Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 201 to 240 of 267

Thread: Darwinism vs creationism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    ur going off the deep end now TR IMO. im trying to think of a circumstance that would require me to kill for my faith. i cant think of one. exodus 20:13 - "13 “You shall not murder."

    since when did i say i was willing to fight til the death over my faith? since when does the average christian say such a thing? i cant think of one circumstance. im sure u can pull something off the internet to back up ur claim but these episodes are few and far between and the concept goes against christian theology, the teachings of Jesus and the bible.

    one difference between u and i is u are willing to consider science or whatever it is u believe in could be wrong. if it is it means nothing. what difference does it make if a scientific theory is incorrect? what i believe in means everything. i have given u scripture to back up my beliefs. i wonder if u even read them?

    my belief is not arbitrary, nor is it a guess, nor is it meaningless, nor has it come about without proof to me personally. u have not been present to observe the evidence as i have. maybe one day evidence will be given to u which will compel u to change ur viewpoint. for ur sake i hope this is the case. in the mean time DO NOT lump my faith and belief system in with radical religious groups who resort to violence to try and get their point across. it is inaccurate. as a science buff i would expect u to hold accuracy in higher regard.
    you are debating from a very narrow perspective. I am debating from a broad general perspective. There is no "deep end", it is a fact. Those statements are very much a reality for a huge percentage of religious individuals. Religion is a very dangerous thing when you get groups of people together.

    I am not saying your belief is arbitrary. But it is fanatical in that you are willing to die for it. You may not be willing to kill for it, but the next guy might. Let's look at the middle east and what is going on between the isralies and the palastinians. Here we have two whole countries willing to wipe the other off the face of the planet in the name of their religion.

    Regarding your quoted passages. You attempts at justifiying a book based on the contents of that book is called a circular reference. Only in religious circles can this illogical approach not get called out.

    So my basic position stands. There are a half dozen or so major religions on this planet, and each insists that they possess true insight into the mind of god, and more or less belittle all others that do not believe as they do.

    Until people of religion become tolerant with the belief system of others, and refrain from insisting that others belief systems are "wrong", then and only then will we get some peace on this planet.

    But like you said, you would die for your religion. No room for compromise with a statement like that.

    Why is it people of religion feel compelled to insist that the other guy always has to be wrong?

    Hmmmmm?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    ur going off the deep end now TR IMO. im trying to think of a circumstance that would require me to kill for my faith. i cant think of one. exodus 20:13 - "13 “You shall not murder."

    since when did i say i was willing to fight til the death over my faith? since when does the average christian say such a thing? i cant think of one circumstance. im sure u can pull something off the internet to back up ur claim but these episodes are few and far between and the concept goes against christian theology, the teachings of Jesus and the bible.

    one difference between u and i is u are willing to consider science or whatever it is u believe in could be wrong. if it is it means nothing. what difference does it make if a scientific theory is incorrect? what i believe in means everything. i have given u scripture to back up my beliefs. i wonder if u even read them?

    my belief is not arbitrary, nor is it a guess, nor is it meaningless, nor has it come about without proof to me personally. u have not been present to observe the evidence as i have. maybe one day evidence will be given to u which will compel u to change ur viewpoint. for ur sake i hope this is the case. in the mean time DO NOT lump my faith and belief system in with radical religious groups who resort to violence to try and get their point across. it is inaccurate. as a science buff i would expect u to hold accuracy in higher regard.

    I consider many possibilities. I try to keep my mind open. I never said that my belief system means nothing. But I have also seen many many things, and exposed to many belief systems. I can also appreciate that with all the differing belief systems, they CANNOT ALL BE RIGHT. This means that at a minimum, most are wrong, or they could all be wrong. The only way I would be able to say I am not wrong is for me to close my eyes/ears/mind, already make up my mind, and be unwilling/unable to listen to knew ideas/information.

    To entertain the idea of a possibility requires one to keep their mind open. Only when you already know all the answers is there no longer a need to keep your mind open.

    Here is a theoritical thought experiment.

    I sit you down with a jew, side by side. I know nothing other than what you two tell me. I am trying to determine which of you is right.

    How might I go about this process and determine the "true" religion?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
    [c]
    20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

    26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”
    TR consider, if u will, for a moment the possibility that i am correct and the bible is the word of God, christianity is the faith and means to salvation, in light of the passages highlighted and the obvious infinite capability of God to create a universe from His breath.

    considering what the bible says about man and pride do u think it could be possible God knew man as a whole would rely on their ability to scientifically prove or disprove his creation in the manner the bible claims it was created and , relying on this science out of pride in their own intellect and ability to rationalize dismiss God altogether?

    do u not think God could create a universe in 6 days that appears billions of years old when relying on scientific method to accomplish exactly what He states He will accomplish in verses 19 & 20 above??

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    TR consider, if u will, for a moment the possibility that i am correct and the bible is the word of God, christianity is the faith and means to salvation, in light of the passages highlighted and the obvious infinite capability of God to create a universe from His breath.

    considering what the bible says about man and pride do u think it could be possible God knew man as a whole would rely on their ability to scientifically prove or disprove his creation in the manner the bible claims it was created and , relying on this science out of pride in their own intellect and ability to rationalize dismiss God altogether?

    do u not think God could create a universe in 6 days that appears billions of years old when relying on scientific method to accomplish exactly what He states He will accomplish in verses 19 & 20 above??
    not for a moment will i consider your belief system to be wrong. I'm just not sure it's right, either. I'll answer your question, but please enlighten me with my thought experiment from above.

    Yes, if King James' version of the bible is right, then genesis is right, and God created the universe. I won't use the term "days" since a day is a meaningless measure of time prior to the creation of the earth.

    So back to my point. It's pretty clear that I have no problem admitting I am wrong. But what bothers me is your insistance you are right! Because if you are right, then that also means you are saying that everyone else on the planet is wrong?

    The only way you can insist you are right, really, is to shut down and put the blinders on. By insisting you are right, in essense, you are saying you already have all the answers, and there are no further truths out there for you to find. Case closed, right?

    I have known (yes, i'm now repeating) certain jesuits that will concede the possibility that the other guy may not be wrong. He wasn't a rank and file type either, he was a priest. I was extremely impressed by his level of enlightenment. He very soberly confided in me that many in religion do not want to know anything other than what their book tells them. It is a type of blind devotion that causes alot of problems, when dogma supercedes curiosity, when church doctrine supercedes science.

    There are those that believe that all religion holds an element of truth. And that god has spoken to his children repeatedly, and in different areasof the world. That there are natural variations between the religions, and that is OK. Because god gave the people of that region what they needed at that point in time, which is different from what other people in a different region needed at a different time. It seems to me that gods actions are a very fluid thing, but many in religion act as if it were an immutable force that cannot/doesn't change to fit the needs of the people over a period of time.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Times Roman View Post
    not for a moment will i consider your belief system to be wrong. I'm just not sure it's right, either. I'll answer your question, but please enlighten me with my thought experiment from above.

    Yes, if King James' version of the bible is right, then genesis is right, and God created the universe. I won't use the term "days" since a day is a meaningless measure of time prior to the creation of the earth.

    So back to my point. It's pretty clear that I have no problem admitting I am wrong. But what bothers me is your insistance you are right! Because if you are right, then that also means you are saying that everyone else on the planet is wrong?
    i am not saying I am right or the planet is wrong. i am saying the Bible is the word of God. what the bible says is truth.

    The only way you can insist you are right, really, is to shut down and put the blinders on. By insisting you are right, in essense, you are saying you already have all the answers, and there are no further truths out there for you to find. Case closed, right?
    i do not claim science's determination of the earth and its origin is not correct based on the resources science currently has available. i believe scientifically the earth may indeed appear as old as science says it is. i havent studied it and really dont care. i dont know if there are further truths to be discovered. i DO know there is no truth to be discovered to discredit the Word of God. do i know this absolutely from a scientific standpoint? NO. i dont rely on science to tell me what is or is not. what is true or false. i rely on God to tell me that. this is done by His word.

    I have known (yes, i'm now repeating) certain jesuits that will concede the possibility that the other guy may not be wrong. He wasn't a rank and file type either, he was a priest. I was extremely impressed by his level of enlightenment. He very soberly confided in me that many in religion do not want to know anything other than what their book tells them. It is a type of blind devotion that causes alot of problems, when dogma supercedes curiosity, when church doctrine supercedes science.
    it appears ur idea of "level of enlightenment" is synonymous with my idea of lack of faith.

    There are those that believe that all religion holds an element of truth. And that god has spoken to his children repeatedly, and in different areasof the world. That there are natural variations between the religions, and that is OK. Because god gave the people of that region what they needed at that point in time, which is different from what other people in a different region needed at a different time. It seems to me that gods actions are a very fluid thing, but many in religion act as if it were an immutable force that cannot/doesn't change to fit the needs of the people over a period of time.
    to an extent i agree with u. god has given certain info to certain people in a manner relevant to their time period. but i think we will disagree with the particular type of info ur talking about.

    Immutability is an attribute of God: Hebrews 13:8- " 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

    one thing we ALL need has not nor will it ever change. this is Christ. John 14:5,6 - " 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

    6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "

    this fact will NEVER Change. it is the essence of christianity and a stumbling block for most. all u have to do is believe in Christ and u can be saved. the question is - Will You???

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    METHAMERICA
    Posts
    16,397
    TR..I guess my definition of belief is just that. If I was questioning or considering that others could be right, then it's not much of a true belief. This would hold true in politics, morals, family values etc:

    I believe in corporal punishment. If I didn't "believe" in it I would say " I wonder about or I question corporal punishment"

    The same theory applies to your "belief" in science. I wonder do you accept that there could be a God and creator and that your "belief" in science might be incorrect (perhaps typing this you may have already answered this previously)
    Last edited by Lunk1; 11-08-2012 at 01:15 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunk1 View Post
    TR..I guess my definition of belief is just that. If I was questioning or considering that others could be right, then it's not much of a true belief. This would hold true in politics, morals, family values etc:

    I believe in corporal punishment. If I didn't "believe" in it I would say " I wonder about or I question corporal punishment"

    The same theory applies to your "belief" in science. I wonder do you accept that there could be a God and creator and that your "belief" in science might be incorrect (perhaps typing this you may have already answered this previously)
    So let me get this straight....

    Because you believe it, that makes it true?

    As in "true belief"?

    My belief in science to be accurate, is the belief in the scientific method. NOT the conclusions that are drawn from this process. For example, I have serious issues with the big bang, as stated previously

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    METHAMERICA
    Posts
    16,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Times Roman View Post
    So let me get this straight....

    Because you believe it, that makes it true?

    As in "true belief"?

    My belief in science to be accurate, is the belief in the scientific method. NOT the conclusions that are drawn from this process. For example, I have serious issues with the big bang, as stated previously
    NO NO..I'm saying that the me believing something MAKES it true, but "true believe" is a completely different monster. Maybe I shouldnt have called it a monster lol

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Times Roman View Post
    So let me get this straight....

    Because you believe it, that makes it true?

    As in "true belief"?

    My belief in science to be accurate, is the belief in the scientific method. NOT the conclusions that are drawn from this process. For example, I have serious issues with the big bang, as stated previously
    this scientific method u put so much faith in is proven wrong over and over and over again.. so why do u hold it in such high regard???? yes science is correct quite often, but not always. and science can only be proven to be correct with more science. so basically the thing that is being shown to be incorrect is being shown that by the very method that produced the error in the first place.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by --->>405<<--- View Post
    this scientific method u put so much faith in is proven wrong over and over and over again.. so why do u hold it in such high regard???? yes science is correct quite often, but not always. and science can only be proven to be correct with more science. so basically the thing that is being shown to be incorrect is being shown that by the very method that produced the error in the first place.
    prove it. Prove that the scientific "method" is proven wrong. I'm pretty sure you don't quite understand the scientific method, because if you did, you would not have made that comment. A scientific method is just that, it is, and i quote:

    The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

    The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Front toward enemy
    Posts
    6,265
    Why is this debate taking place?

    I've seen this debate happen a thousand times on the internet and everyone is better of moving their forefinger around in a circular motion for hours on end.

    It just decends into, who can write the most, without a remote chance of convincing the other side they are right. Both are as indoctrinated as the other.

    Pointless.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    i dont claim to know a lot about science or the scientific method. society benefits from it to a certain extent. i also think society suffers because of it. this whole thread IMO is a perfect example of that.

    i dont have to prove there is error in methods used for science because i think the fact that science and theories and conclusions are being changed and modified proves it by itself. if the scientific method were so inerrant it seems to me there would be no reason for correction. if a correction is required then IMO science was not able to anticipate the error which IMO is a flaw.

    take pluto for example. science determined it was a planet right for how many years? now all of a sudden science says its not a planet anymore? well which one is it? apparently the methodology involved in the initial determination of pluto's status was flawed..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    [QUOTE=--->>405<<---;6250680]i dont claim to know a lot about science or the scientific method. society benefits from it to a certain extent. i also think society suffers because of it. this whole thread IMO is a perfect example of that.

    i dont have to prove there is error in methods used for science because i think the fact that science and theories and conclusions are being changed and modified proves it by itself. if the scientific method were so inerrant it seems to me there would be no reason for correction. if a correction is required then IMO science was not able to anticipate the error which IMO is a flaw.

    take pluto for example. science determined it was a planet right for how many years? now all of a sudden science says its not a planet anymore? well which one is it? apparently the methodology involved in the initial determination of pluto's status was flawed..[/QUOTE]

    is that your best example of a flawed scienttific method? does it really matter what we call pluto? If I called it applie pie, and then later on called it pumpkin pie, does it really change what it is? Science did NOT determine it was a planet. It was labeled a planet by people. And as our understanding of planetary science improved, we decided to reclassify Pluto as something other than a planet, since it was discovered that Pluto, along with many other larger objects were in a rocky orbital belt we call the Kupier Belt. It was decided by the scientific community that in order for an object to be considered a planet, it must clear all orbital debris within it's orbital path, something Pluto has failed to do. Therefore, it was reclassified as a "Dwarf Planet".

    If you are going to make sweeping statements, such as "the scientific method being wrong many many times", I would hope you fully understand what you are saying so that when i call you on it, you can make a valid point in defense of the statement.

    The scientific method is a rational way of acquiring knowledge and information. From there, hypothesis/theories can be made. These theories, like the big bang, may or may not be correct. not disputing that. But the procedure how we go about finding this information IS the right way to go about it. The scientific method is the backbone of our society, and helped us rise up out of the dark ages, and allowing us to discuss this very issue over the internet (which is a product of the scientific method).

    OK. I get we won't be able to discuss the scientific method, as clearly this is something you are not too familar with. No problem. But just because you do not understand a thing doesn't mean you should attack it by saying it is wrong. Fair enough?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    METHAMERICA
    Posts
    16,397
    It has certainly managed to go off track...SHOCKER lol! Probably best we get it locked while everyone is still friends and be happy that there was a nice, friendly open debate.

  15. #15
    JohnnyVegas's Avatar
    JohnnyVegas is offline Knowledgeable Member- Recognized Member Winner - $100
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Desert
    Posts
    5,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunk1 View Post
    It has certainly managed to go off track...SHOCKER lol! Probably best we get it locked while everyone is still friends and be happy that there was a nice, friendly open debate.
    I thought it went pretty damn well.

    I liked the evolution talk. I love me some science. My second favorite website is www.sciencedaily.com

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    METHAMERICA
    Posts
    16,397
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyVegas View Post
    I thought it went pretty damn well.

    I liked the evolution talk. I love me some science. My second favorite website is www.sciencedaily.com
    It has gone very well. I fear there will come a point where neither side concedes and that seems to be when feelings are hurt! Although we have a cpl great guys debating here so I am confident at the end of the day the solution will be an agreement to disagree and shake hands!

    Not like this is a thread about all women being whores!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    6,809
    A lot of previous posts have used a handful of apparent discrepency in the Bible to "prove" that the whole Bible is false. What do you think of that reasoning, tr?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by asiandude View Post
    A lot of previous posts have used a handful of apparent discrepency in the Bible to "prove" that the whole Bible is false. What do you think of that reasoning, tr?
    My position was to never try to prove the whole bible was wrong. Not at all. In fact, I'll be the first one to admit there is alot to learn from the bible.

    But when some take the position that the bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then I get real curioius about these "discrepencies". And when I ask a simple question, like "what is up with this discrepency", and I either do not get an answer, or the answer is veiled in some long complex answer that is really hard to follow and understand, then I get suspicious.

    Wouldnt you?

  19. #19
    JohnnyVegas's Avatar
    JohnnyVegas is offline Knowledgeable Member- Recognized Member Winner - $100
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Desert
    Posts
    5,962
    I will say this: the scientific method is not about right and wrong. It is about always learning more. It is cumulative and new information either reinforces existing data, or weakens it. Through billions of man hours we have learned a great deal about a lot of subjects. We learn more all the time and our learning is accelerating because of technology.

    We know far from everything, but we know a lot more than we did even 100 years ago.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyVegas View Post
    I will say this: the scientific method is not about right and wrong. It is about always learning more. It is cumulative and new information either reinforces existing data, or weakens it. Through billions of man hours we have learned a great deal about a lot of subjects. We learn more all the time and our learning is accelerating because of technology.

    We know far from everything, but we know a lot more than we did even 100 years ago.
    Bingo!

    The scientific method is process by which we learn! This process is very solid and stable. It is repeatable and verifiable by anyone.

    Thank you

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    I was hoping we could wrap up this discussion by converging physics and metaphysics, another hugely interesting topic of discussion. But we weren't ready to get past the religious aspect of it. Oh well, it happens.

    I've had conversations/debates that attempt to get inside the mind of god via discourse on advanced physics. After all, if there is a god, then there must be some kind of thought process going on, right? And even if there is a big bang, that doesn't preclude the existance of a supreme being. Very esoteric stuff.


    We'll leave that for another day then!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    6,809
    clearly, we're not the first few guys on earth to ask these questions. and tried as he did, 405 may not have all the answers. but these questions have been asked and answered many times over on many many christian websites all over the internet. if anyone is still sincerely looking for answers, its only a google away.

  23. #23
    JohnnyVegas's Avatar
    JohnnyVegas is offline Knowledgeable Member- Recognized Member Winner - $100
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Desert
    Posts
    5,962
    Quote Originally Posted by asiandude View Post
    clearly, we're not the first few guys on earth to ask these questions. and tried as he did, 405 may not have all the answers. but these questions have been asked and answered many times over on many many christian websites all over the internet. if anyone is still sincerely looking for answers, its only a google away.
    Are you implying that a handful of guys on a bodybuilding forum will NOT be the people that finally put these issues to rest? I am offended, sir.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    6,809
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyVegas View Post
    Are you implying that a handful of guys on a bodybuilding forum will NOT be the people that finally put these issues to rest? I am offended, sir.

    bb forum, sure. but roid forum, not a chance!...hahahha

    now, where is lunk's other thread, the one about mammary glands.... most people prefer to study that aspect of evolution instead of this.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    TR i agree i dont think theres much more of a path to travel. i do not want to continue repeating the same things over and over nor do i want to bring shame to the Word of God or christianity by beating an issue into the ground. this will be my last post regarding this issue.

    i have been trying to put a finger on my thoughts about this whole conversation/debate (not really what i consider it) and it occurred to me the thing of most significance that stood out as i was driving back to work from my 2nd cardio session this evening. what stood out most to me was how hard it is for u to understand why i can not consider the possibility that my faith/belief in the Bible and the message of salvation could be untrue.

    it occurred to me the answer about half an hr ago. the reason goes back to what my wife was trying to tell me that i blew off and blew off. i was trying to fill my God-shaped hole. that didnt make any sense to me whatsoever at those times when she was telling me. in retrospect now i can see she was indeed correct. at the time i was trying to fill that hole with as much drugs and alcohol and sex and fun and debauchery i could get my hands on. the problem was it was not doing the job. sure id get high and drunk and laid and feel good for awhile but eventually that emptiness and lack of direction would come right back.

    the answer was obvious (to her not me). the only thing that could fill that hole was God. my whole life i felt some sort of desire to know something i just couldnt figure out what it was. i didnt even know i was looking. i can look back now and see it but i couldnt see it then. life had mystery and i felt as if there was some kind of information out there that would unlock it but i didnt know where to look.

    only now do i understand those questions and that mystery could only be answered by the one with the answers. the Lord.

    i see that u have also studied many religions and science and u have an inquisitive nature and want to find conclusive answers to questions and mysteries of life. u keep searching for truth. ur knowledge of science far exceeds my own. the problem as i see it is the answers are not in a science book. wouldnt it suck to have the answer right in front of u yet the very thing that ur passionate about is the one thing that prevents u from solving ur problem?

    ill leave u with this scripture and pray that u find what ur looking for : matthew 7:7,8 - " 7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    405
    it was great rattling sabers with you! =)
    Never wanted to create any doubt for you or your faith. Faith, as I know very well, is a VERY POWERFUL thing. And you have found something that is precious to you and helps you solve lifes' problems.
    Please don't get me wrong. I am NOT an aethist! I never said god doesn't exist! I think i was looking more at how people worship and the underpinnings of their faith than at the existance of god.
    I may someday make the leap. But if I do, it will probably be in a very unconventional way, something i will have to figure out for my self, instead of in any particular bible. there are many in the scientific community that found science to be inadequate, and made the leap. Even Einstein was a very religious man!

    But you are right. I think it's time we leave this one alone.
    But I do look forward to our next healthy debate!

    Cheers!
    ---Roman

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    METHAMERICA
    Posts
    16,397
    This should be locked and stickied to show how adult men SHOULD debate....I will say it AGAIN. Excellent job all of you. Even Gixx

    AD...I shall bump the boob thread now.

    I notice that 405's faith did NOT keep him out of that thread either LOL!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Atomini View Post
    Mate,

    Please do not disrespect 405 or others that have a belief system by posting something like this. I have an extreme amount of respect for 405, for not only having the courage of speaking up about his belief system, but also not flaming others (me) for not sharing his same view point. I may not have the same view point as 405, but i will aggressively defend his right to express himself, especially when he is doing it in good faith and with a great deal of respect.

    You are a good man Atomini, and I can appreciate what you are trying to say. But this isn't the right way.

    Peace!
    ---Roman

  30. #30
    I welcome anyone to give me proof of evolution....

    Not Micro evolution, but Macro evolution...

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesKennedy View Post
    I welcome anyone to give me proof of evolution....

    Not Micro evolution, but Macro evolution...
    THE LORD HELPS THOSE THAT HELP THEMSELVES.....

    .....there is a TON of evidence out there mate! All you have to do is look. This took me 15 seconds to find:




    Dinosaurs and the origin of birds

    Main article: Origin of birds

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_dinosaur

    Confuciusornis, a Cretaceous bird from China
    Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialized subgroup of theropod dinosaurs.[10] More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[11] As scientists have discovered more nonavian theropods closely related to birds, the previously clear distinction between nonbirds and birds has become blurred. Recent discoveries in the Liaoning Province of northeast China, which demonstrate many small theropod dinosaurs had feathers, contribute to this ambiguity.[12]

    The consensus view in contemporary paleontology is that the birds, or avialans, are the closest relatives of the deinonychosaurs, which include dromaeosaurids, troodontids and possibly archaeopterygids.[13] Together, these three form a group called Paraves. Some basal members of this group, such as Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, have features which may have enabled them to glide or fly. The most basal deinonychosaurs are very small. This evidence raises the possibility that the ancestor of all paravians may have been arboreal, may have been able to glide, or both.[14][15] Unlike Archaeopteryx and the feathered dinosaurs, who primarily ate meat, recent studies suggest that the first birds were herbivores.[16]

    The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx is well known as one of the first transitional fossils to be found, and it provided support for the theory of evolution in the late 19th century. Archaeopteryx was the first fossil to display both clearly reptilian characteristics: teeth, clawed fingers, and a long, lizard-like tail, as well as wings with flight feathers identical to those of modern birds. It is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, though it is possibly closely related to the real ancestor.[17]

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Front toward enemy
    Posts
    6,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Times Roman View Post
    THE LORD HELPS THOSE THAT HELP THEMSELVES.....

    .....there is a TON of evidence out there mate! All you have to do is look. This took me 15 seconds to find:




    Dinosaurs and the origin of birds

    Main article: Origin of birds

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_dinosaur

    Confuciusornis, a Cretaceous bird from China
    Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialized subgroup of theropod dinosaurs.[10] More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[11] As scientists have discovered more nonavian theropods closely related to birds, the previously clear distinction between nonbirds and birds has become blurred. Recent discoveries in the Liaoning Province of northeast China, which demonstrate many small theropod dinosaurs had feathers, contribute to this ambiguity.[12]

    The consensus view in contemporary paleontology is that the birds, or avialans, are the closest relatives of the deinonychosaurs, which include dromaeosaurids, troodontids and possibly archaeopterygids.[13] Together, these three form a group called Paraves. Some basal members of this group, such as Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, have features which may have enabled them to glide or fly. The most basal deinonychosaurs are very small. This evidence raises the possibility that the ancestor of all paravians may have been arboreal, may have been able to glide, or both.[14][15] Unlike Archaeopteryx and the feathered dinosaurs, who primarily ate meat, recent studies suggest that the first birds were herbivores.[16]

    The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx is well known as one of the first transitional fossils to be found, and it provided support for the theory of evolution in the late 19th century. Archaeopteryx was the first fossil to display both clearly reptilian characteristics: teeth, clawed fingers, and a long, lizard-like tail, as well as wings with flight feathers identical to those of modern birds. It is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, though it is possibly closely related to the real ancestor.[17]
    Good post, but if you cant convince certain people that we're decended from a type of proto ape/human, then you'll never convince anyone that birds came from dinosaurs, because they would have to concede that dinosaurs existed which would be an omission of how old this world really is.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    Good post, but if you cant convince certain people that we're decended from a type of proto ape/human, then you'll never convince anyone that birds came from dinosaurs, because they would have to concede that dinosaurs existed which would be an omission of how old this world really is.

    actually we believe dinosaurs existed (because they did) and it fits into our belief system. it does not concede the age of the earth being billions (or millions whatever it is) old..

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,796
    furthermore the notion of us descending from an ape is ridiculous and rubbish IMO..

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Dude Abides
    Posts
    10,980
    We're 86 years past the Scopes Monkey trial and people are still inheriting the wind.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Honkey_Kong View Post
    We're 86 years past the Scopes Monkey trial and people are still inheriting the wind.
    I wasn't familar with this one, and so had to look it up. and YES, it was just a wee bit before my time! =)

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Dirty South, GA Coast
    Posts
    1,705
    religious people believe in theories. scientific people believe in theories. enough on theories, here's a simple fact. you're all going to die not knowing.

  38. #38
    JohnnyVegas's Avatar
    JohnnyVegas is offline Knowledgeable Member- Recognized Member Winner - $100
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Desert
    Posts
    5,962
    Quote Originally Posted by HitIt View Post
    religious people believe in theories. scientific people believe in theories. enough on theories, here's a simple fact. you're all going to die not knowing.
    Just to clarify, the scientific term "theory" is not the same as used in common language and is certainly not the same as a religious belief.

    Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

    A scientific theory is not an idea or a guess. That would be a hypothesis. Even a scientific hypothesis is stronger than a belief because a hypothesis is something that is put forth as needing further research...not just something that should be believed because someone said so.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    6,809
    very soon, we'll be trying to convince each other by using nuclear bombs. lets just give this a rest...

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    METHAMERICA
    Posts
    16,397
    Quote Originally Posted by AD View Post
    very soon, we'll be trying to convince each other by using nuclear bombs. lets just give this a rest...
    Time to bump some boobs as a distraction huh AD lol?

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •