You go first, how long will this continue.
Offline Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and politics going to stop?
Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.
It sickens me that people don't get tired of war and violence. How many humans on either side have to die before it becomes clear that it is futile? Neither side is gong anywhere. Humans are involved on both sides.
There was a time when someone could make a case that they were on the right side of history. But I do not see that. All I see is both sides playing victime lo9oking for excuses for more violence. I wish the international community would step in and settle this with peace keeping forces. Palistinians should not live in a prison, their every day civiliians should not be starved to death. But at the same time they also should not be held hostage by those in power.
Isreal needs to give up on a Jewish state and simply be a westerinized secular state. Palistinians need to purge their rulers of the theocrats and zealots. All labels aside flesh is flesh and death is death and this has been going on for far too long and has affected the entire global community for fart too long.
I am tired of the excuses. Both sides are baging their heads against the wall and getting nowhere simply pissing the other side off more. Is a boarder or a tradition or label so important as to fail to realize that in the end when someone dies on either side, you are STILL killing another human being.
We are mpt ;;ovomg om any nobal age of conquest anymore. The world is round, not flat. What you do Palistinians to Isreal has an affect on the world. What you do Isreal to Palistinians has an affect on the world. The selfishness and war sickens me because it seems to be nothing more than a cry for attention trying to get the rest of the world to side with one side.
PLEASE FUCKING STOP! You are just two groups of people on a populated planet of 7 billion. Please tell me what right either of you have to turn our planet into your childish game of capture the flag. It is my hope that the international commun9ity instead of chosing sides, SHAMES both sides int o cooperations.
There has been no end to this shit and I am beyond caring at this point as an outsider who has no horse in the race. This all stems from evolution and nothing more. We side as humans with that which we are familure with and defend it from outside threats. The problem is that there is an utter failure of the WORLD, not just both sides, BUT THE WORLD, to put enough pressure on both sides.
ENOUGH! What right does either side after all this and no end in sight have to cry "poor me". Reea;;y? You'd both take a scorched earth policy and drag the region and possibly the entire world int a war over what?
There should be no two state solution. I am at the point where I think both of you need to have your asses kicked, your leaders arrested and repl,aced with sane secular leaders.
Regardless of which side I lean to, I am not going to take sides when clearly both sides are ussing the same stupid tactics that simply perpetuate this needless conflict.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
We have the evidence of that already - they're called transitional fossils and we have way more than we need. No faith needed
We're still doing it. Look in the mirror, Lee. Do you look exactly like one of your parents or do you have traits that favor both of them? That's right - you are a transiti0onal form. Again, no faith needed - not even for you.
But your God is omnipotent Lee - are you saying that not even HE can reproduce his results?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yet, JW's and Catholics would say that you are the one interpreting it all wrong, what hard evidence do you have, from the very same book that they follow, to disprove them ?
I could almost see this if it were a question of Islam vs. Christian and my god vs your god mentality, but you guys can even agree over the SAME book that you are all following.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
And you are basing all of these assertions off of what exactly
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Science does not go by opinions and assertions, it goes by testable and observable evidence.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Actually, yes. We also have genetic evidence - the commonality of our genes. We share 96% of our DNA with chimps, less with gorillas, less still with monkeys, less still with wolves, less still with reptiles, and so on - but we even share genes with bacteria.
Why would an intelligent designer share genes between bacteria and humans? Lazy? Or does it make more sense that all life on earth is related because it all evolved over millions of years?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
So, Christians who call me a fool are in danger of hell?
For a list of websites that discuss the oldest fossils found:
http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/seite1.html
This article is short and has a picture:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squiggles-in-sandstone-ma
This is a recent theory on the origin of self-replicating molecules. It is a fairly long article, and I do not anticipate you will bother to read it. It won't fit in with your confirmation bias and belief perseverance. But for those who might be interested, here, in my view, is the meat of the paper:
So the idea is that life started not with DNA, or even RNA, but rather shorter molecules that fit the requirements given in the first paragraph quoted. This is a more probable explanation and experiments are being conducted along these lines. Eventually, someone will find some answers - they will not likely verify a miracle, but simple chemistry and physics.
The author says to think of it as a grocery list. The cart full of items you purchase is not the list, but it has the same stuff. DNA and RNA are lists, this model is the grocery cart full of stuff.
Here is an article describing a self-replicating molecule scientists created. If a scientist can create one, why do you need a god to create one?
http://news.discovery.com/tech/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.html
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
An easy website to peruse is Early Christian Writings. http://earlychristianwritings.com/
Otherwise, you will have to look at various university theological departments.
Though I don't think you will as it goes against your belief perseverance.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
But it is a tenet of your belief - you have a God that you can't distinguish from nothing that you claim created everything. I notice you missed that part so I brought it up again.
So why do you deny abiogenesis when you need it to believe in a creator god?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
These were carried by the Apostles and disciples
Your Scriptural reference fails to fully address the problem (again!!). You should have included other elements to supplement as an actual response to Beyond. He (Beyond) is a bit of a weapons buff. I knew of the reference so I purposefully looked up Swords of the time.
Hint
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," Jesus replied.
The Gladius 'carried' by Ancient Roman foot soldiers was too long. The closest I could come to an Image of the actual defensive 'weapons' carried by travelers and the band of disciples was the Windlass Pugio, which is more of a Roman Dagger than a sword (of some length) it was a civilian sidearm & was a common sight in the ancient Roman Empire, also in the 1 Century C. E. The group 'carried' two of them, that were known of, if Lee had bothered to consult Luke's Gospel writings. And were carried, for extended travel, by the disciples as a means of defense, I should think. The reference is an instance where they brought them, according to what became the account. (See: Ref. and Image)
(Edit :: Tiny Typeo it's ' closest ' , dropped letter, doing much better now)
Yes they're are fossils but they're not transitional, that name has only been applied to support that presupposition. I have traits of both my parents sure but my traits aren't transitioning. I have eyes like my mother and father, they may not be the same color but there still eyes. I have hair like my mother and father, may be a different color but none the less it's still hair. So what is exactly transitioning?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Your genes. Each person has 100-200 genetic mutations on average. Of which, about 30-40 will be transmitted to any children you might have.
I will supply references - from genetic scientists - if you want to read them.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Re :: Is that the barking of YEC Dogma (I hear)
Lee handed you (C.j.) an AiG reference or link I recall . .
Outside of the question of a 'creator'. Transitional fossils could being to strongly be suggestive of Evolution since they have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it.
(quote)Please note, When Darwin first published his "Origin of Species" he stressed that the lack of transitional fossils was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. At that time very little was known about the fossil record and complaints that there were a lack of any transitional fossils were understandable. Since that time, despite the rarity of fossilization, literally dozens of excellent examples have surfaced starting with the discovery of Archaeopteryx in the Solnhofen area of Germany just two years after "Origin" was published. Since transitional fossils are anathema to YEC dogma, they have desperately sought to redefine the term to suit their own purposes or they merely outright deny their existence. An example of the later being the Archaeopteryx, which some YEC assert isn't a transitional between reptile and bird at all, but is instead a true bird despite the fact that it clearly possesses characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds don't have (www.enchantedlearning.com/agifs/Archaeopteryx_bw.GIF). Often you hear a YEC contend that transitional fossils don't exist because nobody can prove the fossil in question is a direct ancestor of any later creature. While this is true to an extent, even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch it still demonstrates that creatures with intermediate characteristics did exist, and thus it is highly probable that a similar creature existed that was an ancestor of a later species. Again, the archaeopteryx serves as an example since science isn't sure whether or not they were ancestors of modern birds or a side-branch that serves to illustrate the changes taking place at that time. YEC advocates simply take it too far in demanding a record of every single creature in the chain before we can say that something is an ancestor of something else. Such "absolute proof" is incredibly unrealistic considering the nature of the fossil record itself. Then there are the YECs that stubbornly see gaps everywhere. As soon as a transitional fossil between two groups of creatures is found they spring into action demanding intermediaries between the intermediaries. And if such fossils are also discovered are they satisfied? No. These critics now demand intermediaries between the newly discovered intermediaries. It's a no-win situation. When more links in the chain are found they only see a chain with more holes. More can be learned about Archaeopteryx at All About Archaeopteryx (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) and at the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) for Archaeopteryx. "Archie" is far from the only example of a transitional fossil that has been dug up over the years. Very recently up in Canada there was the spectacular discovery of a transitional form between lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods dating back 375 million years. Called Tiktaalik, it is an example of Fish to Amphibian evolution demonstrating, among other things, the change from fin to limb. To learn more about this fascinating extinct creature at, the Tiktaalik roseae: Home (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/). The evolution of whales and other cetaceans from land animals has long been derided by YECs (www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej10_1.jpg) as the ultimate example of evolutionary nonsense. Critics used the fact that a fossil record was lacking to "prove" that there are no such thing as transitional fossils. This situation changed dramatically when an entire slew of whale fossils of several transitional species surfaced, primarily in Pakistan, since the 1990s. More information can be found at the Wikipedia page on the Evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales) There are many other examples of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). Probably two of the best sources available on the internet for further information include CC200: Transitional fossils (www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) and the famous Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) by Kathleen Hunt. Considering the number of new transitional fossils being uncovered, especially in recent years, don't you YECs think it might be time to quit hoisting your flag on this particular battlefield? Researchers have taken a new look at the fossilized remains of the long extinct arachnid, Attercopus fimbriunguis, that lived 386 mya (Middle Devonian) and had been interpreted in 1989 as being the oldest known spider. They have now concluded that instead of being the oldest spider it is actually a more primitive ancestor of web-spinning spiders. This means that the oldest "true" spider may have arrived 80 million years later than previously thought. The reason for the reinterpretation is that new analysis has revealed that the parts of the 7mm (0.27&rdquo
long Attercopus that had been described as spinnerets (the external, modified appendages that allow web-spinning) weren’t actually spinnerets after all. While this proto-spider could still produce silk, it wasn’t in strands like modern spiders, but in the form of broad sheets excreted from spigots arranged along the edges of the segmented plates that made up the underside of the creature’s abdomen. What appeared to be a tubular spinneret was in fact a rolled-up or folded sheet of cuticle (the animals' external skeletal material). The team that made the reassessment, led by Paul Seldon, director and the Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology of the Paleontological Institute at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas, think that Attercopus could have used the sheets for a variety of purposes including to line burrows, protect eggs, have sex, make homing trails and possibly even subdue prey, but that web-making wasn’t one of them because of the inflexibility of the spigots. Further, they found that Attercopus, unlike any known spider, possessed a long, segmented, flagellum-like tail similar to that seen on a whip scorpion that is commonly seen on some of the spider’s more primitive relatives. And aside from having tails and spinning silk from broad, segmented plates, the team discovered that Attercopus also seem to lack venom glands and openings on the fang of the chelicerae previously thought to be associated with venom glands was the result of a misinterpretation. It was these characteristics that got Attercopus moved into the extinct order of arachnids thought to be close to the origins of spiders named Uraraneida. "The thing that had been called the oldest known spider we have now shown is in fact more primitive than a true spider," Professor William Selden, the Trinkle Professor of Biology at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, and co-author of the report said. “We think these ‘tailed spiders’ represent an entirely new kind of animal, not known before from living or fossil examples,” observed Shear. “They were more primitive than spiders in many ways, and may be spider ancestors,” he added, “This new information also allows us to reinterpret other fossils once thought to be spiders, and this evidence suggests these Uraraneida, or pre-spiders, existed for more than 100 million years, living alongside real spiders, which evolved later.” Now, the oldest known "true spiders,” are members of the Mesothelae, a primitive group now represented only by the Liphistiidae, and dates from the Late Carboniferous period that ended roughly 300 mya, though Professor Selden says that true spiders could have existed earlier but haven’t been discovered. What prompted the reinterpretation of Attercopus was the discovery of an additional specimen since the original was uncovered in Gilboa, in upstate New York almost two decades ago. A slightly younger (374 myo) example with tail still attached to the abdomen, was discovered in nearby South Mountain, New York. The existence of such a tail is also supported by the more recently discovered Permarachne genus from a Permian deposit in Russia, which was also originally and inaccurately described as a spider and whose tail was originally described as an "elongated spinneret". Interestingly, as late as July of this year Shear and Sheldon have been describing Attercopus as having spinnerets: Fossil evidence for the origin of spider spinnerets (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2088/version/1). The oldest silk-producing spigots are known from the Middle Devonian of Gilboa, New York2. This specimen, slide 334.1b.AR34 (See:npre20082002-.PDF; Nature). The findings of the new research were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (source Rouge06 in the year 2009 and this site).
What you call presupposition is and has been observed - you could do it yourself if you visited a few museums.
As for the rest of your post - you seem to be under the illusion that "transition" means changing from one species to another - since you like Comfort and Cameron's views that is not surprising.
What they don't tell you is that the crocoduck that they claim would prove evolution would actually be the thing that destroys the theory. Such a chimera is the thing you lot should be looking for.
I will try to help with your question though. Do you have the exact color of eyes as either parent? Can you see better (or worse) than your parents could when they were your age? Is your hair color exactly the same?
Oops - transitions again. You can't get away from them.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So you are saying that god's morality (and therefore yours since you agree with 100% of what god says) is completely subjective? Seriously, if that is all god has to justify murder I have no idea how to figure out whether or not I am committing murder. Do you think it is a good thing that god punishes people for eternity because they broke his law when it is so vague?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You presume too much. I only follow the laws I believe are just. If the government passes an unjust law I have no moral problem with ignoring it. For example, I have been known to break laws against gambling and pot smoking.
Is the bible the best an omnipotent being can come up with? Seriously? Either he is really stupid for an omnipotent being or he simply doesn't want to go through the effort to provide actual evidence. God is by the way, invited to come to Christmas dinner. I will be surrounded by bible thumpers so he should feel right at home. It would be nice for him to stop by and say "hi idiot, I exist". We will even provide him with dinner (and if Jesus can do the turn water into wine trick that would be sweet because my brother is firmly against drinking so I will be in desperate need of a drink- actually, if he doesn't want to come by for dinner he can just turn the water into wine and I will consider that some pretty good evidence) Then I can come back here in January and spread the good word to everyone on this site. Since god is omnipresent I imagine he has gotten this message, but if he hasn't could you pass it along... please?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I know that most theists will say that "the other religion is not interpreting it correctly" which leads to a better question.
Why does god need his holy word interpreted ? Couldn't he have left clearer instructions if this was going to be his one and only shot at telling the world what to do ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Exactly - if God had actually written or inspired his "word" couldn't he have written a better book?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Something that could not be disputed or open to interpretation.
Hell, why not leave behind a book, in a language that is not deciphered, but completely understood by every one who reads it in their own native tongue and defies all explanation why everyone can read and understand it ?
Just that tiny little miracle alone would be enough to cause doubt.
Is that too much for an all-knowing, all-powerful and all seeing Yahweh ?
Oh that is right, for him to do that would fuck up my free will.
He didn't have a problem making himself known in the old days though, what made him change his mind ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Thank you, but I can't classify this as science.
Who is the author? Well, the article states:
His biology degree was from a nonaccredited correspondence school which has subsequently been ordered to stop operations.
His tenure at Bowling green University was terminted because he claimed to have credentials in Psychology but in fact didn't.
he has published widely, but not in any peer reviewed scientific journals (a criterion to be taken seriously). This article has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals of course either.
So this is a guy who has written an article on Abiogenesis who has no scientific qualifications or due scientific process to back it up.
Is it science if I download an online degree in chemistry, write an article about how I can make glass stronger than diamond, then publish it on some non-scientific website, is that science? That's essentially what this guy has done.
so I'll ask again, do you have any real science to support your position?
(From a real scientist who has a PHD in the biological sciences from a real university, and has had his research and conclusions on abiogenesis peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals - this is a prerequisite really for anything to be labelled scientific research.) If you can't then please rescind your claims.
Thanks.
It's true even believers can get mad at the Supreme being ?
While I was initially searching and exploring the Bon Religion, but hit a wall, so I had to cease. In exploring, however, I found a noted figure in it that was both raised and inherited all of its' ways and traditions and teachings from a tender age (of the Bon), in this wonderland of old-styled mysticism (minus any holy hill). This man later branched out into a more mainstream religion of this country near the turn of the 20th Century. Much of what I read about the man's life was he was always experiencing 'doubt', even when experiencing induced 'vivid' mystical experiences. The man is the one who was credited with the 'rainbow body'. He never ended-up rejecting either one of the two traditions, not even the one he grew up with, that must be stressed. If anything, I think, his doubt ironically pushed him further to maintain his vows, by all the biographical information. It wasn't what I was even researching but sort of happened upon. In it, it was hard to miss though never rejecting, he was personally plagued with 'doubt' nonetheless. This being a key figure.
On this board a couple, of specifically mentioned examples of causing 'doubt' (mentioned more than once) are the hard to except examples are/of: Jonah, pissed-off, Prophet and the Great Fish. Apparently you can get mad with God. You know, He is logged in the stomach of the Great Fish says a eloquent prayer. Promises to make good on his vow " .. and the Lord commanded the Fish to vomit up Johan on the beach". In the Gospels it suggests the interpretation of the condition of the Prophet was worse than the text seems to indicate (I imagine because the term 'Sheol' is prominently mentioned in Jonah's Prayer to God within the Great Fish). The correct interpretation was to mean the man of God didn't survive his ordeal, according to a later reading. God must have had to resurrected him (cross-reference the words of Jesus). Btw, Jonah was a "prophet". Hint Three-days and three-nights etc. Anyhow. Second example, Another common example cited on this board (especially by Brian37) would be the circumstances surrounding Jesus's birth, to quote only a verse, only a tiny fraction of the 'passage' :
(Matthew 1:18a)
Matthew 1:18a
Now the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, . . .
You remember the rest.
Response ?
p.s. -- Btw, 'the plant' (read the text), at the very end of the book of Jonah, is a good preaching point, you have my permission to fully quote the end of the book
¬ Dana
Let me correct myself Jc, agree with you on transition of eye or hair color. But regardless of color, eyes don't transition into ears and hair doesn't transition into scales. That's exactly how Darwin defined transition and that's exactly how some scientists define it today. Jc, tell me how a squirrel monkey avoided being eaten by lions before it had a tail?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
His laws are VERY clear unless one doesn't know how to read and comprehend.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Are you an atheist? If so, why do you follow any laws if there are no absolute standards?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
He left a clear meaning in the scriptures concerning His plan of salvation. Repent and believe. No interpretation needed?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Well perhaps you can clear it up for me because obviously I am a dunce. You told me god wrote it on my heart but when I told you what my heart said you said it was wrong... so how the am I supposed to know? Please give me an objective definition so that I can determine what is murder and what is not without relying on subjectivity and guessing.
Then when I asked for God's objective definition you give me this quote,
Still it doesn't define "murder". It does tell me that I shouldn't be angry and I shouldn't insult. So does that mean if I kill someone without anger and I don't call them a name while I do it, that it isn't murder?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Actually, he was fired for sharing his religious beliefs which is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. As far as peer reviewed journals or publications
creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing.
Not to mention loss of grants for expressing their viewpoints. Simply dishonest is what it is. The truth will be revealed in the end and evil deeds WILL be exposed.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I understand you're spiritually discerned. It's right in the passage I gave you. Who ever is angry with someone has murdered them in their heart. This is murder according to God.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
So if I am not angry I can kill whomever I want and god won't consider it murder? Like that guy who beats his girlfriend, after I cool down and am no longer angry I can make the rational decision that the world would be a much better place without him and that means it isn't murder?
What about if I am out and about with my girlfriend and someone attacks us and hurts, kills or threatens her- I guarantee I am going to be extremely angry- so I pull out my Sig and shoot the guy until his body stops moving. I killed in anger, does that make it murder?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
lol
lol. Creationists can't publish their creationist ideas in a science journal because they don't provide real evidence. The irony is that if a deity is ever shown to exist it will be a scientist that discovers the evidence and proves its existence. (By deity I mean any being capable of creating at least this planet and perhaps the whole universe)
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Attn. -- To Lee
Everyone (nearly everyone) is interested in maintaining proper respect and decorum. It's not as an unruly a bunch you or some may have feared, so you are certainly welcome to discuss pretty much anything (within limits). Please dont feel any one of us are not allowed to review it here on this board. Last week, without meaning to, I ran across a creationists website, in the heading was a link to an article suggesting the bulk of the water from Noah's flood was actually, under the earth, seven miles down under asia or china (I forget now). My immediate thought was how long did it take to accumulate in downwelling via the Subduction zones. I glanced at the Heading, though noticed the article. I neither have it in front of me, remember where I saw it nor have I ever looked at it. >For me, I have a imposing and large major appliance to install by myself or I would look up the reference for you.
I bet he was fired for teaching his religious beliefs in a class whose subject had nothing to do with religion.
Is it okay for Christians to be dishonest?
Also, Lee2216, I'd really appreciate a response to my earlier posts.
A wee bit of a nut aren't we, Lee.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Lee, money is not an issue. Apply to the ICR or some similar organization. There is a LOT more money available there than in most scientific grants.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
And then Paul changed it to "just believe and ask forgiveness when you need to".
Some of you guys believe in repentance and actually changing your ways - some of you don't. All of you have different definitions for what "sin" is and what actions fall under the definition of "sins"
Hence the need for interpretation.
Incidentally, you've given quite a bit of evidence on which side you stand.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
But the bible doesn't need interpretation...except when it does.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
One of the participants in this forum e-mailed me and solicited my comment, as if I could solve the conflicts of the ages. Fundamentally the atheist/agnostic wants to find truth within himself/herself, whereas the theist looks to an outside Source. These views are as old as time and anti-thetical. A time for argument about each other's world view is fine; in fact we Theists look at such times to peacefully discuss as a gift from God. In the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc. the theists are thrown in concentration camps. (Yes, I know about the other side: the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of Servetus, etc.) But beyond that most of us have jobs, families, church, hobbies, etc., and we just do not have time to argue all day.
I am a Christian theist, and I agree with Lee2216. Yes, the Palestinians and Jews (although many of the Jews are secular, even atheists) have different understandings of God, and so they fight. The Americans during the Civil War had different understandings of God and slavery, and there was fighting. On the other side, Stalin and Trotsky had different understandings of communism, and there was bloodshed. Indeed Stalin and Mao killed millions of their own people in the name of pure atheism; they accused their opponents of being "revisionists," or "reactionaries." But I am quite willing to work with an atheist such as Nat Hentoff (is he still alive?) who wrote for the VILLAGE VOICE but opposed abortion, as do I.
I'm pretty sure everyone looks at both themselves and reality to find the truth.
Really, their thoughts were "I'm going to kill these people because I lack belief in a God"?
Do you oppose abortion in all cases?
If Jews do not like the Palestinian right to kill of those who impose the dictatorship that is their problem. If Jews refuse to end their brutal dictatorship over millions of Palestinians they should be thankful this is so far the least they have gotten in return. If Jews refuse to their blockade they should at least have the courtesy to stop whining about the consequences of the blockade. Sorry but indiscriminate bombing of civilians has been lawful since WWII. That is why Jews do it.
To end the problem have the Jews go back where they came from or where their parents or grandparents came from. Get the fuck out and admit it was a dumb idea in the first place. The Palestinians have legitimate property rights which were not negated by the thieving absentee owner laws. Palestine became the designated Jewish target two years before Hitler was born. Jewish terrorists began attacking Palestinians during WWI.
There is no equal blame in this matter. Jews are completely at fault and always intended to be the criminal party in the Zionist enterprise. The very fact of a Zionist enterprise and it being both religious and the foundation of Israel clearly designates the Jews as the religious lunatics in the matter.
The Palestinians have NEVER made a religious claim to the land rather own claimed private property rights to the land. You constant assertion that the Palestinians have the religious foundation without presenting evidence of it and even when challenged you best answer has been "I want to believe it" does not pass the giggle test.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Only Jews have invoked biblical divine property rights. The Palestinians have invoked private property rights as in deeded land titles stolen from them by Jews under the absentee owner laws starting in 1949 the year after independence.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Of course we know the Jews from Europe started it. That is not in question. Even they will tell you that. That is the whole Zionist narrative.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
However in the long term wars are wars. They happen. Whether or not there is any generic pro or con to them has neither a simple or consistent answer.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Many reasons perhaps the most obvious is the jewish military dictatorship is stealing the land from the lawful owners. As an American or westerner in general one should be against government sponsored segregated housing.
There is no lack of land in Israel to build criminal squattertowns. From the beginning the jewish justification has been a land promised to the by their god.
This stuff is not a secret. You can read it in israeli newspapers damned near every day.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Happy Hanukkah sorry for the reception (in advance)
#287
¬: Translation, I (the Professor) the touted armchair Theologian, embarrassed the [ALMOST (almost) Expletive deleted] out of myself by some insane remarks and decided to not to stay. Well, These things will happen. After the holidays are through, you havent been properly introduced to a place called trolliville, if you ever decide to head back, for people who spam the site with Multi-Volumed Reformed Theological Box Sets. What ?!? I have got to learn to stop paying attention. Apparently you dont pay attention, Captain Clueless, this isnt what the Topic is even currently about. Just playing. Welcome to put in your two cents anytime, pay no never mind. Really. Bit atypical of me mainly. Best to let it drop the references are (very fresh) in my mind, so much so, I dont feel even need to provide a link. You have a good holiday (Goodbye)
p.s. -- Little biblical algebra and we can infer by your recent comments you've identified the S0N OF LAWLESSNESS to be a nutter who killed a sm. group of kids, wording from 2 Thes. and Little "retrain-er -ed" humor (that is a pun at your expense, atypical). By the tone, best I not have to explain the joke, w/ your remarks.
Fallacy of equivocation, being an Atheist does not automatically make one a Communist.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Most of the Atheists on here have jobs, are in school and have families. We do not sit here 24/7 trying to concoct more arguments.
Sorry, the Civil War had nothing to do with god and slavery.
So, women who will be unfit mothers, neglectful parents and bring children into dysfunctional familes, HAVE to bring them into the world ? Women who do not want children and will be terrible parents should bring a child into the world, knowing full well that it will be passed along from family member to family member and have to struggle to pay child support ? Rape victims should bring children into the world ? Drug addicts that get pregnant by prostitution should bring children into the world ? Mentally disturbed people that are prone to suicidal tendencies and may be a danger to themselves and their children should not be given the option to have a abortion ?
Granted, I think contraceptives are the way to go, I stand by my decision to be careful and not bring any children into this world, but I think if all other alternatives fail, it is morally wrong for a government or religious institution to try and FORCE people to be parents. Especially when the pro-lifers are the FIRST people to claim that they want to do away with welfare and food stamps.
When you really sound it all down, bringing children into this world, knowing full well they will be neglected, is far more immoral to me, than any abortion.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Dana, I've been meaning to say that I really enjoy reading your posts: they can be so clever and informative!
I do sometimes have difficulty understanding them, however. I think there may be a lot of implicit meaning I'm not picking up on...
It's all about the Professor and his pearls of wisdom in the other Thread. Oh, Opps , Big Typeo I missed wouldnt help nor not even to bother with a link to the reference to his original comments. ( I dropped a letter it's "restrainter" not: "retrainer" ) Better watch that. I must have a much greater sense of my mistakes with all the typeos . .
The must see comment is by the Professor www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33421 somewhere in the teens, he started running his mouth.. He (the Professor) writes, "Let me not dodge unpleasantness. People know . . ", it goes on. It appears he is implying the shooter or less jokingly the knowledge of evolution will dispose the heart to sin. It's a bit confused if you follow the link. The pun unfortunately ended up much the same with the dropped letter of my typeo especially. Even now no-one may get it, you had to be there.
p.s.-- You remember the response to his next few statements, I know, you were there, curiously unanimous response to MOST of his comments throughout. Just follow the link or its' 2 Thes. 2 and not 're-trainer' that would be a typeo on my part (See: Image then link)
Ok, the findings of the court can be found here:
http://jehovah.to/gen/freedom/bergman.htm
(Not sure why it's on a JW site, but be that as it may, it's the court transcription.
The bit you should read is:
This specifically refutes your supposition that he was unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of religion, and states quite clearly in the second paragraph that he has NO PSYCHOLOGICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
As to your quite ludicrous claim about creationists publishing in secular journals - that's not because the secularists have a stranglehold on scientific publishing, it's because creationist papers do not meet the standards of scientific research required to publish in these journals - your view is so skewed that you think "secularists" are actively out to belittle creationists, whereas the reality is that secular journals DON'T CARE about this fringe of creationists who try and unsuccessfully twist science to suit their needs - their papers are so unscientific that they are laughable, and that's the reason they don't get published, not because there's a conspiracy against them.
So I take it that you don't have anything scientific to back up your claims that life must only come from life. Care to rescind this claim then? Or stop using the work 'scientific' as if you know what it means?
Even college students must provide MLA citation ?(or APA and all the others) to back up any claims that they make in essays.
My nieces handbook on her studies, even says that a student can not cite from something like Wiki or from just some random website that lacks the backing of a legitimate claim.
You can only imagine the standards that would be help up for a scienitific paper.
If I made the claim that a universal force is holding the world together and lacked evidence, well the obvious follows.
The only way that I could see around this, would be if one is a relativist and thinks all claims need equal weight.
Which has to include every claim from the sublime to the ridiculous.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno