If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Artbell.com)   Man offers $250,000 if you can prove evolution.   (drdino.com) divider line 414
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

4871 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2002 at 12:46 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



414 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-03-01 11:54:10 AM
I have nothing at all to say about this, but my friends would like to mention a few things:


"The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it." -Robert Green Ingersoll

"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those Ido understand." -Mark Twain

"Belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

"At the core of all well foundedbelief, lies belief that is unfounded." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Theory: when you have ideas.Ideology: when ideas have you." -Anonymous

"Ignorance is the soil in whichbelief in miracles grows." -Robert Green Ingersoll

"Irrationally held truths may bemore harmful than reasoned errors." -Thomas Henry Huxley
 
2002-03-01 11:59:21 AM
XYNHR
If you want to take the entire universe into account, you can. You can still make the math work. But there's no good reason to do it. The point I originally wanted to make wasn't that geocentric is better than heliocentric (I can't think of a single reason why), but that we shouldn't dismiss Jer's claim without valid reasoning. Similarly, we shouldn't dismiss creatiionist's arguments against evolution without understanding of why those arguments are false.
 
2002-03-01 12:00:34 PM
I grow tired of people who can't distinguish the two very seperate ideas of biological evolution and the big bang theory of universe creation. Just because they both reflect ideas that go against tradtitional Christian thought does not mean that they are the same idea.
 
2002-03-01 12:04:38 PM
BornAgainPagan

You DO need to faith to justify Creationism as there is no evidence to support it at all.

Actually there is evidence. Obviously you dont accept the evidence, but you are not the final authority on the validity of evidence.

Now, you can make a case that you need faith to believe that the current form of the theory of Evolution is 100% correct and unalterable. But, then again, that is stupid and no scientist thinks that.

If you are not sure about part of it, how can you be sure about any of it? The part you are wrong about could be the thread that unravels the whole mess.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. ~ Albert Einstein
 
2002-03-01 12:07:21 PM
This discussion is a WASTE OF TIME.

Science vs. dogma...neither can be 100% proven or disproven to meet an individual's arbitrary criteria.
 
2002-03-01 12:08:54 PM
Soupgoblin

"Belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

"At the core of all well foundedbelief, lies belief that is unfounded." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Theory: when you have ideas.Ideology: when ideas have you." -Anonymous

"Irrationally held truths may bemore harmful than reasoned errors." -Thomas Henry Huxley


These quotes apply wonderfully to many of the evolution adherrents on this thread.
 
2002-03-01 12:09:08 PM
Medicineman,
as to your thousands of years of belief in god...

we also thought the world was flat for countless ages. science used data to suggest that it was not, fought for a long time to make it accepted, and lo and behold, one day we flew up there and looked back, and there was this spinning globe...

Or are you still living on a flat earth?

Christianity had it's uses and it's day in the sun. It's outmoded and useless now that we can figure out the real world for ourselves with our centuries of improved technology and skills at information gathering and analysis. Time to let christianity go the way of the dinosaur and the flat earth.
 
2002-03-01 12:11:12 PM
Lets get back on topic.
There is a lot of talk in this thread about creationist. Creation is just one "theory", evolution another, giant spiders(?) still another, and who knows how many more. What this man is really asking for should have nothing to do with the "competing" theories, and should concentate on proving evolution. I don't believe it can be proved, because it didn't happen. I do not say this in favor of any of the other competing theories, especially the spider one. I simply do not understand how a resonable person can come to the conclusion that something as extremly complex as a eyeball could have evolved randomly, and at the same time randomly developing the mental capacity to interpet the information the eye is sending. This IS what the evolution theory has concluded! How anyone can seriously and objectivly come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Got a meeting, be back later.
TS
 
2002-03-01 12:15:57 PM
God created man of clay,
The scriptures say:
And thus, if he drinks all day
How can he fail to melt away?
Vespasian Kochowski (1633-1700)
 
2002-03-01 12:19:40 PM
Some one offer that man $100,000,000 to prove that evolution never occured so he can shut up.
 
2002-03-01 12:30:32 PM
This guy has been challenged, and every point he presented has been sucessfully refuted, and he has still refused to pay up. The simple fact of the matter is that if you believe in an omnipotent omniscient God, he could have either allowed evolution to occur as we've observed, or he could have created the universe in such a way such that it appears that evolution occurred.
 
2002-03-01 12:35:42 PM
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
2002-03-01 12:39:54 PM
...you know, the very second somebody makes a personal attack ANYTHING (i.e. an Evolutionist saying Christianity is a myth, a Christian saying Evolution is a communist fabrication) then their contributions to this thread mean absolutely nothing. In essence, nothing of any importance has been said in this thread.

Stop using stupid, pre-fabricated arguments. That goes for both the Christians and the Evolutionists. So because some wacko, overzealous Christian goes crazy and blows some dude's head off with a shotgun, that automatically makes Christianity a myth and utterly discredits all scientific research and philosophy in that area? But the same doesn't apply when some Evolutionists that take their theory as their god try to instate their own "Natural" selection by killing off the 'inferior'? Both sides have messed up, so that argument is simply making an attack and has no holding against either side. Yes, Christianity says specifically not to murder (unjustified killing. Killing is OK in defense of life or property) but just because a majority of Christians are off on their belief does not discredit the theory in itself.

Gravity hasn't been proven, but name a major interest that disputes the existence of gravity. What, you say? Gravity is wholly accepted as the best-fitting theory by almost everybody, and no major interests jive with it? Why, yes. That's what makes proving gravity different than Evolution. Christianity, as long as you don't purposefully interpret it to fit what you want to say, clearly defines divine action as that which caused creation, and to apply Evolution to it requires so much fudging of details on either side that you have to break off of both and define it as it's own seperate belief.

There's evidence both for and against both theories. But if you want to say "Christianity is a myth! All proof for it has been proven false, and so-and-so wrote a book about it, and EVEN has a website about it, and if you have half-a-brain and aren't some idiotic fundie, you'll clearly see the farce of Christian dogma" then you better get some facts to back it up. Some documented files, maybe some pictures would be nice. This applies to the Christians, too. If you're going to quote a Christian site, make sure that they're scientific in nature and try to display the Christian view without bias or transparent theories. Don't say "God exists in nature, there is order" because that's not good proof. That's simply an observation, and could even be used as evidence for Evolution. And the Evolutionists, just because the carbon dating system says the bones are 3 billion years old does not completely prove Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So my ridiculously long message to both sides is, think things out, don't take personal attacks, try to LEARN something from the other person's point of view, and be respectful. Who knows? It might be less fun than witlessly bashing the other side, but any great person knows the importance of being able to find knowledge everywhere, EVEN in opposing point of views. and how to correctly apply it.

By the way, people with enlarged hearts and lungs in the Andes haven't evolved, they just all bred to share a common gene. They didn't evolve a new organ, evolution did not happen at all. It was just natural selection, and until they have a 5-chambered heart or wings or anything that would cause them to be greatly differed from another human, I'll simply rule that as a case of natural selection and wish them happy lives and deep breathing.
 
2002-03-01 12:46:45 PM
it seems as if this guy has a problem with science and not macroevolution. he goes on about geology(earths age), astronomy(big bang-i assume), and everytihng else. It seems as if he is just another person misinformed about macroevolution. Also, science doesnt even actually prove anything, it only disproves things, so it is impossible to prove macro evolution occurs. This guy is a nutcase, its funny how people can just throw science to the wind, and theory doesnt mean something that might or might not be, its not a hunch or a guess to explain something. A theory is something that stands the test of time, and anyone that has done research into it, says that it is true. Those who believe in creationism stronlgy, are mainly people that take everything literally in the bible. He's probably a member of the flat earth society as well since the bible says that the angles will be at the four corners of the earth, or something like that, i dont know my bible quotes sorry. ANyways, this is all stupid, and its nice to see that rich men are content with being so ignorant in their ways that they are willing to offer others money so that they can seem right. also, sorry if all this was said before, i didnt feel like reading it all.
 
2002-03-01 12:46:50 PM
NaTaX

This is not only untrue, but obviously untrue, and current high school curriculum would explain why this is so if they had paid attention. Evolutionary theory was created out of observation and study of living things of all types and the behaviors of specific organisms, some of the information was also added from fossil remains, but this information is most often used to make guesses about life form placement into the already established idea of evolution, not to prove it.

Creationism is also based on the physical evidence.

Interestingly enough, at 3 different high schools that I attended, and 2 jr/middle schools this was explained clearly.

Several creationist have PhD's. At least one from Harvard:
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/wise.html
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2001/11/20/chapman/index.html
Do you suppose there is a chance he knows more about science than your middle school teacher?

If you argue that evolution, being an educated guess, shouldn't be taught as fact, then we need to stop teaching gravity, friction, much of physics, chemistry and biology. We'll have to stop nutrition courses as well as health classes.

This is just silly. Evolution is a myth. If you want to teach mythology, fine, but creationism should be taught as well.

The fact that religious mythology is at odds with some of the best information we've been able to compile shows 2 things:

1) the existence of scientific folks who accept both and find them compatible shows they don't necessarily negate each other in a scientific mind.

2) perhaps the science is wrong.
 
2002-03-01 12:52:34 PM
"Gravity hasn't been proven, but name a major interest that disputes the existence of gravity. What, you say? Gravity is wholly accepted as the best-fitting theory by almost everybody, and no major interests jive with it? Why, yes. That's what makes proving gravity different than Evolution."

The validity of scientific theories isn't based on how many religious people complain about it.

"There's evidence both for and against both theories."

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

"By the way, people with enlarged hearts and lungs in the Andes haven't evolved, they just all bred to share a common gene."

Mutation, selection, evolution.

"They didn't evolve a new organ, evolution did not happen at all. It was just natural selection, and until they have a 5-chambered heart or wings or anything that would cause them to be greatly differed from another human"

Of course they didn't. If they had, they'd be branded freaks by shallow human culture and would never breed and their new genes would die.
Current human evolution is very limited. There is hardly any selection anymore. We don't have to fight other animals to stay alive. Anyone born with a given defect will still -most likely- live because of modern medicine.
 
2002-03-01 12:54:30 PM
"I simply do not understand how a resonable person can come to the conclusion that something as extremly complex as a eyeball could have evolved randomly, and at the same time randomly developing the mental capacity to interpet the information the eye is sending. This IS what the evolution theory has concluded! How anyone can seriously and objectivly come to that conclusion is beyond me".
Ah. The so-called "intelligent design" theory rears it's goofy head. You're right Tyee. Of course. It makes much more sense that some big invisible bearded white guy in the sky designed the eyeball and brain and everything else in the world for that matter. And all in 6 days! (He rested for NFL games on Sunday). Um, how serious and objective is that?
 
2002-03-01 01:01:16 PM
Do they not teach creationism in church? Why should an education facility teach something that should already be known through the church?

Brevets you missed a couple (probably cause you turned that good ole' christian blind eye towards 'em)

"The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it." -Robert Green Ingersoll

"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." -Mark Twain

"Ignorance is the soil in whichbelief in miracles grows." -Robert Green Ingersoll
 
2002-03-01 01:12:35 PM
Welstradamus, I didn't say the validity is determined upon whether or not people agree with it. What I mean was, that there are so many people that disagree with it, and lots of valid evidence to back them up, that they should either teach both Creationism and Evolution, or neither. As far as teaching every religious system's belief on creation, if they create a strong enough demand, then yes, I believe they should have that as part of the education.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory? It's one as much as Evolution is, and if you have some strange bias against Creation that you don't want to grant it status as a theory, then you don't really understand the concept of science.

The people in the Andes would eventually have normal lungs and a heart if they were put back into a normal place. The fact is, millions of years passed, unless they all died in some horrific accident they'd probably all still be people with big lungs and hearts.
 
2002-03-01 01:18:43 PM
"As far as teaching every religious system's belief on creation, if they create a strong enough demand, then yes, I believe they should have that as part of the education."

It's not supposed to be based on demand. Public schools, a govt institution, cannot cater to a specific religion as it would if it promoted Creationism (fundamentalist Christianity) over Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.

"Creationism isn't a scientific theory?"

Creationism does not have the status of scientific theory.

"It's one as much as Evolution is, and if you have some strange bias against Creation that you don't want to grant it status as a theory,"

It has nothing to do with bias. Creationism is no more a scientific theory battling the Theory of Evolution than Storkism is a scientific theory battling our ideas of sexuality and reproduction.

"then you don't really understand the concept of science."

Here's an idea in science: once a hypothesis is proved wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't get to come back 125 years later with a new name.
 
2002-03-01 01:19:53 PM
So you say Creationism was proved wrong, then. I'd like to see your quarter-million-dollar proof.
 
2002-03-01 01:20:09 PM
NaTaX: beatifully said. That goes up on my refrigerator.

I didn't read through all those idiotic posts defending the idea that the sun somehow revolves around the earth, but did anyone take into account the fact that the sun is large enough to hold a million earths, and that, according to everything we've observed about gravity, there is no way an object so massive could/would orbit something so insignificant?
 
2002-03-01 01:21:49 PM
On the Storkism note, births have been documented and recorded, millions of them. Evolution hasn't.
 
2002-03-01 01:25:21 PM
Bisi. - Do you really think that the Earth is 3-4000 years old? Because you have to accept this if you believe in creationism. Talk about not understanding the concept of science.
btw - I've been to the Andes. The folks there have adapted to live with less oxygen. But you said it. Natural selection. Wasn't that part of Darwin's theory?
The more complex the organism, the longer the evolutionary process.
What about microorganisms? Look at how quickly they become immune to antibiotics. How do you explain this?
 
2002-03-01 01:29:37 PM
Soupgoblin

"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." -Mark Twain

Do you suppose he could have been referring to these:

Jeremiah 17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Revelation 20.15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
 
2002-03-01 01:30:40 PM
Bevets - That's just it, Scientist don't belief in any scientific principle with 100% certainty. The beauty of science is that every hypothesis, no matter how right or wrong, eventually helps us design better and more correct hypotheses and so on and so forth. Science never stops, it continues and continues. If Evolution were to be proven wrong and replaced by some other scientific theory, science would readily except that new theory.

In contrast, fundamentalists refuse to even consider other points of view. I have considered creationism and discovered that the overwhelming amount of data supports evolution.

Only two religions support science. Deism and Buddhism. The Dalai Llama has publicly acknowledged an many occasions the value of science and the fact that, if science were to prove his beliefs wrong, he would accept that they were wrong and adjust them accordingly.
 
2002-03-01 01:33:16 PM
I simply do not understand how a resonable person can come to the conclusion that something as extremly complex as a eyeball could have evolved randomly, and at the same time randomly developing the mental capacity to interpet the information the eye is sending. This IS what the evolution theory has concluded! How anyone can seriously and objectivly come to that conclusion is beyond me.

It makes perfect sense to anyone whose idea of evolution isn't built on comic-book images of radiation-addled people sprouting antennae or wings.

Eyesight evolved gradually, from a few simple photosensitive cells that enabled primitive organisms to detect sunlight (important for most living things), to gradually more complex mechanisms that could discern different wavelengths (colors), depth, U/V rays etc., depending on the demands of the being's environment and the challenges it posed for eating, reproducing, and staying alive long enough to continue eating and reproducing.
 
jre
2002-03-01 01:34:03 PM
Bisifiniti
On the Storkism note, births have been documented and recorded, millions of them. Evolution hasn't.

We were talking about storks. We didn't solicit impersonations of an ostrich.
 
2002-03-01 01:34:11 PM
Hey, I found a passage allowing abortion in the Bible! Hosea 13:16!

...their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.


And here's another one, maybe God is an evolutionist!

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Hosea 4:6
 
2002-03-01 01:34:14 PM
Tyee
I simply do not understand how a resonable person can come to the conclusion that something as extremly complex as a eyeball could have evolved randomly, and at the same time randomly developing the mental capacity to interpet the information the eye is sending. This IS what the evolution theory has concluded! How anyone can seriously and objectivly come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Tyee:
First of all, the theory of evolution does not suggest that whole organs don't arise spontaneously and randomly!

Over very long periods, of time, miniscule random changes occur, which if successful are handed down to successive generations. (Sometimes this happens more quickly, like the classic example of dark-colored moths that "spontaneously" appeared in the 19th century when the light-colored trees that their light-colored forebears blended into became darkened with soot from coal ovens.)

The fallacy of a "brittle" organ like the eyeball arising spontaneously is frequently held up by Creationists as an example of the impossibility of evolution. The idea appeals to me, because I came up with it on my own at about 13 years of age, challenging my father and 8th grade Biology teacher with my discovery of a hole in Darwin's logic. Further study, the exposure to the thinking of bright minds, and simple facts and logic have shown me how the example I cited, and which you now site, is misleading in its oversimplification of evolutionary theory.

Eyeballs don't just spotaneously appear from one generation to the next. A simple structure first appears in a simple creature like a planarian, which possesses a pair of eyespots that do not image objects, but which sense light. Gradually, through minute genetic mutations that demonstrably occur when DNA is copied, creatures manifest tiny changes in their phenotypes. Some of these changes are advantageous -- most are not. Those that are harmful will most likely not be passed on (at least not for long). Those that prove advantageous in terms of the creature's being able to meet its biological goal of reproducing fertile offspring which can themselves produce fertile offspring, ad infinitum, will be passed on to future generations. Something like an eye takes millions or billions of such changes to come about. A fish eye and fish brain are much simpler than a human eye or brain, yet infinitely more comlex than the planarian's. Many mollusks have eyes whose complexity and sophistication lies somewhere between the planarian's and the fish's. The point is that there are fully functioning intermediate stages of an organ like an eye. It's not simply an eye-vs-no-eye debate. Creationsists frequently suggest that the eye is useless unless fully formed, the opinion which I "discovered" on my own in 8th grade. I hope the examples I have shown will demonstrate that this is not the case.

The biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term "brittle" for an organ or trait or structure that, like an architectural arch, must be whole and perfect if it is to work at all. The eye is frequently held up as a "brittle" organ, but Dawkins and others have shown that it is not -- as I hope I have done, briefly, above. In fact, Dawkins has been unable to find a single biological trait that is in fact "brittle". I don't have $250,000 to offer, but if you think you have found a "brittle" biological trait please let me know -- I'd be very interested, and if you prove correct, you can become very, very famous.

Please let me know if you find any factual or logical errors in this description, or if anything doesn't make sense. I'd be happy to clarify, elaborate, or make corrections as needed.

Thanks.
 
2002-03-01 01:36:06 PM
Sorry, the first line in my last post should have read:

First of all, the theory of evolution does not suggest that whole organs arise spontaneously and randomly!
 
2002-03-01 01:37:14 PM
Interesting side not, among all industrialized nations, America is the only one backwards enough to even be having this argument. We are the laughing stock of Europe.
 
2002-03-01 01:37:19 PM
Bevets - "Revelation 20.15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire".
They were thrown into Lake Erie?
 
2002-03-01 01:38:03 PM
Go get a mirror... I'll wait.

Look into it. See yourself?

Now look at a chimpanzee? See the similarities?

Humans are monkeys. Get over it.

Where's my fugging money?
 
jre
2002-03-01 01:39:48 PM
BornAgainPagan: Check out Numbers 5:11-28. Also read Job 33:4 carefully - it says God makes people, but it is breath that gives life.
 
2002-03-01 01:40:19 PM
Yosarian: Antibiotics aren't natural selection. Antibiotics weren't around 3 billion years ago. The antibotics now, yes, they do cause natural selection as only the ones immune adapt. But the organisms are still the same organisms, and this artificial catalyst simply sped up the death of those without the trait. However, the bacteria immune to the antibiotics simply reproduce and die, and then you have a strain of bacteria that is just a strain of bacteria immune to antibiotics, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't mean they'll turn into a jellyfish.

Creationists also have the Long-Earth theory, which is essentially Creation in a 6 billion year timeframe.

Natural selection is observable and has been proven, yes, but that being part of Darwin's theory does not mean anything against Creationism. I'm sure Darwin factored oxygen into his theory, but that doesn't mean oxygen contradicts Creationism.
 
2002-03-01 01:41:24 PM
Settle down, Bevets.

Actually, I like this bible verse. It's Jesus talkin' to his posse.
Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

So is THIS God's kingdom? Golly, he's more incompetent than I thought.
 
2002-03-01 01:41:59 PM
Here's proof. I'll take my reward in small bills!


 
2002-03-01 01:45:26 PM
El Bulbil Emir: Explain the crossover from asexual binary fission to sexual reproduction. Planarians don't count, as they only asexually reproduce when cut in half (as far as I know, if I'm wrong here, tell me).
 
2002-03-01 01:46:47 PM
Does anyone else think that Bevets routinely blows his load on his favorite bible passages and then whips himself in order to repent?
 
2002-03-01 01:47:27 PM
A_cure_for_gravity, yanno in Revelation where John's on Patmos and sees Heaven? I think they're the same John. Don't remember, really. But if they are, then booyeah.
 
2002-03-01 01:50:04 PM
No one has disproven Creationism because no one has put forth a theory of Creationism yet.
 
2002-03-01 01:51:13 PM
It's a little off topic, but I just have to post a copy of the "open letter to Dr. Laura" that's been circulating for the last couple years -- even if you've ssen it before, read it again, and doublecheck the citations in the bible -- I've gone ahead and added links. It is just too funny.



Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
 
2002-03-01 01:52:55 PM
Bevets,
Knowing already that you are either the clever troll or the brainwashed fundy, I'd still like to see physical evidence that god blinked the world into existence. I'd also like to see evidence that it has done anything at all, so if you know of some irrefutable piece of evidence that proves it, please let me know.

The reference to my previous teachers was to explain that evolution isn't taught in schools as the end all be all absolute truth that creationism is taught as in church. It's shown as a compilation of data resulting in a best guess, just like all of science. Besides which, the presence of a PhD doesn't necessarily mean anything. I got a book during pre-cana classes while prepping to marry a catholic, it was chock full of phd's and such, but they were still pushing false information in the form of direct deception. These people also represent the fringe of educated thaught. If 99 mathematicians come to agreement on a problem and one doesn't, will you support that one?

Now, go back to your regularly scheduled trolling or brainwashed rantings. I do truly feel sorrow to wonder at what kind of sick people twisted your mind up. You are an example of exactly why religion is so dangerous. If the bible told you the sky was green and gravity pulled you left you'd argue it. It's just very very distressing to see what can happen to a human mind.


Bisifinity,
I see, so you support descrimination based on religion. Ah, that's great. Now we see where you are truly coming from, attempting to push your religion on everyone else in our country because you are in the majority.
You also just illustrated evolution in your comment about the Andes folks. If they were brought down to sea level and lived for thousands of years, they COULD lose the larger lung capacity and hear size, much like you and I and everyone posting here has an appendix that is on it's way out of our evolution. Other things do or don't disappear based on need or use. Creationism is not based on science, so it is not a scientific theory. It can be called a religious theory if you like, but either way, not sense of scientific information gathering was used to come up with it, just some mystic in the dessert trying to come up with a way to keep his family from eating pig, cause pig was dangerous.
If you want to attempt a demand of proof battle, you lie at the providing end. Every bit of scientific thought and exploration has led us to the major theories we now use in our education and research. That includes evolution. The sum of human scientific work heads this way, towards progress. If you want to try to derail it, you'll need to come up with the evidence of your god guy starting it all. If it's so crucial that everyone be schooled to believe it, why doesn't he just stop by and let us know? I doubt anyone would fight it if this god guy showed his face and said "hey ya'll, I'd prefer it if you taught creationism".
 
2002-03-01 01:54:45 PM
BornAgainPagan
Interesting side not, among all industrialized nations, America is the only one backwards enough to even be having this argument. We are the laughing stock of Europe.

True. It is very sad. You know, as far as I know, Jews, even Orthodox Jews, do not seem to generally object to the teaching of evolution in the schools. Nor do the Catholics, generally. It's the more rural Fundamentalist Christians who raise all the stink.

Anyone have any idea whay this is, or care to correct me if I'm wrong?

Thanks.
 
2002-03-01 01:55:35 PM
All of the religious folks that I've had this conversation with placed the creation of Earth at around 3000 years ago. How do you account for hundreds of millions of years of dinosaurs? I had one person tell me that fossil dinosaur remains are just old bones placed there as sort of a practical joke by God. Uh huh.
Microorganisms have been observed mutating and evolving in one life cycle. Ebola for example. It went from bloodborne to airborne in one generation. Besides being a scary development, it defies explanation. Did God make the Ebola virus do this in order to smite some evil lab workers?
 
2002-03-01 01:56:56 PM
The Pope is actually fairly progressive... He has repeatedly given concessions to science and is a good friend of the Dalai Llama and certainly doesn't think that Buddhists go to hell.
 
jre
2002-03-01 01:57:02 PM
Soupgoblin
"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." -Mark Twain

Bevets
Do you suppose he could have been referring to these:
Jeremiah 17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Revelation 20.15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire


No, I think Mark Twain may have been referring to these:

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Oooh, Moses likes 'em young, doesn't he?

Matt 10:34-35
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Gasp, how could the Prince of Peace have said such a thing?! Even encouraging a breaking of a commandment along the way.

Well, his denial-of-peace-and-bringing-of-war-in-his-name prophecy has proven to be his only accurate one so far.
 
2002-03-01 01:59:55 PM
The evolutionary theory is not a "belief" or a "faith". The study of evolution is the relaying of scientific findings and logical inferences made thereof. There is no absolute truth pushed on anyone here, the theory is constantly, shall I say, evolving as scientists discover new evidence.

Religion is a belief, founded on inarguable absolute truths. There is NO evidence, only faith. Which means, what I say is true because I say it is so. This is a pretty convenient way for someone to control the masses to obtain wealth and power.

I wonder how Greeks and Romans felt about their religion, something that we call mythology today. I'm sure they would laugh at evolution too and wonder why Zeus hasn't fried our asses with thunderbolts yet.
 
2002-03-01 02:01:59 PM
Heh, the Greco-Roman religion is infinitely cooler than modern ones.
 
Displayed 50 of 414 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report