Religion

[ahinton]

I respectfully disagree - our free will was God's creation, and this is what made possible the decision and the means by which to execute (no pun intended) our decision.

OK, so as a believer in God who takes this view, why would you see such decision making as being invariably "evil" (if indeed that is the way you see it in this context)?

I disagree once more - in my view, "an eye for an eye" simply indicates that the punishment must not outweigh the crime (not that the punishment must be equal to the crime).  I do not find this primitive, but rather humane and necessary.

Interpreted in the way you do here makes it at least somewhat more plausible than the far more literal interpretation so often put upon it both by those who agree with it and those who oppose it; that said, if it is not interpreted literally in practice, the whole question of how appropriately or otherwise any punishment might be made to relate to any crime is itself open to an infinite variety of interpretations, depending upon the particular personal views of the criminal, the victim, the prosecuting and defending lawyers, the judge, the witnesses, the jury and just about everyone else that might happen to be interested enough to have a view on it...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

most often the literal interpretation comes from the family or members who were harmed or killed.  the brown family is not letting up on simpson - and if he makes any money on his recent book it will go into an estate.  some criminals want to thumb their noses at the justice system.  what should we do then? 

[mike_lang]

OK, so as a believer in God who takes this view, why would you see such decision making as being invariably "evil" (if indeed that is the way you see it in this context)?

I believe that in creating us with free will, God gave mankind the capacity to choose good or to choose evil, that is, to choose Him or to reject Him.  God allows us the choice, that we might choose freely to love him, but it is not to say that both options are equally valid.

Best,
ML

[mike_lang]

But one thing is for certain:  conflict results.  Opposing ideas inspire people to war against one another.

The unfortunate consequence of the clash of Truth with what is spawned by the Father of Lies.

The Church is the problem.  Not Christ.

That is a contradiction in terms - Christ instituted the (His) Church and is continually present in her.  Although I suspect you do not wish to enter the arena of mysticism, I must tell you that Christ's Church is indeed His body, and cannot be in opposition with the head.

Best,
ML 

[wotgoplunk]

most often the literal interpretation comes from the family or members who were harmed or killed.  the brown family is not letting up on simpson - and if he makes any money on his recent book it will go into an estate.  some criminals want to thumb their noses at the justice system.  what should we do then? 

Do you not accept a literal interpretation? So how do you pick and choose which bits to read? Do you take Noah's Ark literally?

Yes, but some forms of justice are not justified whatsoever

(I also noticed somewhere you said no one has refuted you. I believe I have done so several times, with mitosis, with Hubble's constant, etc., and you come back to me with "You will be sorry when Jesus comes", which might I add, is not a refutation.)

[wotgoplunk]

I was bored today. So I decided I would come up with a very large list of points about why I believe what I do.

Those of you saying that evolution and the Big Bang have no evidence (*cough* pianistimo, *cough*), kindly refute all of these.

Evidence for evolution:

1. We share a considerable amount of genes with every animal. At some point this DNA must have been passed on from a common ancestor.
2. Put some bacteria in a petri dish, it will evolve before your eyes.
3. Genetic inheritance and mutation cannot be denied, the effects are seen everyday.
4. Every living thing must have a parent.
5. White moths were replaced with dark moths. They adapted to fit the darker trees.
6. Humans are gradually getting smarter, taller, and have less body hair.
7. Considerable fossil evidence to show that there were common ancestors.
8. Rock analysis proves that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

Evidence for Big Bang:

1. The Universe is constantly expanding as per Hubble's law. Recessional velocity of a galaxy is equal to Hubble's constant times the distance.
2. Cosmic Microwave Radiation, fills the Universe. Here is a link for you to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang
3. Abundance of Primordial elements. Ratio of hydrogen (Atomic Number 1) to Helium and Lithium (Atomic Numbers 2+3) These ratios are consistent with those of the Big Bang models.
4. Redshift between galaxies shows we are all moving away from each other.

Those are the four most important. There are more.

What was before the Big Bang:

HH Initial State: Wikipedia says it best. "More precisely, it is a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity that describes this wave functional." Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle-Hawking_state

String theory: Wikipedia says it simplest again. "String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects called strings, rather than the zero-dimensional point particles that form the basis for the standard model of particle physics." "A version of string theory, called M-Theory, with five curled-up dimensions and five large ones, had a surface similar to our four-dimensional universe. The particles in this model resemble quarks and gluons. " It also advocates p-branes as the structure of the Universe in part.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Quantum Foam: Wikipedia. "Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is a qualitative description of the turbulence that the phenomenon creates at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws."

That last sentence is key.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Enjoy

[thalbergmad]

Evidence for evolution:

1. We share a considerable amount of genes with every animal. At some point this DNA must have been passed on from a common ancestor.
2. Put some bacteria in a petri dish, it will evolve before your eyes.
3. Genetic inheritance and mutation cannot be denied, the effects are seen everyday.
4. Every living thing must have a parent.
5. White moths were replaced with dark moths. They adapted to fit the darker trees.
6. Humans are gradually getting smarter, taller, and have less body hair.
7. Considerable fossil evidence to show that there were common ancestors.
8. Rock analysis proves that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

Before the evacuation of the remote Scottish Island of St Kilda, it was noted that the inhabitants had considerably thicker ankles than the farmers on the mainland and from the other islands.

It has been suggested, that this was a development over a period of about 2,000 years as the inhabitants had to be excellent rock climbers, in order to harvest the seabirds from the cliffs of the Island.

Thal

PS: Pianistimo cannot refute what she does not understand

[prometheus]

He came to divide, not to make peace.

If you believe that you have to both force your ideas unto others while doing unto others how you want others to do unto you then you have a big problem.

[wotgoplunk]

Before the evacuation of the remote Scottish Island of St Kilda, it was noted that the inhabitants had considerably thicker ankles than the farmers on the mainland and from the other islands.

It has been suggested, that this was a development over a period of about 2,000 years as the inhabitants had to be excellent rock climbers, in order to harvest the seabirds from the cliffs of the Island.

Thal

I <3 Natural Selection. Shame it doesn't help me rock climb. I could do with some of that skill. 

PS: Pianistimo cannot refute what she does not understand

 Lol . I will simplify if necessary.

[mike_lang]

If you believe that you have to both force your ideas unto others while doing unto others how you want others to do unto you then you have a big problem.

Since absolute morality is determined by a democratic vote, I believe I am entitled to a fraction of the decision.

Best,
ML

[wotgoplunk]

Since absolute morality is determined by a democratic vote, I believe I am entitled to a fraction of the decision.

Best,
ML

But a decision is 100%. One cannot usually have a fraction of the decision, so someone always ends up on the losing side 

[mike_lang]

Those of you saying that evolution and the Big Bang have no evidence (*cough* pianistimo, *cough*), kindly refute all of these.

I do not refute your statement, as I do not have the understanding to do so, but as a scientific layman of sorts, I am curious what would be the contradiction between Big Bang, Evolution, and the Judeo-Christian creation account?

Best,
ML

[mike_lang]

But a decision is 100%. One cannot usually have a fraction of the decision, so someone always ends up on the losing side 

I'm not sure what you're saying, but perhaps the rephrasing of my statement would help: I believe I am entitled to exert influence on the decision, as a citizen of my country.

If you refer to the inevitability that the minor fraction of the population's wish will not be realized, I am sorry to say "tough bananas" in the name of democracy.

Best,
ML

[prometheus]

Since absolute morality is determined by a democratic vote, I believe I am entitled to a fraction of the decision.

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with holding two contradicting positions. You don't want me to tell you how to live. Yet you believe you need to tell me how to live. And you need to follow Jesus.

Can't do that all at the same time.



If you are entitled to a 'fraction of the decision', whatever that means, then go lobby with your big imaginary friend. Maybe he will let you out of this dichotomy.





As for a debate on evolution and the big bang. We are supposed to be a piano board. Let's not make ourselves look like, well, uneducated stupid people.

[prometheus]

I do not refute your statement, as I do not have the understanding to do so, but as a scientific layman of sorts, I am curious what would be the contradiction between Big Bang, Evolution, and the Judeo-Christian creation account?

Creationism claims the earth is 6000 years old. Science claims the world is 3,000,000 times older.

Creationism claims the world as we know it was created in 6 days. Science claims it took 5,000,000,000,000 times longer.

Now don't have me tell you the error margin if creationism turns out to be wrong.

[mike_lang]

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with holding two contradicting positions.

Indeed, two contradicting positions on what is moral, is it not?  Or is it what is enforceable?  What do we determine when we vote to allow or outlaw abortion?  Are we voting on the moral aspect of it or the legal, and if it is the latter, from what does the law stem?  A secular morality?  It in fact has everything to do with morality, though you may wish to call it by a different name.

You don't want me to tell you how to live.

I am indifferent, as I follow a certain set of standards, some of which may coincide with yours and some of which may conflict.

Yet you believe you need to tell me how to live.

I believe that I cannot condone evil acts in the world, or else I am an accomplice to them.

And you need to follow Jesus.

Yes.

Can't do that all at the same time.

And why not?

If you are entitled to a fraction of the decision then go lobby with your big imaginary friend.

Madame Démocratie?

As for a debate on evolution and the big bang. We are supposed to be a piano board. Let's not make ourselves look like, well, uneducated stupid people.

Do remember that we are on the "Anything but piano" board, and there is certainly no lack of education implied by a friendly debate over the compatibility of religion and science.

Best,
ML

[mike_lang]

Creationism claims the earth is 6000 years old. Science claims the world is 3,000,000 times older.

Creationism claims the world as we know it was created in 6 days. Science claims it took 5,000,000,000,000 times longer.

Now don't have me tell you the error margin if creationism turns out to be wrong.

There are several varieties of creationism - not all take the biblical account literally.  I, for one, do not.  Why must they be 24 hour days?  Why must day and night be taken as day and night per se, and not as phases in terrestrial history?  The bible's domain is not science, and so, why should it be taken as a scientific account? 

Nevertheless, I have no choice but to acknowledge that the significant error introduced by a literal reading of Holy Scripture.

Best,
ML

[wotgoplunk]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but perhaps the rephrasing of my statement would help: I believe I am entitled to exert influence on the decision, as a citizen of my country.

If you refer to the inevitability that the minor fraction of the population's wish will not be realized, I am sorry to say "tough bananas" in the name of democracy.

Best,
ML

Let's say this situation occurs:

Democrats-49% of popular vote.
Republicans-51% of popular vote.

Republicans force a vote extending the Iraq mission.
49% of the country loses out. If you were a Democrat, you would be powerless to prevent it. There is no real compromise either. It's majority rules. If your opinion isn't in the majority, nothing can be done.

So democracy doesn't work

[mike_lang]

Let's say this situation occurs:

Democrats-49% of popular vote.
Republicans-51% of popular vote.

Republicans force a vote extending the Iraq mission.
49% of the country loses out. If you were a Democrat, you would be powerless to prevent it. There is no real compromise either. It's majority rules. If your opinion isn't in the majority, nothing can be done.

So democracy doesn't work

I understand, but to the benefit or chagrin of the U.S. citizen, it is nevertheless our form of government and must be reckoned with.  Do you suggest a better system of government?

Best,
ML

[prometheus]

There are several varieties of creationism - not all take the biblical account literally.

You are right. There are unique creation myths in each ancient culture.

Yet when it comes to biblical creationism or Christian creationism, there is only the bible.


Why must they be days? Because the bible says so. Why would there be creation in the first place? There is no more evidence for creation in more than 6 days than there is for creation in 6 days. If you are going to believe the bible about creation then that tells you there are 6 days.


Now you are totally free of course to make up a new creation story yourself.



As to why those positions contradict each other, I already explained. You don't want to tolerate your view of evil then why should people have to tolerate the evil they think you present? Maybe drinking alcohol or eating meat, for example?

If you can't understand then try harder.


As for god and democracy. When it comes to the Christian god, democracy is evil. Imagine we can vote god out of office. Imagine we can veto god. Goes against monotheistic dogma.

[mike_lang]

Yet when it comes to biblical creationism or Christian creationism, there is only the bible.

This is true, however, there are many interpretations of the text.

For example, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Accordingly, we find some theologians following St. Augustine (In Gen. ad litt., I), that the six days signify only a logical (not a real) succession, i.e. in the order in which the creative works were manifested to the angels. Others interpret the days as indefinite cosmical periods. Others, though these are at present a vanishing number, still follow the literal interpretation."

As to why those positions contradict each other, I already explained. You don't want to tolerate your view of evil then why should people have to tolerate the evil they think you present? Maybe drinking alcohol or eating meat, for example?

Human life is not threatened by drinking alcohol or eating meat (unless it is human flesh, but let's leave that to the Germans to adjudicate for the time being...)

If you can't understand then try harder.

As compelling as your argument is, I shall ask you for a fuller explanation, s'il vous plaît.

As for god and democracy. When it comes to the Christian god, democracy is evil. Imagine we can vote god out of office. Imagine we can veto god. Goes against monotheistic dogma.

You've evidently read Dante's less famous work, De Monarchia.  Kudos to you.

Best,
ML

[prometheus]

Human life is not threatened by drinking alcohol or eating meat (unless it is human flesh, but let's leave that to the Germans to adjudicate for the time being...)

While this is obvious not the case, brain damage, traffic accidents and murder under influence, unborn babies with their neurological development disrupted, etc and animals being killed for their meat, that's not the point.

It's not the point you don't agree with it. The point is you don't want other people to force you not do eat meat. Or not to watch tv on Thursday. Or not to use your left hand to open doors or whatever nonsense people can come up with. You don't want other people to force their morality unto you. That means you don't do that to others, because of Christ.


I have no time for the rest right now. And sadly, I didn't read Dante. But I do know which people will be there when I arrive in limbo. Should be interesting.

[mike_lang]

And sadly, I didn't read Dante. But I do know which people will be there when I arrive in limbo. Should be interesting.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, perhaps), I do not subscribe to your Dantean branch of Christianity, but it is quite a vivid account of Hell for those who are interested in a visit.

As for the abortion issue, I of course side with the Catholic Church, as you know, but here is a bit of clarification of my stance on the issue, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

-------

Best,
ML

[pianistimo]

wotogoplunk, if mitosis can be replicated even with prokaryotics- WITHOUT God's intervention - then you are a 'god.'  that is my refutation.  show me that you can 'play God' - because God is author of all life.

1.  just because we share some dna with animals doesn't mean our dna has changed dramatically as evolutionists say - completing the 'missing link.'  noone has proven the 'missing link' or that there ever was one.  in fact, egyptian mummies have come to prove what creationists knew all along.  we are remarkably similar in our dna to ancient mummies and we see no visible differences.  everything is in the same place.  if our dna had changed - we would see it.  the only things that change are 'characteristics or traits.'  what color skin, eyes, hair.  how tall,short.  these really are within the realm of study of mtdna and even then - the small elements of dna that are LOST - are not regained!  they are completely LOST.  that is how we know that a segment of dna was lost to humankind at the flood.  namely - those 'giants' of old.  most likely the philistines - but i am guessing on that one.  we have to look for nationalities and their traits.

2. petri dishes simply help us to observe a science that ALREADY exists.  if something is alive and you put it in a petri dish (yes, it might die easier without the right temperatures or water around it - or whatever keeps it growing) it is like putting a plant in a pot.  sure, it will grow.  does it mean we CREATED the bacteria or whatever it is?  no.

3. genetic inheritance and 'mutation'  (another word for 'traits' - as mendel's system) are simply designs of God.  but, we have never found the type of mutation that is claimed with evolution.  namely changing the complete structure of our dna towards or away from human dna unless mankind has mated with an animal - which is a nono in the bible.
what you are talking about are PATHOGENIC mutations.  why don't you say so?  pathogenic means that there are enough mutations in mtDNA with DISEASE.  not the dna which is related to healthy cell growth.  this is a mark of environmental problems and not problems with God's own creation.  this is a common deceit to interchange pathogens with complete dna structures.

4.  every living thing must have a sexual parent EXCEPTING ASEXUAL reproduction which God allows with certain insects and bacteria that are not mammals and even asexual things must have one parent.  whose side are you on now?  this proves the idea that adam and eve must have lived at the same time - thus making science's original eve living thousands of years before the original adam quite funny.  uless of course the eve that existed before the 8 eve's of the bible (of which it has been traced to that exact number!) that were carried in the ark in the flood.  the eve that came before that is speculated upon via these other women.  interesting how science proves the bible true.

both genetics AND geneology prove the bible and how many people lived and what type of people lived and WHERE they lived - and nothing obviates the bible's record.

[prongated]

Sorry to backtracka bit [by about 18 hours apparently...my gosh how many messages had been posted since then], but...

I was driven mad in the past by debating with you and can no longer be bothered. Prometheus has given up, Marik was driven almost to suicide and now Michael Langois is probably already receiving counselling.

...r u serious? Or was that figurative?

...then again, judging by the number of posts as outlined above, I guess it's the latter...!?

[pianistimo]

5. white vs dark moths are simply exploring the 'traits' that mendel brought out.  why does a trait have anything to do with major changes in dna.  everyone talks about molecular changes usually and not cellular.  if it were cellular - then the moths would be butterflies. 

molecular isn't even traits - but rather disfunctions due to high radiation or something in the environment affecting the cell. 

traits - such as black or white is merely talking about genes.  recessive or dominant.  if a group of moths become white it is merely dominant at that point.

[pianistimo]

they are merely mad because they cannot disprove what science dictates.

6.  smarter, taller, and less body hair?  i don't think this is genetically related only.  we have more access to nutritional things - and  quantities of food.  if you eat much less food - it should affect your growth.  body hair would be more noticeable if people didn't shave.

7.  fossil evidence of common ancestors of humans would result in finding these chimps to have slightly different dna.  thus being chimps.  they all have bad backs.  what i mean is that have hips that are not like ours.  and brains that were much lower functioning.  adam and eve were smarter than us - most likely.  this proves the OPPOSITE. that we are DEGENERATING.

8.  rock analysis cannot be proven accurate in any case.  the conditions of the rock at the beginning of time or even through time are not quantifiably set.  we do not know the amount of carbon dioxide in the air at creation.  we do not know at what points the rocks gained or lost gas and what conditions they were exposed to.  extreme heat - for instance - lets gas escape.  think about it.  what happens when a volcano explodes.  rock can not be a fossil as it never lived and breathed and had flesh.

this type of theory also follows the idea that layers of sediment have to be laid down over millions of years.  mt. saint helens laid down half a mountain in several days time.

i don't claim to have all the answers - but i do think that when we find answers they do not seem to disprove the bible at all.

btw, that bit about mutations of dna (mtdna especially) and pathogens seems more like sitting and watching a fish hatchery.  any sorts of experiments which watch the environment in an unnatural setting will invariably have some component which does not help whatever is being studied grow at the same rates (or grow faster than the normal rate) and doesn't really affect the mtdna positively.  rather - we see deterioration of mtdna.  because something is deteriorating doesn't mean it's mutating for the better.

[prongated]

Why must they be days? Because the bible says so. Why would there be creation in the first place? There is no more evidence for creation in more than 6 days than there is for creation in 6 days. If you are going to believe the bible about creation then that tells you there are 6 days.

...another explanation is, that chapter in Genesis was written as a poetry. Literary evidence to support this include the patterns that exist in the writing. In this case, "Days" are therefore interpreted figuratively, referring to phases/stages.

As for god and democracy. When it comes to the Christian god, democracy is evil. Imagine we can vote god out of office. Imagine we can veto god. Goes against monotheistic dogma.

True. I'd imagine theocracy will be perceived as the perfect government - at least that's how Heaven will be, as it were. Theocracy is the only possible governance in an instance where only one powerful God exists.

[pianistimo]

agreed about theocracy - but disagree about creation.  if the masoretic makes it clear what 'type' of night and day we're discussing and even says 'thus heaven and earth were created in six days'  then we're talking about SIX DAYS.  not millenia.

we can prove this by another means.  geneaology.  if mankind (dismissing the flood entirely) continued to procreate for millions of years (surviving several ice ages at each 10,000 year point - or coming into existance after the first ice-age) then we would have WAYYYY more population of the earth today.  but, disease, starvation, etc. also checks these things.  even so - considering the natural population growth of each 1000 years - we can gain an estimation because we have geneological records and even if the persons are dead or alive we can prove they existed.  thus, counting them.

interestingly - even the septuagint is incorrect when compared to the masoretic regarding the lifespans that people of the bible lived.  that is why we get different scholars saying different things.  but, the oldest text has been confirmed with the dead sea scrolls.  which one to believe?  the oldest.  the dead sea scrolls!  from them - we even see human migration patterns - which continued on past Christ's day and show the migration of humankind started in the middle east - not africa.  in fact, iraq itself!  if we would take the time to excavate places in iraq we would find bones older than the chimps in africa.  preservation of exact places mentioned in the bible is still interesting, though.  did you know saddam hussein was rebuilding nebuchadnezzar's babylon.  we know that NEBUCHADNEZZAR < DARIUS< BELSHAZZAR  were REAL babylonian (medopersian) kings.  also - in jerusalem recent findings of the words over pilate's tomb - the same pilate that washed his hands of Jesus crucifixion.  if the bible is proven true by archeological research - the more important element of rocks is to cover and preserve the tombs, the artifacts, the books, etc - of real people that lived in EXACT PLACES.

[cmg]

My, my this thread is still humming away!

But, this is as it should be.  We seem to be confining religious debate to one specifically designated thread.

In re-reading some of these posts, I noticed a phenomenon that crops up when Christians are defeated in the realm of logic:  Martyrdom.

ML , when cornered, claims that as a Christian he must be an "idealist" yet admits to being pragmatic when it comes time to push the anti-abortion agenda.  In other words, he will back a man like Bush (and his Republican party) who claims to be anti-abortion.  He must, however, turn a blind eye to the slaughter in Iraq, the debacle of Hurricane Katrina, etc., etc.  Here, the "idealist" becomes the "pragmatist."  Here, he hates the killing of fetuses, but condones the murder of men and women in the Mideast.  But he must choose.  So, quite pragmtically, he chooses the unborn over the born to remain a "good Christian."  The irony of his choice totally escapes him.

And, then, we cite this oddity, and pianistimo turns a watery eye to a post extolling ML as "long suffering" and, yes, even saintly.

Such martyrs you Christians are!  Defeated by logic, but soothed by your Faith that allows you to kill on the battlefield while you protect fetuses.

Those of us who debate you are the true martyrs.  We tolerate this irrational blather and then get to watch you glow in self-righteousness at being criticised by us -- the poor, lost Unfaithful.

Enough.  I'm with Thal and Marik.  The hypocrisy is stifling.  Goodbye.

[thalbergmad]

if we would take the time to excavate places in iraq we would find bones older than the chimps in africa. 

Oh hell fire, this is definately your funniest ever.

Both Ur & Uruk have been excavated and whilst i might be wrong, i do not remember reading about bones older than the chimps in Africa. Also and regretfully for you, it is estimated that the Sumerian civilisation goes back as far as 4800BC, which is before some retards think the Universe was created.

I would advise you not to get started on the Dead Sea Scrolls. You carry on cherry picking the parts that help in your doomed quest to verify every word of your silly book of poems, whilst ignoring the rest.

It might not be too late to enrol yourself in pre school.

Thanks for the laugh.

Thal

[rimv2]

agreed about theocracy - but disagree about creation.  if the masoretic makes it clear what 'type' of night and day we're discussing and even says 'thus heaven and earth were created in six days'  then we're talking about SIX DAYS.  not millenia.

we can prove this by another means.  geneaology.  if mankind (dismissing the flood entirely) continued to procreate for millions of years (surviving several ice ages at each 10,000 year point - or coming into existance after the first ice-age) then we would have WAYYYY more population of the earth today.  but, disease, starvation, etc. also checks these things.  even so - considering the natural population growth of each 1000 years - we can gain an estimation because we have geneological records and even if the persons are dead or alive we can prove they existed.  thus, counting them.

interestingly - even the septuagint is incorrect when compared to the masoretic regarding the lifespans that people of the bible lived.  that is why we get different scholars saying different things.  but, the oldest text has been confirmed with the dead sea scrolls.  which one to believe?  the oldest.  the dead sea scrolls!  from them - we even see human migration patterns - which continued on past Christ's day and show the migration of humankind started in the middle east - not africa.  in fact, iraq itself!  if we would take the time to excavate places in iraq we would find bones older than the chimps in africa.  preservation of exact places mentioned in the bible is still interesting, though.  did you know saddam hussein was rebuilding nebuchadnezzar's babylon.  we know that NEBUCHADNEZZAR < DARIUS< BELSHAZZAR  were REAL babylonian (medopersian) kings.  also - in jerusalem recent findings of the words over pilate's tomb - the same pilate that washed his hands of Jesus crucifixion.  if the bible is proven true by archeological research - the more important element of rocks is to cover and preserve the tombs, the artifacts, the books, etc - of real people that lived in EXACT PLACES.

Uh....



WHAT!?

Stop it!

All you did was bring up topics without bringing up any real information.

Just stop it!!!

If you're going to argue with these people at least do it right.

Stop it!!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Some suggestions:

1) When pianistimo manages to introduce religion into threads where it is of no relevance, either ignore it, or respond by talking gibberish.

2) The more you argue with her, the more it gives her an incentive to produce more religious posts. The poor woman must need a new keyboard every two months 

3) www.godstreet.com Buy the domain and archive her posts on a forum there. I can't wait to see how the "Anything but God" board pans out..

[ahinton]

Someone do me a great big favour and wake me up when this is all over, please. Maybe Susan will do it with a spot of pole-dancing (if she can ever get away from her computer keyboard, that is)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

body hair would be more noticeable if people didn't shave.

That clinches it for me, what logic.

This finally convinces me of the thruth of everything you write.

Thal

[mike_lang]

ML , when cornered, claims that as a Christian he must be an "idealist" yet admits to being pragmatic when it comes time to push the anti-abortion agenda. 

Idealist in the sense of not sacrificing moral standards to what is likely to occur in practice.

In other words, he will back a man like Bush (and his Republican party) who claims to be anti-abortion. 

In fact, I did not vote in the last election, partially because of the interference of logistics of location, and partially because I could not support either candidate.  I did not back, was not backing, do not back, and will never back a man like Bush (and his Republican party).

He must, however, turn a blind eye to the slaughter in Iraq, the debacle of Hurricane Katrina, etc., etc. 

Why?

Here, the "idealist" becomes the "pragmatist." 

I am forced to occupy both rôles, but the first takes precedence.

Here, he hates the killing of fetuses, but condones the murder of men and women in the Mideast. 

I do nothing of the sort.

The irony of his choice totally escapes him.

I fail to see the irony - please enlighten me.

Such martyrs you Christians are!  Defeated by logic, but soothed by your Faith that allows you to kill on the battlefield while you protect fetuses.

Am I not entitled to make this choice?  In my humble opinion, 46 million unborn slaughtered annually are the larger problem.  This is not to say that I condone casualties of "war," but that I have been forced to choose between two great problems.

Those of us who debate you are the true martyrs.  We tolerate this irrational blather and then get to watch you glow in self-righteousness at being criticised by us -- the poor, lost Unfaithful.

Why must martyrdom before introduced to this conversation?

Enough.  I'm with Thal and Marik.  The hypocrisy is stifling.  Goodbye.

What hypocrisy?

Best,
ML

[wotgoplunk]

wotogoplunk, if mitosis can be replicated even with prokaryotics- WITHOUT God's intervention - then you are a 'god.'  that is my refutation.  show me that you can 'play God' - because God is author of all life.

Stem cells are mitosis! They have caused binary fission in bacteria! Therefore, scientists must be God!

1.  just because we share some dna with animals doesn't mean our dna has changed dramatically as evolutionists say - completing the 'missing link.'  noone has proven the 'missing link' or that there ever was one.  in fact, egyptian mummies have come to prove what creationists knew all along.  we are remarkably similar in our dna to ancient mummies and we see no visible differences.  everything is in the same place.  if our dna had changed - we would see it.  the only things that change are 'characteristics or traits.'  what color skin, eyes, hair.  how tall,short.  these really are within the realm of study of mtdna and even then - the small elements of dna that are LOST - are not regained!  they are completely LOST.  that is how we know that a segment of dna was lost to humankind at the flood.  namely - those 'giants' of old.  most likely the philistines - but i am guessing on that one.  we have to look for nationalities and their traits.

Egyptian mummies were buried 2000 years ago. Our DNA obviously hasn't changed much in 2000 years! 2000 out of 4 billion! And our phenotype will be different from our genotype. You are confusing the two. If we share DNA, it means at some point we had a common ancestor.

2. petri dishes simply help us to observe a science that ALREADY exists.  if something is alive and you put it in a petri dish (yes, it might die easier without the right temperatures or water around it - or whatever keeps it growing) it is like putting a plant in a pot.  sure, it will grow.  does it mean we CREATED the bacteria or whatever it is?  no.

If you put a bacterium, it will undergo mitosis, and through mutation become a different species. Evolution.

3. genetic inheritance and 'mutation'  (another word for 'traits' - as mendel's system) are simply designs of God.  but, we have never found the type of mutation that is claimed with evolution.  namely changing the complete structure of our dna towards or away from human dna unless mankind has mated with an animal - which is a nono in the bible.
what you are talking about are PATHOGENIC mutations.  why don't you say so?  pathogenic means that there are enough mutations in mtDNA with DISEASE.  not the dna which is related to healthy cell growth.  this is a mark of environmental problems and not problems with God's own creation.  this is a common deceit to interchange pathogens with complete dna structures.

You seem to think evolution happened rapidly. Given billions of years, mutation is entirely possible. The tiniest mutations have been passed on. Complete DNA structures are not changed entirely, just a little, gradually. All DNA mutations can cause disease, for example, trisomy 21. It affects growth, and is a "disease".

4.  every living thing must have a sexual parent EXCEPTING ASEXUAL reproduction which God allows with certain insects and bacteria that are not mammals and even asexual things must have one parent.  whose side are you on now?  this proves the idea that adam and eve must have lived at the same time - thus making science's original eve living thousands of years before the original adam quite funny.  uless of course the eve that existed before the 8 eve's of the bible (of which it has been traced to that exact number!) that were carried in the ark in the flood.  the eve that came before that is speculated upon via these other women.  interesting how science proves the bible true.

Actually, by that I meant that Adam and Eve would've just popped spontaneously out of nowhere, and the amount of inbreeding they would have had to do would have caused several mutations, so they would have simply died. You would have had irreducible complexity with creationism. Asexual reproduction has a parent cell and a daughter cell, at the beginning, there would have been but one. From RNA, from PAH.

[wotgoplunk]

5. white vs dark moths are simply exploring the 'traits' that mendel brought out.  why does a trait have anything to do with major changes in dna.  everyone talks about molecular changes usually and not cellular.  if it were cellular - then the moths would be butterflies. 

molecular isn't even traits - but rather disfunctions due to high radiation or something in the environment affecting the cell. 

traits - such as black or white is merely talking about genes.  recessive or dominant.  if a group of moths become white it is merely dominant at that point.

A trait shows natural selection helping the moths adapt to the new smoky environment. White ones got eaten, black moths thrived after a mutation caused the first one. It was dominant, so got passed on. However, natural selection dictates that the black moths are advantageous, which is why the mutation stays. Evidence for evolution.

[wotgoplunk]

6.  smarter, taller, and less body hair?  i don't think this is genetically related only.  we have more access to nutritional things - and  quantities of food.  if you eat much less food - it should affect your growth.  body hair would be more noticeable if people didn't shave.

Smarter perhaps not, but taller yes. There are not so many nutritional foods now, everything seems to be packed with calories. We still have less, even people who don't shave. We don't need it now, because the climate is warmer.

7.  fossil evidence of common ancestors of humans would result in finding these chimps to have slightly different dna.  thus being chimps.  they all have bad backs.  what i mean is that have hips that are not like ours.  and brains that were much lower functioning.  adam and eve were smarter than us - most likely.  this proves the OPPOSITE. that we are DEGENERATING.

They aren't chimps. They have scientific names, you know. They didn't have bad backs they walked upright, seriously have you done any research at all? You don't know that for sure. Just because you say Adam and Eve were smarter, doesn't mean they were. Your opinion is not proof.

8.  rock analysis cannot be proven accurate in any case.  the conditions of the rock at the beginning of time or even through time are not quantifiably set.  we do not know the amount of carbon dioxide in the air at creation.  we do not know at what points the rocks gained or lost gas and what conditions they were exposed to.  extreme heat - for instance - lets gas escape.  think about it.  what happens when a volcano explodes.  rock can not be a fossil as it never lived and breathed and had flesh.

Rubidium-Strontium dating is very accurate. https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

It doesn't matter, does it, provided it shows the age due to the half-life of the isotopes!  You are forgetting that volcanoes do not change the isotopes. Rock is not a fossil, but its atoms still work.

this type of theory also follows the idea that layers of sediment have to be laid down over millions of years.  mt. saint helens laid down half a mountain in several days
time.

Your theory shows ignorance of what radiometric dating is, and that they weren't sedimentary rocks tested

[pianistimo]

you can't accurately radiometric date a rock!

and, adam and eve were perfect in their creation.  i would say without degeneration.  you don't believe in degeneration and believe things are getting better and better.  by now - we should be flying.

all this stem cell stuff is just repeating what i said - it's a creation of God.  just because you put it in a petri dish doesn't mean you own it.

[prometheus]

you can't accurately radiometric date a rock!

Just because if gives data you want to reject to stay deluded does not mean you can't. Apparently you can.


Apparently there are several different independent ways to date the earth. And they all give similar data. Can't be just coincidence, can it?



If you want to prove that it's fundamentally impossible then write to Nature or something.

[wotgoplunk]

you can't accurately radiometric date a rock!

and, adam and eve were perfect in their creation.  i would say without degeneration.  you don't believe in degeneration and believe things are getting better and better.  by now - we should be flying.

all this stem cell stuff is just repeating what i said - it's a creation of God.  just because you put it in a petri dish doesn't mean you own it.

It has isotopes: therefore, it's accurate.

Hardly. Humans have no need to fly, so why should we?

But they have induced mitosis in cells! As in, they can make them mutate, thus proving evolution.

[pianistimo]

write to nature?  oh thanks.  scratch another stick mark on your rock for some kind of delusional wisdom you think you have to date a rock.  ok.  get three scientists to date any rock you pick up off the ground.  how old it is.  basically, rocks have been around as long as earth was created - from dirt.  the dirt cycles.  rocks are dirt.  date dirt.

about the isotopes.  it has been proven that you have to know the preconditions to determine the date.  specifically the preconditions for how much carbon 14 and a few other carbons that you started with.  how do you know if some carbon leaked?  perhaps some of the gas escaped from a crack in the rock when it was heated?   

 

[prometheus]

If god designed us then why can't we fly? Surely it would be helpful? Surely it will be easy for hi to have done so.

[wotgoplunk]

about the isotopes.  it has been proven that you have to know the preconditions  to determine the date.  specifically the preconditions for radiation and carbon 14 and a few other carbons.

No you don't, all you are doing is comparing the ratio of isotopes of rubidium to isotopes of strontium. Carbon-14 only applies to living things, but I'm moderately impressed you were able to realise what it was 

[pianistimo]

perhaps physical man isn't meant to fly - but the spirit body is?  imagine that it's quite fun.

i bet rubidium and strontium are elements of dirt.  rubidium being the smaller element and more closely tied to plasma and the helium like elements?  flies away quickly - ignites quickly.  what are you proposing?  lighting a rock? 

show me the process of dating a rock.  i want to bring one to the lab.  (puts on lab coat)

[wotgoplunk]

perhaps physical man isn't meant to fly - but the spirit body is?  imagine that it's quite fun.

i bet rubidium and strontium are elements of dirt.  rubidium being the smaller element and more closely tied to plasma and the helium like elements?  flies away quickly - ignites quickly.  what are you proposing?  lighting a rock? 

show me the process of dating a rock.  i want to bring one to the lab.  (puts on lab coat)

It's possible. I don't know what elements are in dirt, but you likely have rubidium and strontium in you, it's the half life that matters.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo isn't stupid. She is just incredibly brainwashed.


She will pick up on stuff if she thinks she can use it for her delusion.



Anyway. Humans can't evolve flight. They are too heavy. First, they need to evolve lighter. Of course both require specific circumstances and probably some luck to solve the evolutionary the correct way.

And just because something seems convenient doesn't mean it will evolve.



What happens right now is that the traits humans that generally reproduce a lot have are getting more dominant.

And yes, they does probably mean the religion gene is getting more dominant.

[wotgoplunk]

perhaps physical man isn't meant to fly - but the spirit body is?  imagine that it's quite fun.

i bet rubidium and strontium are elements of dirt.  rubidium being the smaller element and more closely tied to plasma and the helium like elements?  flies away quickly - ignites quickly.  what are you proposing?  lighting a rock? 

show me the process of dating a rock.  i want to bring one to the lab.  (puts on lab coat)

You'll have to look it up, my knowledge of it won't do it justice, and if I get something wrong I have a feeling you will harp on that

[ahinton]

all this stem cell stuff is just repeating what i said - it's a creation of God.  just because you put it in a petri dish doesn't mean you own it.

If that were true, would you mind asking Him why He's held off from creating it for so long and why this particular part of His creation is being created so painfully slowly?

Best,

Alistair