[quote]haney wrote:
I am curious what you think of augustine and his apologetics? Would he still be considered an early Church Father? or would he fall in line with what protestant would call a deceived RCC? If so how where we able to form the cannon of the NT correctly with a fallen church?[/quote]
thoughts Anyone?
Since this is a post about theology why not talk about it?
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
miniross wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Burn heathen! Next you’re going to say the Earth is round…
Nice post.
Which Christian told someone to “burn heathen”? Which Christian has denied that the earth is round? Stop implying that the Christians on here have this way of thinking. Quit making things up.
Why are you so angry? I know you don’t like me and other Christians. Why even say the hateful things that you do? Wouldn’t it be better to just not respond? What good comes from being so negative?
I don’t want anybody to burn. I hope the best for all the people on here, including you. We are all people with our own individual opinions. There is nothing to get so worked up over.
Stop pulling the “why so angry shiy”.
I note a distinct anger in many of Steveo’s comments, bt thats fine. Passion is not anger.
Has SteveO ever said “just shut the fuck up”? How does that not sound angry? FightinIrish said this in the “Time Warp” thread.
[/quote]
Cursing is not always a sign of anger, for one.
And i am sure he may have said it once or twice.
Also, telling you to shut the fuck up seems like good common sense, rather than purely anger.
[quote]haney wrote:
haney wrote:
I am curious what you think of augustine and his apologetics? Would he still be considered an early Church Father? or would he fall in line with what protestant would call a deceived RCC? If so how where we able to form the cannon of the NT correctly with a fallen church?
thoughts Anyone?
Since this is a post about theology why not talk about it?[/quote]
Sorry Haney.
I will sign off this thread.
Holy fuck, you really are clueless aren’t you.
People aren’t referring to the current day with those statements, they are showing the way people used to think.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future, your thinking will be seen as archiac and ridiculous also.
That is generally what happens to fundamentalist thinking – as it fails to adapt to the realities of the world.
P.S. I use the word FUCK and FUCK OFF a fair amount. I’m not angry… though I like to put some heat in my comments. Don’t like that, then FUCK OFF! 
[quote]ShaunW wrote:
actually i don’t believe a bit of that geological scientific type crap i just posted - just funning ya’s!
Really we are on a disc-shaped pancake world, which sits on the backs of 4 elephants, and they all stand on the back of a giant turtle which is slowly swimming through space.
And if any of you clever-dicks asks whats under the turtle - it’s more turtles! Turtles all the way down![/quote]
i fukin knew it. i told them but they did’nt believe me. ha who’s crazy now?
[quote]miniross wrote:
haney wrote:
haney wrote:
I am curious what you think of augustine and his apologetics? Would he still be considered an early Church Father? or would he fall in line with what protestant would call a deceived RCC? If so how where we able to form the cannon of the NT correctly with a fallen church?
thoughts Anyone?
Since this is a post about theology why not talk about it?
Sorry Haney.
I will sign off this thread.[/quote]
no please don’t. I would just like to get someones thoughts on Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis 1, and what his standing is with emu’s protestants.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey if pookie were here you guys could have an Atheists convention.[/quote]
A convention about nothing?
Why? The peanut gallery’s not doing it for you anymore?
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Please don’t post until you have read EVERYTHING. Thank you.[/quote]
Please don’t post. Thank you.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I would like to know how the evolutionists account for the “Cambrian Explosion”, if anyone would like to chime in.[/quote]
As far as I remember (and I am not entirely sure I remember correctly), after an ice age that wiped out the majority of then existing species a lot of new body types either emerged or became big enough to leave fossiles.
Only four body types survived (natural selection) the vertebrate one being one of them.
Where is the problem?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
orion wrote:
MODOK wrote:
I would like to know how the evolutionists account for the “Cambrian Explosion”, if anyone would like to chime in.
As far as I remember (and I am not entirely sure I remember correctly), after an ice age that wiped out the majority of then existing species a lot of new body types either emerged or became big enough to leave fossiles.
Only four body types survived (natural selection) the vertebrate one being one of them.
Where is the problem?
Thats not the cambrian explosion. The “cambrian explosion” is basically the very beginning of the fossil record. In the previous strata, there are virtually no fossils at all. Then, in the strata dubbed the “cambrian” era, all of a sudden and with no warning creatures emerge, fully formed, in countless varieties. And not simple organisms either; vertabrates of all sorts, and representatives of every class. Of course, you see the question this raises. How did this happen so fast? Where are the transitional species from the “pre-cambrian” strata?
[/quote]
I found this for you:
You’ll want to bone up on the technical details of this item as well…
Well, I have to admit, I AM pissed.
First, there is some guy who regularly posts a collection of total Bullshit, with the intention of mocking the achievments of science in the name of (a western) god.
He repeatedly posts crap on an internet forum, sitting behind his computer, enjoying technological wonders which weren’t possible if his archaic beliefs would be custom.
And then he asks, in a total innocent tone: “Why are you so angry?”
If you REALLY would have asked in a polite fashion, like “guys, I’m a devout christ and have some troubles with this evolution thing, here’s what I think, these are my arguments…” it would be an different story, but your rant lacks logic, reason and substantiated facts.
Don’t try to fool us around. If you’d be in charge, there would be opression and violence, like in a mullah state.
It’s always the same old dilemma:
If you truly believe the miserable tome, you have to swallow total nonsense as you are forced to shut your eyes, switch off your brain and throw reason out of the window. (Virgin birth my ass!)
If you admit that some stories might be meant allegorically, were written by humans without god’s help and some may be even wrong, you eventually come to the point where the whole construction falls apart as doubt haunts your mind. No salvation, no eternal life.
So swallow your shit in silence and dream of tooth fairies,
or open your eyes and shut yer yap.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
That’s a good point. I believe the current evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon was cut over millions of years by the Colorado river. And if that were true (holding to evolutionary theory) you would see the different emerging organic species outlined in the fossil record, starting with single cell organisms moving up to fully formed organisms and all the millions of intermediary species.
Well guess what sport? The fossil record of the Grand Canyon reveals fully formed organisms with no intermediary species down to a certain strata of earth/rock and then nothing, nada, zilch! No organic life what so ever. Damn! No how did that happen?
Let’s see, inorganic material only and then all of a sudden fully formed organisms. Hummmm!
HAHAHAHAHA!
My neighbours are heathens. The woman is blind. How can that happen? Blind people cannot see. So how could they survive, according to evolution, they should have been dead already! Makes you think…
Please, tell us more about your own private universe. Or better, call a brain ambulance.[/quote]
Everything I stated was true. Don’t blame me if the evolutionary theory doesn’t match up with the evidence.
[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Lorisco said:
That’s a good point. I believe the current evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon was cut over millions of years by the Colorado river. And if that were true (holding to evolutionary theory) you would see the different emerging organic species outlined in the fossil record, starting with single cell organisms moving up to fully formed organisms and all the millions of intermediary species.
Well guess what sport? The fossil record of the Grand Canyon reveals fully formed organisms with no intermediary species down to a certain strata of earth/rock and then nothing, nada, zilch! No organic life what so ever. Damn! No how did that happen?
Let’s see, inorganic material only and then all of a sudden fully formed organisms. Hummmm!
?
evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon formed over millions of yrs?
thats geology’s field - not evolutionary science.
heres a basic overview:
The Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years).
Now go here
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm
This link shows a basic fossil record and age of rock found in the Grand Canyon.
Oldest fossils are Stromatolites (single celled algae colonies) ? 1.25B yrs in late Pre-Cambrian rock, up to fish teeth in Paleozoic rock (fish being vertibrates and complex organisms) 250M yrs
I dunno what your problem with this is - is it perhaps theres a couple of unconformities in the middle?
heres a definition
http://www.answers.com/unconformity&r=67
Geology. A surface between successive strata representing a missing interval in the geologic record of time, and produced either by an interruption in deposition or by the erosion of depositionally continuous strata followed by renewed deposition
So due to the 2 major unconformities within the strata of the grand canyon, you won’t find mid-level species in the fossil record. The erosive power of 450M yrs has wiped them out.
Now go here:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
There are bacteria dated in rock at around 3.6B yrs
The oldest known rock is around 3.8B yrs.
So there is a rough 300Million yrs for organic self-replicating molecules to develop.
The oldest fossil in the Grand Canyon is 1.25B yrs. There could have been further stromat. fossils in the record if further metamorphosis had’nt happend (schist).
So possibly the grand canyon could have had a fossil record going back 2B yrs, but geological processes have destroyed anything older than 1.25B yrs.
[/quote]
Boy that is sure a lot of billions being thrown around. Wouldn’t it be nice if the dating method used was actually real and factual and not just a theorized estimate? That would actually make your points valid. Yet, since carbon dating cannot be validated to that length of time you are just pissing in the breeze!
[quote]haney wrote:
haney wrote:
I am curious what you think of augustine and his apologetics? Would he still be considered an early Church Father? or would he fall in line with what protestant would call a deceived RCC? If so how where we able to form the cannon of the NT correctly with a fallen church?
thoughts Anyone?
Since this is a post about theology why not talk about it?[/quote]
Buehler… Buehler…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Condesention has always been your strong suit vroom. Pissing off your ivory tower in Quebec, on all of us poor American’s backwards-facing ideals. Thanks so much for your latest installment.[/quote]
Let me guess, you read the link I posted but not the other. If you had read the other, you wouldn’t be repeating your questions, which were discussed.
By the way, I think there are many Americans who are very intelligent and articulate people. Some of them even participate in these very forums. You may not be one of them, but don’t mistake my disdain for you as disdain for Americans.
I will bet that there are a few folks in the world who will find my post funny.
By the way, where the hell did you get the idea that I was in Quebec? Tabernac! Chalice! Holy fuck! No wonder it doesn’t matter what people say, you have no ability to accept information into your head anyway.
lorisco wrote
Boy that is sure a lot of billions being thrown around. Wouldn’t it be nice if the dating method used was actually real and factual and not just a theorized estimate? That would actually make your points valid. Yet, since carbon dating cannot be validated to that length of time you are just pissing in the breeze!
Mate,
Not once did I indicate that these datings going back to 3.6B yrs etc was based on radio-carbon dating.
I hope the below aids your understanding
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
The next 40 years was a period of expanding research on the nature and behavior of atoms, leading to the development of nuclear fission and fusion as energy sources. A byproduct of this atomic research has been the development and continuing refinement of the various methods and techniques used to measure the age of Earth materials. Precise dating has been accomplished since 1950.
A chemical element consists of atoms with a specific number of protons in their nuclei but different atomic weights owing to variations in the number of neutrons. Atoms of the same element with differing atomic weights are called isotopes. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous process in which an isotope (the parent) loses particles from its nucleus to form an isotope of a new element (the daughter). The rate of decay is conveniently expressed in terms of an isotope’s half-life, or the time it takes for one-half of a particular radioactive isotope in a sample to decay. Most radioactive isotopes have rapid rates of decay (that is, short half-lives) and lose their radioactivity within a few days or years. Some isotopes, however, decay slowly, and several of these are used as geologic clocks. The parent isotopes and corresponding daughter products most commonly used to determine the ages of ancient rocks are listed below:
Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years
And from further down this same link:
The radiocarbon clock has become an extremely useful and efficient tool in dating the important episodes in the recent prehistory and history of man, but because of the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Burn heathen! Next you’re going to say the Earth is round…
Nice post.
Which Christian told someone to “burn heathen”? Which Christian has denied that the earth is round? Stop implying that the Christians on here have this way of thinking. Quit making things up.
Why are you so angry? I know you don’t like me and other Christians. Why even say the hateful things that you do? Wouldn’t it be better to just not respond? What good comes from being so negative?
[/quote]
Because you are a backwards ass idiot who talks out his ass constantly. I’m tired of arguing about religion. I don’t hate Christians, but I do hate people that force their unqualified beliefs down other people’s throats. This stands for you, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and all the other retards that will deny science at the drop of a hat just to justify your own baseless beliefs.
Science proves you wrong. Have fun with your smoke and mirrors.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Burn heathen! Next you’re going to say the Earth is round…
Nice post.
Which Christian told someone to “burn heathen”? Which Christian has denied that the earth is round? Stop implying that the Christians on here have this way of thinking. Quit making things up.
Why are you so angry? I know you don’t like me and other Christians. Why even say the hateful things that you do? Wouldn’t it be better to just not respond? What good comes from being so negative?
Because you are a backwards ass idiot who talks out his ass constantly. I’m tired of arguing about religion. I don’t hate Christians, but I do hate people that force their unqualified beliefs down other people’s throats. This stands for you, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and all the other retards that will deny science at the drop of a hat just to justify your own baseless beliefs.
Science proves you wrong. Have fun with your smoke and mirrors.
[/quote]
Hey man don’t knock Billy! He may be steadfast in his believes which you don’t agree with, but he almost never comes across as judging or looking down on anyone.
I am not defending the others.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
That’s a good point. I believe the current evolutionary theory holds that the grand canyon was cut over millions of years by the Colorado river. And if that were true (holding to evolutionary theory) you would see the different emerging organic species outlined in the fossil record, starting with single cell organisms moving up to fully formed organisms and all the millions of intermediary species.
Well guess what sport? The fossil record of the Grand Canyon reveals fully formed organisms with no intermediary species down to a certain strata of earth/rock and then nothing, nada, zilch! No organic life what so ever. Damn! No how did that happen?
Let’s see, inorganic material only and then all of a sudden fully formed organisms. Hummmm!
HAHAHAHAHA!
My neighbours are heathens. The woman is blind. How can that happen? Blind people cannot see. So how could they survive, according to evolution, they should have been dead already! Makes you think…
Please, tell us more about your own private universe. Or better, call a brain ambulance.[/quote]
Great scientific and evolutionary comeback, Schwarzfahrer!
You know, I think if I were German, I would be very concerned…