[quote]AndyG wrote:
Geez, where did all this science vs religion shit come from. I was just trying to say scientology has just as much credibility as christianity. Give it a thousand years and we’ll all be wondering when the second coming of Tom Cruise will be.[/quote]
It was going on before you got here, dumb ass.
“Der, hey guys? Why am I so full of myself?”
Hey sherlock, in case you didn’t notice, you got our ass handed to you.
Now leave.
Yep, I turned away for a moment and found out that religion is more believable than science.
Got my arse handed to me rainjack, yep you’re right.
I don’t know why you’re full of yourself, you haven’t got much to be proud of.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Yep, I turned away for a moment and found out that religion is more believable than science.
Got my arse handed to me rainjack, yep you’re right.
I don’t know why you’re full of yourself, you haven’t got much to be proud of.[/quote]
Decidedly more than you, monkey fucker.
Let’s see. What have we learned about the great little andy?
knows dick about science.
knows dick about religion
knows dick about the second amendment
Is scared shitless of visiting Texas
Knows dick about Texas.
Loves to fuck cattle and monkeys
You have never said whether or not monkeys pinch.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Yep, I turned away for a moment and found out that religion is more believable than science.
[/quote]
Show me where someone made that claim.
The only thing that was said was they both take faith based on unprovable and untestable assumptions.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Yep, I turned away for a moment and found out that religion is more believable than science.
Show me where someone made that claim.
The only thing that was said was they both take faith based on unprovable and untestable assumptions.[/quote]
He makes all his arguments up. He doesn’t have to show you any proof. His proof is in his deformed little walnut of a brain. Hell, he brought his cattle/monkey fetish into an abortion debate and declared victory.
Expecting little Andy to have proof of his position is like expecting Iran to stop being dicks.
Well duce, when someone says that:
Science is based on unproven assertions;
Science does not adequately explain observable phenomena;
These phenomena are explained by the existence of a god;
then I’d say the claim that religion is more believable than science was being made.
Rainjack, from your posts we can deduce:
You don’t know shit about anything;
You are still shit at bagging people even though it’s all you do;
You are an angry little boy, did you have a brother who was mummy’s favourite? Or did she always want a girl and make you wear dresses? That could explain a lot.
Anyway you are a silly little Seppo, and I know you like following men around but it’s making me uncomfortable.
Stop sending me PMs of a sexual nature, I’m flattered but do not swing that way.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Which is still more than you know. Must suck for you. But some people are notorious at losing. You are the Chicago Cubs of the PWI forum. Congrats
I don’t bag people. I don’t even know what that means. But I can assume it is something I do better than you, since you show waht a miserable failure you are with just about every post.
Sounds more like you are projecting your own childhood on to others. It’s a classic move by those suffering from childhood trauma. I am sure your doctors have told you all about it, though.
Seeing as how I was in this thread before you were - hell, I am in every thread before you are - it would seem that you are the one doing the following. I think you are projecting again.
Dude, they are pictures of spider monkeys. Oh - that’s right - you get off on the little guys, don’t you? I guess the “swing” reference was a Freudian slip, huh? You wished you could swing with those sexy little fellas, don’t you?
Perhaps you should call it a day in this thread, little monkey fucker.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Well duce, when someone says that:
Science is based on unproven assertions;
Science does not adequately explain observable phenomena;
These phenomena are explained by the existence of a god;
then I’d say the claim that religion is more believable than science was being made.
Rainjack, from your posts we can deduce:
You don’t know shit about anything;
You are still shit at bagging people even though it’s all you do;
You are an angry little boy, did you have a brother who was mummy’s favourite? Or did she always want a girl and make you wear dresses? That could explain a lot.
Anyway you are a silly little Seppo, and I know you like following men around but it’s making me uncomfortable.
Stop sending me PMs of a sexual nature, I’m flattered but do not swing that way.[/quote]
Andy, I just wanted to record your post for posterity - in case you’re tempted to edit out the utterly stupid parts.
And then the parts that have nothing to do with reality (you know, the “reality” that’s outside your fucking head?)
And then the vacuous parts.
I’m afraid you might end up deleting the whole thing by mistake.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Andy, I just wanted to record your post for posterity - in case you’re tempted to edit out the utterly stupid parts.
And then the parts that have nothing to do with reality (you know, the “reality” that’s outside your fucking head?)
And then the vacuous parts.
I’m afraid you might end up deleting the whole thing by mistake. [/quote]
You see katz? You see?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
One example is the guy saying there is no way the world was made in 7 days. The flow of time is another one of those scientific labels made up to name something unexplainable. Who is to say these fundamental unknowns have always behaved that way; that these scientific leaps of faith have always been observably true and are forever unchanging? Maybe time flow hasn’t always been the same. Not to mention the shear relativity of what a day was before existence.
Time doesn’t really flow it is a dimension like height, width, and breadth. It is an abstract concept that is measured in terms of change. It really depends on the object that changes that determines how our concept of time is formed. To add even more complexity special relativity tells us the mark of time is dependent on how fast we are moving relative to c.
The concept of a day does not mean anything before the formation of the the earth and sun and the rotation necessary to mark that cycle.[/quote]
Actually, the biggest reason time is different than the first 3 dimensions is that it flows. To say time doesn’t flow is kind of silly because although speed of time isn’t always constant, basic newtonian physics hold constant. More specifically causality can not be violated. Ie. time never stops flowing.
Furthermore, special relativity never changes our individual mark of time no matter how fast we go. The mark of time may differ if being observed from a different inertial frame of reference, but there has to be two bodies of reference because speed itself is only relative.
I agree with doubleduce actually, that we really have no concept of what things were like before the formation of the earth. Just like we really don’t have a concept of what existence was like before existence. (Just try to think what it would be like not to exist). More importantly we have no concept of eternity, which is not the same thing as forever.
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Actually, the biggest reason time is different than the first 3 dimensions is that it flows. [/quote]
No it doesn’t. Rather it is physical objects that move and change. What you call time flowing is just how the brain experiences change. You can actually trick your mind’s perception of time by shutting off all your sensory to the world – go into a completely dark and quite room and try to guess when half an hour has elapsed. Your brain is tricked because it can only mark time by change. You will still be aware of the rambling machinations of your mind but you will not have a solid awareness of any change taking place that it uses to mark time. That you can notice the “passing of time” is only attributed to your mind’s awareness of change.
What you said about relativity I agree with. I was not trying to imply that the observers traveling measure time differently but rather it would be other observers observing each other that measure it differently.
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
One example is the guy saying there is no way the world was made in 7 days. The flow of time is another one of those scientific labels made up to name something unexplainable. Who is to say these fundamental unknowns have always behaved that way; that these scientific leaps of faith have always been observably true and are forever unchanging? Maybe time flow hasn’t always been the same. Not to mention the shear relativity of what a day was before existence.
Time doesn’t really flow it is a dimension like height, width, and breadth. It is an abstract concept that is measured in terms of change. It really depends on the object that changes that determines how our concept of time is formed. To add even more complexity special relativity tells us the mark of time is dependent on how fast we are moving relative to c.
The concept of a day does not mean anything before the formation of the the earth and sun and the rotation necessary to mark that cycle.
Actually, the biggest reason time is different than the first 3 dimensions is that it flows. To say time doesn’t flow is kind of silly because although speed of time isn’t always constant, basic newtonian physics hold constant. More specifically causality can not be violated. Ie. time never stops flowing.
Furthermore, special relativity never changes our individual mark of time no matter how fast we go. The mark of time may differ if being observed from a different inertial frame of reference, but there has to be two bodies of reference because speed itself is only relative.
I agree with doubleduce actually, that we really have no concept of what things were like before the formation of the earth. Just like we really don’t have a concept of what existence was like before existence. (Just try to think what it would be like not to exist). More importantly we have no concept of eternity, which is not the same thing as forever.
:-D[/quote]
My point was that time itself isn’t a hard fact. the same event can be correctly measured as taking 2 different amounts of time, making time not universally valid.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Well duce, when someone says that:
Science is based on unprovable, untestable assertions, the same as religion;
Science does not completely explain observable phenomena, but relies on unprovable assertions the same as religion;
These phenomena are not explained by science which does not rule out the existence of a god;
then I’d say the claim that religion is more believable than science was being made.
[/quote]
I fixed your summations for you.
What a load of crap. Give me one example of something axiomatic which is not obviously true. The whole point of axioms is that they are self evident.
Science doesn’t rule out the existence of a god, it also doesn’t rule out aliens coming to take us back to Thetan 9 or whatever it’s called.
Science bases its assertions on evidence. Religion bases its assertions on rubbish evidence.
How much credibility today would you give a bunch of guys who wrote a book about detailed events that occured up to a few hundreds years before, going on stories they heard without any of them actually ever having witnessed them?
The bible was written by many various people (men, my guess), over hundreds of years and many of the things said contradict eachother in other places.
Many capters have been left out - at the discretion of Constantine and his fellow helpers (who actually decided what to add and what to keep out of the bible). There are also books in the Vatican (they admitted) which are kept private.
These stories have all been carried over from religion to religion and modified to their own versions to suit the “message” they want to preach. I supppose of people can believe in Scientology, anything is possible.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
How much credibility today would you give a bunch of guys who wrote a book about detailed events that occured up to a few hundreds years before, going on stories they heard without any of them actually ever having witnessed them?
The bible was written by many various people (men, my guess), over hundreds of years and many of the things said contradict eachother in other places.
Many capters have been left out - at the discretion of Constantine and his fellow helpers (who actually decided what to add and what to keep out of the bible). There are also books in the Vatican (they admitted) which are kept private.
These stories have all been carried over from religion to religion and modified to their own versions to suit the “message” they want to preach. I supppose of people can believe in Scientology, anything is possible.[/quote]
Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
The stuff they teach you in school as fact about Alexander the great was written 600 years after his death.
In terms of ancient historical documents, the Bible is as verified and sound as they come. I can recommend some reading if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic.
I also am not sure which contradictions you are speaking of.
Yes, the official cannon left out many books that were written, mostly because they couldn’t be substantiated, and they came from unreliable sources.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
What a load of crap. Give me one example of something axiomatic which is not obviously true. The whole point of axioms is that they are self evident.
Science doesn’t rule out the existence of a god, it also doesn’t rule out aliens coming to take us back to Thetan 9 or whatever it’s called.
Science bases its assertions on evidence. Religion bases its assertions on rubbish evidence.[/quote]
The existence of length, the pull of gravity, the passage of time, even things like parallelism, most of science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.[/quote]
And the hundreds of years BC where moses supposedly wrote capters don’t count? The bible is compiled over text written over hundreds of years.
[quote]
In terms of ancient historical documents, the Bible is as verified and sound as they come. I can recommend some reading if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic.[/quote]
Ok, verified as in factually or it’s originations? While where it originally came from may be verified, doesn’t mean they didn’t take that from somewhere else or that it’s true.
[i]"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."[/i]
LMAO! Had you actually read the bible, you may have picked up a few of these.
[quote]
Yes, the official cannon left out many books that were written, mostly because they couldn’t be substantiated, and they came from unreliable sources.[/quote]
I’d question what you consider a reliable source.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
And the hundreds of years BC where moses supposedly wrote capters don’t count? The bible is compiled over text written over hundreds of years.
In terms of ancient historical documents, the Bible is as verified and sound as they come. I can recommend some reading if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic.
Ok, verified as in factually or it’s originations? While where it originally came from may be verified, doesn’t mean they didn’t take that from somewhere else or that it’s true.
I also am not sure which contradictions you are speaking of.
[i]"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."[/i]
LMAO! Had you actually read the bible, you may have picked up a few of these.
Yes, the official cannon left out many books that were written, mostly because they couldn’t be substantiated, and they came from unreliable sources.
I’d question what you consider a reliable source.[/quote]
I don’t think you have read the bible either. I am pretty sure you are just going off what someone has told you, or from a google search.
Because any idiot would be able to understand that the fourth day it is talking about concentrating the light in the stars, and the moon. If you are basing your opinion on that verse, you most definitely are too lazy to do the work yourself, and are relying on google.
As for your second bit of proof - I have no idea what version of the bible you are reading, but mine says nothing even close to what your little google search turned up.
If you hate religion, fine - try to actually know what the hell you are talking about. there is nothing more pathetic than a lazy hater.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
And the hundreds of years BC where moses supposedly wrote capters don’t count? The bible is compiled over text written over hundreds of years.
In terms of ancient historical documents, the Bible is as verified and sound as they come. I can recommend some reading if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic.
Ok, verified as in factually or it’s originations? While where it originally came from may be verified, doesn’t mean they didn’t take that from somewhere else or that it’s true.
I also am not sure which contradictions you are speaking of.
[i]"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."[/i]
LMAO! Had you actually read the bible, you may have picked up a few of these.
Yes, the official cannon left out many books that were written, mostly because they couldn’t be substantiated, and they came from unreliable sources.
I’d question what you consider a reliable source.[/quote]
gen 1:3-5 god creates light and darkness, day and night
gen 1:14-19 God creates 2 firmaments for the light (sun and moon) to divide day and night on the earth
So, he says he created light, then put them into a physical body. Where is the contradiction? And also created day and night before we divided the 2 on the earth(which didn’t exist yet).
again, I don’t see it. Created light and dark, day and night on day one, gave them solid bodies or firmament on day 4.
I’ll have to look over your other Genisis quote (not familiar with this theory), but I can tell you, things don’t sometimes directly translate to English, especially in terms of order. Such as English’s lack of a 3rd party singular pronoun without gender.
So you some times will see a he where the original text was non-gender or a they when the original text was singular.
It was normal back then to put things in order in terms of quantity, not time line occurrence. Hence, one of those quotes, may actually mean there were simply more trees than people.
People often point this out in Christ’s death, when they put a spear in his side. The Bible says something to the effect that blood came out, then water, when medically it should have been the other way around.
However, in Ancient Greek, those English words like “then” often mean quantity. So, in this case there was more blood than clear fluid. Though I believe the old testament is mostly Aramaic, I’d have to check to see if the same is true.