Intelligent Design gets the smackdown it deserves

[libertarian_knight]

I must say... I was surprised by the ruling. I fully expected this judge appointed by Bush to somehow let ID slip thru the cracks.

What I want to know is
1) do the id supporters really think we are dumb enough to believe ID is of scientific bent or is it just a leagal ploy?
2) are id supporters dumb enough to believe ID is a scientific theory?
3)How come if pressure is constant in a closed system using gas law ( P*V = m * R * T), why does soda explode when you shake the can?


Yup it's happy dance time :2party:

1) yes and no. They do believe you are dumb, but they also don't know they are.
2)oh, heh, answered it. More importantly, if ID is science (instead of a criticism of evolution) that should be taught in schools, where are the ID lesson plans? the sylabus for the class, the day's notes about it, by teacher?
3) Because the gases are dissolved, and not really in gaseous form. The aggitation separates them and allows, particularly the dissolved, CO2 to enter a homegnous gaseous state, thus as a gas exterting more pressure than as a solute disolved in liquid. So really, the pressure is not constant, because the dissolved gases in gaseous form, is not constant.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?


This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

-http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_rock.htm

couldn't you have just said: "God doesn't lift rocks, they're beneath Him." I mean, you spent so much time, actually shoving God into a box.

Or maybe: "God COULD make a rock so heavy, he could not lift it, because it would be the size of all space in the universe, and therefor so big that is can not move in space." (since how can you move a thing, in which all room to move the thing is occupied by the thing?)

or: "God could create a rock so big he could not lift it, because it would be so massive as to collapse all matter and space around it, and he would have nothing to stand on, in order to lift it, since the universe would be destroyed, and though God is omnipotent, the universe is not."

or "What need of does God have to lift, since God is already all things in space." Lifting impiles the need to move one thing from one place in space to another, if God is all things in all places in space, lifting, relative to God, is impossible.

Or "God creates the biggest possible rocks within the limits of the universe, so fast, that they have both existed and not existed at the same time, He moved them and destoryed them, and shaped them, made a statues of them, and everything to them before time has moved. And he does it all the time for fun! See that, of course not, because light needs time to travel, but He did it just then."

The reason the paradox is popular, is because it tries to put God in a Box, just put the conditions of the paradox in a box, and the paradox is solved.

 

[steen]

Theres many ways that Republicans wrongly use God for their side...

Yes, that's called Blasphemy.

but there are certain issues which God has a clear stance one. but like tax cuts, or health care?

What is with the question-mark? I hope you are NOT implying that God cares about tax cuts or health care policies?

... I dont recall stating that i was a creationist, i beleive in the genesis account of creation,

Even if the order is wrong? Are you saying that genesis in some way or another can be read as a science textbook, or merely allegorical (In which case it is stunningly des criptive)?

but ultimitly that account is partly subjective to the reader, and i dont beleive that it was several literal days. again the word day is used to replace a hebrew or greek word for a measurement of time that could be thousands of years for all we know.

Are you saying everything is in order, or that there are set, regular, and even periods described?

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Yep. And it's not just limited to Republicans. Almost every war was waged with one side saying "God is on our side".
Quote:
Of course, there were many wars of people falsely claiming that God was on their side, some wars were justified, and others were not. People will often use whatever they can to justify their actions, specifically Religion. And that’s what makes people often have a bad perspective of Religion, mainly Christianity. But those who access it with an open mind, and actually give it a chance are the ones who experience the true joys of the faith.

Really, please enlighten me. And before you make all these assertions, please provide some form of evidence for your sky pixie, thanks.
Quote:
Well lets start with stealing which is wrong; Exodus 20:15 Exodus 22:1-5 Leviticus 6:1-4 Leviticus 19:11 Leviticus 24:17-22 Deuteronomy 5:19 Deuteronomy 22:1-4 Ezekiel 18:11-13 Hosea 4:1-3. Ok that should be enough evidence going solo scriptoria now looking at the church the Catholic church states that stealing is a sin, and all (at least mainstream) protestant and orthodox denominations assert that it is wrong. Now do you want to know a specific topic? Cause I would love to explain as much as I can about it, seriously though.

That's assuming such an entity even exists. Of course, you must have faith. But faith is in no way, grounded in reality. Faith thrives on ignorance; hence to maintain faith, I would say one must maintain ignorance. The truly sad part of the situation is that all the people who have the whull pulled over their eyes by certain religions, have children, and they brainwash them into blindly accepting the same lies and absurdities that they themselves accepted.
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html
Quote:
Interesting site, yet I’ve seen many before, there’s quite a few false claims though. Um many intelligent men were, are, and will be Christians. People have examined Christianity through and through again. Intelligent people have also been converted. Do you assert that John Kennedy (a democrat) was ignorantly and blindly accepting the same lies that I have accepted? Would assert that C.S. Lewis a former atheist, and Christian convert had the “whull pulled over their eyes by [a] certain religion.


Really? if it was thousands of years, and Adam lived for 930 years, according to your subjective thinking, I believe that would make Adam quite old.

Yes according to out standards of how old people live that is outragoeruosly old, but then again:

1. Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5) - "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
2. Seth lived 912 years (Gen. 5:8) - "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died."
3. Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27) - "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died."
After the fall, the genetic line of Adam and his descendents was very pure, so their health would have been incredible. Living that long would not have been a problem. Also, some theologians think that there was a canopy of water that engulfed the entire earth and that it was released at the time of the flood. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life , in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened," (Gen. 7:11). The "floodgates of the sky" are sometimes alluded to as great amounts of water suspended in the sky. Also, no rain is recorded in the Bible until after the flood which seems to support this idea. This canopy, if it is true, might have provided some sort of protection from the sun's harmful rays. We can't know for sure and it is only a theory. Nevertheless, after the flood, the lifespan of people on earth was drastically reduced. "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years," (Gen. 6:3). Whether or not this reduced canopy had any affect on human lifespan may never be known.
- http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen5.htm

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

couldn't you have just said: "God doesn't lift rocks, they're beneath Him." I mean, you spent so much time, actually shoving God into a box.

Or maybe: "God COULD make a rock so heavy, he could not lift it, because it would be the size of all space in the universe, and therefor so big that is can not move in space." (since how can you move a thing, in which all room to move the thing is occupied by the thing?)

or: "God could create a rock so big he could not lift it, because it would be so massive as to collapse all matter and space around it, and he would have nothing to stand on, in order to lift it, since the universe would be destroyed, and though God is omnipotent, the universe is not."

or "What need of does God have to lift, since God is already all things in space." Lifting impiles the need to move one thing from one place in space to another, if God is all things in all places in space, lifting, relative to God, is impossible.

Or "God creates the biggest possible rocks within the limits of the universe, so fast, that they have both existed and not existed at the same time, He moved them and destoryed them, and shaped them, made a statues of them, and everything to them before time has moved. And he does it all the time for fun! See that, of course not, because light needs time to travel, but He did it just then."

The reason the paradox is popular, is because it tries to put God in a Box, just put the conditions of the paradox in a box, and the paradox is solved.

I could have, but that would not be as fun as making the matter much more complicated then it is. Unfortunately, intellectuals like Steen love to examine and scrutinize ever little bit and piece of things. No offense though, I tend to be like that myself and I feel it is a good quality to have, and personally I really enjoy talking to steen, at least when he argues its worth it to argue back, you learn a lot about your own beliefs that way. Yea as I was saying any of those arguments could work. There is many arguments refuting that one, but I decided to pick one on the more complicated side of things.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Yes, that's called Blasphemy.

That would be correct

What is with the question-mark? I hope you are NOT implying that God cares about tax cuts or health care policies?

No not at all, I am sure people have designed arguments about how God would supports a certain medical plan, or tax policy, but as far as I know, reasonable Christians know better then that.

Even if the order is wrong? Are you saying that genesis in some way or another can be read as a science textbook, or merely allegorical (In which case it is stunningly des criptive)?

I’m not saying teach genesis in a science class, in a bible or theology class you should (you could teach the scientific evidence for and against the genesis account though), but could you give me ONE example on a wrong order, cause I’ve heard of a couple but also reasons to why they are like that.

Are you saying everything is in order, or that there are set, regular, and even periods described?

What do you mean?

 

[Caine]

Ummm... What does all this junk have to do with ID getting the smackdown it deserves????

 

[kal-el]

Of course, there were many wars of people falsely claiming that God was on their side, some wars were justified, and others were not. People will often use whatever they can to justify their actions, specifically Religion. And that’s what makes people often have a bad perspective of Religion, mainly Christianity. But those who access it with an open mind, and actually give it a chance are the ones who experience the true joys of the faith.

You got me hooked until I got to the last sentence.

Well lets start with stealing which is wrong; Exodus 20:15 Exodus 22:1-5 Leviticus 6:1-4 Leviticus 19:11 Leviticus 24:17-22 Deuteronomy 5:19 Deuteronomy 22:1-4 Ezekiel 18:11-13 Hosea 4:1-3. Ok that should be enough evidence going solo scriptoria now looking at the church the Catholic church states that stealing is a sin, and all (at least mainstream) protestant and orthodox denominations assert that it is wrong. Now do you want to know a specific topic? Cause I would love to explain as much as I can about it, seriously though.

:lol: Dude, the bible is proof of nothing. It simply defies all common sense and reason altogether. It's just an article of faith, and it has nothing to do with rationality. I would think one would need faith in order to buy into an incohernet contradictory collection of books. Think wht would happen if a thousand or so years from now, people found books from now. Would the people of the future know that Steven King books were fiction? I'd say when one uses the bible as a source, there argument carries no weight, and goes down the toilet.:lol:

Interesting site, yet I’ve seen many before, there’s quite a few false claims though.

Uhh, that's your opinion. I'll tell ya what, hows about you show me where the bible represents reality, ok?

Um many intelligent men were, are, and will be Christians.

I'm not denying that. But many intelligent men were, and will be Buddhists, Jews, Traditional Chinease, and the list goes on. Dude, if they're were numerous religions before and after Christianity, and they all claim they're right, what makes Christinity the right one?

People have examined Christianity through and through again. Intelligent people have also been converted.

That's true, on the same token, intelligent people have been converted to atheism also. Conversion is not mutually exclusive to Christianity.

Do you assert that John Kennedy (a democrat) was ignorantly and blindly accepting the same lies that I have accepted?

That's quite different. Back in that time, it was perfectly acceptable to blindly believe in superstition. But now, since we have all these medical advances and such, your skydaddy shrinks. Ohh, and he was a President. If he were to declare to the world he didn't believe in such an entity, he would be thrown out of office so fast, his damn head would spin. Atheism is frowned upon.

Would assert that C.S. Lewis a former atheist, and Christian convert had the “whull pulled over their eyes by [a] certain religion.

Wow, your arguments are getting more and more asinine as this goes on. Again, look at the time period C.S. Lewis lived.

Yes according to out standards of how old people live that is outragoeruosly old, but then again:

1. Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5) - "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
2. Seth lived 912 years (Gen. 5:8) - "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died."
3. Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27) - "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died."
After the fall, the genetic line of Adam and his descendents was very pure, so their health would have been incredible. Living that long would not have been a problem.

Wow, you bible-thumpers really buy this hogwash don't you? Let me ask you a question. Why do you spend your time arguing as if your right, when you could be spending your time saving the souls of sinners?

Also, some theologians think that there was a canopy of water that engulfed the entire earth and that it was released at the time of the flood.

I have never heard such an extraordinary claim. I would love to see a link supporting this.:lol:

 

[steen]

That would be correct

No not at all, I am sure people have designed arguments about how God would supports a certain medical plan, or tax policy, but as far as I know, reasonable Christians know better then that.

Agreed. I am glad that we can get to agreement on this

I’m not saying teach genesis in a science class, in a bible or theology class you should (you could teach the scientific evidence for and against the genesis account though), but could you give me ONE example on a wrong order, cause I’ve heard of a couple but also reasons to why they are like that.

Plants before sunlinght (resulting in no photosynthesis). Night and day long before the sun. The moon claimed to shine on its own. (Depending on translations) birds before animals.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

You got me hooked until I got to the last sentence.

Quote:
What was wrong with the last sentence?

Dude, the bible is proof of nothing. It simply defies all common sense and reason altogether. It's just an article of faith, and it has nothing to do with rationality. I would think one would need faith in order to buy into an incohernet contradictory collection of books. Think wht would happen if a thousand or so years from now, people found books from now. Would the people of the future know that Steven King books were fiction? I'd say when one uses the bible as a source, there argument carries no weight, and goes down the toilet.

Quote:
Firstly, that is your opinion. No, but people actually created institutions based on Christianity, and many things have happened in its name, that will never happen by Steven King. In addition, the bible is much like a history book as well recording the events of that time period. Lastly, can you please point out ONE specific place in the bible where a passage defies al common sense and reason altogether? (were gonna exempt creation for now, since there are entire threads going on about it.)

Uhh, that's your opinion. I'll tell ya what, hows about you show me where the bible represents reality, ok?

Quote:
Umm lets see, do you believe in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ existence?

I'm not denying that. But many intelligent men were, and will be Buddhists, Jews, Traditional Chinease, and the list goes on. Dude, if they're were numerous religions before and after Christianity, and they all claim they're right, what makes Christinity the right one?

Quote:
I recall a site that shows the top 100 people in history (based on influence I think) and around 70 or 80 people were Christian, so mathematically that would make Christianity appear superior to the other faiths, and also if you look at sheer number of adherents. Now I can go on forever that Christianity is the right one, but first are we in agreement that Christianity is AT LEAST equal to other systems of thoughts and religions?

That's true, on the same token, intelligent people have been converted to atheism also. Conversion is not mutually exclusive to Christianity.

Quote:
Again are you saying that Christianity is equivalent to other religious beliefs of SOT’s

That's quite different. Back in that time, it was perfectly acceptable to blindly believe in superstition. But now, since we have all these medical advances and such, your skydaddy shrinks. Ohh, and he was a President. If he were to declare to the world he didn't believe in such an entity, he would be thrown out of office so fast, his damn head would spin. Atheism is frowned upon.

Quote:
So now your using “back in a different time” as a legit argument about when it’s appropriate to accept Christianity and when it’s not acceptable. Please define WHEN that time occurred, and now it seems like you are only excluding people based on a time period to further your personal opinion.

Wow, your arguments are getting more and more asinine as this goes on. Again, look at the time period C.S. Lewis lived.


Quote:
Seriously, You are going to use this argument again. Therefore, you are saying that every great person who lived who accepted Christianity from Augustine to Kennedy was blindly accepting something that was “appropriate” at his or her time to accept.

Wow, you bible-thumpers really buy this hogwash don't you? Let me ask you a question. Why do you spend your time arguing as if your right, when you could be spending your time saving the souls of sinners?

Quote:
I am not arguing that I am right I am either defending my beliefs or answering questions that you have about it. And I do spend my time saving ht souls of sinners, but that isn’t the only obligation, we (Christians) should also help the poor, spread the Word, pray et cetera, along with living a joyful life, and enjoying entertainment, sports, movies, et cetera.

I have never heard such an extraordinary claim. I would love to see a link supporting this.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#long_life_spans

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Plants before sunlinght (resulting in no photosynthesis). Night and day long before the sun. The moon claimed to shine on its own. (Depending on translations) birds before animals.

Wait where are you quoting this from? As in what passage.

 

[kal-el]

What was wrong with the last sentence?

I think you were talking about faith. Everything else was logical and rational, then you brought up the faith thing. It went downhill from there.

Firstly, that is your opinion. No, but people actually created institutions based on Christianity, and many things have happened in its name, that will never happen by Steven King. In addition, the bible is much like a history book as well recording the events of that time period. Lastly, can you please point out ONE specific place in the bible where a passage defies al common sense and reason altogether? (were gonna exempt creation for now, since there are entire threads going on about it.)

First off, can you please use the quotes correctly, it's a pain in the ass searching for what you actually said. I realize everyone makes mistakes, but you seem to make a habit of doing this, thanks.

Why form a religion on someone you can't prove existed? Uhh, if I'm not mistaken L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology institutions, and has attracted plenty of followers. The bible is nothing even remotely like a history book, if it were, it would be dispersed to students in schools, stop being dishonest.

Joshua10:12-13
On the day the lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the lord in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon. O moon, over the valley of A ijalon." So the sun stood still and the moon stopped, till the nation avengened itself on its enemies.

There ya go. I believe this passage defies all common sense and reason. How is it possible that the sun stands still? What about all the bats, and other nocturnal animals? Did they never come out, and simply die off, or what?

Umm lets see, do you believe in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ existence?

Negative. The bible is proof of nothing. If you can provide a link on something other than people who heard of Christians, not biblical works, then maybe I'll believe it.

I recall a site that shows the top 100 people in history (based on influence I think) and around 70 or 80 people were Christian, so mathematically that would make Christianity appear superior to the other faiths, and also if you look at sheer number of adherents.

Post the site.

Now I can go on forever that Christianity is the right one, but first are we in agreement that Christianity is AT LEAST equal to other systems of thoughts and religions?

Sure, it's the same as other religions, but you didn't answer my question, why is it the right one. Suppose you go to a coffeshop, and run into a conversation about god, how would you go about trying to get people to subscribe to Christianity without any credible proof?

Again are you saying that Christianity is equivalent to other religious beliefs of SOT’s

SOT's?

So now your using “back in a different time” as a legit argument about when it’s appropriate to accept Christianity and when it’s not acceptable. Please define WHEN that time occurred, and now it seems like you are only excluding people based on a time period to further your personal opinion.

Isn't it. Back in Copernicus or Bruno's time, if you didn't believe in a god, you were probably tortured or jailed, you never admitted it. That is unless you had a death wish.

Seriously, You are going to use this argument again. Therefore, you are saying that every great person who lived who accepted Christianity from Augustine to Kennedy was blindly accepting something that was “appropriate” at his or her time to accept.

That would be correct. Let's say a thousand years from now, we can cure every illness, and sickness, hospitals are redundant. Our life expectancy has increased to over 700 years? We can do things then what we would only consider "miracles" now, like turning water into wine, maybe we could use simple scientific principles to manipulate the structure of water. Maybe we will come up with a device that will let us extract water from rocks, who knows? There's no such thing as miracles, only different levels of civilizations.

I am not arguing that I am right I am either defending my beliefs or answering questions that you have about it. And I do spend my time saving ht souls of sinners, but that isn’t the only obligation, we (Christians) should also help the poor, spread the Word, pray et cetera, along with living a joyful life, and enjoying entertainment, sports, movies, et cetera.

Dude, you should write the Pope and urge him to sell all of the Vatican's wealth he's wallowing in, and help feed the starving people on earth.

I have never heard such an extraordinary claim. I would love to see a link supporting this.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#long_life_spans

Good job! Here's a quote from the article:

Long life spans make it possible for human technology and civilization to emerge rapidly. Living 900 years gives people ample opportunity to make discoveries, develop technology, refine technological achievements, and teach all that has been learned to ensuing generations. Under these conditions, human civilization can make dramatic advances in relatively few generations.

I totally agrre with this. If we did acheive longer life spans, alot discoveries can be made.

 

[steen]

Plants before sunlinght (resulting in no photosynthesis). Night and day long before the sun. The moon claimed to shine on its own. (Depending on translations) birds before animals.

Wait where are you quoting this from? As in what passage.

Genesis 1, of course.

Night and day: 3-5 (the FIRST day)
Plants: 11-12 (the THIRD day)
Sun and moon: 16 (the FOURTH day)
The moon as a light: 16
Fish and birds: 20-22 (the FIFTH day)
Animals: 24-25 (the SIXTH day)

So there it is:

Plants before sunlight exists for photosynthesis.
Night and day before the sun even existed.
The moon as a light.
Birds before animals.

Just as I said. Do you mean that you never read Genesis 1 with an eye to logic and accuracy?

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

I think you were talking about faith. Everything else was logical and rational, then you brought up the faith thing. It went downhill from there.

Quote:
Your presumption of faith is making you closed-minded. Just because its faith doesn’t mean that it is illogical or irrational, that’s a conclusion that you have already jumped too.

First off, can you please use the quotes correctly, it's a pain in the ass searching for what you actually said. I realize everyone makes mistakes, but you seem to make a habit of doing this, thanks.

Why form a religion on someone you can't prove existed? Uhh, if I'm not mistaken L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology institutions, and has attracted plenty of followers. The bible is nothing even remotely like a history book, if it were, it would be dispersed to students in schools, stop being dishonest.

Quote:
They only disperse certain history books, that examine the history of a specific time period that the class is studying. I do not know of any classes in public schools that only study middle eastern history, specifically Palestinian history. Ok but in religion, biblical, and philosophical classes the Bible is often presented as study material. It was not written to be a book of history anyway but there are many historical accounts that are in the bible, AND the bible does incorporate ancient texts into its work like the book of Jashar/er. As you will see Jesus Christ really DID exist.

There ya go. I believe this passage defies all common sense and reason. How is it possible that the sun stands still? What about all the bats, and other nocturnal animals? Did they never come out, and simply die off, or what?

Quote:
How did the sun stand still? Of course, in relation to the earth the sun always stands still-it is the earth that travels around the sun. However, the terminology used in Joshua should not cause us to doubt the miracle. After all, we are not confused when someone tells us the sunrises or sets. The point is that the day was prolonged, not that God used a particular method to prolong it. Two explanations have been given for how the event occurred. A slowing of the earth’s normal rotation gave Joshua more time, as the original Hebrew language indicate. Alternatively, some unusual refraction of the suns rays gave additional hours of light. Regardless of Gods chosen method, the Bible is clear that that day was prolonged by a miracle, and that Gods intervention turned the tide of battle for his people. (Life Application Bible NIV). Do I need to explain about the bats and other nocturnal animas?

Negative. The bible is proof of nothing. If you can provide a link on something other than people who heard of Christians, not biblical works, then maybe I'll believe it.

Quote:
Ok here is one:

http://www.carm.org/questions/Josephus_Jesus.htm

And here is a site that has like 10+ links:

http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=89&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Historical+Evidence

Post the site.

Quote:
^

Sure, it's the same as other religions, but you didn't answer my question, why is it the right one. Suppose you go to a coffeshop, and run into a conversation about god, how would you go about trying to get people to subscribe to Christianity without any credible proof?

Quote:
I am glad that were in agreement that it is the same as other religions, now I will answer you latter questions, but lets first quickly check something here, do you believe that Christianity has affected (both positively and negatively) the course of American politics and culture since the beginning of America?

SOT's?

Quote:
System of thought(s)

Isn't it. Back in Copernicus or Bruno's time, if you didn't believe in a god, you were probably tortured or jailed, you never admitted it. That is unless you had a death wish.

Quote:
By the Catholic church probably 1. I am not catholic, and 2. That would take away your freewill and eliminate God’s plan of Salvation, which is NOT theologically justifiable. Now Copernicus (1473-1543), and Bruno (b. 1548) notice the time period? Yea the two people I mentioned C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) and J. F. Kennedy (1917-1963) lived in a MUCH more contemporary time period then did the ones you mentioned.

That would be correct. Let's say a thousand years from now, we can cure every illness, and sickness, hospitals are redundant. Our life expectancy has increased to over 700 years? We can do things then what we would only consider "miracles" now, like turning water into wine, maybe we could use simple scientific principles to manipulate the structure of water. Maybe we will come up with a device that will let us extract water from rocks, who knows? There's no such thing as miracles, only different levels of civilizations.

Quote:
“Lets say” is a hypothetical situation, so already I am a little bit weary, anyway. A miracle is an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God-dictionary.com. Therefore, are you saying that the accounts of miracles are a super technologically advanced Jesus, that knew sciences that we did not, and what about ALL the other miracles that have been recorded throughout the ages, ESPECIALLY healing miracles. In addition, as I was doing my paper route and did some thinking, and got another response to your statement, so here it is: Obviously, you’re talking about pure speculation here. You do not know that things will be possible in the future... and scientifically we make advancements, but we do not usually break the laws of nature. For instance, alchemists tried to make gold out of other metals for a long time they ended up being the foundation for chemistry. However, they never made gold out of metal by saying that "someday" we might be able to do these things with science, you might as well be saying that "someday" we will sprout wings and fly to the moon it is very ‘unbased’ on reason we've never been able to create something from nothing. Ever. and so even if we learned to create and put together new atoms and combine new things to make something spiffy... we would have to use what we have already

Dude, you should write the Pope and urge him to sell all of the Vatican's wealth he's wallowing in, and help feed the starving people on earth.

Quote:
I am not catholic…

Good job! Here's a quote from the article:
Quote:
Ok?

I totally agrre with this. If we did acheive longer life spans, alot discoveries can be made.

Yes a lot of discoveries COULD be made…but so what?

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Genesis 1, of course.

Night and day: 3-5 (the FIRST day)
Plants: 11-12 (the THIRD day)
Sun and moon: 16 (the FOURTH day)
The moon as a light: 16
Fish and birds: 20-22 (the FIFTH day)
Animals: 24-25 (the SIXTH day)

So there it is:

Plants before sunlight exists for photosynthesis.
Night and day before the sun even existed.
The moon as a light.
Birds before animals.

Just as I said. Do you mean that you never read Genesis 1 with an eye to logic and accuracy?

Firstly, your taking a VERY literal view of genesis, I personally am not in the right position to comment on that from neither a theological nor a scientific point of view. NEVERTHELESS, I found this great site that explains the seven days of creation:

http://www.kiva.net/~kls/page2.html

 

[kal-el]

I think you were talking about faith. Everything else was logical and rational, then you brought up the faith thing. It went downhill from there.

Quote:
Your presumption of faith is making you closed-minded. Just because its faith doesn’t mean that it is illogical or irrational, that’s a conclusion that you have already jumped too.

First off, can you please use the quotes correctly, it's a pain in the ass searching for what you actually said. I realize everyone makes mistakes, but you seem to make a habit of doing this, thanks.

Why form a religion on someone you can't prove existed? Uhh, if I'm not mistaken L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology institutions, and has attracted plenty of followers. The bible is nothing even remotely like a history book, if it were, it would be dispersed to students in schools, stop being dishonest.

Quote:
They only disperse certain history books, that examine the history of a specific time period that the class is studying. I do not know of any classes in public schools that only study middle eastern history, specifically Palestinian history. Ok but in religion, biblical, and philosophical classes the Bible is often presented as study material. It was not written to be a book of history anyway but there are many historical accounts that are in the bible, AND the bible does incorporate ancient texts into its work like the book of Jashar/er. As you will see Jesus Christ really DID exist.

There ya go. I believe this passage defies all common sense and reason. How is it possible that the sun stands still? What about all the bats, and other nocturnal animals? Did they never come out, and simply die off, or what?

Quote:
How did the sun stand still? Of course, in relation to the earth the sun always stands still-it is the earth that travels around the sun. However, the terminology used in Joshua should not cause us to doubt the miracle. After all, we are not confused when someone tells us the sunrises or sets. The point is that the day was prolonged, not that God used a particular method to prolong it. Two explanations have been given for how the event occurred. A slowing of the earth’s normal rotation gave Joshua more time, as the original Hebrew language indicate. Alternatively, some unusual refraction of the suns rays gave additional hours of light. Regardless of Gods chosen method, the Bible is clear that that day was prolonged by a miracle, and that Gods intervention turned the tide of battle for his people. (Life Application Bible NIV). Do I need to explain about the bats and other nocturnal animas?

Negative. The bible is proof of nothing. If you can provide a link on something other than people who heard of Christians, not biblical works, then maybe I'll believe it.

Quote:
Ok here is one:

http://www.carm.org/questions/Josephus_Jesus.htm

And here is a site that has like 10+ links:

http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=89&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Historical+Evidence

Post the site.

Quote:
^

Sure, it's the same as other religions, but you didn't answer my question, why is it the right one. Suppose you go to a coffeshop, and run into a conversation about god, how would you go about trying to get people to subscribe to Christianity without any credible proof?

Quote:
I am glad that were in agreement that it is the same as other religions, now I will answer you latter questions, but lets first quickly check something here, do you believe that Christianity has affected (both positively and negatively) the course of American politics and culture since the beginning of America?

SOT's?

Quote:
System of thought(s)

Isn't it. Back in Copernicus or Bruno's time, if you didn't believe in a god, you were probably tortured or jailed, you never admitted it. That is unless you had a death wish.

Quote:
By the Catholic church probably 1. I am not catholic, and 2. That would take away your freewill and eliminate God’s plan of Salvation, which is NOT theologically justifiable. Now Copernicus (1473-1543), and Bruno (b. 1548) notice the time period? Yea the two people I mentioned C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) and J. F. Kennedy (1917-1963) lived in a MUCH more contemporary time period then did the ones you mentioned.

That would be correct. Let's say a thousand years from now, we can cure every illness, and sickness, hospitals are redundant. Our life expectancy has increased to over 700 years? We can do things then what we would only consider "miracles" now, like turning water into wine, maybe we could use simple scientific principles to manipulate the structure of water. Maybe we will come up with a device that will let us extract water from rocks, who knows? There's no such thing as miracles, only different levels of civilizations.

Quote:
“Lets say” is a hypothetical situation, so already I am a little bit weary, anyway. A miracle is an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God-dictionary.com. Therefore, are you saying that the accounts of miracles are a super technologically advanced Jesus, that knew sciences that we did not, and what about ALL the other miracles that have been recorded throughout the ages, ESPECIALLY healing miracles. In addition, as I was doing my paper route and did some thinking, and got another response to your statement, so here it is: Obviously, you’re talking about pure speculation here. You do not know that things will be possible in the future... and scientifically we make advancements, but we do not usually break the laws of nature. For instance, alchemists tried to make gold out of other metals for a long time they ended up being the foundation for chemistry. However, they never made gold out of metal by saying that "someday" we might be able to do these things with science, you might as well be saying that "someday" we will sprout wings and fly to the moon it is very ‘unbased’ on reason we've never been able to create something from nothing. Ever. and so even if we learned to create and put together new atoms and combine new things to make something spiffy... we would have to use what we have already

Dude, you should write the Pope and urge him to sell all of the Vatican's wealth he's wallowing in, and help feed the starving people on earth.

Quote:
I am not catholic…

Good job! Here's a quote from the article:
Quote:
Ok?

I totally agrre with this. If we did acheive longer life spans, alot discoveries can be made.

Yes a lot of discoveries COULD be made…but so what?

First of all, I asked you once before, but I'll do it again, Please clean-up your posts. Please quote everything I say, and then respond, it'll make it alot easir on others. Second off, nope faith is illogical and irrational, it's not based on facts at all . I'm not making this up. Faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

And you're citing Josephus as proof of Christ? :rofl He wasn't even born until 3 decades after Jesus died. For nearly hundreds of years Christians have been citing Josephus as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ.

 

[steen]

Firstly, your taking a VERY literal view of genesis, I personally am not in the right position to comment on that from neither a theological nor a scientific point of view.

Well, you asked where there were errors, and I showed you. perhaps, theologically, there are "interpretations" that seek to twist things around a bit without having to admit that it simply is an allegory.

But remember that most of those who push creationism, f.ex. are strict literalists. The "every word in the Bible is exactly correct for ever" (other perhaps that Jesus really turning water to grape juice as they don't like alcohol :lol: )

Now, we can agree that genesis 1 is NOT totally literally correct, as I showed above. That was all that I claimed. So we agree.

NEVERTHELESS, I found this great site that explains the seven days of creation:

http://www.kiva.net/~kls/page2.html

I don't need a site. I got the Bible right here.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzard Warrior
I think you were talking about faith. Everything else was logical and rational, then you brought up the faith thing. It went downhill from there.

Quote:
Your presumption of faith is making you closed-minded. Just because its faith doesn’t mean that it is illogical or irrational, that’s a conclusion that you have already jumped too.

First off, can you please use the quotes correctly, it's a pain in the ass searching for what you actually said. I realize everyone makes mistakes, but you seem to make a habit of doing this, thanks.

Why form a religion on someone you can't prove existed? Uhh, if I'm not mistaken L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology institutions, and has attracted plenty of followers. The bible is nothing even remotely like a history book, if it were, it would be dispersed to students in schools, stop being dishonest.

Quote:
They only disperse certain history books, that examine the history of a specific time period that the class is studying. I do not know of any classes in public schools that only study middle eastern history, specifically Palestinian history. Ok but in religion, biblical, and philosophical classes the Bible is often presented as study material. It was not written to be a book of history anyway but there are many historical accounts that are in the bible, AND the bible does incorporate ancient texts into its work like the book of Jashar/er. As you will see Jesus Christ really DID exist.

There ya go. I believe this passage defies all common sense and reason. How is it possible that the sun stands still? What about all the bats, and other nocturnal animals? Did they never come out, and simply die off, or what?

Quote:
How did the sun stand still? Of course, in relation to the earth the sun always stands still-it is the earth that travels around the sun. However, the terminology used in Joshua should not cause us to doubt the miracle. After all, we are not confused when someone tells us the sunrises or sets. The point is that the day was prolonged, not that God used a particular method to prolong it. Two explanations have been given for how the event occurred. A slowing of the earth’s normal rotation gave Joshua more time, as the original Hebrew language indicate. Alternatively, some unusual refraction of the suns rays gave additional hours of light. Regardless of Gods chosen method, the Bible is clear that that day was prolonged by a miracle, and that Gods intervention turned the tide of battle for his people. (Life Application Bible NIV). Do I need to explain about the bats and other nocturnal animas?

Negative. The bible is proof of nothing. If you can provide a link on something other than people who heard of Christians, not biblical works, then maybe I'll believe it.

Quote:
Ok here is one:

http://www.carm.org/questions/Josephus_Jesus.htm

And here is a site that has like 10+ links:

http://www.bible-history.com/links.p...rical+Evidence

Post the site.

Quote:
^

Sure, it's the same as other religions, but you didn't answer my question, why is it the right one. Suppose you go to a coffeshop, and run into a conversation about god, how would you go about trying to get people to subscribe to Christianity without any credible proof?

Quote:
I am glad that were in agreement that it is the same as other religions, now I will answer you latter questions, but lets first quickly check something here, do you believe that Christianity has affected (both positively and negatively) the course of American politics and culture since the beginning of America?

SOT's?

Quote:
System of thought(s)

Isn't it. Back in Copernicus or Bruno's time, if you didn't believe in a god, you were probably tortured or jailed, you never admitted it. That is unless you had a death wish.

Quote:
By the Catholic church probably 1. I am not catholic, and 2. That would take away your freewill and eliminate God’s plan of Salvation, which is NOT theologically justifiable. Now Copernicus (1473-1543), and Bruno (b. 1548) notice the time period? Yea the two people I mentioned C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) and J. F. Kennedy (1917-1963) lived in a MUCH more contemporary time period then did the ones you mentioned.

That would be correct. Let's say a thousand years from now, we can cure every illness, and sickness, hospitals are redundant. Our life expectancy has increased to over 700 years? We can do things then what we would only consider "miracles" now, like turning water into wine, maybe we could use simple scientific principles to manipulate the structure of water. Maybe we will come up with a device that will let us extract water from rocks, who knows? There's no such thing as miracles, only different levels of civilizations.

Quote:
“Lets say” is a hypothetical situation, so already I am a little bit weary, anyway. A miracle is an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God-dictionary.com. Therefore, are you saying that the accounts of miracles are a super technologically advanced Jesus, that knew sciences that we did not, and what about ALL the other miracles that have been recorded throughout the ages, ESPECIALLY healing miracles. In addition, as I was doing my paper route and did some thinking, and got another response to your statement, so here it is: Obviously, you’re talking about pure speculation here. You do not know that things will be possible in the future... and scientifically we make advancements, but we do not usually break the laws of nature. For instance, alchemists tried to make gold out of other metals for a long time they ended up being the foundation for chemistry. However, they never made gold out of metal by saying that "someday" we might be able to do these things with science, you might as well be saying that "someday" we will sprout wings and fly to the moon it is very ‘unbased’ on reason we've never been able to create something from nothing. Ever. and so even if we learned to create and put together new atoms and combine new things to make something spiffy... we would have to use what we have already

Dude, you should write the Pope and urge him to sell all of the Vatican's wealth he's wallowing in, and help feed the starving people on earth.

Quote:
I am not catholic…

Good job! Here's a quote from the article:
Quote:
Ok?

I totally agrre with this. If we did acheive longer life spans, alot discoveries can be made.

Yes a lot of discoveries COULD be made…but so what?

First of all, I asked you once before, but I'll do it again, Please clean-up your posts. Please quote everything I say, and then respond, it'll make it alot easir on others. Second off, nope faith is illogical and irrational, it's not based on facts at all . I'm not making this up. Faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Two things, you are going by the second definition, what about the first: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Now have you ever heard of the famous saying by Samuel Jackson (I think it was him) “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”?

And you're citing Josephus as proof of Christ? He wasn't even born until 3 decades after Jesus died. For nearly hundreds of years Christians have been citing Josephus as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ.

Interesting information about Josephus, Jesus, newfound evidence that might interest you (it surely interested me):

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

By the way are you just not going to bother responding to my post above?

 

[Engimo]

Two things, you are going by the second definition, what about the first: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Now have you ever heard of the famous saying by Samuel Jackson (I think it was him) “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”?

You are misunderstanding this statement. The burden of proof lies in those that are asserting something. So the fact that no evidence exists for something, while it does not PROVE that the thing does not exist, means that you cannot claim that it does. The logical default, though, is to not believe anything that cannot be proven, as the burden of proof, like I said, lies upon those that are asserting something to be true.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Originally Posted by Blizzard Warrior
Firstly, your taking a VERY literal view of genesis, I personally am not in the right position to comment on that from neither a theological nor a scientific point of view.

Well, you asked where there were errors, and I showed you. perhaps, theologically, there are "interpretations" that seek to twist things around a bit without having to admit that it simply is an allegory.

But remember that most of those who push creationism, f.ex. are strict literalists. The "every word in the Bible is exactly correct for ever" (other perhaps that Jesus really turning water to grape juice as they don't like alcohol )

Now, we can agree that genesis 1 is NOT totally literally correct, as I showed above. That was all that I claimed. So we agree.

I know, but I am just bringing into the light that you ARE interpreting it differently then someone else could perhaps. Again, I am NOT a creationist. Lol they do not like alcohol? Then they must also disregard the wine used in communion that becomes Christ’s blood.

I don't need a site. I got the Bible right here.

Ignorance? Perhaps…sounds very creationist of you ONLY to look at the bible.

 

[kal-el]

Two things, you are going by the second definition, what about the first: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Now have you ever heard of the famous saying by Samuel Jackson (I think it was him) “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”?

I would hardly use an actor as an example of an intelligent linguist.:lol: Umm, you do not know its the truth, you may believe, but you do not know.

Interesting information about Josephus, Jesus, newfound evidence that might interest you (it surely interested me):

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

Uhh, sorry to rain on your little parade, but this isn't new by any stretch. Josephus was a Jewish Historian, who was born decades after the death of Christ, who heard of Christians. Once again, proof of Christians does not equal proof of Jesus, ok?

Your presumption of faith is making you closed-minded. Just because its faith doesn’t mean that it is illogical or irrational, that’s a conclusion that you have already jumped too.

Uhh, negative. Faith rests on no evidence. From the definition of faith which I gave above: Belief that does not rest on logical proof The only reason I say it's irrational, is because the stories in the bible are irrational, example, Jonah in the belly of a fish for 3 days and nights, that's irrational, the sun standing still for 3 days, thats irrational.

It was not written to be a book of history anyway but there are many historical accounts that are in the bible, AND the bible does incorporate ancient texts into its work like the book of Jashar/er. As you will see Jesus Christ really DID exist.

Man, did you ****ing loose your mind?

How did the sun stand still?

That's the million dollar question.

Of course, in relation to the earth the sun always stands still-it is the earth that travels around the sun.

Wow, I'm dealing with Bill Nye here.:lol:

However, the terminology used in Joshua should not cause us to doubt the miracle.

Miracle? First off, in order for there to actually be a miracle, you must prove that there is an entity that is able to facilitate them.

After all, we are not confused when someone tells us the sunrises or sets.

Correct.

The point is that the day was prolonged, not that God used a particular method to prolong it.

He had to, it can't "prolong" all by itself, he had to intervene using a method.

Two explanations have been given for how the event occurred. A slowing of the earth’s normal rotation gave Joshua more time, as the original Hebrew language indicate. Alternatively, some unusual refraction of the suns rays gave additional hours of light. Regardless of Gods chosen method, the Bible is clear that that day was prolonged by a miracle, and that Gods intervention turned the tide of battle for his people. (Life Application Bible NIV). Do I need to explain about the bats and other nocturnal animas?

If the earth's rotation did slow, once again, some entity had to intervene to cause this, this doesn't commonly happen. Didn't you just say that he didn't use a particular method? Yes, I would like to hear a Christian perspective on all the bats and others, so it can be ripped to pieces with logic.:lol:

do you believe that Christianity has affected (both positively and negatively) the course of American politics and culture since the beginning of America?

Yep.

By the Catholic church probably 1. I am not catholic, and 2. That would take away your freewill and eliminate God’s plan of Salvation, which is NOT theologically justifiable. Now Copernicus (1473-1543), and Bruno (b. 1548) notice the time period? Yea the two people I mentioned C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) and J. F. Kennedy (1917-1963) lived in a MUCH more contemporary time period then did the ones you mentioned.

It doesn't really matter. JFK was a well-known public figure. He could never admit if he were an atheist. The minute he publicly stated that he lacked a belief in god, either the public would lynch him, but probably he would be impeached for any reason. (impeachment on the grounds of just atheism is absurd).

“Lets say” is a hypothetical situation, so already I am a little bit weary, anyway. A miracle is an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God-dictionary.com. Therefore, are you saying that the accounts of miracles are a super technologically advanced Jesus, that knew sciences that we did not, and what about ALL the other miracles that have been recorded throughout the ages, ESPECIALLY healing miracles. In addition, as I was doing my paper route and did some thinking, and got another response to your statement, so here it is: Obviously, you’re talking about pure speculation here. You do not know that things will be possible in the future... and scientifically we make advancements, but we do not usually break the laws of nature. For instance, alchemists tried to make gold out of other metals for a long time they ended up being the foundation for chemistry. However, they never made gold out of metal by saying that "someday" we might be able to do these things with science, you might as well be saying that "someday" we will sprout wings and fly to the moon it is very ‘unbased’ on reason we've never been able to create something from nothing. Ever. and so even if we learned to create and put together new atoms and combine new things to make something spiffy... we would have to use what we have already

Of course I don't know if things will be possible in the future, heck I don't even know if there'll be a future. Since miracles were so abundant in a no-technology time, and there none now, what does that tell you?

 

[Caine]

Of course I don't know if things will be possible in the future, heck I don't even know if there'll be a future. Since miracles were so abundant in a no-technology time, and there none now, what does that tell you?

That tells me that we are the miracle.

Our "technology" is the miracle.

If such things do exist.

 

[kal-el]

That tells me that we are the miracle.

Our "technology" is the miracle.

If such things do exist.

Yep. Miracles= Technology

 

[Vandeervecken]

We have as much chance of understanding the mind of god as we do of visualizing and comprehending nothing.

In fact, the two operations are identical since there is no God.

When I want to visualize nothing I just think of the inside of President Bush's skull.

 

[Red-Phase]

Article

Judge's opinion:


Did that school board get served or what! Time for a happy dance for logic!

I smell a smear!!!!

keep up the demonizing campiegn...