So I take it Samson really DID slay 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…than a bunch of batshit crazy fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of a document written in the Bronze Age.[/quote]
[center]“I realize that this will probably not change anyone’s mind, but it’s something to ponder and discuss. Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible.”[/center]
You’re fake, Mike. A big wad of fake.[/quote]
I think this has been a good discussion overall. Pat, Sloth, and Otep have been very helpful, and I’ve gained some insights from you too, Push. Should I have let the phrase “batshit crazy fundamentalists” slip out? No, but sometimes I can’t help myself. Besides, I just like using the phrase “batshit crazy.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since we now know the “Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible” deal was a sham I am compelled to mention the batshit crazy evolutionism fundamentalists…you know…the ones who won’t give an inch and insist that only evolutionists are “reasonable.”
“Fundamentalism” works both ways, doesn’t it, amigos?[/quote]
The difference being that you refuse to look at evidence, whereas these “evolutionists” you speak of wouldn’t dare commit such a crime against reason.
Yes, you’re off ignore, and I find it hilarious that you elected to respond to my posts while I was ignoring you. You’re even more of a kook than I’d suspected.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…than a bunch of batshit crazy fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of a document written in the Bronze Age.[/quote]
[center]“I realize that this will probably not change anyone’s mind, but it’s something to ponder and discuss. Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible.”[/center]
You’re fake, Mike. A big wad of fake.[/quote]
I think this has been a good discussion overall. Pat, Sloth, and Otep have been very helpful, and I’ve gained some insights from you too, Push. Should I have let the phrase “batshit crazy fundamentalists” slip out? No, but sometimes I can’t help myself. Besides, I just like using the phrase “batshit crazy.”[/quote]
Seeing in how you currently do not beleive in any supernatural power to lend you aid, there’s no one but you who can help yourself. You should do so, becuase without that, otherwise intelligent debate will devolve into childish name-calling.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since we now know the “Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible” deal was a sham I am compelled to mention the batshit crazy evolutionism fundamentalists…you know…the ones who won’t give an inch and insist that only evolutionists are “reasonable.”
“Fundamentalism” works both ways, doesn’t it, amigos?[/quote]
The difference being that you refuse to look at evidence, whereas these “evolutionists” you speak of wouldn’t dare commit such a crime against reason.
Yes, you’re off ignore, and I find it hilarious that you elected to respond to my posts while I was ignoring you. You’re even more of a kook than I’d suspected.[/quote]
Mak is right here. I am not a “fundamentalist” when it comes to evolution. Why? Because if you produced some solid, irrefutable evidence that the creation story really happened and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, I would immediately change my position. But no such evidence exists. When I first heard of intelligent design it seemed to make some sense. Then I learned of a fatal flaw in one of their premises. I looked at the AIG site run by Ken Ham. The problems he mentions with carbon dating have been refuted quite easily. Much of his argument is based on rhetoric such as “science is the product of fallible humans while the Bible is the infallible word of God.” Sounds like a sermon, not evidence.
The bottom line is that while evolution may have “gaps” and leave some questions unanswered, it has lots of evidence to support it. Creation has none. Not to mention it requires the belief in a talking serpent to make it work. A talking serpent. When adults say they believe in a talking serpent, you’re damn right that I’m going to use terms like “batshit crazy.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since we now know the “Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible” deal was a sham I am compelled to mention the batshit crazy evolutionism fundamentalists…you know…the ones who won’t give an inch and insist that only evolutionists are “reasonable.”
“Fundamentalism” works both ways, doesn’t it, amigos?[/quote]
The difference being that you refuse to look at evidence, whereas these “evolutionists” you speak of wouldn’t dare commit such a crime against reason.
Yes, you’re off ignore, and I find it hilarious that you elected to respond to my posts while I was ignoring you. You’re even more of a kook than I’d suspected.[/quote]
A flying fuck I giveth not in regards to being on Ignore. I find it hilarious that you elected to think I cared. Go ahead, my little Sri Lankan schoolboy pussy, put me back on the Ephrem function.[/quote]
lol u mad bro
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the Church’s harsh stance on abortion - it’s not even allowed when the mother’s life is in danger - and other issues. This is why I’m not eager to jump back in. And I am also aware that many Protestant denominations don’t like Catholics. My belief in a very strict separation of church and state comes not from a desire as an agnostic to destroy religion but from my having been raised as a Catholic in the South around Southern Baptists who tend not to like Catholics. The last thing I wanted was for one of my teachers to casually start discussing religion (because we’re a Christian nation, so what does it hurt to discuss Christianity with someone who seems to be a Christian, right?) and then deciding that I was the “wrong” kind of Christian. As we’ve seen in this thread, Christianity comes in different flavors. But that’s a whole 'nother topic.[/quote]
That’s not correct. If the mother’s life is in danger, like in the case of ectopic pregnancies abortion is allowed. It is the only circumstance where it would be allowed.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…indulge your delusions to your heart’s content, but even those who believe in the same god can’t agree on what’s true and what’s not, but hey: at least you believe in something, and that’s the important part, right? [/quote]
Likewise those who don’t believe in God cannot agree in what is true ans what is not. There is not absolute truth, not unity in pricipal in atheism.[/quote]
…don’t believe in a god and you’re an atheist. I don’t think there’s much debate about that amongst atheists, do you?
[/quote]
There’s not much debate about the existence of God among theists. The nature of God, what he says, and how to relate tend to be the bones of contention. Same with athiests, some because of evil in the world, some because God doesn’t behave like they think he should, some because a perceived lack of evidence, some becuase a little bird said so, some because other really smart people are athiests.
Don’t tell me that athiests, for instance, aren’t arguing about the origin of the universe or string theory of what not. They may agree there is not God, but they don’t all agree on the origin of creation. Another for instance, you don’t agree with Stalin, do you?[/quote]
…you certainly have a point there pat, and i don’t doubt that for some people science is as important as religion is for others. About Stalin; give me an example of what he believed i can agree or disagree with?
[/quote]
That he could kill with impunity? I am not aware of a softer side of Stalin. Hitler looked at Stalin and exclaimed, “Damn, he’s evil!”
[quote]anonym wrote:
So I take it Samson really DID slay 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass?[/quote]
No, 10,000 men.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since we now know the “Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible” deal was a sham I am compelled to mention the batshit crazy evolutionism fundamentalists…you know…the ones who won’t give an inch and insist that only evolutionists are “reasonable.”
“Fundamentalism” works both ways, doesn’t it, amigos?[/quote]
The difference being that you refuse to look at evidence, whereas these “evolutionists” you speak of wouldn’t dare commit such a crime against reason.
Yes, you’re off ignore, and I find it hilarious that you elected to respond to my posts while I was ignoring you. You’re even more of a kook than I’d suspected.[/quote]
Mak is right here. I am not a “fundamentalist” when it comes to evolution. Why? Because if you produced some solid, irrefutable evidence that the creation story really happened and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, I would immediately change my position. But no such evidence exists. When I first heard of intelligent design it seemed to make some sense. Then I learned of a fatal flaw in one of their premises. I looked at the AIG site run by Ken Ham. The problems he mentions with carbon dating have been refuted quite easily. Much of his argument is based on rhetoric such as “science is the product of fallible humans while the Bible is the infallible word of God.” Sounds like a sermon, not evidence.
The bottom line is that while evolution may have “gaps” and leave some questions unanswered, it has lots of evidence to support it. Creation has none. Not to mention it requires the belief in a talking serpent to make it work. A talking serpent. When adults say they believe in a talking serpent, you’re damn right that I’m going to use terms like “batshit crazy.” [/quote]
Same here, if someone has a better theory or a irrefutable proof regarding creation or life, I am willing to here it. As for now, evolution is the best theory at the moment, though I am aware of some weaknesses I would call it incomplete.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you certainly have a point there pat, and i don’t doubt that for some people science is as important as religion is for others. About Stalin; give me an example of what he believed i can agree or disagree with?
[/quote]
That he could kill with impunity? I am not aware of a softer side of Stalin. Hitler looked at Stalin and exclaimed, “Damn, he’s evil!”
[/quote]
…many world leaders kill with impunity pat, i don’t agree with all of them; atheist, agnostic or deist alike…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…The bottom line is that while evolution may have “gaps” and leave some questions unanswered, it has lots of evidence to support it… [/quote]
List it. Right here. Right now.
Do not give me evidence of adaptation and microevolution. If you do I will toss your batshit crazy fundamentalist ass off the thread.[/quote]
Why can’t I use adaptation and microevolution? That’s how evolution works - start out with small changes (adaptations), these changes accumulate over time, and eventually the critter becomes a new species. But the more important question is why do creationists accept microevolution but not macroevolution, also known as speciation? I’m no Bible scholar, but I can’t find any biblical support for microevolution. The creation story says that God created all the animals. Period. Not “God created the animals but allowed for gene mutation so they could adapt based on environmental factors.”
The evidence for evolution is in the fossil record and geological record. It’s that simple. I know what you’re going to say - “flood geology.” Okay, in order to have flood geology you need to have a flood - a global flood just as mentioned in the Bible. Let’s examine the evidence surrounding the flood.
God commanded Noah to put a male and female of every land creature on the ark. Today there are about 3 million known species of animals. Let’s drop the number a bit. The majority of life is found in the oceans, and since sea creatures could survive a flood, those species would be excluded. I’ll be generous and knock off 2 million creatures. That leaves 1 million. Bugs also have thousands of species, but because bugs are small and don’t take up much room, I’ll knock 500,000 more species off the list. But, we need a male and female of each, so we double that, bringing the total to 1 million. That means Noah needed to house 1 million animals on his boat, plus enough food to keep them alive, plus his family. That had to be one big ass boat. And the animals needed to behave. I mean, if a carnivore gets hungry, why not just eat the gazelle standing in the corner of the ark? I doubt modern technology would allow for the housing of 1 million different animals aboard a floating vessel. It probably could, but it would be prohibitively expensive.
So, it is practically impossible that Noah could have sustained those 1 million animals, and yet today we have many more species than that.
And what about the dinosaurs? According to Ken Ham, humans and dinosaurs lived together. So what happened to them? Were they banned from the ark? There is no biblical support for that position since God told Noah to take all of the animals, not all of the animals except for the T-Rex since that big bastard will eat all of the animals and then come after you, too. My understanding is that creationists claim that dinosaurs still exist in remote parts of Africa. Really? Well they shouldn’t be too hard to find. They’re quite large, and satellite imaging could probably spot them. But none have been found.
The evidence for a global flood is thus easily refuted. No way could 1 million critters have been saved. At best, Noah could have taken on what today are common farm animals, dogs, cats, and a few birds. No flood, no “flood geology.” No flood geology means that the creationists have failed to refute the current scientific explanations regarding the fossil and geologic records which reveal early life forms that have become extinct and show that the earth is billions of years old - 4.54 billion to be exact.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…The bottom line is that while evolution may have “gaps” and leave some questions unanswered, it has lots of evidence to support it… [/quote]
List it. Right here. Right now.
Do not give me evidence of adaptation and microevolution. If you do I will toss your batshit crazy fundamentalist ass off the thread.[/quote]
Why can’t I use adaptation and microevolution? That’s how evolution works - start out with small changes (adaptations), these changes accumulate over time, and eventually the critter becomes a new species. But the more important question is why do creationists accept microevolution but not macroevolution, also known as speciation? I’m no Bible scholar, but I can’t find any biblical support for microevolution. The creation story says that God created all the animals. Period. Not “God created the animals but allowed for gene mutation so they could adapt based on environmental factors.”
The evidence for evolution is in the fossil record and geological record. It’s that simple. I know what you’re going to say - “flood geology.” Okay, in order to have flood geology you need to have a flood - a global flood just as mentioned in the Bible. Let’s examine the evidence surrounding the flood.
God commanded Noah to put a male and female of every land creature on the ark. Today there are about 3 million known species of animals. Let’s drop the number a bit. The majority of life is found in the oceans, and since sea creatures could survive a flood, those species would be excluded. I’ll be generous and knock off 2 million creatures. That leaves 1 million. Bugs also have thousands of species, but because bugs are small and don’t take up much room, I’ll knock 500,000 more species off the list. But, we need a male and female of each, so we double that, bringing the total to 1 million. That means Noah needed to house 1 million animals on his boat, plus enough food to keep them alive, plus his family. That had to be one big ass boat. And the animals needed to behave. I mean, if a carnivore gets hungry, why not just eat the gazelle standing in the corner of the ark? I doubt modern technology would allow for the housing of 1 million different animals aboard a floating vessel. It probably could, but it would be prohibitively expensive.
So, it is practically impossible that Noah could have sustained those 1 million animals, and yet today we have many more species than that.
And what about the dinosaurs? According to Ken Ham, humans and dinosaurs lived together. So what happened to them? Were they banned from the ark? There is no biblical support for that position since God told Noah to take all of the animals, not all of the animals except for the T-Rex since that big bastard will eat all of the animals and then come after you, too. My understanding is that creationists claim that dinosaurs still exist in remote parts of Africa. Really? Well they shouldn’t be too hard to find. They’re quite large, and satellite imaging could probably spot them. But none have been found.
The evidence for a global flood is thus easily refuted. No way could 1 million critters have been saved. At best, Noah could have taken on what today are common farm animals, dogs, cats, and a few birds. No flood, no “flood geology.” No flood geology means that the creationists have failed to refute the current scientific explanations regarding the fossil and geologic records which reveal early life forms that have become extinct and show that the earth is billions of years old - 4.54 billion to be exact.[/quote]
PROVE X AND Y BUT YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW ANY ACTUAL PROOF