I can disprove Evolution! Also-science is predicted to develop in the bible and its dumb

jesus lover
Posts: 17
Joined: 2009-02-25
User is offlineOffline
I can disprove Evolution! Also-science is predicted to develop in the bible and its dumb

   According to scientist that have their head on straight and arent christians,they claim "evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.....its useless!!!!"According to Darwin,organisms change step by step very slowly. Darwinian evolution is based off macroevlolution,but macroevolution has not happened!Mayjor evidence against macroevolution is fossil records and the complexity of the cell.The complexity is way to much to be developed like it is explained in macroevolution!!According to Micheal Behe,there is not enough time for macroevolution to have happened,nor will there ever be.Because of the time problem,other theories have appeared.Stephen Jay Gould's punctured equillibreum is the theory that evolution could happen in short amounts of time.Without hard evidence,these theories are very much in reproof and very much unproven!!!

    Christians believe in Catasrophicism.Things such as the great flood in the bible.To prove the flood existed,which is another way to prove god,look at fossils.When the flood happened there was a ton of sediment everywhere,fossils were washed upon mountains of deep sea fish,in caves such as the cumberland bone cave. You ever wonder about the grand canyon,well that little river didnt make that gaping crater the flood did!!As for science and people getting smarter,thats predicted in Daniel 12:4-it says knowledge shall increase,wow,God's word!!As Kurk Cameron said,he didnt believe in God once but his life was changed.You cant Argue with a changed life!!!To rap this up if you have any doubts that there is a God,maybe you want to think there is,watch the Case for the Creator,it will change your mind!!One lsat note,that lady you had on nighline was ignorant she put forth no scientific evidence and is obviously up there to keep guys interested!!!TERRIBLE

    


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:jesus

HisWillness wrote:

jesus lover wrote:

     A lot of the reason people dont believe in God today is because of circumstances and how christians live their life.It is a christians responsibility to live a life so that others see God.Christians today are retarded though,they are so hypocrytical and it makes people turn awya.Thats our fault,we dont live right therefore we turn people away.

Actually, it's the fact that God never shows up. Yeah, stop beating yourself up over it, it's not the hypocrisy.

I would suggest to this kid to look up Occham's Razor, Law of Probibility, Bentrand Russell's "Teapot", and the fallacy of Pascal's Wager" and the fallacy of "True Scotsman".

His retort of "they are hypocrites" does not constitute evidence. Nor does "I got it right and everyone else got it wrong" constitute evidence.

Those are merely emotional reactions.

EXAMPLE:

If I believe that the earth is flat, and create a clothing drive charity, does that mean the earth is flat? If I believe that the earth is flat and I rape and murder, does that mean the earth is flat?

What makes the earth a globe, is the evidence that we have for it being a globe, our behavior good or bad, as a species, will not change that. Meteors or comets or sun, or gamma rays will eventually change the shape of the earth (certainly not flat, but), despite our emotions or tantrums as a species.

Have no fear though, this does not give us license to harm others. Evolution takes care of the common good(when we chose to recognize it) WE make our own purpose, and there is no magic in it. WE can chose to break the law, or we can chose to be kind.

If you don't need Thor or Vishnu to tell you to do your homework, or help an old lady across the street, what makes you think you need Jesus, other than you like the idea of a super hero?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jesus lover
Posts: 17
Joined: 2009-02-25
User is offlineOffline
terrible people,is what i

terrible people,is what i meant,evolution is change in inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote:i believ

jesus lover wrote:
i believ everything in the bible,im not split up like all the branches of christianity.

You mean all that stuff about stoning people to death is okay with you?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jesus lover
Posts: 17
Joined: 2009-02-25
User is offlineOffline
   have you ever read the

   have you ever read the bible,thou shalt not kill,when people were stoned it was disobedience to god.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:evolution is change in

Quote:

evolution is change in inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

I asked you to state the five central principles of the neo-Darwinian synthesis defining modern evolution. I asked you this because you won't be able to find this exact definition just by typing "evolution" on wikipedia.

Oh, and if you're going to copy and paste, make it a little less obvious than a verbatim paste from the first two lines of the wikipedia page entitled "evolution":

wikipedia wrote:

evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jesus lover
Posts: 17
Joined: 2009-02-25
User is offlineOffline
haha,i gave it a  try.

haha,i gave it a  try.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I suppose you did, and at

I suppose you did, and at least that's something, but let me ask you this. Prior to having typed in evolution on wikipedia to try and answer the question, what was the definition of evolution as you understood it? In your OP, you mentioned a few names and theories such as punctuated equilibria (I'm not going to call irreducible complexity a theory), but failed to actually define evolution. Surely you must have had some definition regardless of how misguided, otherwise you were attacking a word and nothing more. Even before I checked to see if you copied and pasted, I could tell immediately that was not your own writing. You know why? Aside from the fact that the linguistic sophistication was out of place, it was also the fact that if you actually had an understanding of evolution that sophisticated (sophisticated being a relative term here, those two lines demonstrate overwhelmingly greater understanding than most creationists can ever hope to attain) we probably would not be having this conversation.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


DanMullin
DanMullin's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote:   have

jesus lover wrote:

   have you ever read the bible,thou shalt not kill,when people were stoned it was disobedience to god.

 

Have you ever read the bible?

 

The bible outlines the justification for death by stoning in many passages:

 

Quote:

Leviticus 24:16 - And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

 

Exodus 21:28 - If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned.

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.

 

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die.

 

Deuteronomy 13:5-10 - If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

 

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

 

Leviticus 20:27 - A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

 

Leviticus 20:2 - Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

 

Numbers 15:32-56 - They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

1 Kings 21:10 - Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

 

Thanks to SAB for the quick reference:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote:   have

jesus lover wrote:

   have you ever read the bible,thou shalt not kill,when people were stoned it was disobedience to god.

I have read the bible. In several sections (Leviticus and Deuteronomy, for example), the bible recommends stoning people to death for all sorts of things. You figure that's a good idea?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx races to beat

Archeopteryx races to beat the xians to the punch:

 

But that was the OLD testament! After Jesus came, everything became happiness, sunshine, and cinnamon buns!

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx races to beat the xians to the punch:

But that was the OLD testament! After Jesus came, everything became happiness, sunshine, and cinnamon buns!

Wait ... cinnamon buns?

OH, you got me again! I'm so gullible. Oh man.

I was so sure about the cinnamon buns.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote:   have

jesus lover wrote:

   have you ever read the bible,thou shalt not kill,when people were stoned it was disobedience to god.

So it was god throwing the stones then?  otherwise it would seem that the bible told people to kill. 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx races to beat the xians to the punch:

 

But that was the OLD testament! After Jesus came, everything became happiness, sunshine, and cinnamon buns!

Yes, but the Ten Commandments were OT, as well. So does that mean we throw those out?

I get confused exactly what Jesus accomplished with respect to the Old Testament.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx races to beat the xians to the punch:

 

But that was the OLD testament! After Jesus came, everything became happiness, sunshine, and cinnamon buns!

Yes, but the Ten Commandments were OT, as well. So does that mean we throw those out?

I get confused exactly what Jesus accomplished with respect to the Old Testament.

 

He arbitrarily negated anything from the OT that might cause cognitive dissonance, of course! But if it doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance, like the 10 commandments, it was deemed safe by Jesus, so we kept it.

 

(Note to JL: The pretending game I am doing right now is what they mean by "Poe", only a good Poe tries to be cleverly authentic, whereas I am obviously being snarky )

 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Yes, but the Ten Commandments were OT, as well. So does that mean we throw those out?

I get confused exactly what Jesus accomplished with respect to the Old Testament.

He arbitrarily negated anything from the OT that might cause cognitive dissonance, of course! But if it doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance, like the 10 commandments, it was deemed safe by Jesus, so we kept it.

Oh. Well, thanks for clearing that up. I'm so much less confused.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Oh. Well,

nigelTheBold wrote:

Oh. Well, thanks for clearing that up. I'm so much less confused.

Oh, nigel. It's so simple. You can't kill anyone.

Unless they say the name of God. Well, obviously. Or sleep with certain people. Of course. OR they break the Sabbath. Well who's going to break the Sabbath? I mean, really. 

Or disobey their parents. That's a stoning. To death, naturally. Oh, and also behaving like a wizard. AND touching Mount Sinai. Don't touch the mountain. Stoning.

But other than that, don't kill anyone.

Except unbelievers - they need to be killed. Oh man. They need to be killed the most.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote:   have

jesus lover wrote:

   have you ever read the bible,thou shalt not kill,when people were stoned it was disobedience to god.

So does that make God a skitzo? He taps his cheerleader's shoulders in a conflict and says, "I will allow you to defeat them, and take their bounty and women as prizes"

He doesn't do this once, go read the OT. Anyone who doesn't kiss his ass will be defeated. There is a marginal and questionable attempt to downplay the dictator of the OT, but when the "End Times" come, he will, if he is too much of a coward to do it himself, command his cheerleaders to commit genocide on anyone of the 6 billion people on the planet who dont kiss his ass.

"Dont kill" needs a magical source? So why is it Japan has less a fraction of crime, when their majority doesn't buy the virgin birth?

Do your god(s) wisper in your ear telling you when to crap? So why do you think you need them to tell you not to rob your neighbor?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote: 

jesus lover wrote:

  okay,the dawg thing is a habbit,im fifteen lighten up.I'm in ap classes,im sure im not gonnah drop out,i plan on going to a nice collage.I dont really revise what i type it just comes out,unless its a school paper!

Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!

First of all, most students don't take AP classes until their junior year because AP classes, although I acquired A's in all of mine, are, for the average student, extremely difficult. If you're fifteen, then you're a sophomore at most. Second, if this is truly your quality of writing and grasp of logic, then you barely even have a chance of passing any legitimate AP Class, much less the AP test associated with the subject.

So, either:

1) You're lying to impress us (we're not impressed).

or

2) You actually write fairly proficiently and are only butchering grammar because you think it's "cool."

or

3) Your AP class(es) is/are corrupted and are far below standard.

or

4) You're currently failing all or most of your AP classes.

or

5) POE!

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
DanMullin wrote:jesus lover

DanMullin wrote:

Quote:

Leviticus 24:16 - And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

 

Exodus 21:28 - If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned.

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.

 

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die.

 

Deuteronomy 13:5-10 - If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

 

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

 

Leviticus 20:27 - A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

 

Leviticus 20:2 - Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

 

Numbers 15:32-56 - They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

1 Kings 21:10 - Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

 

Thanks to SAB for the quick reference:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html

 

And let us not forget:

People claiming to speak for Jesus wrote:

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

People claiming to speak for Jesus wrote:

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

So as long as the Earth is in existance, we are all still bound to follow the laws of the Torah. Jesus did NOT give a free pass at ignoring inconvenient Old Testament laws. Any Christian not adhering to ancient Hewbrew Law is ignoring Jesus because of the inconvenience of following Torah law in the modern day. So, keeping that in mind, how is jesus lover going to respect 1 Kings 21:10? Keep in mind that not one pen stroke or jot will drop out of the Law.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Lover wrote:According

Jesus Lover wrote:
According to Darwin,organisms change step by step very slowly. Darwinian evolution is based off macroevlolution,but macroevolution has not happened!


I want to explain the error in your statement, but I must give you some background information regarding a science that you presumably do not have a problem with.

Think about the atmosphere above you. In the atmosphere, numerous chemical collisions occur. Those chemicals are also influenced by the gravitational pull of the moon, the radiated energy of the sun, the size and shape of land masses, and many other factors. When we speak about the atmosphere on short timescales, we call it weather. When we speak about long timescales, we call it climate. Weather and climate concern the same phenomenon and they both occur using the same physical processes, only our focus has changed.

With that said, let's consider the modern theory of evolution.

Among populations of living things, numerous changes in genetic material occur. One process by which this occurs is mutation, which can add, remove, and alter genetic material. Natural selection removes the detrimental changes to the genetic material because the genetic material of individuals more fit to survive and reproduce will predominate the gene pool. The genetic material of the more fit individuals will recombine due to the process of mating. Mating, in turn, is constrained by the size and shape of land masses, because you can't mate with someone you're not around, and further constrained by the relative success of individuals that compete for mating rights, and further constrained by many other factors.

At all times, this causes groups of a single species to become more genetically distinct from other groups. Because the genetic material determines, to a large degree, the bodily structure and function of individuals, the members of these various group will begin to take on different body structures and functions, however slight. These groups will continue diverging from one another until they reach a point where they can mate with members of their group with a high fertility rate but with a low fertility rate when mating with members of another group. This will further isolate the groups from one another and reduce the sharing of genetic material among them. The mutations that occur in one group will most likely stay within that one group, rather than spreading to other groups, and vice versa. In turn, this leads to further divergence and the throughout this process the fertility of out-group mating decrease, and decreases, and decreases until they can no longer mate. In this case, the groups become reproductively isolated. We started with a single species, but now we have multiple species.

Because they are reproductively isolated, they cannot share genetic material with one another at all, so they will become more distinct from one another at a quicker pace. The skin of one species may have taken on a slimy texture while the skin of the other species may have taken on a rugged, warty texture. I use this example of skin texture because it helps me to bring this abstract reasoning down to the real world: the world that contains frogs with slimy skin and toads with rugged, warty skin.

Notice that the original population of living things we started with was a single species that underwent microevolutionary changes, which are changes within a species. As time went by, however, it split into several species that underwent macroevolutionary changes, which are changes at the above-species level. Think back to what I said about the atmosphere. When we speak about evolution on short timescales, we call it microevolution. On large timescales, we call it macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution concern the same phenomenon. They both occur using the same physical processes. Only our focus has changed.

If you hold that microevolution occurs and that life has had a long history, then you contradict yourself if you argue that macroevolution hasn't occured. If you hold that life has had a long history and that macroevolution hasn't occurred, you must deny microevolution. You cannot have microevolution and a long history of life without macroevolution. To help you visualize the contradiction, think about it this way. We start with 0. For each minute of the next hour, you add 1 to your number. Each addition would be a microevolutionary change. Let's distinguish level of micro- and macro-evolution now: 30 and below is micro, above 30 is macro. To hold that +1 occurs for each minute and that 60 minutes have passed, then you contradict yourself if you argue that macroevolutionary changes (+1 above 30) haven't occured. If you hold that 60 minutes have passed but macroevolution (+1 above 30) hasn't occured, then you must deny microevolutionary changes (+1). As you can see, the argument is fundamentally contradictory.

You have already said that you accept the existence of microevolutionary changes, but you deny macroevolutionary changes, so to avoid contradicting yourself, you must hold that the Earth is young. If I prove to you that the Earth is not young, then you must change one of your other positions; you must either deny microevolution or accept macroevolution, no other options exist. The constantly changing HIV virus proves beyond all reasonable doubt that microevolution occurs. Thus, denying microevolution is itself not an option. This means that if I prove to you that the Earth is old, you must accept macroevolution.

Are you open minded enough to consider proof that the Earth is old? Or, will you simply reject whatever I say, regardless of its validity? And I want to stress that I want an honest answer. If you're not willing to abandon Young Earth Creationism no matter what the evidence says, then say so, because I do not want to waste my time.

Jesus Lover wrote:
According to Micheal Behe,there is not enough time for macroevolution to have happened,nor will there ever be.


I think you might be mischaracterizing Michael Behe's position. In Darwin's Black Box, he said he accepted that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that evolutionary change has occured, and that all species share a common ancestor, which presumably means he accepts the occurence of macroevolution. From what I can tell, he thinks Darwinian evolution is, for the most part, true, except that an intelligent designer (i.e., God) tinkered here and there to help the process along. At least, that is my recollection of what he said and my inferences based on that recollection, but what he says doesn't amount to much. It has already been proven that he has been dishonest on numerous occassions. One can only wonder if he speaks honestly or not about his views on evolution. Anyhow, the arguments that Behe made in favor of that conclusion have all been debunked, and he refuses to accept the reality of the situation. Citing Behe in an argument about evolution will automatically ruin your credibility.

Jesus Lover wrote:
Things such as the great flood in the bible.To prove the flood existed,which is another way to prove god,look at fossils.When the flood happened there was a ton of sediment everywhere,fossils were washed upon mountains of deep sea fish,in caves such as the cumberland bone cave. You ever wonder about the grand canyon,well that little river didnt make that gaping crater the flood did!


Glenn R. Morton, a Christian petroleum geophysicist, analyzed the The Entire Geologic Column, as found in North Dakota, and systematically proved that it was incompatible with the postulation of the Noachian Deluge, which means the flood that Genesis was based on, assuming it was based on one, must have been local in extent. If you research the Noachian Deluge story and compare it with similar tales of other cultures, you will find many parallels between them. Not just parallels in their basic theme, but the plot itself and often the very words. I think the most probable explanation of these textual parallels and the impossibility of a global flood, is that the Noachian Deluge story was a spin-off of the Eridu Genesis story of King Ziasudra, who has been recorded in a Sumerian kings list at a time and location that would probably place him in the midst of a local river flood in Shuruppak around 2900-2750 BCE.

Jesus Lover wrote:
As for science and people getting smarter,thats predicted in Daniel 12:4-it says knowledge shall increase,wow,God's word!


Before calling your interpretation of an OT verse the word of God, you should ensure you have interpreted it correctly. I suspect you have not even read Daniel 12. It says people will increase their knowledge by reading a scroll but that the scroll will be closed up and inaccessible to them (Daniel 12:4) until the end of times (Daniel 12:9), which is when multitudes of the dead will have risen from the grave (Daniel 12:2). Needless to say, multitudes of the dead have not risen from their grave, so the current increase of intelligence and knowledge has no relevance at all to what is spoken of in Daniel 12.

Jesus Lover wrote:
As Kurk Cameron said,he didnt believe in God once but his life was changed.You cant Argue with a changed life!


I can argue with a changed life. I grew up believing in exactly the sort of nonsense that Kirk Cameron now espouses, and my life was changed. If a changed life says something about the existence or nonexistence of an intelligent being who purportedly created the universe, then God does exist and simultaneously does not exist, which is obviously contradictory. You will, of necessity, contradict yourself if you posit that changes in a person's life reveals profound metaphysical truth, because lives are changed in any and every direction.

Jesus Lover wrote:
To rap this up if you have any doubts that there is a God,maybe you want to think there is,watch the Case for the Creator,it will change your mind!


It wasn't convincing.

Jesus Lover wrote:
One lsat note,that lady you had on nighline was ignorant she put forth no scientific evidence and is obviously up there to keep guys interested!!!TERRIBLE


That lady's name is Kelly. She is one of the founders of the Rational Response Squad—the group responsible for the Blasphemy Challenge and the group responsible for this website and the equipment on which it runs. Show a little respect, douchebag.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Lover wrote:the

Jesus Lover wrote:
the talking snake was lucifer.


That is just wrong.

First, Lucifer is not Satan. Lucifer means Light Bearer. It referred to the morning star, now called Venus, because it appeared like a star during sunrise. The Babylonians considered Venus and thus the Light Bearer their god, whom they named Ishtar. The Biblical author used Light Bearer, or Lucifer, to refer to the human king of Babylon who was responsible for the construction of the tower of Babel. Lucifer died a long time ago.

Second, Satan did not oppose God in the Pentateuch; he regularly completed missions assigned by God. Actually, it's dubious to refer to "Satan" as a single individual, because the Pentateuch does not use it as a proper name, meaning it was a title that could be applied to many angels. It simply meant "one who opposes". For the sake of simplicity, and only for that reason, I shall use it as a proper name. Satan's role was to oppose humans so they would choose a less harmful path in life than they otherwise would. In the book of Numbers, for example, Balaam (whom tradition holds to be the ancestor of the wise men who visited the manger of Jesus) was ordered by God to not go down a particular road, but he saddled his donkey and headed toward it anyway. This angered God, naturally, so "the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his satan," or "as his opposer." The donkey could see the angel, but not Balaam. The donkey kept turning away from the road, so Balaam kept striking her to get back onto it. After three strikes, Balaam wished he had a sword to kill her. Then, God gave the donkey the ability to speak. Balaam and his donkey talk about what transpired, and afterward "his satan" made himself visible to Balaam. His satan said, "Behold, I came here to oppose you, because your way is evil in my eyes ... if she had not turned away ... I would surely have killed you right then, and let her live." As you can see, "his satan" was acting as a servant of God, directing Balaam toward goodness or otherwise visiting judgment upon him. Neil Forsyth says of "the satan", "If the path is bad, an obstruction is good."

Third, Satan is not the serpent. As I just demonstrated, Satan was a servant of God well into the time of Balaam, which means he was a servant throughout the entire Garden of Eden episode. This means that Satan is not the serpent. I can offer another proof of this as well. When God cursed the serpent, he made the serpent crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of its days. Satan in the Balaam story, however, "took his stand". This means Satan had legs, which he would not have if he were the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Fourth, and finally, the serpant was just a serpent. Middle Eastern mythology regularly used a serpent to represent intelligence and wisdom. This is the same way it was used in Genesis. Many translations have it read that the serpent was "subtle", but that isn't an accurate translation. It actually says the serpent was "mentally acute" and, indeed, it was! God told Adam and Eve that they would die on the very day that they ate the fruit, but the serpent called his bluff, didn't it?

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote: 

jesus lover wrote:

  True,very many christians dont have one ioda of the meaning of evolution.What you have to realize is many people still do believe in darwins theory,and others.I myself do not understand everything,again watch case for the creator,that dude knows more than i do!

Very many persons cant not u's teh poper grammer iether...

By the way. YouTube probably has at least two scientifically valid refutations for every one creation video. The video you ask us to look into has already been thoroughly and systematically debunked.

Thank you for your effort. I wish I had a consolation prize for you...

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jesus lover wrote:As for

jesus lover wrote:

As for science and people getting smarter,thats predicted in Daniel 12:4-it says knowledge shall increase,wow,God's word!!As Kurk Cameron said,he didnt believe in God once but his life was changed.

Wow, does the bible predict the invention of the spell checker as well?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if JL made it to

I wonder if JL made it to church on Ash Wednesday. We was posting in this thread for a solid 45 minutes after he said he needed to get ready for church in 20 minutes...

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I avoided this topic until I

I avoided this topic until I had time, since the first time I saw it there was 72 posts to read. Now I wonder if it's real or not. If it is, I could spend 30+ mins responding. If it isn't, I'd be wasting my time. Of course, I might be wasting my time either way. I think I'll just ignore it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I think I'll

Vastet wrote:

I think I'll just ignore it.

Oops... too late...


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Fourth, and finally,

Quote:
Fourth, and finally, the serpant was just a serpent. Middle Eastern mythology regularly used a serpent to represent intelligence and wisdom. This is the same way it was used in Genesis. Many translations have it read that the serpent was "subtle", but that isn't an accurate translation. It actually says the serpent was "mentally acute" and, indeed, it was! God told Adam and Eve that they would die on the very day that they ate the fruit, but the serpent called his bluff, didn't it?

 

*Apologist mode*

 

But God *didn't* lie. Adam and Eve died spiritually, which is why they were cast out of the garden and why Jesus came along.

 

/*Apologist mode*

 

I really wish I was making that up, but that is the argument, almost word-for-word, that I've heard from Christians of all sects who have this almost pathological need to "prove" the tautology "God is good because he says he's good; all good comes from God because God is good, since God says he's good. Hence, God is good!" Basically, "spiritual death" is the "answer" they give when you point out that God did lie about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

Oh, or they just mutter something about it being a metaphor.... but fail to explain why God didn't say it was a metaphor, or tell 'his people' what really happened so they could get the story straight. And they don't think about the implications of a metaphorical Garden- that it's possible that, without that first sin, there was no need for a 'historical narrative' of Jesus, that God made us flawed (maybe even evil) just because he could, or because there's no real judgement (maybe it's just the continued evolution of a subverted and perverted desire for revenge by various put-upon people- ancient Hebrews, Jews, Koine-speaking Christians, etc.) and he simply wants us to make the best out of what we've got.

 

Though all this theoretical stuff is presupposing god ('the true god' *snort*) exists. Which is never a safe assumption anyway.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums

Welcome to the forums CrazyMonkie Smiling

I've heard that apologetic too. Only an incompetent person would warn someone with vague, dubious wording, especially when the correct understanding of it would involve a notion—spiritual—that they would not have understood; in short, the apologetic is an argument for God's incompetence. The same holds true of the metaphor apologetic; if God knew that Adam and Eve would not understand his statement metaphorically, which they plainly did not, then he obfuscated the issue, either deliberately, which would make him the cause of the fall of man and thus taint him with evil, or accidentally, which would make him incompetent.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!