http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042

A landmark legal trial begins on Monday that could determine how the theory of evolution - one of the basic tenets of modern science - is taught in US schools.

and another related article...

http://english.people.com.cn/200509/24/eng20050924_210621.html

The largest US science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), urged a Pennsylvania federal court Friday to prohibit an anti-evolution doctrine known as "intelligent design" in biology classrooms.

Hopefully there will be some full on battles in front of the court house. Pasty science nerds vs skinny redneck jesus-freaks. (clearly those are both big stereotypes so chill the f*** out you jesus-freaks) I think the incorporation of chemical warfare has the science team ahead in survival stakes.

I dunno what else to say, hopefully sanity wins out and ID is left as a hypothesis merely mentioned in Religious education subjects.

haha, i look more of a pasty sciene nerd type.

i don't think ID shoudl be tought in science class rooms, but it should be made clear in the classrooms that evolution isn't the only possibility of how we got here.

prohibit an anti-evolution doctrine known as "intelligent design"

Adherance to a doctrine extended from available evidence is bad science and both sides are equally guilty.

If one can just throw out all religious preconceptions. What if there is energy based life asserting influence over corporial species development and/or the processes there-in? What if further studies into string thoery should lead towords discovery of intelligent life in that realm? The answer from the "scientific" community would be "Sorry! such anti-evolution doctrine is PROHIBITED!"

Too often history has seen "organised religion" and also "estabished science" ignore new scientific discoveries when it doesn't suit their particiular agendas.

Both sides can take their doctrine and shove it. Whatever happened to searching for truth and let the results land where they may, now matter how unpallatable the result.

last edited by C0deBasher at 13:54:11 26/Sep/05

Whatever happened to searching for truth and let the results land where they may, now matter how unpallatable the result.

"You're a loose cannon, detective! i'm taking you off this investigation, Basher. Hand over your badge and gun."

Can i take this opportunity to remind people of the documented, well publicised, theistic goals of the ID movement (source here):

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

last one, quoted for emphasis.

They freely and publicly admit to using ID as a 'wedge' to get creationism into schools, with the long-term goal of turning a secular society into a theistic one. This is a serious breach of the American Constitution (separation of church & state).

The case should be thrown out on these grounds alone.


last edited by korbs at 14:27:07 26/Sep/05

last edited by korbs at 14:28:00 26/Sep/05

Both sides can take their doctrine and shove it. Whatever happened to searching for truth and let the results land where they may, now matter how unpallatable the result.

Science is continually searching and investigating evolution, what's your problem?

Relgion however doesn't seem to be doing any research into the subject and continuing their theory, they're just using intelligent influence to fill in the gaps of evolution.

Science is continually searching and investigating evolution, what's your problem?

Doctrinally prohibiting anything "anti-evolution doctrine" doesn't sound very scientific to me. Throughout the 1990's research into angiogenisis inhibitors gave me a real heads up when I saw the lead scientists conducting this cancer fighting research vehementantly and widely rubbished up hill and down dale for a long time because the underlying theory upset some doctrines of some elements of the medical community.

One tough British professor stuck to his guns and now his research is the front runner for replacing immune suppresants for many things including some nasty bone degeneration I've suffered for years. So for me it nearly gets personal to see gutsy folk think outside the box and sometimes prove the scientific (as well as religious) standard of the day dead wrong.


last edited by C0deBasher at 15:03:16 26/Sep/05

Relgion however doesn't seem to be doing any research into the subject and continuing their theory, they're just using intelligent influence to fill in the gaps of evolution

On the contrary, research is being done. They're not trying to fill in gaps of evolution, they're saying the whole thing is a load of rubbish.

C0deBasher's on the money. Observations and evidence around us can be applied to both to see how accurate they are. Teach em both I say.

I'm not going to go into long discussions about all of this again - I believe that other thread has covered the subject ad nauseam. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this case.

yes I'm well aware of the nature of the scientifitic community and they way it can reject and deny some research and discoveries if it differs from their beliefs (like the "hobbit" skeletons found a year or so back) But for every scientist trying to debunk theories, there's some working to prove them correct.

Doctrinally prohibiting anything "anti-evolution doctrine" doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Show me some evidence of something disproving evolution and you won't see me denying it. The bible isn't evidence, it's speculation and theory. As it stands, evolution is currently more convincing based on a wealth of physical evidence, we're witnessing species constantly evolving around us every day, snakes adpating to a previously toxic frog, birds evolving to withstand the poison from cane toads, to name but 2.

...we're witnessing species constantly evolving around us every day, snakes adpating to a previously toxic frog, birds evolving to withstand the poison from cane toads, to name but 2.

What you've described is accepted by both sides. It is fact based on evidence around us. The contention is over the point of origins, not micro-evolution.

wheee ... here we go again :P

Both evolution & creation should be topics of philosophy classes (with evolution given the nod as the most acceptable theory of the general scientific community) & niether should be in science, which should be reserved for applicable, practical science.
To just keep throwing up different unproven theories about something that we have no way of currently knowing isn't science... it's philosophical speculation & it's a huge waste of time & effort.

dear god not this again

GOD NO, NOT ANOTHER ONE OF THESE THREADS.

Wasn't the last one about the Sydney high school huge enough?

And everyone will be just repeating themselves, as everything was well said in that thread.

Personally, i leave my comments there and aint saying the same stuff again.

u believe in god? lol how dumb u r

wheee ... here we go again :P

Heh heh... don't worry, I for one can't be bothered going on about this again.

Who you talking to Persay?

Personally i don't. It's just a human comprehendable form given to all the unknown forces around us that make stuff happen.

btw lock this thread and re-direct to the recent one someone =P

you will be struck down, mark my words

I think Persay was being fecetious. At least I hope he was.

I'm gonna protest against this thread by not posting... awww s***tidoos...

The main thing to take out of this thread is...ID shouldn't be taught in schools as science.

/lock thread

get over it, there's no reason to lock the thread

I have a hypothesis that the more a given scientific event negatvily affects people in that event field and those related to it the more those affected will try to prevent the event.

For instance, if I was a Expert Doctor who was paying off a house, 2 cars and supporting a family and my 20 years expertise was how a certain family of drugs affects the immune system and their side effects, I would be very defensive if someone came along saying they could stick a few pins in a patients body and cure the various diseases my family of drugs tackle.
Even if they did present good consistant data to me, I would still try to prevent people accepting it. I would find every bit of info against it that I could, I have the house, car and kids to look after...

Anyway back to the topic..

What Jim said.

Religious types piss me off to no end, not only because of the crap they believe, but the fact that they insist on having everyone else follow their way, and are willing to kill, jail, or shun by law people who disbeive or question them (largely a problem in the 15th century, but still a problem - see laws regarding abortion, gay marriage, acceptable roles for women, diets, land use).

Evolution can barely be scientifically proven, but ID is just a complete joke even when it ISN'T trying to be passed off as a science. The extent of ID being possible is me (or you) genetically engineering or constructing something.

Hello world. I see you are going backwards.

Toll: What you are describing are competing memes. check out this wikipedia entry for a brief overview. Theres heaps more reading out there if you have a look.

Also, if it really interests you, go and borrow "The lucifer principle" by Howard Bloom. Excellent book on the subject.

/derail

ooer, yer memes are cool, however strangly disturbing :(

If my Uni has it then I'll check it out. Unfortunatly I have a rather large library fine for councile library :(

Was just thinking - why is it legal to teach religion, which has no scientific fact, to minors at all? Just looking at it this way:
Minors are easily coerced and bribed, and will tend to believe what their parents tell them, right or wrong - it's like teaching a minor to be violent or malicious. They're too young to know how to evaluate both sides of an argument, and are often too young to understand half of the material about it, especially when they're only fed bits and peices of it, to serve the purpose of brainwashing them slowly.

Growing up I had RE and similar forced on me at school, and various religious neighbors try to drag me along to church, though my parents on the other hand never spoke a word of it, never tried to tell me it was all crap or to stay away, and nowadays I'm more agressive and angered by it than anything whereas they know it's all BS, but don't bother poking the holes in it.

The simple fact is, I can't think of a single person I know who has swayed towards believing ANY religious BS after not having it forced apon them as a child.
To me it's the equivelant of the children you see the media making a big deal about in the middle east, claiming they're eager to become matrys (ie, suicide bombers) when they're of an old enough age, brainwashed by those trying to better their ccause, preying pathetically, in exactly the same way, on children too young to understand and make a decision for themselves.

And sadly, our countries are all run by these idiots, regardless of what religion it may be in any particular case.

I know exactly what you mean raven, at least "reborn" christians or muslims or whatever who have changed or join a religon later in life have done so by choice, not having had it rammed down their throat as a child *ahem* catholics *cough*

I don't care much about what's been said in the thread, in fact I've barely read it apart from a bit of Raven's last post.

I've heard from several people who aren't religious that they want their children to goto Sunday school or have some sort of RE so that later in life when they can make their own decisions, it's up to them whether they want to believe in God or not. It's the most fair way of doing it. By not showing them both sides of the fence then they can't choose properly and won't know both sides and will dive blindly into religious debates not knowing both sides like alot of people do. I also think another benefit of giving children religious education is to teach them basic morals.

On the subject of making it compulsory, I don't believe it should be. It should be up to the parents to decide if they do want their children to have some RE. Of course it's fine for it to be compulsory at religious schools, as most religious schools are private and the children would be going there for a reason anyway. If the parents don't like it they can change schools.

Hallowed are the Orii

Creepy wins :D

hopefully religon will be weeded out of society one day.
it does more harm than good.

hopefully religon will be weeded out of society one day.
it does more harm than good.

No it dosn't, you just choose to remember the extreams.

If religion wasnt around, where would you get the basic idea of morals? Survivle of the fitest? Yer ok, So why dont you go out, mug someone who worked hard for their money and take it all nice and easy like, They are old and frail you are young and strong. If you would like to live in a world without religion I rekon it would be rather barbaric...

what like the crusdaes and the spanish inquisitions , numerous wars based on religous beliefs.

so u telling only religous people have morals.

hilter.

Religion just gives people something to believe in cause they need guidence. It's man made.

Religion is *A* teacher of morals, not *The* teacher of morals. It comes from many possible sources.

well, since this thread is kinda going over old ground, i think we should change the topic slightly:

I've been thinking about pascals wager for a while now, and although the premise is inherently flawed, it does make you wonder about something.

Is the concept of heaven=reward, hell=punishment (at its most basic level) emotional & psychological blackmail ?

It's the corner stone of christianity (not so sure about the other majors). I mean, if the bible said "yeah, follow these commandments, accept jesus ect ect..and you will go to heaven, but if you don't want to..thats ok, you can come in anyway" then any kind of authority it had would completely evaporate.

I don't see how it is different to somebody threatening to beat you up unless you give them some money.

last edited by korbs at 19:35:32 26/Sep/05

thats a very good point korbs, although the bible is only that way for accepting jesus. 10 commandments etc are "thats ok too" sort of anyway.

what like the crusdaes and the spanish inquisitions , numerous wars based on religous beliefs.

so u telling only religous people have morals.

how about the numerous other wars that where fought because someone wanted more land/fuel/power. many "religious" wars are started because of selfish leaders.

Religious types piss me off to no end, not only because of the crap they believe, but the fact that they insist on having everyone else follow their way, and are willing to kill, jail, or shun by law people who disbeive or question them (largely a problem in the 15th century, but still a problem - see laws regarding abortion, gay marriage, acceptable roles for women, diets, land use).

it works the other way too. many christians are being jailed/killed/ shun by law in comunist countries, (re china)

most people against thoes laws are just using there religion as a front to push for changes etc.
personally:
-i am against abortion. not because of religious "murdering", but because it devistates the people involved, and who has the right to say a life shouldn't exist just because it isn't in the most favorable enviroment.
-gay marriages. marriage was about a contract, not spiritual binding, sex is suppose to be the spiritual binding. therefore i see no reason for gays not to get married.
-Acceptable roles for women. er, like what?
-diets. er, what?
-land use. er, ok?

anyway, my point is people try and use religion as leverage for pushing forward what they want because its the most convienient thing at the time.

and if the constitution doesn't allow it. then they say they are looking for WMD's instead. ;)

last edited by WhiteWolf at 20:08:20 26/Sep/05

personally:
-i am against abortion. not because of religious "murdering", but because it devistates the people involved, and who has the right to say a life shouldn't exist just because it isn't in the most favorable enviroment.
-gay marriages. marriage was about a contract, not spiritual binding, sex is suppose to be the spiritual binding. therefore i see no reason for gays not to get married.

ok, this is where i don't understand you at all, Whitewolf.

You will argue a literal creation and that the earth is only 6000 years old (which is arguably the most hard-to-believe part of the bible) until you're blue in the face, but then you relax when it comes to moral issues.

The bible is very clear-cut (as much as it can be) on homosexuality, abortion, things you cannot eat (shellfish is mentioned specifically in leviticus i think) and even beard grooming instructions for men, but you pick & choose from these to suit yourself.

lol @ gay people.

All hypocrits, they want to be different and yet demand the best of both worlds?

*guy with famous can't handle truth quote from movie 'a few good men' Voice* YOU CAN'T HAVE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. */voice*

Life is about choices, each choice has a benefit and a consequence.

It's that simple. no buts. case closed. Accept the results of your decision like an adult and deal with it. It was your choice.

And now back to our heated debate on the many odd aspects of religon.

last edited by A_W at 21:08:58 26/Sep/05

If religion wasnt around, where would you get the basic idea of morals?

Obviously you have none. I don't need a stupid book (or set of tablets, take your pick) to tell me not to do things which would adversely affect others. Legal systems can be based on this alone.

You will argue a literal creation and that the earth is only 6000 years

er, i have never once argued for 6000 years old earth, i personally belive that the guesses of it being billions of years old are probably accurate.we don't know how long the "6 days" of god creating everything really took.

ok, this is where i don't understand you at all, Whitewolf

probably because your not specifically talking about me, but generalising to your understanding of christianity.

oops, i must have confused you with eu4ia (he's the young earth believer). My bad.

If religion wasnt around, where would you get the basic idea of morals? Survivle of the fitest? Yer ok, So why dont you go out, mug someone who worked hard for their money and take it all nice and easy like, They are old and frail you are young and strong. If you would like to live in a world without religion I rekon it would be rather barbaric...

I can't say I agree with this - sure, religion often does revolve heavily around 'how you should behave and why' but I don't think positive (or even neutral) interaction with other creatures is necessarily exclusive or original to religious moral standards.

moral is defending how to get reward

so not killing = they can make food to eat

not raping = get to heaven

but theoretically religion is existant from the original creation, so therefore moral is always defined from religion regardless of reality

-gay marriages. marriage was about a contract, not spiritual binding, sex is suppose to be the spiritual binding. therefore i see no reason for gays not to get married.

WhiteWolf, have a read of this (full article):

A commentary by Joan Goosen, British Columbia, Canada

Why should marriage be only between a man and a woman, and how come that definition is being challenged? According to Vancouver Sun (BC) columnist Barbara Yaffe, ‘[m]arriage is a convention entirely dreamed up by human beings. It can be whatever human beings decide it will be.’ Really, and since when?

Only after marriage’s origin has been clarified, can marriage be rightly defined and the current challenge understood.

The meaning of marriage, like anything else, is directly tied to its origin. If God created a literal Adam and Eve at a literal point in history as Genesis records, then marriage was the Creator’s idea, not ours. Quoting Genesis directly, Jesus taught in Matthew 19:4-6 that not only did the Creator in the beginning make them male and female, He also instituted their union—becoming one in marriage.

Echoing the sentiment of many today, columnist Yaffe, when asked why Parliament should preserve a form of religious discrimination in secular law regarding the definition of marriage, said this: ‘Those opposed assert that marriage is a historic and holy institution sanctified by God. But whose God? And whose definition of holy?’ So how did we get from a culture that used to recognize the Creator and His laws, which included the definition of marriage, to one of rejection?

Our culture was formerly based on creation—belief that a Creator made life and, consequently, had the right to define right and wrong. But that’s no longer true. Why not? From the moment they start school, to the time they graduate from university, today’s youth are taught that they have evolved from some nondescript form of primordial slime billions of years ago. They are further taught about millions of years of death and struggle, and about a history of the world which is in direct opposition to that given in the Bible.

At its heart, evolution implies that there is no God, or that any ‘god’ is certainly far removed from the God of the Bible. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker put it this way: ‘Evolution made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ Consequently, by removing the Creator from society’s consciousness, truth ceases to be objective and becomes subjective. Humans—you, me, everyone else—can decide truth for him or herself. Sound familiar?

Genesis creation is not a side issue—it’s the foundation of our Christian faith. The Apostle Paul tells us that creation speaks of a Creator; evolution tells us life evolved by chance. These opposing foundational beliefs of origins will directly or indirectly influence every aspect of society’s thinking and behaving. It’s time for the church to wake up to this fact and expose the false ‘science’ of evolution, for until we do, every Christian doctrine will be challenged, including marriage and its definition.

Rather than a human institution, subject to fickle interpretation, the Divine origin of marriage necessitates that we define it as the Creator did—the union of one man and one woman.

If two people of the same sex want to be recognised as a couple under secular law, go ahead. But don't call it marriage. The very definition of marriage comes from God. And He's quite clear on the subject of homosexuality - it's an abomination.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

Jesus taught when asked about marriage:
"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"
-Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

and

"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"
-Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

To quote this article:

We cannot bend the principles of God's Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians.

Christianity is a package deal. You can't choose bits you like and bits you don't like.

er, i have never once argued for 6000 years old earth, i personally belive that the guesses of it being billions of years old are probably accurate.we don't know how long the "6 days" of god creating everything really took.

You personally believe that the "guesses" are right over the Word of God? We don't know how long 6 days are? Er, how about 6 days? If not, are you saying God with his infinite wisdom is incapable of explaining long amounts of time to us?

so is like ID theory something you can just make up as you go along?

i'm thinking the exams would be pretty easy

You personally believe that the "guesses" are right over the Word of God? We don't know how long 6 days are? Er, how about 6 days? If not, are you saying God with his infinite wisdom is incapable of explaining long amounts of time to us?

but why? if he told us exactly how it was made what difference does it make? all it illistrates is the passage of time.

why would a god with infinant wisdom and strenth need to rest? why can't he just bang it all in at once?

i agree. "homosexualism is an abomination" i didn't say otherwise. however Marriage itself isn't a spiritual binding of man and woman, or a biblical one for that matter. marriage is a contract of law.

Rather than a human institution, subject to fickle interpretation, the Divine origin of marriage necessitates that we define it as the Creator did—the union of one man and one woman

the union of one man and one woman is sex, not marriage. i wish i could find the artical that went into the orrigions of marriage.

Christianity is a package deal. You can't choose bits you like and bits you don't like.

the bible and christianity are open to interpriation, your basically saying that i can't interperate it one way because its not the way that you interperat it? thats bull s***, your simple one minded understanding of the bible and christianity in general isn't the only possibility.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

P.S There is a name for religios zealots who take the word of their books as utter and total truth, they are called "Fundamentalists".
Just look at all the good they have brought to the world *Rolls eyes*.

last edited by Xy at 00:46:23 27/Sep/05

Persay is wrong but entilted to his view. morals don't come from purely religion.

why would a god with infinant wisdom and strenth need to rest? why can't he just bang it all in at once?

Where are you getting this rest thing from? Do not tell me the bible, I want from what verse/chapter/exact location it has come from.

the bible and christianity are open to interpriation, your basically saying that i can't interperate it one way because its not the way that you interperat it? thats bull s***, your simple one minded understanding of the bible and christianity in general isn't the only possibility.

Let me start off by saying that there are different types (more like branches) of Christinaity out there. These branches are infact different ways of interpreting the Bible, and each branch will usually have a different Bible. Now I don't know what Bible you read but what you are doing (from what I can tell anyway) is interpreting something that has already been interpreted. By re-interpreting what has already been interpreted you are effectively diluting your believes, making your argument weaker. In other words you are spouting nonense s*** and you should do us a favour and quite down.

last edited by Yzaerg at 02:08:33 27/Sep/05

my point was why didn't he put it all together in one day, instead of having to stop inbetween days? but NIV Genesis 2:2 "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work"

also. to further my point of the "day lasting 1 day" well. god didn't make the sun until the 4th "day" anyway. so how could the first day be measured? i think the POINT to it is that time passed between different stages of the creation. also remember that the bible is inspired writing, not an accurate representation of exactly what happened. what a person would describe as "a day" might mean a compleatly different thing to them than us reading it.

also. eu4ia, i have a question for you.

why would god let random chance decide if you go to heaven or not? isn't that abit unfair? people make disicions based on there genetic makeup and there experiences in the world. people are how they are brought up and there experiences and who they are. so if they belive in god or not is almost compleatly out of there control isn't it? i mean, you can't just spawn faith out of no where can you? if you could i would be alot happier.

From Blue Letter Bible:

rested [-] Or, rather, ceased, as the Hebrew word is not opposed to weariness, but to action; as the Divine Being can neither know fatigue, nor stand in need of rest.

last edited by Yzaerg at 02:04:55 27/Sep/05

i love how you missed the point compleatly, i'll rephrase it. why did god make the world in 6 "days" why not all in one big pop?

is interpreting something that has already been interpreted. By re-interpreting what has already been interpreted you are effectively diluting your believes, making your argument weaker. In other words you are spouting nonense s*** and you should do us a favour and quite down.

thats right, never question anything thats told to you at church/bible collage/ wherever the f*** you go. because thats the perfect making of a shallow sheep.

Actually Yzaerg, you seem pretty clued up, so could you answer my question?

why would god let random chance decide if you go to heaven or not?

last edited by WhiteWolf at 02:25:09 27/Sep/05

Hmmm got a question.

"But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou."

Do christians ever do overtime on sunday or are they exempt from doing so because of their religion?
Would they go to hell if their boss forced them to?

unless you work for 7 days a week this isn't a problem. just "rest" once a week and apparantly its all good :P

Do christians ever do overtime on sunday or are they exempt from doing so because of their religion?
Would they go to hell if their boss forced them to?

I tried to get out of working on sundays like that when sunday trading first came in. I eventually gave up.

I love the hippy fairness vs fundamentalist argument.

As for the homosexual marriage thing, that's a sticky situation. I have quite a few gay friends. That's their business, not mine and if they want a sheet of paper saying they're married to get some tax benefits, go for it. Most people who oppose homosexuality are just closet homos themselves. If anybody wants to start s*** with one of my gay friends just for being gay, they're gonna have to deal with me too. All people are equal.

why would god let random chance decide if you go to heaven or not? isn't that abit unfair? people make disicions based on there genetic makeup and there experiences in the world. people are how they are brought up and there experiences and who they are. so if they belive in god or not is almost compleatly out of there control isn't it?

Well, i'm glad to hear that there are some theists out there who actually question these sorts of things.

You're absolutely correct, whitewolf, people just worship the gods of their fathers, and are a product of their genetic makeup & upbringing.

This includes you, don't forget. If you had been born to muslim/hindu/scientologist (lol) parents, then you would be a person of a differnt faith right now and by your current beliefs, you would be going to hell.

Stand back from it all, put your faith on the shelf for just a sec. Look at it from a global perspective:

Almost everyone on this earth worships a god of some description. All men claim that their god is the correct one and that all others are false.

Each major faith has a holy book, which uses the exact same circular, self-referential argument for its credibility (X is the one true faith. We know X is the one true faith because god has approved X. We know god has approved X, because X contains statements which say so. We know what X says is true because X is the one true faith).

doesn't it make you think that maybe they're all wrong....we just believe in them becasue if some need within us as humans...

..bugger, i've got more to say, but i've got an all day work conference to go to now. I'll be back tonight, consider this a placeholder





last edited by korbs at 07:05:45 27/Sep/05

Each major faith has a holy book, which uses the exact same circular, self-referential argument for its credibility (X is the one true faith. We know X is the one true faith because god has approved X. We know god has approved X, because X contains statements which say so. We know what X says is true because X is the one true faith).

doesn't it make you think that maybe they're all wrong....we just believe in them becasue if some need within us as humans...

Do you mean the major faiths that are based on a duality of good/evil, hevan/hell?


Also why do they all have to be wrong, why cant they all be right? Sort of like differnt paths to the same end point :/
No point walking part way up one path, turning around and taking another path, you'll take ages to reach the end point, better to stick with just the one path.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html


quote -

"What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions," Lander said. "You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence."

Lander's experiment tested a quirky prediction of evolutionary theory: that a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual's odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species.

The rule proved true not only for mice and chimps, Lander said. A new and still unpublished analysis of the canine genome has found that dogs, whose numbers have historically been greater than those of apes but smaller than for mice, have an intermediate number of harmful mutations -- again, just as evolution predicts.

"Evolution is a way of understanding the world that continues to hold up day after day to scientific tests," Lander said.

--quote

what predictions does ID make?

ID predicts that you will go somewhere bad if you don't believe in what they have to say. =P

why would god let random chance decide if you go to heaven or not?

I dont really understand the question, or were you got the idea that god would let random chance decide your fate.

To enter heaven (or to be rewarded with something) all the major religions require you to achieve some sort of standard or goal. To enter heaven as a Christian you must believe and Jesus Christ plus some other minor things, for a Muslim its a bit more complicated. You must believe in god (Allah) and do other activities such as praying 5 times a day.

Well to answer your question after writing this: God wouldn't let random chance decide ones fate.

the union of one man and one woman is sex, not marriage. i wish i could find the artical that went into the orrigions of marriage.

The idea is that you should be married before having sex.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 (New International Version)
" It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; "

I searched for articles about sex being the union and marriage being a creation of the church – I found this article: Premarital Sex Re-examined which does raise some interesting points supporting your statement. I’d like to find more sources taking this position however.

my point was why didn't he put it all together in one day, instead of having to stop inbetween days? but NIV Genesis 2:2 "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work".

I explained in the other thread why not believing in a literal Genesis undermines the entire Christian faith:

I am aware of old earth creationists and I think their position is untenable. They try to mesh the Bible and evolution together and by doing so negate the primary message of the Christian faith which is that there was no death in the world until the Fall of Man when man sinned. The wages of sin is death. You sin, you go to hell. Jesus came and took our place so that we would be saved from our sins. If Genesis isn't literal truth, then there was no Fall of Man and therefore Jesus accomplished nothing for us. All through the Bible Genesis is referred to by many people including Jesus. By negating a literal Genesis, you negate the entire Christian faith. If God wanted to say each day of creation was millions and millions of years, He could have said "and each day was a very very long time". But He didn't.

As for why He didn’t do it in one day? I’ll quote this article:

Why six days?

God is an infinite being. This means he has infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite wisdom, etc. Obviously, God could make anything he wanted to in no time at all. He could have created the whole universe, the earth, and all it contains in no time at all. Perhaps the question we should be asking is why did God take as long as six days, anyway? After all, six days is a long time for an infinite being to take to make anything! The answer can be found in Exodus 20:11.

Exodus 20 contains the ten commandments. It should be remembered that these commandments were written on stone by the very "Finger of God," for in Exodus we read, "And when he made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, he gave Moses two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). The fourth commandment in verse nine of Chapter 20 tells us that we are to work six days and rested for one. The justification for this is given in verse 11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested the seven day. Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it." This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent (and we must be), whatever is used as the meaning of the word day in Genesis 1 must also be used here. If you are going to say the word day means a long period of time in Genesis, then it has been already shown that the only way this can be is in the sense that the day is an indefinite or indeterminate period of time-not a definite period of time. Thus, the sense of Exodus 20:9-11 would have to be "Six indefinite periods shalt thou labor, and rest a seventh indefinite period"! This, however, makes no sense at all. By accepting the days as ordinary days, we understand that God is telling us that He worked for six ordinary days and rested for one ordinary day to set a pattern for man-the pattern of our 7-day week, which we still have today! In other words, here in Exodus 20 we learn the reason why God took as long as six days to make everything-he was setting a pattern for us to follow, a pattern we still follow today.

Not accepting a literal Genesis means the many other teachings that refer to Genesis must also be incorrect, including many teachings of Jesus.

why would god let random chance decide if you go to heaven or not? isn't that abit unfair? people make disicions based on there genetic makeup and there experiences in the world. people are how they are brought up and there experiences and who they are. so if they belive in god or not is almost compleatly out of there control isn't it? i mean, you can't just spawn faith out of no where can you? if you could i would be alot happier. .

As for people making decisions based on their genetic makeup, I assume you’re referring to homosexuality being genetic? I’ll quote this article:

Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.

As for being brought up in another faith, well we all have the ability to research and reason. I found a letter written by a Muslim who’s worried because he’s not sure which religion is right. It well written and the response answers his concerns quite well. I recommend you read it: Is God Unfair to Those Raised in Other Faiths?

It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about God. All of us are descended from the same bunch of people (Moses' family) and thus if a tribe on some remote island doesn't know about God, then at some point their parents sinned by not teaching their children. It is up to us to spread the word. For someone who is truly ignorant and comes to judgement, I don't believe they will be judged as harshly as those who have heard of God, but have chosen to ignore Him.

Revelation 3:16 (New King James Version)

So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

*edit* Fixed the links.

last edited by eu4ia at 21:08:37 27/Sep/05

It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about God. All of us are descended from the same bunch of people (Moses' family) and thus if a tribe on some remote island doesn't know about God, then at some point their parents sinned by not teaching their children.

That's almost as ridiculous as your 'world is 6000 years old' bulls***. Do you still actually believe that?

Actually if you were to believe religion, we are all descended from Adam & Eve, the first two humans in creation. Not moses family.

Oops, I meant Noah's family. Thinking one thing while typing another never works.

Actually if you were to believe religion, we are all descended from Adam & Eve, the first two humans in creation. Not moses family.

Both statments are correct in the Bible sense.

Adam and Eve were first.
Stuff happend.
World Flooded.
Noah's Family lived.
All humans, and indeed animals, are decendent from the Ark.

So both statements are correct in this sense.

Also, eu4ia Is one of the few with a clue when it comes to their relgion. The Bible states in many places ( I do not know the words to seach for ) that it is the Word of God and that the Word of God should not be questioned.
To argue with the Bible is to argue with the Word of God. To argue with God is to not agree, to not agree is no faith, no faith is sin.

As eu4ia has said, Christianity is a package deal, you cannot pick and choose. To do so is not Christianity but another very similar faith.

That being said, the Bible also says that God will judge all upon death. No human is to judge another, that is God's job.
Which brings me to the question for eu4ia.
Who are you to say that Whitewolf is wrong and you are right, should you not accept his opinion as being his, for you are not without sin also?



last edited by Tollaz0r! at 15:12:48 27/Sep/05

As for people making decisions based on their genetic makeup, I assume you’re referring to homosexuality being genetic?

no.

im talking about people accepting jesus based on previous experience, every choice we make is based on previous experience. and thoes experiences are either in our out of our control. and if it was in our control, then we made the right/wrong choice because of previous experiences before that, and thatprevious experience was either in or out of our control. and if you trace every experience back it will eventually ammount to an experience that was out of there control. Therefor beliving in jesus is litterly compleatly out of our control. why would a just and righous god allow people to go to hell because they where just unlucky?

last edited by WhiteWolf at 15:35:29 27/Sep/05

Who are you to say that Whitewolf is wrong and you are right, should you not accept his opinion as being his, for you are not without sin also?

Interesting question. The reason why I say I'm right is that the idea of each day of creation being longer than a day only came about to try to fit in with evolution. We're changing God's word to fit with man's ideas! It's a compromise of faith. At least an evolutionist has strength of his convictions. A theistic evolutionist has no ground to stand on. Either you are in the camp of evolution or you believe in a literal Genesis.

I was raised as a Christian but then thanks to my love of science I started to side with the idea of the days been ages long. Problem with that thinking is many teachings and lessons in the bible are directly influenced by a literal Genesis. So from doubting Genesis as literal truth, I started to doubt the entire thing. Years later I found out that there are scientists out there that find less evidential problems with a creation in six days than with evolution. I so wish I had been taught about their theories as well! I was lied to in school when told that evolution is fact and is the only reasonable intellectual explanation for our existence. It's not. Evolutionary origin is a fairy tale dreamt up by people desperate to remove God from their lives so that they can live as they wish, answerable to no laws other than our own - which we can redefine when we please.

Here's an article on the need for a literal Genesis: The necessity for believing in six literal days

That is where the Soul is supposed to come in. Somewhere in that dang fangled Bible it says the knowledge of truth is within every man. So by going with that, deep down a person should inheritly know what is right and wrong if thought about long enough.

im talking about people accepting jesus based on previous experience, every choice we make is based on previous experience. and thoes experiences are either in our out of our control. and if it was in our control, then we made the right/wrong choice because of previous experiences before that, and thatprevious experience was either in or out of our control. and if you trace every experience back it will eventually ammount to an experience that was out of there control. Therefor beliving in jesus is litterly compleatly out of our control. why would a just and righous god allow people to go to hell because they where just unlucky?

God gave us free will for a reason. He wants us to come to believe in Him of our own accord. It's not bad luck if you choose not to believe in Jesus - every person makes a decision based on the information they have. If a person decides not to believe in Jesus, they will regret it come Judgement. We are all guilty of sin. Jesus is the only substitute we have when we are called to answer for our sin. Personally, I'm glad He'll step up and take my place because I am far from perfect and would be burning away quite merrily without His salvation.

That is where the Soul is supposed to come in. Somewhere in that dang fangled Bible it says the knowledge of truth is within every man. So by going with that, deep down a person should inheritly know what is right and wrong if thought about long enough.

Sure, but there's also help. If you ask Jesus to enter your life, you will be filled with the Holy Spirit who guides you. It's like a power-up for your conscience. :)

last edited by eu4ia at 15:52:38 27/Sep/05

also. i can't find where, but someone said something about "do not question gods word etc" in my oppinion, the bible isn't 100% gods word, there are still human errors in it (being written by humans) and in that everything can't always be taken litterally, i belive that god has made sure that important stuff is in the bible. but the way that the author describes as days passing might not be what he was thinking or inspired to write.

lets take a litteral look at the bible.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

HOW COULD THERE BE AN EVENING AND A MORNING BEFORE THERE WAS THE SUN?!

HOW COULD THERE BE AN EVENING AND A MORNING BEFORE THERE WAS THE SUN?!

Who says that morning and evening were not around before the sun eh? It could be that the sun and moon are there to show when evening and morning are, not that the sun and moon are evening and morning :/

How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day? and Light, life and the glory of God (from which I'll quote the summary):

The Bible clearly teaches that each Creation Day was an ordinary (approxi­mately 24-hour) day, with a night-day, evening-morning cycle. The fact that the sun was only created on Day 4 does not contradict this, as the sun is not required for such a cycle. What is needed, in addi­tion to a rotating Earth, is directional light. Genesis tells us that light was already there from Day 1. Many other parts of the Bible strongly suggest that it would have been quite in keeping with God’s activity, recorded in many other parts of the Bible, for this light to have emanated supernaturally from God Himself.

Also, with regard to the Bible being written by humans, we believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible can be taken as literal truth. Web sites such as Answers in Genesis are a good resource to answer any questions you have about perceived errors in the Bible.

HOW COULD THERE BE AN EVENING AND A MORNING BEFORE THERE WAS THE SUN?!

metaphor

or a wizard did it

Where do i find jesus to ask him to enter my life then? or does he at least have a silent number i can call him on? I wonder what other power ups he has avaliable.

You aren't going to find him on this forum, so i suggest you leave and start looking elsewhere.

here it is again

Evolutionary origin is a fairy tale dreamt up by people desperate to remove God from their lives so that they can live as they wish, answerable to no laws other than our own - which we can redefine when we please.


the religous people are good and non-religous are lawless and have no morals crap again.

cause i choose science and reason over some type of faith in some type of god, dam lock me up now im out of control (need to kill riseing)

It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about God. All of us are descended from the same bunch of people (Moses' family) and thus if a tribe on some remote island doesn't know about God, then at some point their parents sinned by not teaching their children. It is up to us to spread the word.

There's an Imam, a Rabbi and a monk outside who would like a word with you...

Seriously, a zealot of any other faith would say the exact same thing about their own faith....SO WHAT MAKES YOU RIGHT AND THEM WRONG ??

Because the bible says so ?? ok then, why is it correct and the holy books of other religions wrong ?

There is no inherent 'rightness' of the bible over any other holy book, you just think there is because you have been raised to believe it.

(also, the link to your article about the muslim guy picking a religion is broken)

For someone who is truly ignorant and comes to judgement, I don't believe they will be judged as harshly as those who have heard of God, but have chosen to ignore Him.

you just gave a huge speil about how the entire bible must be taken literally (no questions asked), and here you are with your own interpretation of it. hypocracy wins again.

I'll give some credit to your parents, eu4ia..you are one well-indoctrinated little believer.

Let me start off by saying that there are different types (more like branches) of Christinaity out there. These branches are infact different ways of interpreting the Bible, and each branch will usually have a different Bible. Now I don't know what Bible you read but what you are doing (from what I can tell anyway) is interpreting something that has already been interpreted. By re-interpreting what has already been interpreted you are effectively diluting your believes, making your argument weaker. In other words you are spouting nonense s*** and you should do us a favour and quite down.

The following seems to be reinterpreting to me... (I happen to agree with the statement but my point stands)

From Blue Letter Bible:

rested [-] Or, rather, ceased, as the Hebrew word is not opposed to weariness, but to action; as the Divine Being can neither know fatigue, nor stand in need of rest.

And so about about this for an interpretation of the ORGINAL Hebrew word...

19. YOWM: sunrise to sunset; sunset to sunset; a space of time (defined by an associated term); an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days)

(http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/wordstudies.shtml)

Interesting question. The reason why I say I'm right is that the idea of each day of creation being longer than a day only came about to try to fit in with evolution.

Don't be naive. The idea of each day being longer than a literal day came around (at least in western society) as a result of sceince proving that the universe is some billions of years old. Most old earth creationalists (as far as I am aware) are strongly against evolution.
Evolution and the old earth are two separate theories.

also, the link to your article about the muslim guy picking a religion is broken

Thanks korbs, I fixed the links.

YOWM: sunrise to sunset; sunset to sunset; a space of time (defined by an associated term); an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days)

I'll quote this article:

Most Christians have heard the argument that the word "day" in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the "days" represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.

• The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.
• The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).
• When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.
• There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.
• The "days" in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase "evening and morning" is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word "yom", there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

Here's a more technical article on the subject: The days of creation: a semantic approach.

And as for

you just gave a huge speil about how the entire bible must be taken literally (no questions asked), and here you are with your own interpretation of it. hypocracy wins again.

I said I believe... indicating it's my opinion, not gospel. The point may be covered in the Bible somewhere, but I don't know of it. I'm not a person that knows every inch of the Bible - I'm still studying it.

There's an Imam, a Rabbi and a monk outside who would like a word with you...

Send them in, I'm happy to help them on their way to finding salvation through Jesus Christ.

I'll give some credit to your parents, eu4ia..you are one well-indoctrinated little believer

I'll be sure to pass on your compliments. But note that I haven't blindly accepted this faith. I stepped outside it for years and found the world and my life lacked true meaning. I am old enough that I've lived my own life and not of my parents and while their influence as a child started me on this path, I suspect I would've ended up here regardless.

Seriously, a zealot of any other faith would say the exact same thing about their own faith....SO WHAT MAKES YOU RIGHT AND THEM WRONG ??

This is the same question I ask any door-to-door religion salesmen. I have asked it many, many times. The answer, no matter the faith, bar one (wasnt a door-knocker tho) the answer has been the same. It usually goes along this line:

Because deep down you can feel it, you just know..

So then I ask them again why another man of faith, feeling the same thing is wrong? They almost always answer by using a quote from their Holy Book then leave it at that.

The only exception to this was when I was talking to a Buddhist. I asked him why people of his faith don't go door-to-door 'selling' their religion. He answered by telling me that I would be better off following the faith that I was born with or surrounded by as it is the most appropriate path for someone with my knowledge and experiance. He said to stay true to your religion regardless of what it is, so long as you stick with it and follow the teachings whole heartedly.

I've lived my own life and not of my parents and while their influence as a child started me on this path, I suspect I would've ended up here regardless.

bulllls***.

eu4ia, thought you might be interested in reading this... (view that 24 hour day is the literal meaning yet the earth is still old)

http://www.lordibelieve.org/Days.htm

Cleatus, I've read similar articles before and those arguments don't add up.

A very plausible solution to the dilemma is an interpretive view sometimes known as the Fiat Days interpretation. In this view, the days of Genesis are the divine “calendar” days during which God made the creative pronouncements of His will, not how long it takes for those pronouncements to be finalized

I recommend you read Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory . Symbiosis is a key problem with the theory of a long time between days.

As for the naming of all the animals - there are many articles covering this point. Here's one: How could Adam have named all the animals in a single day?

I'll stop there because there are many articles explaining why saying God used evolution is an illogical and untenable position for a Christian. Why do we need obscure interpretations to explain the Bible? Its meaning can be read by a person of average intelligence. Even secular scholars have published opinions that the author of Genesis intended the account of creation to be taken literally, that it was written as a historical record.

To take Genesis literally is a simple task and the observable evidence around us does not necessarily contradict what we're told when considering creationist theories. Why add complicated theories about what the author of Genesis meant to write? To bring it inline with unproven secular theories? That's saying man's theories are more important than God's word - an untenable position for a religious person.

That buddhist was a smart man Toll.

I feel sorry for the africans who live in remote villages and are starving but go to hell because they have never heard of jesus christ... seems illogical to me. And yes I went to a Christian school during primary and high school, but the brainwashing did not suck me in. Thank GOD (oops what god O_o)

I feel sorry for the africans who live in remote villages and are starving but go to hell because they have never heard of jesus christ... seems illogical to me. And yes I went to a Christian school during primary and high school

Bzzzt, wrong. You have to go back to Christian school cause you wernt paying attention. the bible babbles about how those without knowledge will be judged by God upon death. Presumably based on how 'good' a person they were.


Look guys, if you are going to arguee with people about religious matters, at least have a clue on the religion.

Eu4ia is stomping you all because you keep saying stuff that most people without a clue say. Ask him about obscure things that are hard to answer. Such as why did the Council of Laodicea take it upon themsevles to remove 41 books from the bible in 364 AD. This implies that the Bible almost all people read today is missing large portions of it. An Ethiopian Bible apparently is the oldest Bible currently in existance, and apparently is very differnt to the Bible you see in most places.

Eu4ia, please continue.

In other words, the bible has been butchered by people over and over so who knows what, if any is to believe. It's just as susecptiable to human corruption and change as anything, and it's already been admitted it's been changed over time.
You know, in legal terms we'd call this lack of evidence, or in some cases, inadmissable :)

Pretty blind to say that he's stomping us when the stuff he spiels is still an utter load of s***. Just because something's written in a book doesn't make it true.

Can I apply this logic to Harry Potter, please?

Morons.

I also have to wonder if one of the other pages they removed was the dedication. From an episode of Red Dwarf, season 2:

Good evening. Here is the news on Friday, the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon-dated in Bonne. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.

When I say stomping, I mean that he is providing explanations, links to explanations, not calling people stupid, having a good knowledge of what it is he is arguing and generally arguing in a way that should be done on QGL that we rarly see.

Arguing whether a religion is true or false should never be attempted as it can never be proven in life one way or another.

This debate has gone a long long way from the orriginal purpose of the thread into a realm of endless arguments that cannot be backed up.

One person believes in god and another does not, it should be left at that.

Ahh, hopefully along the way of the endless argument both sides, and the fence sitters, have learnt from both sides of the argument and both sides better for it..

Learning another persons point of view in these arguments never helps and no one ever changes their own opinion in accordance.

Solid proof is the only thing that can change someones mind and sometimes that doesn't even help as a person simply will choose to not believe it is indeed proof.

Simply accepting the differences of another without pushing your own beliefs or lack thereof(sp?) onto them is the only winning outcome of any such discussion.

Of course were this a thread named "Deliberating the truth or falsity of religion" then this argument would be well placed and clearly labelled.
As it stands the thread has gone a long way off topic likely never to return.

props to the red dwarf quote

Bzzzt, wrong. You have to go back to Christian school cause you wernt paying attention. the bible babbles about how those without knowledge will be judged by God upon death. Presumably based on how 'good' a person they were.

BZZT wrong. Not even christian groups can agree on how people are judged to 'enter the kingdom of heaven' so don't go presuming that it would be based on how 'good' someone was... fundamentalist christians would definitely disagee. And other religions such as scientology, mormons & seventh day adventists (just to name a few) all completely disagree that people ignorant of religion would enter heaven at all.

When I say stomping, I mean that he is providing explanations, links to explanations, not calling people stupid, having a good knowledge of what it is he is arguing and generally arguing in a way that should be done on QGL that we rarly see.

Constantly linking to articles on answersingenesis.org is not 'having a good knowledge' nor does it provide explanations. Please go read this beauty...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1112animals.asp
The guy that wrote it can't even do basic math. His arguments are totally subjective & wrong. It's not a good argument to link to bulls***, no matter how well formatted the html may be.

Ahh, hopefully along the way of the endless argument both sides, and the fence sitters, have learnt from both sides of the argument and both sides better for it..

yeh I learnt that for the purpose of me living my life & trying to understand the universe around me, knowing wether evolution or creation is the truth is irrelevant. I also learnt there is a huge group of pseudo-intellectuals that love to argue about currently unprovable theories because they don't have to do any hard work to do so.

from the front page of answeringgenesis:

"Given in the love of our Creator, Jesus Christ"

isn't god supposed to be the creator, and jesus his son?
8-)

yeh I learnt that for the purpose of me living my life & trying to understand the universe around me, knowing wether evolution or creation is the truth is irrelevant. I also learnt there is a huge group of pseudo-intellectuals that love to argue about currently unprovable theories because they don't have to do any hard work to do so.

And we all lived happily everafter.

Point taken.

evinco: some people believe that god, jesus and the holy spirit are all one. those people are GOING TO HELL^$#@!^%#

heh. So do the answeringgenesis crew fall into that category then?

isn't god supposed to be the creator, and jesus his son?

Its not that easy :/. Correct me if I am wrong, You have JC, god and the holy ghost(or spirit?). JC and god are the same thing but different at the same time. So when they say our creator JC, they mean god... and JC. I really dont understand the concept myself but when I asked a Christian (one who was very sceptical of his religion) about the it he picked up two tubs of yogurt that were identical and said "These are the same yet different at the same time".

jc is god incarnate and the spirit lives in side you

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

w00t

Lol, sounds like quantum entanglement.
I just recalled that in my "non denominational" christian (i.e. private school) education there was always a clear distinction between the three entities/beings/forces/whatever

Well the whole idea changes if you ask a different branch of christianity.

I really dont understand the concept myself but when I asked a Christian (one who was very sceptical of his religion) about the it he picked up two tubs of yogurt that were identical and said "These are the same yet different at the same time".

except one tub of yoghurt doesn't give the other as a symbolic sacrifice in ransom for mankind's sin - nor does the other tub, after being subjected to a physical human existence and tortured, ask the first tub why it's forsaken it

at least in my experience, which admittedly, is limited to eating yoghurt as opposed to studying it

Such as why did the Council of Laodicea take it upon themsevles to remove 41 books from the bible in 364 AD. This implies that the Bible almost all people read today is missing large portions of it. An Ethiopian Bible apparently is the oldest Bible currently in existance, and apparently is very differnt to the Bible you see in most places.

The books that were "removed" were never really part of the Bible. They were never considered to be inspired by God and never had widespead support in the Christian community. As far as I know, the Council of Laodicea formalised that position with this:

To gain canonical recognition, a book was expected to pass two basic tests. First, it had to have a history of "continuous and widespread approval amongst Christians" (J. W. Wenham, Christ And The Bible). Second, it was expected to demonstrate that it had either been written by an apostle or specifically approved by the apostles

On the reliability of the Bible, there are many discussions online. Here's one: Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability. I mentioned in the previous thread how the Bible is used today by archaeologists to find ancient towns, etc.

Yes, we've gone off topic a fair bit - I didn't particularly want to rehash everything that was said in the previous thread.

My basic position remains: There is more evidence supporting intelligent design then there is supporting evolution. Please note when I say evolution, I exclude micro-evolution (variations within a kind) - that process is documented and scientific. The statement that everything came from nothing and then higher elements came from fusion and then life started from some goop and then life evolved from one kind of organism to another - all these things are religious statements. Those that loudly declare that these concepts are science and not religion are hypocrites desperately defending their religion. Take the lies out of science. If we can’t observe it and recreate it by experimentation, it is not science. The line between science and religion should be clearly drawn. Currently it is not. We have all been taught a religion disguised as science – and many have been well indoctrinated.

Anyone with clear simple logic will agree – creationism and evolutionism (naturalism) are not science. Neither affects our technological progress, they affect our philosphical and religious world-views.

My basic position remains: There is more evidence supporting intelligent design then there is supporting evolution.

No there isn't. The quantity & quality of the evidence for evolution outweighs the evidence for creationism 1000 to 1. You just dismiss it, because it doesn't clashes with your worldview.

Please note when I say evolution, I exclude micro-evolution (variations within a kind) - that process is documented and scientific.

Macro & Micro evolution are the infact the same thing (read). IDers have just co-opted the term, changed the word 'species' to 'kind' (an ambiguous term, which they redefine as it suits them)

The statement that everything came from nothing and then higher elements came from fusion and then life started from some goop and then life evolved from one kind of organism to another - all these things are religious statements.

They are not religious statements because they do not require faith. This argument is just the reverse of the bulls*** "ID is science" claim. You're saying "evolution is religion" in an attempt to bring the two onto a single level. This is the classic straw man argument and of course, logically incorrect.

Those that loudly declare that these concepts are science and not religion are hypocrites desperately defending their religion. Take the lies out of science. If we can’t observe it and recreate it by experimentation, it is not science.
The line between science and religion should be clearly drawn. Currently it is not. We have all been taught a religion disguised as science – and many have been well indoctrinated.

See above. You also do not seem to understand the definition of science.

Anyone with clear simple logic will agree – creationism and evolutionism (naturalism) are not science. Neither affects our technological progress, they affect our philosphical and religious world-views.

You must be joking...

Anyone with any grounding in logical reasoning can plainly see that your worldview is based on the well known logical fallacy "appeal to consequences of a belief". You back this up with the equally well known fallacies "Appeal to belief", "Appeal to authority", "Circular reasoning/begging the question" (re: legitimacy of the bible) and your statements aboud evolution being a tool to lead people away from god is a classic "poisoning the well" fallacy. And that is just scratching the surface..

You can say that your world view is based on faith, thats fine, but there is no possible way you can say it is logically sound.

For you make the statement above is the ultimate hypocracy.

last edited by korbs at 16:53:57 28/Sep/05

I may side with Korbs and others but damm eu4ia debates rather well.

hay guys wot's going on in this threaz?

I like Yoplait

It's french for mmm.. yum.

I'll quote from that article you mentioned korbs:

However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered.

So, we've proved 'A' so we extrapolate that 'A' can cause 'B' and even though we have no proof of this, we must accept it as science? Furthermore, because scientists claim 'B' is possible if anyone disagrees, they must prove it's not possible? Give me a break. That's shifting the burden of proof. It's impossible to prove something does not exist.

When looking at how complex life is, there is overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Biologists have been quoted as saying that they have to continually remind themselves that life is not created by an intelligent designer because that's how it appears to be. Now let's think about that. Something looks like it's intelligently designed, but because we believe it came about by itself what we're seeing must be wrong. Right. Life looks like it's intelligently designed. Well gee, I say maybe out natural conclusion is correct!

I may side with Korbs and others but damm eu4ia debates rather well.

Thanks A_W. I reckon these discussions are good, because hopefully it gets people thinking rather than blindly accepting what we're told.

1. Cosmic evolution states: Nothing exploded and created everything.
2. Chemical evolutions states: Hydrogen (and some helium) was created in the big bang. When stars formed and then exploded the higher chemicals were created by fusion.
3. Stellar evolution states: Stars form under gravity and under massive gravity fusion begins.
4. Organic Evolution (Origin of life) states: the first self replicating organism randomly formed from amino acids in some goop.
5. That first self replicating life form evolved into more complex life forms through mutations and ultimately we came to be.

All these things are packaged along with evolution. Let's look at them:

1. Complete fairy tale. The big bang theory has massive problems, the first being Conservation of Angular Momentum. If that infinitesimal dot was spinning extremely fast when it exploded (as we’re told), all things would be spinning in the same direction in a frictionless environment. Guess what? They're not. Planets, moons and even galaxies are spinning in different directions.
2. Not one star has been seen to form. We see lights getting brighter in nebulae, but what if dust is merely clearing in front of it?
3. You can't get past iron with fusion. Where did the other heavier elements come from?
4. The mathematical probability of even the smallest amino acid forming within the timeframe allotted is so low as to be impossible. Not unlikely, mathematicians rate it as impossible. Never mind needing to get that amino acid to meet up with another one that also happened to beat all odds and existed at the same time and same place.
5. Mutations have been shown in every instance to involve a loss of information, no matter how beneficial that mutation may be. If mutations were the driving force of our existence we would see multitudes of them. We don't. All "missing link" examples have been shown to be mistakes or fabrications.

Finally we come to 6. Micro evolution (variations within a kind). Yes, if you breed a dog with a different dog, you’ll get a new type of dog. But it’s still a dog. You can’t breed a dog with a flower and get something. Everyone is happy with this type of evolution. The different species have evolved from a common ancestor. We see many examples of this. As I’ve mentioned, to say that because 6 is possible 5 must also be possible is downright illogical. People supporting this have to prove it. So far they haven’t and they've been trying for 200 years.

I know I’ve mentioned this before in that other thread and I almost don’t want to post this – I’ll stop repeating myself right now: if you want to cover topics we've already hased to death, refer to the other thread. Here it is for those who missed it.

Anyone with any grounding in logical reasoning can plainly see that your worldview is…

korbs, the argument is not about our respective worldviews. The heart of the argument is that scientists claim their worldview is science when it’s not. I don’t like it that kids are being lied to in science. It’s not right. My statement stands: Evolution (or naturalism) and creationism have no place in science. If they need to be mentioned, they should both be given equal validity as possible worldviews that could be further investigated through scientific means to determine their accuracy, but that neither can be proved as they fall outside the realms of science.

last edited by eu4ia at 18:56:56 28/Sep/05

I like Yoplait

Isn't that French for Yoghurt?

:P

My statement stands: Evolution (or naturalism) and creationism have no place in science.

That would mean ID has no place in science either then. As it is just creationisim rebadged in a more trendy smarter name. ID is Cnm. period.

So if evolution and ID have no place in science, why do we even have these debates??

How else would we fill 115 posts on QGL?

Hot or Not threads

eu4ia your a crackpot and psycho its either french for yogurt ot french for yum or maybe its french for yummy yogurt.

http://www.petitmiam.com.au

Yoplait Petit Miam is French for "Yum"

End debate

lol @ religious thread # 87 on qgl

That would mean ID has no place in science either then. As it is just creationisim rebadged in a more trendy smarter name. ID is Cnm. period.

So if evolution and ID have no place in science, why do we even have these debates??

Good question. The thing is, biologists observe evidence of intelligent design. So remove God from the debate and let's investigate how much evidence points to an intelligent designer. Such investigations would be scientific. If everything - as we now can observe it at a cellular level - does indeed point to an intelligent designer, well then the next question is who is the designer? At that stage I'll casually raise my hand and say "maybe I can help out on that point". :)

As humans we are interested in how we got here, and why are we here. These are fundamental questions we all have. We can use science to help us find answers, but ultimately science can only do so much. We can't prove origin theories because we can't observe it (we weren't here to see it) and we can't recreate it (because we'd need to recreate the entire universe in an environment that wasn't already governed by the laws of physics that are in this universe. And that's when we have to turn to faith.

On the reliability of the Bible, there are many discussions online. Here's one: Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability. I mentioned in the previous thread how the Bible is used today by archaeologists to find ancient towns, etc.

I'd just like to point out that we have gotten accurate information about ancient towns though other religious documents. Just because your religious document also does, doesn't make it a fact.

Still peddling those verbose lies eu4ia? I must say Hovind is doing you no favors.

Do you know what the R,S & P Processes are?

Hurrah, Rommel's back to lay some smack down :P

I'd just like to point out that we have gotten accurate information about ancient towns though other religious documents. Just because your religious document also does, doesn't make it a fact.

I wasn't implying that it proves the Bible is true. But it does validate that its accuracy has not suffered through centuries of reproduction.

I must say Hovind is doing you no favors.

Do you know what the R,S & P Processes are?

On the contrary, he's pointed me in the direction of new topics to investigate. Just because I hear a new idea via a creationist source doesn't mean I don't research it further. I'm very interested to learn.

I know of the slow- and rapid-processes. What's the p-process? I know that within nova and supernova it is hypothesised that heavier elements can be formed (by slowly or rapidly capturing neutrons), but as far as I know it is not proven. People are looking for examples of these processes occurring, but none have been found.

last edited by eu4ia at 20:32:36 28/Sep/05

Here's a link i thought might interest you eu4ia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050927/wl_csm/obiblexx_1

Interesting. All in all, I don't have a problem with it as an introduction to the concepts of Christianity. It's like a Teach Yourself C++ in 24 Hours book. The next book you buy is a complete C++ reference.

So if it leads more people to the Bible, then great. As for the guy from Ekklesia who commented:

"An example of where it can go wrong is in saying, 'God created the world in six days,' as if the whole story of Genesis was some literal statement," he says. "This could merely feed those who see the Bible as an oracle and don't see the poetry and parable there." (Emphasis my own)

Lol, this guy's "think tank" needs to stop trying to dream up obscure explanations of Genesis and read it like it was intended to be read - as literal history. I've read examples where they use certain verses (taken literally) to explain why other verses should not be taken literally. They've thought themselves to no where using flawed logic.

dam chirstains are stubborn fools.them and telemarketers ,NO im not buyin it.
i think the bible is as useful as the stairmaster. and how many fools brought that.