[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you gain the moral high ground, arguably a dubious one, of aligning yourself with the Earp bros and Doc. [/quote]
Damned you’ll be then. 
Biologically, it’s a “drupe,” which, like a cherry (as Beta earlier mentioned), is technically not a berry.
But we’ll let you call it a berry, if it makes you feel better.
Sorry Varq, I guess when I said I was going to try and defend an opposite point of view, I was thinking of something more simple, like women always rolling healers on WoW. I honestly think that one’s ability at defending a point of view depends equally on being informed and articulate, but also on actually believing what you’re saying. And even if I have the smarts to write against vegetarianism (who knows), I simply wouldn’t like to do it.
We don’t have a perfect equivalent for the word berry in Portuguese. The closest thing would be “fruta”, which means fruit in general. And just like we call a lot of things that aren’t technically berries a berry (like raspberries and myself), in Brasil we call everything fruit in general conversation.
Push, out of the microbes website you linked: Microbes and the Days of Creation | Answers Research Journal
How does one decide what can, and what cannot be literally interpretated? Sounds to me that such distinction is based on convenience. For example, one would say that the description of a flat earth in the bible cannot be looked at literally, but at the same time, the earth being only 6 thousand years old can? What gives?
Of course, for microbes were practically unknown when it was written.
So there were diseases (probably as a form of population control I would assume) before the Fall? So everything was not peace and harmony?
This is my favourite. So God revealed insight to Pasteur and others (since their theories are so irrefutable that we all now see as facts), but He didn’t reveal to Darwin and Dawkins? Who decided that? When Pasteur first started his experiments, did the religious community immediatedly accept him as insightful, or did it take, say, a few decades?
I like to imagine a “pre-Fall” parasite. What did worms do before the Curse? They just lived in our intestines but without any harm? And then it changed to where now we have all sorts of diseases killing people? Wow, your God is vengeful.
And for the other link, I’m still reading some. This is one part that amazes me (about humans)
A lot of other animals are developed in such a way that they have abilities that we don’t get close to. So, we have a big, functional brain. Big deal. We just happen to be like this. Dogs can smell, horses are strong, cheetahs can run, bats can see with sonars, whales are huge. And they don’t go around bragging about it. But now that I think of it, if we’re the smartest ones, and yet kittens have the ability to manipulate us (if you say no, you don’t have a kitty), then cats must be God’s true favourite creation. More importantly, while we do have an incredible creative ability, we also have an equal descructive ability. We are the only animal that knowingly destroys its own enviroment. We are the only animal that kills for reasons other than surviving. Not just that, we use our creative minds to be able to kill more. We are the only animal that enjoys seeing other living beings hurting. We are the only animals that accumulate more resources than we need. How God blessed special is that?
So are animals. Proven time and time again by both studies and anedoctal evidence.
How does being able to ponder one’s role in an imaginary plot mean proof of anything? You know, dogs dream too (and other animals).
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Sorry Varq, I guess when I said I was going to try and defend an opposite point of view, I was thinking of something more simple, like women always rolling healers on WoW. I honestly think that one’s ability at defending a point of view depends equally on being informed and articulate, but also on actually believing what you’re saying. And even if I have the smarts to write against vegetarianism (who knows), I simply wouldn’t like to do it.
[/quote]
Well, as a meat eater and gun owner, I wouldn’t be terribly happy defending the argument I laid out above, but I’d still do it.
I think that’s the essence of Devil’s Advocate: you have to be able to find a solid argument supporting even a position you strongly oppose.
And anyway, you wouldn’t need to argue against vegetarianism and disarmament, but rather for eating meat and owning firearms.
If you don’t want to play this particular game, though, that’s okay. There are other games.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
But now that I think of it, if we’re the smartest ones, and yet kittens have the ability to manipulate us (if you say no, you don’t have a kitty), then cats must be God’s true favourite creation.[/quote]
Evil malicious creatures. And yet…
Damn.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
First of all, I’m not sure where you’re getting the “Bible says the earth if flat” thing from. There are several instances in scripture where the “curve of the earth,” i.e. a spherical shape of some kind is mentioned. I also believe the writers of scripture would have conversed maybe much like we do today in casual conversation where our colloquialisms make it sound like we are speaking of a flat earth.
The only place I think you might gather the flat earth idea is:
"Perhaps no phrase in Scripture has been so controversial as the phrase, “the four corners of the earth.” The word translated â??corners,â?? as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity.
It is translated â??bordersâ?? in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated â??four cornersâ?? and again in Isaiah 11:12 â??four corners.â?? Job 37:3 and 38:13 as â??ends.â??
The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is gonia. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions.
Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches that the earth is square. The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).
Some have tried to say there are four knobs, or peaks on a round earth. Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated, it makes reference to EXTREMITIES.
There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:
* Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
* Paioh means â??a geometric cornerâ??
* Ziovyoh means â??right angleâ?? or â??cornerâ??
* Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
* Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity."
So the bottom line is don’t get hung up on the flat earth deal. You’re basically just talking semantics and interpretation/translation issues.
[/quote]
Several verses in the bible suggest that the earth is flat and doesn’t move, regardless of how you translate them.
“[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”
(Matthew 4:1-12)
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)
1 Chronicles 16:30: â??He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â??
Psalm 93:1: â??Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …â??
Psalm 96:10: â??He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …â??
Psalm 104:5: â??Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â??
Isaiah 45:18: â??..who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…â??
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, I stumbled across a link that explains some creationists’ views on vestigial organs:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/vestigial-organs [/quote]
Sorry, the little I read on the link made me laugh at how inaccurate it is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
but at the same time, the earth being only 6 thousand years old can? What gives?
There are some disagreements on earth age but the “young earthers” promote a 6,000 - 10,000 year theory.
[/quote]
Wow, thanks for explaining that. I mean, 10,000 is a whole lot more than 6,000.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Very little has been written in Bible commentaries or in creation literature on the subject of when microbes were created.
Of course, for microbes were practically unknown when it was written.
From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed. This would ensure continuity and stability for the times to come.
So there were diseases (probably as a form of population control I would assume) before the Fall? So everything was not peace and harmony?
No, I don’t believe there were diseases. There certainly was no death. There are a myriad of ideas about how long the period was between the Creation week and the fall. A few days to a few years.
[/quote]
Ideas, you say? Any facts? No? Hm, thought so.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
He certainly is Almighty God and is the only entity in the universe worthy to ultimately decide to dispense vengeance.
We also get into the freedom of choice issue, God’s omniscience, man’s selection of the wrong choice, the consequences of such and on and on…
[/quote]
Yea I always think about how the freedom of choice is religion’s ace in the sleeve to explain why the world is so fucked up when supposedly we have a God that is so omnipotent, omniscient, and that loves and forgive us all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would have to believe that you and I both believe that we as humans might just have a bit more pondering ability than dogs. And I think we can dream in a far more extensive way too? You suppose?
[/quote]
Yea… we can dream more extensively. Which means we can deviate further from reality. Just like a kid’s imagination has no boundaries, and they believe in fairies and super heroes. Our pondering is so extensive we create Gods for ourselves, give them names, stablish that we’re made in their image, built them temples, and let our lives be ruled by them.
Now the next part might come as a disappointment.
I was thinking about this while running some house chores just now. And I came to the conclusion that this is a waste of time. I’ve said several times before, your opinion is based on faith, and sadly, I cannot change that. And while at first it was interesting to see what creationists can come up, as well to post some actual information (who knows, maybe someone is still making up their mind and might come across this), the whole thing is becoming pointless. Am I going to change your mind? No. Do I care that I’m not going to change your mind? No. Are you going to convert me? When hell freezes over. Oh wait, I don’t believe in hell. So hmm… that’s also a no. And it was exactly when my mind thought the word “convert” that I realized that I needed to drop this now. You said that evolution is my religion, despite me saying otherwise. Well the harder I try to “convert” you, the closest to right that statement would be. You said my opinion is dogmatic, even though I’ve explained how I’d actually like to be proved wrong (I said proved). Well the harder I try to show that “I’m right, you’re wrong”, the more tools I’d be giving someone to accuse my opinion of “dogmatic”.
Truth is, in the end, if you find yourself to be wrong, you’ll be deeply disappointed. While me, if I find myself to be wrong and there is indeed a forgiving God out there that created all things, well, I’ll go to heaven. How cool is that?
That said, I rest my case. While I might post on this thread, I won’t be arguing over the obvious anymore.
Hey pushharder- take this test and post your score. Afterwards, if you feel like reading your Bible some more you can look up every single answer via the verses they provide.
I’m very curious how much you actually know about your religion of choice.
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php
Any other takers on this quiz?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)
Maybe my mind is twisted, bent and broken beyond any hope but I just don’t see a flat earth doctrine in any thing you posted. I do see a matter of expression. Some one help me out here. What is the language term I’m looking for? [/quote]
Ok I’m answering this from a, hmm, linguistic point of view. You can’t see the whole earth from the top of a huge tree if it isn’t flat, can you? I mean, as huge as an imaginary tree could be, you still wouldn’t be able to see China from here.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If you were to write an article on vestigial organs and publish it online and a creationist read it would he possibly laugh at how inaccurate it was? Or would you pin his religion-as-a-crutch little ass to the wall and make him squirm like a Brasilian Catholic schoolgirl in the head nun’s office after kissing a Protestant boy after class? [/quote]
Wut?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, I don’t have any facts as to exactly how The Fall affected microbes. I just have them there dadgum fallible ideas. I’m sorry. [/quote]
Oh you should be! 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Whatever happened to the devil’s advocate proposal I made to you in that regard? [/quote]
I lost my mojo I guess.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It is or isn’t based on what you are trying to accomplish here.[/quote]
Which is exactly what I pondered about while cleaning the house. What am I trying to accomplish here? Explain my point of view? Already done it, writting the same thing over and over again is pointless. Convincing you, or other creationists, to change your mind? Nah, not really. For one, what you believe in doesn’t really affect my life. Plus, life isn’t fun if we all agree on things. As long as neither of our beliefs is hurting anyone, I’m fine with you being wrong (yea the last couple words are sarcasm :P).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It would be prudent to explore the hows, whys, and whens God grants His forgiveness or whether it’s safe to assume that no matter what you have a “right” to it at the time of your choosing. [/quote]
Well, I don’t like using the word atheist to describe myself, I usually use agnostic instead, because what I don’t believe in is religion. I don’t “not believe” in God, if that makes sense. I think maybe there is a God, maybe there isn’t, either way I don’t think anybody knows, and therefore we also don’t know anything about what God is. See, even though I believe that EVERYTHING can explained scientifically, and I don’t believe that anything just magically happens out of nowhere, I still think that it’s pretty darn cool that things just happen, you know, the way they do, so maybe there’s more things that we haven’t discovered yet. Now I’m not talking about intelligent design or anything here, don’t get me wrong. The way I see it is that, IF there is a God, He doesn’t interfere with our lives at all. I could be wrong, or not, that’s the beauty of being an agnostic. Not making assumptions.
Now IF I am to think that there is a God, I definitely don’t believe in following rules made by men as a way of praising Him. I do believe in being a good person. Not because I follow the ten commandments. Not because I wanna go to heaven. I believe in being a good person just because it feels good to be good, it makes the world a better place to live in. I’m not talking about being perfect either. We all make mistakes. But intentions matter a lot when talking about “doing good and being good”. I believe in not causing unnecessary harm to any living being, I believe in simple acts like saying please, thank you, and holding a door open. I believe in chosing love over money and that kind of cheesy thing. I believe in helping someone out when you can, and not being mean towards someone without a reason. And apologizing when you see you were mean, and forgiving someone who apologizes. No, I’m not perfect and I can’t even do all those things in my list all the time, but I’m confident it’s a pretty decent list. And if your God doesn’t look for those things in a person, then it’s not a God I want to find when I die.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, what are you wearing right now? Giggity.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to the topic.
I am going to have to go home and refind the exact verses, but here’s my personal favorite contradiction with the Bible.
God is love.
Love is not jealous.
God is a jealous god.
Haha. An old classic Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster .
Yes, the school board decided against teaching all three “scientific viewpoints”. Can you guess which one they picked? edit- nevermind. I don’t know if they did or not. It’s been a while since I’ve visited that site.
Edit: Some more info Frequently Asked Questions « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And since you are a pretty girl too I will go easy on you. Patronizingly easy but charmingly so. Before you know it I’ll have you posting pics on PWI, engraÃ?§adinho, atrativo mulher! (How’d I do on the feminine tense, Berry?)
[/quote]
Still on masculine, lol. Generally adjectives ending in o are masculine and in a are feminine. Same for nouns, with a few exceptions.
Don’t worry, I don’t lose my mojo. I choose not to use it sometimes.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I am going to have to go home and refind the exact verses, but here’s my personal favorite contradiction with the Bible.
God is love.
Love is not jealous.
God is a jealous god.
Your last couple of posts probably deserve their own thread.
And since you are a pretty girl too I will go easy on you. Patronizingly easy but charmingly so. Before you know it I’ll have you posting pics on PWI, engraÃ?§adinho, atrativo mulher! (How’d I do on the feminine tense, Berry?)
When do YOU want to meet me for coffee and a photo op? You’re a lot closer to me than Sexy Senhora Brasilian Berry.
There. The bishop just made another move. I see the knight is still…ummmmm…how shall we say it?..languishing?[/quote]
That they do. As a Christian male it’s kind of your duty to go easy on a woman, isn’t it?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Hey pushharder- take this test and post your score. Afterwards, if you feel like reading your Bible some more you can look up every single answer via the verses they provide.
I’m very curious how much you actually know about your religion of choice.
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php
Any other takers on this quiz?[/quote]
I got 40. Thought I’d do better to be honest! That should probably have a thread of its own though, brings up some very interesting theological points that essentially equate to any Christian being a hypocritical Christian.
I’m going to add another nail in the coffin to the ridiculous creationist assertion that macroevolution doesn’t happen and hasn’t happened. Ignoring the fact that any distinction between macro and micro is historical. The nail goes by the name of cladogenesis, which is the term used to describe “the branching off of new taxa”.
This has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. There is an interesting discussion and explanation here; Indiana University Bloomington
Here is an interesting paper on cladogenesis in tiger beetles; http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1689935
Here is a paper investigating the cladogenesis of European brown hares; http://www.springerlink.com/content/c74254610787780m/
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For those worthless yay-hoos AND the illustrious Queen of PWI, who, disingenuously I surmise, asked me for evidence for creation, I do hereby graciously and magnanimously (remember that word, Varq?) proffer this link:
There are numerous articles at that location. Please peruse them at your pleasure. Do not badger me with “it ain’t good enough, creationist scumbag”. When you’re done there I will open this debate a little further with what I believe to be one of the strongest cases for the creation model - flood geology.
There. The bishop has made his move.[/quote]
They aren’t good enough, sorry.
I’ve already debunked several claims that support flood geology when you posted that absurd “evidence for a young world” link with an author that thought evolution had anything to say on cosmology.
Incidentally, the “our universe was designed so well for life” argument (or, the ontological argument) makes me laugh; as far as we know, a few areas of our planet are the only places in the whole universe of billions of planets that support life. Sounds like conditions were just perfek!