is me trust in Him. Anyone that has had an intimate relationship with Him knows that. even if there wasnt a Bible, i could still walk and talk with Him. but in order for me to believe in science, i HAVE to trust in science and the men conducting the science.
I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.
well said.
For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
got any science to back that up, j/k
I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado.
and neither one of these takes millions of years to effect change.
in any case, i dont think that were misunderstanding each other, i respect your viewpoint, i dont share it, but i do respect it. and youve shared it well, IMO.
If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong".
Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers...if anything, it's the evolutionists lying about the fossil layers...the sheer lack of transitional fossils makes me wonder how evolutionsts can consider their beliefs as anything BUT faith, or even a borderline religion!
I think that your conception of Carbon dating is wrong though. Creationists are some of the biggest proponents of the use of carbon dating, whereas most evolutionists refuse to even consider it because the results often conflict with their notions of an Earth that is billions of years old.
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy.
Evolutionary psuedo-science is bordering on the levels of conspiracy. Many aspects of evolution are taught as fact in schools, when they simply are not. Things like Lucy, and the Urey-Miller(different from Ken Miller) experiment are often cited in textbooks...those things are absolute jokes among the educated populace...and if they are included as proof of evolution, then yes, I would say that this is conspiracy, because they simply are not.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution.
A parody of a creationist attempt to gather names of scientists who don't believe in evolution is supposed to be support for your claims?
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
A series of micromutations catalyzed by atmospheric and manual manipulation? Nobody denies the existance of micromutation, the problem is that so damn many people think that it is the same thing as evolution. As I have stated numerous times: Evolution REQUIRES that new genetic information be added to DNA...this has NEVER ONCE been observed to occur. The basic building block of your belief has NEVER ONCE been observed, how is this not faith?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong".
Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers...if anything, it's the evolutionists lying about the fossil layers...the sheer lack of transitional fossils makes me wonder how evolutionsts can consider their beliefs as anything BUT faith, or even a borderline religion!
I think that your conception of Carbon dating is wrong though. Creationists are some of the biggest proponents of the use of carbon dating, whereas most evolutionists refuse to even consider it because the results often conflict with their notions of an Earth that is billions of years old.
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy.
Evolutionary psuedo-science is bordering on the levels of conspiracy. Many aspects of evolution are taught as fact in schools, when they simply are not. Things like Lucy, and the Urey-Miller(different from Ken Miller) experiment are often cited in textbooks...those things are absolute jokes among the educated populace...and if they are included as proof of evolution, then yes, I would say that this is conspiracy, because they simply are not.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution.
A parody of a creationist attempt to gather names of scientists who don't believe in evolution is supposed to be support for your claims?
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
A series of micromutations catalyzed by atmospheric and manual manipulation? Nobody denies the existance of micromutation, the problem is that so damn many people think that it is the same thing as evolution. As I have stated numerous times: Evolution REQUIRES that new genetic information be added to DNA...this has NEVER ONCE been observed to occur. The basic building block of your belief has NEVER ONCE been observed, how is this not faith?
Sheer lack of transitional fossils? How do you explain the similar structure of all life? Especially the striking similarities between vertebrates. The fact that biologically, chemically and physically all life seems to follow near-identical patterns. You can pull certain SPECIALIZED STRUCTURES (giraffe's cranial blood sponge, chameleon's ability to adapt to light) to try and disprove this, but I'll tell you what I just said: They're specialized structures. The other structures of these animals match those of their "cousins".
Are you against classifying the families of animals due to structural similarities? Would you say mammals are not really a family at all, just a bunch of things that exist in the same way? Do you think the similarities in flora and fauna that can be traced to single-celled organisms are just fabrications? Do you think "amino-acid pairings in hemoglobin" is just a load of biological jargon?
Lungfish are an existing species that can survive on land or water. Why would they need to exist if fish live in water and land animals on land? They sure as hell can't be signs of a transitional species because that would just be wrong.
How about the Acanthostega fossils? Four legs, eight fingers, seven toes, gills, fish-like tail? It has to be a scientific fabrication. Scientists have no morals. All fossils that disprove anything I believe in are fake. Especially when they've been "verified" by a "scientific community".
Do you think neoteny is just a fabrication as well? (The fact that humans (child->adult) resemble baby chimpanzees: We are extremely similar in posture/brain-body ratio, lack body hair and have a flat face. This would suggest humans were primates that had their physical developement slowed down) Ah. But monkeys are just things that have been put there to deceive us. I'm no monkey. Especially not an "slowly developed" monkey.
Also there's one big thing you're forgetting when you're hugging the lack of fossil evidence card. Most observed genetic changes happen in bottlenecks. That is to say only a very small amount of creatures survive certain death by adapting to their environments. Changes in behaviour/size/shape have been observed to be such. Only small groups succeed while the rest become extinct. It's not such a wonder fossil evidence is hard to come by when fossilization is a very rare occurrence that requires ideal circumstances. But then again, empirical scientists have fabricated this as well.
Originally posted by knightknife Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by knightknife Homosexuality is a sin, just like any other sin (such as murder, fornication etc)All People are born with sin, and a desire to sin.The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin though*EDIT!!!! Also, most of the laws in the old testament were for the jews only
You wrote that the laws in the Old Testament were for Jews only. Then you say that homosexuality is a sin???
You did read the article, right? Go back and read what the Baptist preacher wrote about the context and the placement of the scriptures you are referring to.
** I feel a little weird agreeing with a Baptist preacher. I'm not sure I will get over this soon. **
yes, but God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah (excuse my spelling) for homosexuality.
...About galileo...you have to remember that their are A TON of branches of christianity. Catholics, Baptists, and Pentacostals and others believe in ALOT of different things r
I find the latter branches of Christianity not much different from the original ones. The only difference i see is that they have dwelled further away from Jesus's teachings. The only Christian group that today still follows alot of Christ's teachings is the Russian/Greek Orthodox Church. I myself am Catholic, but do not agree with all the stand-points of our Church leaders. I myself feel we have been influenced to much by Constantine the Great and other Roman Emperors, who felt to change the base of Christianity for their own purposes. Too bad the Coptic Church doesn't exist anymore, because they were the Christian CHurch most closely connected to Christ's teachings.
Leviticus is a very old teaching, and they are more Jewish than Christian. It also also very uncivilized by modern standards. I think the Church should ignore some of the most ancient teachings about sins, and focus more on the newer texts. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but that it can be resolved by praying and sinning to the lord. Every person has a sin, and we should all have a chance to resolve it with God.
Originally posted by Nierro If Creationism was as well proven and well supported as Evolution, Creationists wouldn't have to lie about fossil layers and how carbon dating is "wrong". Tell me exactly where creationists "lie" about fossil layers...if anything, it's the evolutionists lying about the fossil layers...the sheer lack of transitional fossils makes me wonder how evolutionsts can consider their beliefs as anything BUT faith, or even a borderline religion! I think that your conception of Carbon dating is wrong though. Creationists are some of the biggest proponents of the use of carbon dating, whereas most evolutionists refuse to even consider it because the results often conflict with their notions of an Earth that is billions of years old.
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy. Evolutionary psuedo-science is bordering on the levels of conspiracy. Many aspects of evolution are taught as fact in schools, when they simply are not. Things like Lucy, and the Urey-Miller(different from Ken Miller) experiment are often cited in textbooks...those things are absolute jokes among the educated populace...and if they are included as proof of evolution, then yes, I would say that this is conspiracy, because they simply are not.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution. A parody of a creationist attempt to gather names of scientists who don't believe in evolution is supposed to be support for your claims?
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
A series of micromutations catalyzed by atmospheric and manual manipulation? Nobody denies the existance of micromutation, the problem is that so damn many people think that it is the same thing as evolution. As I have stated numerous times: Evolution REQUIRES that new genetic information be added to DNA...this has NEVER ONCE been observed to occur. The basic building block of your belief has NEVER ONCE been observed, how is this not faith?
Sheer lack of transitional fossils? How do you explain the similar structure of all life? Especially the striking similarities between vertebrates. The fact that biologically, chemically and physically all life seems to follow near-identical patterns. You can pull certain SPECIALIZED STRUCTURES (giraffe's cranial blood sponge, chameleon's ability to adapt to light) to try and disprove this, but I'll tell you what I just said: They're specialized structures. The other structures of these animals match those of their "cousins".
And where are all of the transitional fossils? The fact that many animals share similar bone structure proves nothing as to HOW they evolved. If you want me to believe evolution you're going to need something better than "well everything is similar" We can trace several animals back to a promethian species from which those species of animals have adapted from. But those animals all share alike DNA with their promethian species, it's simply a matter of which DNA is latent or active, none of them have any genetic information that another one doesn't. What's funny is that evolutionists are unable to trace animals further back than the promethian species. Evolution contends that there should be thousands of transitional fossils, it's something that baffled even Charles Darwin. The simple fact that some animals share similar bone structures(dolphin with bones in their fins that loosely resemble hands) proves nothing to me, or any other objective viewer.
Are you against classifying the families of animals due to structural similarities? Would you say mammals are not really a family at all, just a bunch of things that exist in the same way? Do you think the similarities in flora and fauna that can be traced to single-celled organisms are just fabrications? Do you think "amino-acid pairings in hemoglobin" is just a load of biological jargon?
Mammal is simply a classification put forth by humans meaning an animal that has fur of some sort, and gives birth to live babies. If you are asking me whether or not I care what we call these types of animals...nope I couldn't care less, because it's irrelevent. I've never heard of plants and animals that can be traced all the way back to single cell organisms, because they simply don't exist. No animal or plant can be traced all the way back from a single cell organism, conjecture about it probably exists, but proof? That is something else entirely.
Lungfish are an existing species that can survive on land or water. Why would they need to exist if fish live in water and land animals on land? They sure as hell can't be signs of a transitional species because that would just be wrong.
One species that has characteristics conducive to both land and water survival is what you base your faith in evolution on? Lung Fish have adaptive survival mechanisms that allow them to survive through the dry seasons without much water, they are not the only fish that do this. They also have breathing apendages to assist in mating, this is also not unique, there are other types of fish with extra apendages used for mating(great white sharks for example) These are not examples of evolution, but simply adaptation. You find me reputable fossils of fish visibly turning into land animals and we will talk. Until then all you have is conjecture based on an animal with adaptive qualities, nothing more.
How about the Acanthostega fossils? Four legs, eight fingers, seven toes, gills, fish-like tail? It has to be a scientific fabrication. Scientists have no morals. All fossils that disprove anything I believe in are fake. Especially when they've been "verified" by a "scientific community".
An extinct species of lizard with adaptive traits for swiming? Adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Every species of animal has some sort of mechanism to help them survive in their environment..this is no different. You find me fossils of your cute little lizard when it had fins instead of fingers and maybe we'll talk about this...once again, transitional fossils please. Fossils of extinct species that either swam or walked prove nothing. Finding one animal that appears to be in some sort of in between phase in your belief system doesn't prove anything, so am I to understand that this is the only transition that exists between lizards and fish? If so then that is some very rapid evolution, and doesn't mesh well with the real theory of evolution.
Do you think neoteny is just a fabrication as well? (The fact that humans (child->adult) resemble baby chimpanzees: We are extremely similar in posture/brain-body ratio, lack body hair and have a flat face. This would suggest humans were primates that had their physical developement slowed down) Ah. But monkeys are just things that have been put there to deceive us. I'm no monkey. Especially not an "slowly developed" monkey.
Oh jeez, the monkey argument. Look man, the fact that scientists find fossils like Lucy and then use them to further an evolution agenda proves to me how desperate they are to believe this stuff. The fact that we resemble apes somewhat means nothing. Whales resemble sharks somewhat, it doesn't mean that whales were once sharks. Dogs somewhat resemble cats, it doesn't mean that they share a common ansestor.
Also there's one big thing you're forgetting when you're hugging the lack of fossil evidence card. Most observed genetic changes happen in bottlenecks. That is to say only a very small amount of creatures survive certain death by adapting to their environments. Changes in behaviour/size/shape have been observed to be such. Only small groups succeed while the rest become extinct. It's not such a wonder fossil evidence is hard to come by when fossilization is a very rare occurrence that requires ideal circumstances. But then again, empirical scientists have fabricated this as well.
No actually, creationists love the fact that fossilization only occurs when something is burried very rapidly, it gives more cause to believe in a global flood....but I suppose that this conjecture is far too outlandish for you to believe. You need to stop confusing adaptation with evolution, because they aren't the same thing. An animal that has adpapted has simply shifted around its DNA so that some latent sets of DNA become active sets. It still has the same amount of information contained in its DNA. Any other animal of that type will have the same information in its DNA, it's simply a matter of what DNA is latent, sublatent, and active. It's the same deal with dogs, you could breed any dog to be any other species of dog if you manipulate the DNA enough. It doesn't mean that the dogs have evolved. In order for evolution to take place, new information must be added to DNA, this has never been observed, even in animals that are so prone to genetic manipulation as dogs.
Now I have a few questions for you, since we have covered fossils already, let's talk about astronomy!
How do you explain the planet Mercury's density? In an evolutionary model, it's a sheer impossibility for Mercury to be so dense....so how is it explained? It isn't. The most commonly held theory is that billions of years ago, Mercury was hit with a comet, and it shook all of the less dense material loose from the palnet....right okay.
Mars' thin atmosphere also didn't mesh well with evolutionist theories...so what did they do? Well, they said that a comet hit Mars billions of years ago and it caused Mars' atmosphere to become thin
Uranis' tilt on its axis was unexplained by science, so what did they do? Well they said that a comet hit Uranis billions of years ago and threw it off of its axis.
We don't know what happened to the Dinosaurs, so what happened to them? Well a meteor came down and hit the Earth and killed them, but not the rest of the animals.
Do you see a pattern here? When science can't explain something about astronomy, they wave their meteor wand over it. How is this any different than a belief that God created the universe again?
Saturns' rings? Well, it's an impossibility for them to have been formed more than 100 million years ago, even evolutionists admit to that...but the planet itself is thought to be billions of years old. So how are Saturns' rings explained? Well, one explanation is that a moon orbitting Saturn was destroyed and caused the rings...okay...yet another conjecture based on nothing but sheer speculation. There is no actual evidence for this destroyed moon, it's sheer conjecture. Given the current state of Saturns' rings, it is an absolute impossibility for the planets' rings to be more than 100 million years old, if you believe in an old Earth model...of course, it's easily explained with a young earth/creationist model.
Shall we talk about comets? A new universe model would have the comets still zipping about our solar system, unfortunately, an old universe model wouldn't...because the meteors would have burned out and evaporated by now(which happens all the time as they pass by planets and the sun) So in order to find a solution to this difficult problem of meteors still existing, evolutionists and old universe believers discovered the oort cloud. A cloud composed of billions of meteors, where passing stars occasionally yank out a meteor with their gravity. Oh wait, they didn't discover it, they made it up. The Oort cloud has never been observed, it's simply a faith explanation to something that old universe scientists have no real answer for.
There are problems with the Oort cloud, the greatest being that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists! However, a recent study has revealed a new problem. Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the formation of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet nuclei during this process.
This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for the comets that we see. The researchers postulate escape valves that could supply up to 3.5 Earth masses, but this is still low compared to recent estimates of the mass of the Oort cloud. They go on to speculate that a distant source region for Oort cloud comets could resolve some other problems [emphasis added].
Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think, then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, just as the recent-creation model suggests.(AIG.org)
And the Dynamo theory? Well it's looking more and more like that is going to have to be retooled, because the more we discover about planetary cores, it simply doesn't work.
Maybe you've heard me say that I don't believe in coincidence before...well, take a look at the sun for me...not literally of course. The sun is in an absolute perfect condition to support life on our planet. It is an absolutely perfect size and brightness as well. Now, one could argue that this is simply a matter of coincidence that out of billions of stars, we get a perfect one. But the sun's solar flares are also somewhat of an anomoly...because other stars around the same size of the sun have solar flares much larger, and ones that would destroy our atmosphere...yet the suns do not...is this also to be taken as sheer coincidence and luck? That's a lot of faith in coincidence to be "scientific" If you want to get into the science of the sun, then the sun also points to a younger Earth, because when the sun was young, it would have to have been more dim(evolutionists will also admit to this) And yet, there is no evidence to support that the sun has ever become brighter. This is called by scientists "the faint young sun paradox". If the sun were created 3.8 billion years ago, as it is thought, then the sun would need to be 25% brighter than it actually is right now. Given this, the Earth would have to have been much colder in the past, but all evidence points to the Earth being much warmer in the past
"well that's why it's science and we will change our theories around and find better explanations!"
Have you ever played a game with that kid on the block who would always make up new rules to the game when they are losing? That is what evolution is to me, that is what your "science" is to me. Instead of just admitting that they don't know, they make up more crap and call it science...sheesh, at least have the decency to admit that it's not even observable science.
God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
ah, now were getting somewhere. couple different things, sorry if i jump around a bit. first thing, im sorry for your father, thats a sad story. Ok lets talk about science and the Bible a little more. From what I gather. Basically if science debunks anything in the Bible its your belief that science must be wrong? Am I correct in this? My contention is that science does debunk a few things and prove others in the Bible. Neither of us can agree here.this is exactly me point, nothing that has been brought into this discussion has been proven as scientific fact. im not debunking science, in fact, i love science. but what youre expecting me to believe is speculation, not science. i could (not going to) pull up some actual quotes from scientific pub. that actually say, "we believe", these are scientists. thats not fact, friend. or "its possible that", come on, how can we base our trust on these types of assumptions. thats asking me to change me faith, not believe in science. i already have a faith, i dont need another one, especially one that isnt even supported at all.When you have 4,000 pieces of evidence that say something didnt happen and only one piece of evidence that says something did happen its a safe bet that the something in question didnt happen.Lets take another look at Noah right quick. What is there that says it didnt happen and it did happen.Against: Geological records showing a local flood around Kuwait about 2,500 years before Noah. No geologic record of a mass worldwide flood around the time of Noah. Story of a Sumerian Merchant and tribal leader that went through a flood in the region of Kuwait that coincides with the time of the local flood. Gilgamesh putting the story in his Epics. In the temple where the story of Noah was written Gilgamesh's same story of the flood found.For: The Bible.This is just a small list of the against side. There is alot more. But I just woke up and dont feel like going through everything. Now on to Moses. A year ago the evidence for or against that story wasnt there. Ramses had no record of a mass exodus. According to heiroglyphs of the time Ramses didnt have a problem with jewish people. In fact they werent slaves. There was even a city built where Jews and Egyptians lived together as equals. Ramses' first born didnt die mysteriously as a young boy one night. In fact he was murdered at the age of 45 if I remember correctly. Hit in the back of the head. Now a year ago I wouldnt have said it didnt happen. I would have said there is nothing to say it did happen. Unlike Noah where there is clear evidence that it didnt happen. With Moses there wasnt anything on either side. But scholars started looking and finally found a series of events that matched the things in the exodus quite well. All because the name of Ramses was used when it should have been Ahmose. But we can understand the translation error there since the story was written a thousand years after the fact. Its quite possible the Hebrew Priests wanted a name that would carry some weight and decided Ramses would work because he had weight.We humans are finding out more and more about ourselves and our history. From the Bible on up. But we also have to accept that some of the things we are learning is going to go against what we believe. Some people cant accept this. But a realist can. A realist doesnt want too anymore then anyone else but they can. And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.this i can agree with, however; its alittle different when talking about events on a global scale. when John refers to a metal beast in the Heavens, yes i can say that he lacked the knowledge to call it what it was, but that doesnt mean that he didnt see it. when the Bible specifically states, "and they walked across on dry ground", thats not a matter of perception.That is a matter of perception especially when the story was written over a thousand years after the event and you yourself even admitted that men are fallible. If the writers of the Bible can get the name of the Egyptian ruler wrong or see an insane man as possessed then they can also misinterpret a thousand year old story. Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong.this is quite possible, just as possible as carbon dating is wrong and/or evolutionary models are wrong. all done by men, im not the one putting all me trust in men. see, for me to believe in God and know Him intimately, it doesnt require me faith in men, all it requires is me trust in Him. Anyone that has had an intimate relationship with Him knows that. even if there wasnt a Bible, i could still walk and talk with Him. but in order for me to believe in science, i HAVE to trust in science and the men conducting the science.If science can get things wrong because men are fallible then so can the Bible because it was written by men. Basically this boils down to a "compromise in beliefs" Which is more credible to each individual. For you its the Bible and nothing else. For me its a mix of the two. There will come a time (probably not in our lifetimes) where science hits that perfect note and everything falls into place. People of that time will be able to know about everything that happened right down to the smallest detail.I mean look at what we "knew" a thousand years ago and compare it to what we "know" now. Eventually we will nail it all down. I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.well said.Incidently if you havent tried it I suggest you take it up. There is something awe inspiring about diving on a reef and being able to hear whale song from hundreds of miles away. Diving with Whale Sharks. Wow I cant ever express just how amazing that is. Or sitting in the middle of a barracuda tornado watching them. You truly see just how miniscule humans are at that point. For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.got any science to back that up, j/kJust a joke from Hitchiker's Guide. But wouldnt we all look like fools if it was true huh? heh I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado. and neither one of these takes millions of years to effect change.But we can take a small piece of time in an event and mathmetically figure out just how long it would have took. in any case, i dont think that were misunderstanding each other, i respect your viewpoint, i dont share it, but i do respect it. and youve shared it well, IMO.
Comments
One of the first things that got me is that the Bible is full of alot of parables and stories. They arent all meant to be taken at face value as facts. What matters is the message the Bible tells us. Too many people want to take the Bible as 100% fact. That everything in it happened exactly as its written. And sadly that isnt the message the Bible is trying to convey. Do you think God wants us here arguing over the Bible? No but we do. I wasnt arguing with you over the Bible but why Catholics do what they do.
I never said the Catholic Bible was the original. But its about as close to the original as you can get. The Latin Vulgate was a direct translation into latin from the original greek and hebrew texts. And the Jerusalem Bible is an english version taken straight from the original texts. Both are Catholic.
I dont want to restart the old argument again because I hate talking to walls but I am going to bite the bullet again. Look at the New King James version of the Bible. Its a conservative rewrite of the King James Version. And the King James Version is a rewrite of all the other Bibles that were around back then. And finalized by a guy who said the Pope was the Antichrist and the Church were devil worshippers. Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the NKJ version.
Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Written by Hebrews. The Old Testament is the book of the Hebrew people. The New Testament is the book of our people. So when a Hebrew Scholar and Rabbi tells me "Hey some of that is made
up just to scare the jewish people of the time because they were doing
insane things" who do you think I am going to believe?
I do this really stupid thing. Its called thinking. God gave me this ability and I am going to use it. I am a catholic and I have met many people who are fossil hunters or evolutionists who are catholics, presbeterians (sp?), babtists, and more. Why is that so hard for some to understand?
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. Look at grimm fairy tales. They teach moral values in kids. But did those events happen? No. There is a few facts behind those stories. But they arent true. But a child can still come away with alot of good learning experiances from them. That is what some of the stories in the Bible were meant to be taken as. IMO at least.
I do believe in some things in the bible as actually happening. There is solid proof that some events did take place.
Our beliefs are changing all the time. You cant tell me that you believe exactly the samethings you believed last year, 5 years ago, or even 10 years ago. We are human. Last year if you had asked me if the story of Moses happened I would have said probably not. Because there wasnt alot of proof in that. But it was recently found that the Pharaoh in question wasnt Ramses but Ahmose. And alot of evidence has been found showing the events of Moses took place during his reign. So if you ask me now if the story of Moses happened I would say quite possibly yes.
But some events like Noah's flood have been scratched off. So no I dont believe that happened. At least not to the scale the Bible says or when the Bible says.
Kai
kk, im back. had a good 8 hrs of sleep and im fresh. and since you cant end this without being proven or disproven, im going to keep discussing this with you. for no other reason then the fact that i feel like its a good thing to talk about God and the Bible even if no one changes their minds.
you say youre Catholic because you need structure in your life. good reason except that the Catholic religion is about as varied in "structure" as one can get. ive met Catholics that believed the Bible so strongly that they endeavored to never sin (to the best of their knowledge). and ive met Catholics that believed that they could do anything they wanted as long as they told a man about it afterwards (confession). they believed that they could go out and kill someone and as long as they confessed about it to a "man", everything is forgiven. is that the structure that youre referring to?
point of referance, its the Catholic church that fought against scientific findings for several hundred years. its the Catholic church that oppressed and killed anyone that tried to teach contrary to what they believe the Bible taught. ironic that you, the thinking scholar, would be a Catholic that is trying to convince others that Catholic=structure.
i too, dont believe any religion is "perfect", i never claimed that i did. in fact, i dont currently go to church, so im not claiming any religion. but if i were to go to church, i dont believe i would choose a church that actually killed people for teaching others doctrine. you said yourself that there were things in Catholicism that you didnt believe or agree with, 500 years ago, you would have been killed. sound like that kind of church is even close to "perfect". to be honest, there are so many contradictions in Catholicism(bad spelling i know), thats its not even worth going into. but one thing i do wanna point out, you mentioned that the New King James Version and any other version of the Bible were not as accurate as the Catholic Bible. we are talking about the same Catholics that decided that the common man was too stupid to understand the Bible. and the same people that decided what did and did not go into the Bible, remember. and without getting too deep into this, changed the way baptism had been done for over 300 years. Ulterior motives, maybe? Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the Catholic version. same thing you said about the KJV.
yes, youre right, the Bible is full of parables and stories. no one is debating that. what were debating is which ones are considered fables. you mentioned a Hebrew Scholar that admitted that some of the stories were fables, wow, im convinced. a man said that the stories that he teaches were fables, i should just take his word for it, eh? why? because hes a Hebrew Scholar? you said yourself that you didnt believe in the story of Moses for a long time, then evidence came forth and verified his existance, and now you believe. what if we had been having this conversation before the evidence had come forth? you would be arguing that he never existed and that the story is nothing more than a fable. see where im going with this? if you didnt believe before and would have argued tooth and toenail about it, why should we believe what you say now. no doubt that back then you would have quoted scientists as proof that Moses never existed. and you would have been wrong. so.....how do you know that youre not wrong now.
you say that some things in the Bible have been disproved, period. im not convinced. not too many years ago, scientists were saying that eggs were bad for you, now theyre not.....hmmmmm.........
i agree with you about taking the Bibles message, thats an accurate assessment. but one of the messages that the Bible teaches throughout the text is Faith, and that seems to be one message that youve missed. Old testament and New both teach this as one of the most important religious beliefs. before the scientists could do DNA testing, what were you suppose to go on? before scientists could "prove" or "disprove" anything, what did people believe? were christians just stupid back before science revealed anything? is that what you think?
the New testament was also written by the Jewish people. and yes, sometimes "thinking" is stupid. when you do it too much. it is possible to think about something too much. not telling you to not think, just saying that it is possible to overanalyse sometimes. even scientists will admit this.
But I think I found something. This might be more to your level. Reading through some of my old papers from grade school. Science has never been able to completely prove anything. That is a fact. Scientist have to approach their theories with alot of skepticism. They have to try to disprove every theory. They have to take a theory then do everything possible to make it untrue. With me so far? Well basically what we have is the theory of evolution and the theory of a billion year old earth. Ready for a shock? No one has been able to disprove either. Plain and simple and to the point. this was a good one, i rather enjoyed this insult to me inteligence, however; i find it funny that you would use the arguement that the theory of evolution and big bang as not being disproved, lol, how exactly would one go about proving that there was or was not a big bang, lol. hard to prove without a time machine, wouldnt you agree. however, most theorys are not considered fact without being proven, evolution and big bang are the only theorys that are accepted without question. Odd, isnt it? i think that the burden of proof lies solely on proving them true, not the other way around.
btw, there are Creationist Scientists. 1000s of them. if you would have actually checked that site that i put up here instead of just dismissing it (like you have done with anything that anyone has put up here that you dont automaticly agree with), you would have known that. Creationism is actually a major player in the scientific world right now. thats why you have met so many of them. it would do you some good to actually do some research on it. hence the website that i mentioned, it wasnt just a clever website by "one" guy. its the website for a major organization that has been around for many many years. look it up, if you dont believe me.
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. your definition of "structure"? funny, even in the scientific world that would be considered dumb. and just so you know, ive never had to "adjust" me beliefs to conform to new proofs by scientists. i still believe exactly the same way i did 15 years ago. unlike you, i dont put all of me trust in men (scientists). men are fallable. God isnt.
you say that now you believe that Moses might have existed and the events of his life taken place. well, then you know that the events of Moses' life were pretty unscientific, to put it mildly. parting of Red sea, raining Quail and mana, Rod to serpent and back again, and such. so you believe that those events took place, but you cant believe that God could have flooded the whole earth? wow, talk about selective reasoning. you are aware of the fact that the story of Noah was actually penned by Moses, whom you do believe existed. so what, Moses made the story of Noah up, but wrote his life as fact? scientificly, doesnt it make more sense that his writing style was the same throughout.
this is all for now, i know that you will respond with your side of this. i wait patiently. i would have been content to take this discussion to pm, but you seem to think that you have to disprove and discredit me and anyone else that says contrary to what you say publicly. so whatever. bring it on. however, if you were as solid in your beliefs as you say that you are, you would have been content to take it to pms.
______________________________
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
no one is calling you a demon, that wasnt even about christian beliefs. it was a different religion. the point that the OP was making was that most world religions condemn homosexuality. thats all. no, youre not a demon.
______________________________
totally agree.
______________________________
So despite the fact that I have told you that the Great flood and the creation were written in a form of hebrew used to denote literal translation, you still choose to believe that they are a lie, because the overall message is what is important. I fail to see how someone can choose to believe that Jesus died for their sins, but that other parts of the Bible are a lie. It's not about being educated, because I am educated. I know enough about the Bible and my faith to sit here and debate people about the scientific merits of what is contained within the Bible. Whereas you seem to be dead set on preaching what you believe, which is a mishmash of belief and disbelief in the Bible. I am very sorry, but I do not believe that you can pick and choose what to believe from the Bible. If the Creation and Great Flood had been written down in the poetic or metaphorical style of Hebrew, then you would have ground to stand on...as it stands now though, you are saying that those stories are lies...I don't believe that you can believe one part of the Bible, and not another, because when you claim that one part is a lie, it brings the rest of it into question. As a christian, you are implored to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and the translation of the Bible that you read really doesn't matter with the overall point of the Bible as you have said, nor do any translations mince words with the story of creation and the great flood, they are all told in essentially the same way...and the new translations don't matter anyway, since you have to look to the origional Hebrew in order to really know the intent. I have told you what the origional Hebrew's intent was, and yet you still choose to believe otherwise.
also: your little attacks on Plano and myself are very immature, if you want to debate like an adult, keep the little snide comments like "I hate talking to walls" to yourself...if you don't want to discuss this, then don't discuss it. But don't stick little jabs like that in...it just causes you to lose credability when you stoop to that level.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
/agrees
______________________________
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
You're not a demon dude. Don't worry about what these people call you. Most of them are hypocrits in their condemnation anyhow.
I wonder how many of them have had sex and aren't married yet. And I bet they felt just enough guilt to brag about it to their friends. Or enough guilt to never do it again after that. I doubt that seriously.
I've only known one guy that was a virgin when he got married. And I know plenty of single guys who have sex with multiple partners in a year, yet still run their mouth about how evil gay men are.
So, don't listen to them. Their actions speak much louder than their words.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
no one is calling you a demon, that wasnt even about christian beliefs. it was a different religion. the point that the OP was making was that most world religions condemn homosexuality. thats all. no, youre not a demon.
Those were Zoroastrian beliefs. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all spring from Zoroastrianism. Check out the Zoroastrian stories and then compare them to the Biblical stories. Carbon copies.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
So, there's your proof they're wrong.
Of course you could say I'm a deceitful demon for saying that trying to trick you, so go ahead. It's been a common practice for people to try to demonize us no matter what we say anyhow. So, it's expected.
Here, if you are a Christian then this should make you feel better. Don't believe what these other jackasses tell you. Live your life and love God. You'll be forgiven.
According to Catholicism, if I sin, I'm going to Hell.
teaches that no one can judge what will happen when someone dies.
Catholics believe that when we sin, God forgives us if we ask for
forgiveness. Catholics also believe that no one goes to Hell unless
they do not want to be with God. God gives us a free will to decide how
to act in the world. If we make a mistake, we should seek forgiveness.
Catholics also believe in Purgatory. We are cleansed from sins before
we enter Heaven if we seek God.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
i decided to add these links to free videos about Creationism. whether you believe it or not, thats your choice, but i know that you wont look for it yourself, so i decided to make it more readily available.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
the Fossil Record videos are at the bottom of the list. especially watch those vids as they apply here.
EDIT: and thank you Porkie, for proving me point for me, lol. i wish i could just believe whatever i wanted to. but alas, i must actually follow me heart and what i know to be true. so nice for you to have such a convienent religion. (example: do whatever you want to in this life, then just confess to a priest, and youre forgiven) wow, that would so rock, then i could come over to your house......and well you get the idea.
______________________________
In response to your statement, do you really think that God put us here with the limited knowledge he has given us to make such a huge decision as the eternal fate of our soul? Seriously, you make one wrong decision and follow the wrong religion and you're damned for eternity in hell????? That's some serious stuff for the little minds we have. I have a feeling he's a little more forgiving than that. I couldn't imagine someone creating something just to put it in a confusing place not knowing which way to turn and then tell it's new creation, "hope you make the right decision, pick the right religion, follow the right book, etc., or I'm gonna drop you in the flames for eternity. That's nuts.
Just live your life the best you can. It's in our nature to know what is right and wrong for each of us individually. Do the goodness in your heart that God gave you and don't let the complexities of other men weigh you down. They don't know you and you don't know them.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
kk, im back. had a good 8 hrs of sleep and im fresh. and since you cant end this without being proven or disproven, im going to keep discussing this with you. for no other reason then the fact that i feel like its a good thing to talk about God and the Bible even if no one changes their minds.
you say youre Catholic because you need structure in your life. good reason except that the Catholic religion is about as varied in "structure" as one can get. ive met Catholics that believed the Bible so strongly that they endeavored to never sin (to the best of their knowledge). and ive met Catholics that believed that they could do anything they wanted as long as they told a man about it afterwards (confession). they believed that they could go out and kill someone and as long as they confessed about it to a "man", everything is forgiven. is that the structure that youre referring to?
I have also met babtists, protestants, and pentecostals that think they can do whatever they want as long as they pray afterwords and ask for forgiveness. Nothing new here dude. And all the religions are about as varied in structure as you can get. I chose Catholic because I was raised that way and I feel closer to it.
point of referance, its the Catholic church that fought against scientific findings for several hundred years. its the Catholic church that oppressed and killed anyone that tried to teach contrary to what they believe the Bible taught. ironic that you, the thinking scholar, would be a Catholic that is trying to convince others that Catholic=structure.
Oh so because the Catholics did horrible things in the past or tried to stamp out science before that means they are just as bad now? Sounds alot like the whole racist thing. Right now the worst you can be in america is a white guy with a few bucks in the bank. I show up and forget me the party is over. Whats past is past.
i too, dont believe any religion is "perfect", i never claimed that i did. in fact, i dont currently go to church, so im not claiming any religion. but if i were to go to church, i dont believe i would choose a church that actually killed people for teaching others doctrine. you said yourself that there were things in Catholicism that you didnt believe or agree with, 500 years ago, you would have been killed. sound like that kind of church is even close to "perfect". to be honest, there are so many contradictions in Catholicism(bad spelling i know), thats its not even worth going into. but one thing i do wanna point out, you mentioned that the New King James Version and any other version of the Bible were not as accurate as the Catholic Bible. we are talking about the same Catholics that decided that the common man was too stupid to understand the Bible. and the same people that decided what did and did not go into the Bible, remember. and without getting too deep into this, changed the way baptism had been done for over 300 years. Ulterior motives, maybe? Sorry but that alone gives me clear proof not to trust much in the Catholic version. same thing you said about the KJV.
What is past is past. Again your trying to argue your side using things that happened hundreds of years ago. Yes the Catholic church did some awful things but have you seenor heard of them burning anyone at the stake for teaching other doctrines in the past 100 years? Seriously have you?
yes, youre right, the Bible is full of parables and stories. no one is debating that. what were debating is which ones are considered fables. you mentioned a Hebrew Scholar that admitted that some of the stories were fables, wow, im convinced. a man said that the stories that he teaches were fables, i should just take his word for it, eh? why? because hes a Hebrew Scholar? you said yourself that you didnt believe in the story of Moses for a long time, then evidence came forth and verified his existance, and now you believe. what if we had been having this conversation before the evidence had come forth? you would be arguing that he never existed and that the story is nothing more than a fable. see where im going with this? if you didnt believe before and would have argued tooth and toenail about it, why should we believe what you say now. no doubt that back then you would have quoted scientists as proof that Moses never existed. and you would have been wrong. so.....how do you know that youre not wrong now.
Why? Because he is a Hebrew Scholar and Rabbi. He has probably forgotten more about the old testement then you and I will ever know put together. He is what I would call an authority.
Your rigth I would have argued it tooth and nail. Because at the time there was nothing there. No proof or disproof to say either way. There was nothing. But with Moses now there is proof and with Noah there is disproof. Real simple concept there.
you say that some things in the Bible have been disproved, period. im not convinced. not too many years ago, scientists were saying that eggs were bad for you, now theyre not.....hmmmmm.........
Yep your right. I am convinced. Because scientists said eggs were bad for you now they are saying they are good that is a perfect reason to decry all science no matter what. "Hey Archeologists I cant believe anything you say anymore because some scientists changed their view on eggs." hmmm that what your trying to say?
i agree with you about taking the Bibles message, thats an accurate assessment. but one of the messages that the Bible teaches throughout the text is Faith, and that seems to be one message that youve missed. Old testament and New both teach this as one of the most important religious beliefs. before the scientists could do DNA testing, what were you suppose to go on? before scientists could "prove" or "disprove" anything, what did people believe? were christians just stupid back before science revealed anything? is that what you think?
Back a hundred years ago there was nothing there. Nothing to go on. Were christians stupid? No. Because there wasnt anything to go on. You have to form your beliefs from what you know.
the New testament was also written by the Jewish people. and yes, sometimes "thinking" is stupid. when you do it too much. it is possible to think about something too much. not telling you to not think, just saying that it is possible to overanalyse sometimes. even scientists will admit this.
Some of the writers were Greek actually. And a few were other races.
But I think I found something. This might be more to your level. Reading through some of my old papers from grade school. Science has never been able to completely prove anything. That is a fact. Scientist have to approach their theories with alot of skepticism. They have to try to disprove every theory. They have to take a theory then do everything possible to make it untrue. With me so far? Well basically what we have is the theory of evolution and the theory of a billion year old earth. Ready for a shock? No one has been able to disprove either. Plain and simple and to the point. this was a good one, i rather enjoyed this insult to me inteligence, however; i find it funny that you would use the arguement that the theory of evolution and big bang as not being disproved, lol, how exactly would one go about proving that there was or was not a big bang, lol. hard to prove without a time machine, wouldnt you agree. however, most theorys are not considered fact without being proven, evolution and big bang are the only theorys that are accepted without question. Odd, isnt it? i think that the burden of proof lies solely on proving them true, not the other way around.
It wasnt an insult. I see now why you would have thought so. I meant I was putting in more simply to be easier to understand. Because it seems we are having problems with understanding each other. No insult was intended.
And No the burden of proof doesnt enter into it. There is plenty of proof. I am staring at one right now on my desk as I write this. Its a chunk of meteorite that fell to the earth some 300,000 years ago. I look to my left and on a shelf I have three big meggie teeth. Megalodon was around between 25 million and 1.6 million years ago. Around my neck I have a small vial with a bit of mammoth tusk in it. I found that one here where I live. Mammoths were around from 1.6 million years ago to about 3,000 years ago.
So there is lots of proof. But no one has been able to disprove it. Find me a T-Rex skeleton that is buried at the 100,000 year range or an ovaraptor skeleton that isnt fossilized. Do that and you will have the beginnings of evidence to debunk alot of this. Until then...... well you know the next line so I wont say it.
btw, there are Creationist Scientists. 1000s of them. if you would have actually checked that site that i put up here instead of just dismissing it (like you have done with anything that anyone has put up here that you dont automaticly agree with), you would have known that. Creationism is actually a major player in the scientific world right now. thats why you have met so many of them. it would do you some good to actually do some research on it. hence the website that i mentioned, it wasnt just a clever website by "one" guy. its the website for a major organization that has been around for many many years. look it up, if you dont believe me.
I know about AIG. I have met a few. I know of one guy that follows them. He is also a fellow fossil hunter.
You can actually be a christian or a catholic or a hebrew and not believe somethings really happened as long as you take from it what was meant. your definition of "structure"? funny, even in the scientific world that would be considered dumb. and just so you know, ive never had to "adjust" me beliefs to conform to new proofs by scientists. i still believe exactly the same way i did 15 years ago. unlike you, i dont put all of me trust in men (scientists). men are fallable. God isnt.
Men wrote the Bible. How can you sit there and say you put your trust in God not in men when the view of God in the Bible is Men's interpretation of God?
you say that now you believe that Moses might have existed and the events of his life taken place. well, then you know that the events of Moses' life were pretty unscientific, to put it mildly. parting of Red sea, raining Quail and mana, Rod to serpent and back again, and such. so you believe that those events took place, but you cant believe that God could have flooded the whole earth? wow, talk about selective reasoning. you are aware of the fact that the story of Noah was actually penned by Moses, whom you do believe existed. so what, Moses made the story of Noah up, but wrote his life as fact? scientificly, doesnt it make more sense that his writing style was the same throughout.
Actually it was found that during the time of Ahmose there was a volcano eruption near Egypt. Water turning to blood? Well as was seen in another volcano eruption in South America a few years ago the water for miles around turned red as blood. Because of some chemical that was released. And guess what? It killed everything that couldnt get out. But one creature could get out and got in droves. Frogs. There was a gas produced that came up out of the ground. It was a heavy gas. And extremely poisonious. Since Egyptian first borns were considered royality they slept on special beds that were close to the ground. Guess what jewish people slept on? They slept up high. Even on their roofs. Also after the eruption the earth had many quakes. Some even caused beds of rivers to thrust up above the water line. Then go back down. Parting of the Reed Sea anyone? That is just few things. I would have to dig out my papers and such on it and its late so sorry if I dont do that right now.
this is all for now, i know that you will respond with your side of this. i wait patiently. i would have been content to take this discussion to pm, but you seem to think that you have to disprove and discredit me and anyone else that says contrary to what you say publicly. so whatever. bring it on. however, if you were as solid in your beliefs as you say that you are, you would have been content to take it to pms.
You havent sent me a PM. Want this to go to PMs then send your reply to this in PM and we can continue this there.
Kai
lol, sorry for the fun at the expense of your name. i meant no offense. all good fun, you get it im sure.
God put us here with the ability to reason and understand the complexities of life and such. if you dont believe that, fine, im not twisting your arm. not knowing something is one thing, knowing it and not acknowledging it is quite another. when something is revealed to you, the ball is in your corner, to borrow from the cliche'. btw, im not arguing doctorine with you anyway, i was just pointing out the Catholic dogma to prove a point to kai, who wants to teach us all that the Catholic religion is the closest to being "perfect". and just so you know, im not judging you or anyone else for that matter. far be it from me to judge at all. believe me i know.
so i have no problems with you at all. and if me play on words with your name offends you, i apologize. again, thats not me intent.
______________________________
To Kai:
no pm coming, friend. you wanted to continue this in public, so im continuing this in public. if you really mean that you can continue this in pm then you be the first to send the pm. remember, i already said you could pm me, but youre too bend on debunking me and creationism in the public light, that you cant bring yourself to do it. so.....
now to the issues, so you chose Catholic based solely on the fact that you were taught it from your youth, not any Doctorine, yet youre going to claim that its the closest to being "perfect".
no, the Catholic church doesnt kill anyone now, however; they do excommunicate members that dont follow the "rules". theres still one man that is considered next to God (Pope). i know people that would love to burn SOE at the stake for "past" mistakes. if Hitler was still alive, where do you believe he would be right now, would you be able to forgive him and say, "hey, whats past is past." the Catholic churches past is way bloodier. and just so im understanding this correctly, are you saying that yes, the Catholic church used to be corrupt, but now its not? does that even make sense to you?
the key words in your explanation about why we should take this Hebrews word for it, is "he has forgotten", lol, no thats just a joke (albeit a bad one), i couldnt resist. sorry, but one hebrew scholar that comes forward and denounces his faith in the Bible hardly qualifies it as fact. how many scientists have denounced evolution? answer? many, i know several of them meself. but that wont be proof enough for you will it? why? because one person denouncing or saying that its false, doesnt make it false.
now about the proof and no proof, so you admit you would have argued that Moses didnt exist? but thats ok, and acceptable because at the time there wasnt any proof? huh? i think ive already proven me point, you would have been WRONG, by your own admission. whos to say youre not wrong now? where did this, its gotta be proven true before i believe it crap, come from anyway? thats not science, friend. thats faith, whether you believe it or not, if you dont have evidence to support it, yet you still believe it, thats faith. believing in evolution is a faith based endeavor. because there is no evidence. its not been proven. the burden of proof does indeed lie with proving it true, not false. its impossible to prove it false. its also impossible to prove that its true. because there is no evidence.
and the grade school textbook thing, that wasnt meant as an insult? lol, ok. you took an example out of a grade school textbook to try to bring it down to "my level", remember, lol. sure no insult there. just so you know, i dont feel like we have any trouble understanding one another. i understand your side perfectly, ive been on your side. you seem to understand what im saying too. but then im not treating you like a grade school child either.
staring at a meteorite doesnt prove anything, friend. there are hundreds of them, just because you say they are millions of years old doesnt prove anything either. in fact, you really should watch those videos that i linked to, they deal with the mammoth a bit in there. now you said in an earlier post that if i gave you something you would check it out. yet, twice now, i have given you links to sites that will explain things better than i can. and both times you have shot them down siting one stupid reason after another, yet im expected to take what youre sitting next to, or what on your shelf as definitive proof of evolution. work with me here, im not going to quote entire publications and/or act out entire videos for you, if i link to them and youre serious about doing some research on it. follow the link, watch the videos, and then we can discuss them.
btw, i put me trust in God, not men. ive intentionally left this sort of thing out of this discussion. because as someone that always needs proof, i knew that you couldnt grasp the concept of just believing in God. so i chose to use scientific models and concepts to discuss this with you, instead of using the typical, "God said it, i believe it," idealogy. not denouncing it, just not using it.
now about the volcano thingie. personnally, i do believe God used very natural disasters to create the plagues. i never claimed otherwise. see, God is all power and everything that is or has power comes from Him. therefore, natural disasters and earthquakes and such are all under his command. so yes, i can definitely say that some of the plagues were prolly done by a very natural disaster. however; the parting of the Red Sea, sorry, that is the only one that i cant take that way. one of the very few places where the Bible is specific about the fact that the ground that they walked across on was dry, and that the walls of water stood up on high. no amount of shifting or whatever is going to cause that. that is unexplainable. and the leprosy, that Moses had on his hand, changing it back and forth right before their eyes, unexplainable. now, youre just going to say that those events that cant be explained by science just didnt happen, but see thats just a cop out.
and again, if youre serious about letting this go to pm, fine i can do that. but dont think that im just going to be like ok, you can run me into the ground, uh duh, i dont mind.
______________________________
leprosy
I was once in the same shoes as Kai...believing in the bigger picture, but very few of the specifics...and then I started to believe in the message, but not he specifics or even the bigger picture...and then I decided to look at what evolution actually had to offer in terms of proof. Not evidence, because creationism has just as much "evidence" as evolution...but PROOF. There was none. If anything, evolution does a good job of disproving itself. At that point I decided that I would be more open minded and receptive to what both sides have had to offer. Evolutionists generally offer "this is the evidence and if you don't believe it then you are stupid" type stuff...whereas creationists tend to offer "this is the evidence, do with it what you will but we think that THIS is what it means"
Which would you be more receptive to?
I become very tired of people citing vague and doctored evidence such as the Lucy skeleton and a mutated Dolphin as proof of evolution...I wish that they would stop.
I could write on and on about Lucy...wow what a joke of a find that is.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution.
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
Christians make up 33% of the world, you aren't being lied to and it isn't a conspiracy.
Go google "Project Steve". There are such a tiny amount of scientists that reject evolution.
Better yet, how do you explain Ken Millers lactose-galactosidase experiment..?
completely false and you think that a "project" making fun of creationism is proof............ seems kinda like an insult to me, or maybe im just stupid, eh? oO wait, thats the point. i get it. good one.
______________________________
Well let me tell you a little something about me and my family. I just thought of this when you mentioned leprosy or however its spelled. I want to tell you about my father. My father was certifiable. He was completely and totally nuts. The clinical word for it was paranoid schizophenia. He actually believed there was a multibillion dollar government agency called the Behemoth. And its sole purpose was to make sure he never succeeded. He would spent nights sitting in the middle of the living room, gun in his lap, waiting for these agents to come and get him. He even shot a cop in 1980 after the cop took his firearm that he was brandishing in a McDonalds. But my father wasnt always like that. See my dad spent some time in a prison camp in SE Asia. While there he was beaten about the head with a metal rod. I know this because after his death the doctor that performed the autopsy said he had over 40 marks in skull from it. He was permenantly punch drunk. His brain was slowly dying because of this one incident.
Now why do I bring this up. Had my father existed in the time of the Bible how would he have been seen? Possessed most likely. Maybe even a messiah if it was during the time he started thinking he was Jesus Christ. But he wasnt possessed. He was psychotic. He was insane. There was a very clear medical cause and reason behind his delusions. But during that time he probably wouldnt have been percieved that way.
And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.
Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong. If they could percieve a man that is now considered insane to be, back then, possessed its quite possible they could have said that the waters rose up and the ground was dry when in fact the ground rose up.
One thing I realized just a bit ago. You love to shove the whole "men are fallible" thing in my face. Fine. Thats true. But its also a double edged sword against yourself. If men are fallible its quite possible that God doesnt exist and that those fallible men made Him up. I dont believe that myself. I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.
We cant even begin to understand who or what God is. We cant even get semi close to what He is. The God in the Bible is man's perception of God. Men of that time I might add. For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Maybe God did allow Moses to change his hand from one way to another. Or maybe it was a parlor trick that over time got exarragerated. Or maybe it didnt happen at all and it was just added by those fallible men to lend "spice" to the story. Things like that we dont know. Because, as you put it, we cant go back in time in a time machine and see it for ourselves.
But I can find a fossil of a million year old sabertooth. I can see E Coli Bacteria evolving right in front of my very eyes through a microscope. I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado.
And what scientific models and concepts did you use? You mean the one about carbon dating can be wrong by a million years when it cant be?
As for arguing about Moses, a year ago there was no proof or disproof. But now there is proof. With Noah there is disproof. And that Hebrew Scholar didnt denounce his faith. He simply said that some stories in the Old Testament didnt happen. They were written to scare the hell out of hebrew people because they were doing whacko things.
And how could you have been on my side once when you said your beliefs hadnt changed in 15 years? Alot of this has just hit the world. Maybe because your beliefs have changed and you just wanted to denounce something else I said? Hmmmm
Kai
Well let me tell you a little something about me and my family. I just thought of this when you mentioned leprosy or however its spelled. I want to tell you about my father. My father was certifiable. He was completely and totally nuts. The clinical word for it was paranoid schizophenia. He actually believed there was a multibillion dollar government agency called the Behemoth. And its sole purpose was to make sure he never succeeded. He would spent nights sitting in the middle of the living room, gun in his lap, waiting for these agents to come and get him. He even shot a cop in 1980 after the cop took his firearm that he was brandishing in a McDonalds. But my father wasnt always like that. See my dad spent some time in a prison camp in SE Asia. While there he was beaten about the head with a metal rod. I know this because after his death the doctor that performed the autopsy said he had over 40 marks in skull from it. He was permenantly punch drunk. His brain was slowly dying because of this one incident.
Now why do I bring this up. Had my father existed in the time of the Bible how would he have been seen? Possessed most likely. Maybe even a messiah if it was during the time he started thinking he was Jesus Christ. But he wasnt possessed. He was psychotic. He was insane. There was a very clear medical cause and reason behind his delusions. But during that time he probably wouldnt have been percieved that way.
And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.
Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong. If they could percieve a man that is now considered insane to be, back then, possessed its quite possible they could have said that the waters rose up and the ground was dry when in fact the ground rose up.
One thing I realized just a bit ago. You love to shove the whole "men are fallible" thing in my face. Fine. Thats true. But its also a double edged sword against yourself. If men are fallible its quite possible that God doesnt exist and that those fallible men made Him up. I dont believe that myself. I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.
We cant even begin to understand who or what God is. We cant even get semi close to what He is. The God in the Bible is man's perception of God. Men of that time I might add. For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Maybe God did allow Moses to change his hand from one way to another. Or maybe it was a parlor trick that over time got exarragerated. Or maybe it didnt happen at all and it was just added by those fallible men to lend "spice" to the story. Things like that we dont know. Because, as you put it, we cant go back in time in a time machine and see it for ourselves.
But I can find a fossil of a million year old sabertooth. I can see E Coli Bacteria evolving right in front of my very eyes through a microscope. I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado.
Kai
ah, now were getting somewhere. couple different things, sorry if i jump around a bit.
first thing, im sorry for your father, thats a sad story.
Ok lets talk about science and the Bible a little more. From what I gather. Basically if science debunks anything in the Bible its your belief that science must be wrong? Am I correct in this? My contention is that science does debunk a few things and prove others in the Bible. Neither of us can agree here.
this is exactly me point, nothing that has been brought into this discussion has been proven as scientific fact. im not debunking science, in fact, i love science. but what youre expecting me to believe is speculation, not science. i could (not going to) pull up some actual quotes from scientific pub. that actually say, "we believe", these are scientists. thats not fact, friend. or "its possible that", come on, how can we base our trust on these types of assumptions. thats asking me to change me faith, not believe in science. i already have a faith, i dont need another one, especially one that isnt even supported at all.
And that is the whole situation here. Perception. During those times he would be considered possessed or something other then insane. Science versus the Bible.
this i can agree with, however; its alittle different when talking about events on a global scale. when John refers to a metal beast in the Heavens, yes i can say that he lacked the knowledge to call it what it was, but that doesnt mean that he didnt see it. when the Bible specifically states, "and they walked across on dry ground", thats not a matter of perception.
Remember its men that wrote those stories in the Bible. Dont forget that the actual story about Moses wasnt written right after it happened. It was written over a thousand years later. Exaggeration is quite possible. And your the one who loves to say how men are fallible. Its quite possible and most likely that the men who wrote that thousand year old story got a few things wrong.
this is quite possible, just as possible as carbon dating is wrong and/or evolutionary models are wrong. all done by men, im not the one putting all me trust in men. see, for me to believe in God and know Him intimately, it doesnt require me faith in men, all it requires is me trust in Him. Anyone that has had an intimate relationship with Him knows that. even if there wasnt a Bible, i could still walk and talk with Him. but in order for me to believe in science, i HAVE to trust in science and the men conducting the science.
I know God exists and I got evidence of that the first time I dived a tropical reef. Such a complex system there has to be something or someone lending a hand every once and awhile.
well said.
For all we know God is a huge super computer from a distant planet and this is all just a 10 million year old program to divine the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
got any science to back that up, j/k
I can see the effects of a volcano or a tornado.
and neither one of these takes millions of years to effect change.
in any case, i dont think that were misunderstanding each other, i respect your viewpoint, i dont share it, but i do respect it. and youve shared it well, IMO.
______________________________
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Are you against classifying the families of animals due to structural similarities? Would you say mammals are not really a family at all, just a bunch of things that exist in the same way? Do you think the similarities in flora and fauna that can be traced to single-celled organisms are just fabrications? Do you think "amino-acid pairings in hemoglobin" is just a load of biological jargon?
Lungfish are an existing species that can survive on land or water. Why would they need to exist if fish live in water and land animals on land? They sure as hell can't be signs of a transitional species because that would just be wrong.
How about the Acanthostega fossils? Four legs, eight fingers, seven toes, gills, fish-like tail? It has to be a scientific fabrication. Scientists have no morals. All fossils that disprove anything I believe in are fake. Especially when they've been "verified" by a "scientific community".
Do you think neoteny is just a fabrication as well? (The fact that humans (child->adult) resemble baby chimpanzees: We are extremely similar in posture/brain-body ratio, lack body hair and have a flat face. This would suggest humans were primates that had their physical developement slowed down) Ah. But monkeys are just things that have been put there to deceive us. I'm no monkey. Especially not an "slowly developed" monkey.
Also there's one big thing you're forgetting when you're hugging the lack of fossil evidence card. Most observed genetic changes happen in bottlenecks. That is to say only a very small amount of creatures survive certain death by adapting to their environments. Changes in behaviour/size/shape have been observed to be such. Only small groups succeed while the rest become extinct. It's not such a wonder fossil evidence is hard to come by when fossilization is a very rare occurrence that requires ideal circumstances. But then again, empirical scientists have fabricated this as well.
You did read the article, right? Go back and read what the Baptist preacher wrote about the context and the placement of the scriptures you are referring to.
** I feel a little weird agreeing with a Baptist preacher. I'm not sure I will get over this soon. **
yes, but God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah (excuse my spelling) for homosexuality.
...About galileo...you have to remember that their are A TON of branches of christianity. Catholics, Baptists, and Pentacostals and others believe in ALOT of different things
r
I find the latter branches of Christianity not much different from the original ones. The only difference i see is that they have dwelled further away from Jesus's teachings. The only Christian group that today still follows alot of Christ's teachings is the Russian/Greek Orthodox Church. I myself am Catholic, but do not agree with all the stand-points of our Church leaders. I myself feel we have been influenced to much by Constantine the Great and other Roman Emperors, who felt to change the base of Christianity for their own purposes. Too bad the Coptic Church doesn't exist anymore, because they were the Christian CHurch most closely connected to Christ's teachings.
Leviticus is a very old teaching, and they are more Jewish than Christian. It also also very uncivilized by modern standards. I think the Church should ignore some of the most ancient teachings about sins, and focus more on the newer texts. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but that it can be resolved by praying and sinning to the lord. Every person has a sin, and we should all have a chance to resolve it with God.
Sheer lack of transitional fossils? How do you explain the similar structure of all life? Especially the striking similarities between vertebrates. The fact that biologically, chemically and physically all life seems to follow near-identical patterns. You can pull certain SPECIALIZED STRUCTURES (giraffe's cranial blood sponge, chameleon's ability to adapt to light) to try and disprove this, but I'll tell you what I just said: They're specialized structures. The other structures of these animals match those of their "cousins".
And where are all of the transitional fossils? The fact that many animals share similar bone structure proves nothing as to HOW they evolved. If you want me to believe evolution you're going to need something better than "well everything is similar" We can trace several animals back to a promethian species from which those species of animals have adapted from. But those animals all share alike DNA with their promethian species, it's simply a matter of which DNA is latent or active, none of them have any genetic information that another one doesn't. What's funny is that evolutionists are unable to trace animals further back than the promethian species. Evolution contends that there should be thousands of transitional fossils, it's something that baffled even Charles Darwin. The simple fact that some animals share similar bone structures(dolphin with bones in their fins that loosely resemble hands) proves nothing to me, or any other objective viewer.
Are you against classifying the families of animals due to structural similarities? Would you say mammals are not really a family at all, just a bunch of things that exist in the same way? Do you think the similarities in flora and fauna that can be traced to single-celled organisms are just fabrications? Do you think "amino-acid pairings in hemoglobin" is just a load of biological jargon?
Mammal is simply a classification put forth by humans meaning an animal that has fur of some sort, and gives birth to live babies. If you are asking me whether or not I care what we call these types of animals...nope I couldn't care less, because it's irrelevent. I've never heard of plants and animals that can be traced all the way back to single cell organisms, because they simply don't exist. No animal or plant can be traced all the way back from a single cell organism, conjecture about it probably exists, but proof? That is something else entirely.
Lungfish are an existing species that can survive on land or water. Why would they need to exist if fish live in water and land animals on land? They sure as hell can't be signs of a transitional species because that would just be wrong.
One species that has characteristics conducive to both land and water survival is what you base your faith in evolution on? Lung Fish have adaptive survival mechanisms that allow them to survive through the dry seasons without much water, they are not the only fish that do this. They also have breathing apendages to assist in mating, this is also not unique, there are other types of fish with extra apendages used for mating(great white sharks for example) These are not examples of evolution, but simply adaptation. You find me reputable fossils of fish visibly turning into land animals and we will talk. Until then all you have is conjecture based on an animal with adaptive qualities, nothing more.
How about the Acanthostega fossils? Four legs, eight fingers, seven toes, gills, fish-like tail? It has to be a scientific fabrication. Scientists have no morals. All fossils that disprove anything I believe in are fake. Especially when they've been "verified" by a "scientific community".
An extinct species of lizard with adaptive traits for swiming? Adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Every species of animal has some sort of mechanism to help them survive in their environment..this is no different. You find me fossils of your cute little lizard when it had fins instead of fingers and maybe we'll talk about this...once again, transitional fossils please. Fossils of extinct species that either swam or walked prove nothing. Finding one animal that appears to be in some sort of in between phase in your belief system doesn't prove anything, so am I to understand that this is the only transition that exists between lizards and fish? If so then that is some very rapid evolution, and doesn't mesh well with the real theory of evolution.
Do you think neoteny is just a fabrication as well? (The fact that humans (child->adult) resemble baby chimpanzees: We are extremely similar in posture/brain-body ratio, lack body hair and have a flat face. This would suggest humans were primates that had their physical developement slowed down) Ah. But monkeys are just things that have been put there to deceive us. I'm no monkey. Especially not an "slowly developed" monkey.
Oh jeez, the monkey argument. Look man, the fact that scientists find fossils like Lucy and then use them to further an evolution agenda proves to me how desperate they are to believe this stuff. The fact that we resemble apes somewhat means nothing. Whales resemble sharks somewhat, it doesn't mean that whales were once sharks. Dogs somewhat resemble cats, it doesn't mean that they share a common ansestor.
Also there's one big thing you're forgetting when you're hugging the lack of fossil evidence card. Most observed genetic changes happen in bottlenecks. That is to say only a very small amount of creatures survive certain death by adapting to their environments. Changes in behaviour/size/shape have been observed to be such. Only small groups succeed while the rest become extinct. It's not such a wonder fossil evidence is hard to come by when fossilization is a very rare occurrence that requires ideal circumstances. But then again, empirical scientists have fabricated this as well.
No actually, creationists love the fact that fossilization only occurs when something is burried very rapidly, it gives more cause to believe in a global flood....but I suppose that this conjecture is far too outlandish for you to believe. You need to stop confusing adaptation with evolution, because they aren't the same thing. An animal that has adpapted has simply shifted around its DNA so that some latent sets of DNA become active sets. It still has the same amount of information contained in its DNA. Any other animal of that type will have the same information in its DNA, it's simply a matter of what DNA is latent, sublatent, and active. It's the same deal with dogs, you could breed any dog to be any other species of dog if you manipulate the DNA enough. It doesn't mean that the dogs have evolved. In order for evolution to take place, new information must be added to DNA, this has never been observed, even in animals that are so prone to genetic manipulation as dogs.
Now I have a few questions for you, since we have covered fossils already, let's talk about astronomy!
How do you explain the planet Mercury's density? In an evolutionary model, it's a sheer impossibility for Mercury to be so dense....so how is it explained? It isn't. The most commonly held theory is that billions of years ago, Mercury was hit with a comet, and it shook all of the less dense material loose from the palnet....right okay.
Mars' thin atmosphere also didn't mesh well with evolutionist theories...so what did they do? Well, they said that a comet hit Mars billions of years ago and it caused Mars' atmosphere to become thin
Uranis' tilt on its axis was unexplained by science, so what did they do? Well they said that a comet hit Uranis billions of years ago and threw it off of its axis.
We don't know what happened to the Dinosaurs, so what happened to them? Well a meteor came down and hit the Earth and killed them, but not the rest of the animals.
Do you see a pattern here? When science can't explain something about astronomy, they wave their meteor wand over it. How is this any different than a belief that God created the universe again?
Saturns' rings? Well, it's an impossibility for them to have been formed more than 100 million years ago, even evolutionists admit to that...but the planet itself is thought to be billions of years old. So how are Saturns' rings explained? Well, one explanation is that a moon orbitting Saturn was destroyed and caused the rings...okay...yet another conjecture based on nothing but sheer speculation. There is no actual evidence for this destroyed moon, it's sheer conjecture. Given the current state of Saturns' rings, it is an absolute impossibility for the planets' rings to be more than 100 million years old, if you believe in an old Earth model...of course, it's easily explained with a young earth/creationist model.
Shall we talk about comets? A new universe model would have the comets still zipping about our solar system, unfortunately, an old universe model wouldn't...because the meteors would have burned out and evaporated by now(which happens all the time as they pass by planets and the sun) So in order to find a solution to this difficult problem of meteors still existing, evolutionists and old universe believers discovered the oort cloud. A cloud composed of billions of meteors, where passing stars occasionally yank out a meteor with their gravity. Oh wait, they didn't discover it, they made it up. The Oort cloud has never been observed, it's simply a faith explanation to something that old universe scientists have no real answer for.
There are problems with the Oort cloud, the greatest being that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists! However, a recent study has revealed a new problem. Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the formation of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet nuclei during this process.
This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for the comets that we see. The researchers postulate escape valves that could supply up to 3.5 Earth masses, but this is still low compared to recent estimates of the mass of the Oort cloud. They go on to speculate that a distant source region for Oort cloud comets could resolve some other problems [emphasis added].
Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think, then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, just as the recent-creation model suggests.(AIG.org)
And the Dynamo theory? Well it's looking more and more like that is going to have to be retooled, because the more we discover about planetary cores, it simply doesn't work.
Maybe you've heard me say that I don't believe in coincidence before...well, take a look at the sun for me...not literally of course. The sun is in an absolute perfect condition to support life on our planet. It is an absolutely perfect size and brightness as well. Now, one could argue that this is simply a matter of coincidence that out of billions of stars, we get a perfect one. But the sun's solar flares are also somewhat of an anomoly...because other stars around the same size of the sun have solar flares much larger, and ones that would destroy our atmosphere...yet the suns do not...is this also to be taken as sheer coincidence and luck? That's a lot of faith in coincidence to be "scientific" If you want to get into the science of the sun, then the sun also points to a younger Earth, because when the sun was young, it would have to have been more dim(evolutionists will also admit to this) And yet, there is no evidence to support that the sun has ever become brighter. This is called by scientists "the faint young sun paradox". If the sun were created 3.8 billion years ago, as it is thought, then the sun would need to be 25% brighter than it actually is right now. Given this, the Earth would have to have been much colder in the past, but all evidence points to the Earth being much warmer in the past
"well that's why it's science and we will change our theories around and find better explanations!"
Have you ever played a game with that kid on the block who would always make up new rules to the game when they are losing? That is what evolution is to me, that is what your "science" is to me. Instead of just admitting that they don't know, they make up more crap and call it science...sheesh, at least have the decency to admit that it's not even observable science.
God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.