Earth is 6000 years old ?

[OU_Sooners75]

87 must be googling trying to find some type of evidence.

[MR2-Sooner86]

This thread sucks. I'm done.

Finally! Come back when you when you can take a stance on something without arguing out of both sides of your mouth, attempting to troll, and just causing an argument. Seriously, all you do is argue. I really don't think you have the backbone to take a stance on any issue, you just take the opposite side.


of course i believe in science...
science explains God's creation...

Alright, I want the scientific proof for the following.

Scientific evidence where dinosaurs lived in the time of men.
Scientific evidence of two people able to hold all the genetic information to make all the races in the world.
Scientific evidence for the lack of inbreeding due to all the family relations that had to go on.
Scientific evidence of a massive worldwide flood.
Scientific evidence how all the animals were able to be placed on islands and separated on the different confidents when they all left the same Ark which landed in, presumably, Middle East/Turkey.
Scientific evidence of a man named Moses, Moses going to Egypt, the 10 plagues, leading Israelites out of Egypt, and wandering 40 years in the desert.
Scientific evidence of a man named Jesus.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XpoiUxSf9Yg/TGvMB770MdI/AAAAAAAAAAY/cpi4L2_MAtE/s320/small_Venus-of-Willendorf-24000BC.jpg

This statue was made around 15,000 years ago. I want the scientific evidence to show why that's wrong and why it's less than 6,000 years old since man has only been around 6,000 years according to the Bible.


what i don't believe in is scientists trying to fill in gaps with weak assumptions....

Funny because that has been what religion has done. When we get a bad lighting storm, we know weather patterns and the science behind it. What did the ancient Greeks think? Zeus is angry.

We know what happened in Japan a month ago due to the science of plate-tectonics. What would the ancient Greeks say? Poseidon is angry.


or people attempting to twist a scientific theory into an explanation of the unknowable (origin of life/universe)...

Yes, stupid science trying to mess with people's beliefs. I mean, a flat Earth, gravity, sun revolving around the Earth, etc. were really a pain we could've done without.

[87sooner]

Why not?

because it's just as plausible they were created that way...

[jumperstop]

Alright, I want the scientific proof for the following.

Scientific evidence where dinosaurs lived in the time of men.
Scientific evidence of two people able to hold all the genetic information to make all the races in the world.
Scientific evidence for the lack of inbreeding due to all the family relations that had to go on.
Scientific evidence of a massive worldwide flood.
Scientific evidence how all the animals were able to be placed on islands and separated on the different confidents when they all left the same Ark which landed in, presumably, Middle East/Turkey.
Scientific evidence of a man named Moses, Moses going to Egypt, the 10 plagues, leading Israelites out of Egypt, and wandering 40 years in the desert.
Scientific evidence of a man named Jesus.


There are shows on both History and Nat Geo that scientifically prove the reasoning behind all ten plagues. Pretty interesting stuff. The only thing they couldn't for sure explain was the parting of the red sea, and they even gave an attempt at an explaination for that.

[jumperstop]

They show them about ten times each easter so you'll get a chance to see them here in a couple of weeks.

[Fraggle145]

because it's just as plausible they were created that way...

Actually not really. When you look at DNA transmission between generations, and how frequently mutations and gene substitutions or duplications occur the chances of that happening by chance alone are pretty remarkably small. Like less than 0.00001%. If you look at how DNA is passed in bacteria even they dont change that quickly it takes almost 10,000 generations to find detectable changes within the entire genome in one clonal lineage. It is even slower in sexual organisms.

I'm just saying if you look at rates of change of DNA over time, you would have to make the assumption that everything was created with the DNA that is currently has right now and that the process of speciation and genetic drift doesnt exist. Genes do change over time even in the same clonal lineage so this doesnt seem very plausible. It would require that each individual generation from each clonal lineage was created with almost the exact same DNA with one or two substitutions, which would require whatever deity that is out there to create every one individually.

[AggieTool]

did He not?

....ummm not really...

[Mongo]

I took a mean growler a hwhile ago.

[87sooner]

....ummm not really...

how do you know?

[AggieTool]

how do you know?

Because I "know" things based on repeatable scientific evidence.

I could write a book today, bury it in the ground for 2000 years, and start a religion too....

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I took a mean growler a hwhile ago.

Leave it...

[87sooner]

Because I "know" things based on repeatable scientific evidence.

I could write a book today, bury it in the ground for 2000 years, and start a religion too....

you know God did not reveal himself based on repeatable scientific evidence?
wow...
let's see the evidence....

[OUMallen]

Irrelevant, for I never said anything of the kind in the first place. Fraggle is just one of those guys who takes disagreement on evolution as a personal affront. Why? Damned if I know.

Actually, I know Fraggle, and he has his PhD in Zoology. It was a joke. He's a DOCTOR of SCIENCE.

But speaking of people that love to disagree, I'd like to introduce you to Leroy Lizard.

[87sooner]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XpoiUxSf9Yg/TGvMB770MdI/AAAAAAAAAAY/cpi4L2_MAtE/s320/small_Venus-of-Willendorf-24000BC.jpg

This statue was made around 15,000 years ago. I want the scientific evidence to show why that's wrong and why it's less than 6,000 years old since man has only been around 6,000 years according to the Bible.





when the earth was formed.....you know...in the "big accident"...
don't you think the odds are high that one rock on this planet "accidentally" looks like a fat naked woman with saggy ****?

[Howzit]

If it weren't for the life-like labia I would agree.

Kind of makes my mouth water.

[saucysoonergal]

It looks kind of like a fat Junice.

[Howzit]

Mmmm...Junice.

[Aldebaran]

Do you think God could not create the universe in six 24 hour days?


I keep re-reading this. Loaded as it is with fail. Trying to decide to point out the irony that time is the most relative concept in the universe or to ask if you know how many hit points it takes to defeat a level 20 satanic deamon.

[Pricetag]

Heh, when I first read it, it brought to mind Harris from Major League.

"Are you trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?"

[Howzit]

I keep re-reading this. Loaded as it is with fail. Trying to decide to point out the irony that time is the most relative concept in the universe or to ask if you know how many hit points it takes to defeat a level 20 satanic deamon.
I don't know exactly how many points, but Lvl. 8 chicken of the Infinite would probably do it.

[OklahomaSooners]

If there is no God and we live as such, were ok! If we live like there is no God and There is a God, Well that Sucks! So live like there is a God and everything will be ok!

[Fraggle145]

If there is no God and we live as such, were ok! If we live like there is no God and There is a God, Well that Sucks! So live like there is a God and everything will be ok!

Hurray for Pascal's Wager! Cant have a religion thread without it...

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I've got a weener for you fraggle...er...wager

[Aldebaran]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bwj/lowres/bwjn13l.jpg

[The Maestro]

that is correct.
it's the only book that contains the inspired word of God.
each and every word.
read it any other way and you're wasting your time.

I used to be like this...the kool aid is yummy and the concept of super daddy in the sky feels better. But some people like truth, not just warm fuzzies. This isn't original, but food for thought...

There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.

That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.

That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.

That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.

That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.

That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.

That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.

That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.

That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.

That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.

That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.

That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God. As SilverBullet recently said: “...the lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were "revealed". Sure, its possible for a god to reveal himself in an inspired book, and throughout history, in ways that are indistinguishable from the work of human minds and human minds alone. But how probable does that seem to you?”

That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.

Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple.
When believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is an evil to be avoided....Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. And yet they maintain Christianity is reasonable.

[Aldebaran]

If religion should be observed on a just in case basis, people should observe every religion, just in case.

This is as impossible as the notion of a bunny delivering eggs to everyone's house in one night.

[Ike]

If there is no God and we live as such, were ok! If we live like there is no God and There is a God, Well that Sucks! So live like there is a God and everything will be ok!

But which god? What happens if it turns out you've been living like the wrong god existed?

[Ike]

If religion should be observed on a just in case basis, people should observe every religion, just in case.

This is as impossible as the notion of a bunny delivering eggs to everyone's house in one night.

Its worse than that...not only should you observe every religion known to man. But you would also need to observe every religion not known to man.

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is as impossible as the notion of a bunny delivering eggs to everyone's house in one night.

Not everybody he skips the Joos.

[Aldebaran]

snicker

[okie52]

If religion should be observed on a just in case basis, people should observe every religion, just in case.

This is as impossible as the notion of a bunny delivering eggs to everyone's house in one night.

Didn't you get any? That bunny delivers them to my house every year. But he is a capitalist, though, so you might not be on his list.

[cccasooner2]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bwj/lowres/bwjn13l.jpg

What's the myth?

[GKeeper316]

when the earth was formed.....you know...in the "big accident"...
don't you think the odds are high that one rock on this planet "accidentally" looks like a fat naked woman with saggy ****?

its about as likely as a spilled bottle of ink forming a work by shakespear.

[87sooner]

I keep re-reading this. Loaded as it is with fail. Trying to decide to point out the irony that time is the most relative concept in the universe or to ask if you know how many hit points it takes to defeat a level 20 satanic deamon.

the question was directed at a person whom i assumed was a believer...
if a person believes in God...yet doesn't think He could have created the universe in 6 days....they are a very confused believer....

[87sooner]

its about as likely as a spilled bottle of ink forming a work by shakespear.

yet infinitely more likely than the universe and all it contains happening by accident and for no purpose..

[Fraggle145]

Actually not really. When you look at DNA transmission between generations, and how frequently mutations and gene substitutions or duplications occur the chances of that happening by chance alone are pretty remarkably small. Like less than 0.00001%. If you look at how DNA is passed in bacteria even they dont change that quickly it takes almost 10,000 generations to find detectable changes within the entire genome in one clonal lineage. It is even slower in sexual organisms.

I'm just saying if you look at rates of change of DNA over time, you would have to make the assumption that everything was created with the DNA that is currently has right now and that the process of speciation and genetic drift doesnt exist. Genes do change over time even in the same clonal lineage so this doesnt seem very plausible. It would require that each individual generation from each clonal lineage was created with almost the exact same DNA with one or two substitutions, which would require whatever deity that is out there to create every one individually.

So 87 you never responded to this... I was curious what you thought about it.

[olevetonahill]

I dont keer about what yall think . I dont think the Earth is 6000 years old ;)

[87sooner]

So 87 you never responded to this... I was curious what you thought about it.

i think fraggle did a pretty good job of proving my point.
it's just as plausible man and ape were created with similar dna.

[StoopTroup]

I dont keer about what yall think . I dont think the Earth is 6000 years old ;)

I've been more worried about the sun. Evidently if that thing goes out....you won't GAS about how old the Earth is. :D

[olevetonahill]

I've been more worried about the sun. Evidently if that thing goes out....you won't GAS about how old the Earth is. :D

****in Obama will prolly get the gas cut off to that bitch with his idiotic Foreign Policy and energy stuff.:D

[Ike]

I've been more worried about the sun. Evidently if that thing goes out....you won't GAS about how old the Earth is. :D

Luckily, it'll swallow up the earth before it goes out...


So we won't get to see it go out.

[olevetonahill]

Luckily, it'll swallow up the earth before it goes out...


So we won't get to see it go out.

Wheres the dayum Fun in that?

[Ike]

Wheres the dayum Fun in that?

Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Stars to stars.

[olevetonahill]

Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Stars to stars.

Yea But dayum it , I wanta see it coming so I can do this ;)
http://images6.cpcache.com/product_zoom/297594326v0_400x400_Front_Color-Mahogany.jpg

[Blue]

Haven't yall heard? Doomsday solar flare and rogue planet flyby in 2012.

We're doomed i tell ya.

[Ike]

Yea But dayum it , I wanta see it coming so I can do this ;)
http://images6.cpcache.com/product_zoom/297594326v0_400x400_Front_Color-Mahogany.jpg

I tell ya what, I'll get right on it. I just need funding of $100K/year. Pony that up, and after about 10 years or so, I'll tell you the exact date it will happen on.

Of course, that date will be eleventy brazillion years in the future.

[StoopTroup]

I've been eating fish the last couple of days before the radioactive stuff hits the shelves.

[olevetonahill]

I tell ya what, I'll get right on it. I just need funding of $100K/year. Pony that up, and after about 10 years or so, I'll tell you the exact date it will happen on.

Of course, that date will be eleventy brazillion years in the future.

Hell bro thats Pocket change Ya got it
Anything else ?

[cccasooner2]

Luckily, it'll swallow up the earth before it goes out...


So we won't get to see it go out.




Thank God!

[Fraggle145]

i think fraggle did a pretty good job of proving my point.
it's just as plausible man and ape were created with similar dna.

Wow... Just wow. :eek:

[soonerbrat]

Yah, I'm pretty sure that when Henry XIII changed the bible so he could get a divorce it was divine inspiration that led him there.

[GKeeper316]

Yah, I'm pretty sure that when Henry XIII changed the bible so he could get a divorce it was divine inspiration that led him there.

hell when martin luther started the protestant reformation, he left out 8 books of the old testament.

[soonerbrat]

hell when martin luther started the protestant reformation, he left out 8 books of the old testament.

but 87 sooner says they were all divinely inspired and had no ulterior motives. so it must be so.

[StoopTroup]

Yah, I'm pretty sure that when Henry XIII changed the bible so he could get a divorce it was divine inspiration that led him there.

My Given Name is Thomas.

In Honor of St. Thomas More

http://www.st-thomas-more.org/images/saintt04.jpg


Saint, knight, Lord Chancellor of England, author and martyr, born in London, 7 February, 1477-78; executed at Tower Hill, 6 July, 1535.

In October, 1529, More succeeded Wolsey as Chancellor of England, a post never before held by a layman. In matters political, however, he is nowise succeeded to Wolsey's position, and his tenure of the chancellorship is chiefly memorable for his unparalleled success as a judge. His despatch was so great that the supply of causes was actually exhausted, an incident commemorated in the well-known rhyme,

When More some time had Chancellor been
No more suits did remain.
The like will never more be seen,
Till More be there again.

The royal proclamation ordering the clergy to acknowledge Henry as "Supreme Head" of the Church "as far as the law of God will permit", came and we have Chapuy's testimony that More at once proferred his resignation of the chancellorship, which however was not accepted. His firm opposition to Henry's designs in regard to the divorce, the papal supremacy, and the laws against heretics, speedily lost him the royal favour, and in May, 1532, he resigned his post of Lord Chancellor after holding it less than three years. This meant the loss of all his income except about 100 pounds a year, the rent of some property he had purchased; and, with cheerful indifference, he at once reduced his style of living to match his strained means. The epitaph he wrote at this time for the tomb in Chelsea church states that he intended to devoted his last years to preparing himself for the life to come.

For the next eighteen months More lived in seclusion and gave much time to controversial writing. Anxious to avoid a public rupture with Henry he stayed away from Anne Boleyn's coronation, and when, in 1533, his nephew William Rastell wrote a pamphlet supporting the pope, which was attributed to More, he wrote a letter to Cromwell disclaiming any share therein and declaring that he knew his duty to his prince too well to criticize his policy. Neutrality, however, did not suit Henry, and More's name was included in the Bill of Attainder introduced into the Lords against the Holy Maid of Kent and her friends. Brought before four members of the Council, More was asked why he did not approve Henry's anti-papal action. He answered that he had several times explained his position to the king in person and without incurring his displeasure. Eventually, in view of his extraordinary popularity, Henry thought it expedient to remove his name from the Bill of Attainder. The incident showed that he might expect, however, and the Duke of Norfolk personally warned him of his grave danger, adding "indignatio principis mors est". "Is that all, my Lord," answered More, "then, in good faith, between your grace and me is but this, that I shall die today, and you tomorrow." In March, 1534, the Act of Succession was passed which required all who should be called upon to take an oath acknowledging the issue of Henry and Anne as legitimate heirs to the throne, and to this was added a clause repudiating "any foreign authority, prince or potentate". On 14 April, More was summoned to Lambeth to take the oath and, on his refusal, was committed to the custody of the Abbot of Westminster. Four days later he was removed to the Tower, and in the following November was attainted of misprision of treason, the grants of land made to him in 1523 and 1525 being resumed by the Crown. In prison, though suffering greatly from "his old disease of the chest . . .gravel, stone, and the cramp", his habitual gaiety remained and he joked with his family and friends whenever they were permitted to see him as merrily as in the old days at Chelsea. When alone his time was given up to prayer and penitential exercises; and he wrote a "Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation", treatise (unfinished) on the Passion of Christ, and many letters to his family and others. In April and May, 1535, Cromwell visited him in person to demand his opinion of the new statutes conferring on Henry the title of Supreme Head of the Church. More refused to give any answer beyond declaring himself a faithful subject of the king. In June, Rich, the solicitor-general, held a conversation with More and, in reporting it, declared that More had denied Parliament's power to confer ecclesiastical supremacy on Henry. It was now discovered that More and Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, had exchanged letters in prison, and a fresh inquiry was held which resulted in his being deprived of all books and writing materials, but he contrived to write to his wife and favourite daughter, Margaret, on stray scraps of paper with a charred stick or piece of coal.

On 1 July, More was indicted for high treason at Westminster Hall before a special commission of twenty. More denied the chief charges of the indictment, which was enormously long, and denounced Rich, the solicitor-general and chief witness against him as a perjuror. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn, but some days later this was changed by Henry to beheading on Tower Hill. The story of his last days on earth, as given by Roper and Cresacre More, is of the tenderest beauty and should be read in full; certainly no martyr ever surpassed him in fortitude. As Addison wrote in the Spectator (No. 349) "that innocent mirth which had been so conspicuous in his life, did not forsake him to the last . . .his death was of a piece with his life. There was nothing in it new, forced or affected. He did not look upon the severing of his head from his body as a circumstance that ought to produce any change in the disposition of his mind". The execution took place on Tower Hill "before nine of the clock" on 6 July, the body being buried in the Church of St. Peter ad vincula.

The head, after being parboiled, was exposed on London Bridge for a month when Margaret Roper bribed the man, whose business it was to throw it into the river, to give it to her instead. The final fate of the relic is somewhat uncertain, but in 1824 a leaden box was found in the Roper vault at St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, which on being opened was found to contain a head presumed to be More's. The Jesuit Fathers at Stonyhurst possess a remarkable collection of secondary relics, most of which came to them from Father Thomas More, S.J. (d. 1795), the last male heir of the martyr. These include his hat, cap, crucifix of gold, a silver seal, "George", and other articles. The hair shirt, worn by him for many years and sent to Margaret Roper the day before his martyrdom, is preserved by the Augustinian canonesses of Abbots Leigh, Devonshire, to whom it was brought by Margaret Clements, the adopted child of Sir Thomas. A number of autograph letters are in the British Museum. Several portraits exist, the best being that by Holbein in the possession of E. Huth, Esq. Holbein also painted a large group of More's household which has disappeared, but the original sketch for it is in the Basle Museum, and a sixteenth-century copy is the property of Lord St. Oswald. Thomas More was formally beatified by Pope Leo XIII, in the Decree of 29 December, 1886. Note: St. Thomas More was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935.

To me....he made a huge sacrifice and stuck to his principles and not for himself....but for the Church and the future of the Church.

[GKeeper316]

but 87 sooner says they were all divinely inspired and had no ulterior motives. so it must be so.

ya i knew a dumbass like that in college. refused to admit the possiblity of life on other planets because the bible didn't mention aliens specifically.

the bible is just a book, written by men whose ultimate goal was to remove the personal relationship with god that christ preached and turn it into a means of control.

[olevetonahill]

Yah, I'm pretty sure that when Henry XIII changed the bible so he could get a divorce it was divine inspiration that led him there.

Not sure He changed it so much as just started the Church of England in Direct competition with the Papist ;)

[olevetonahill]

ya i knew a dumbass like that in college. refused to admit the possiblity of life on other planets because the bible didn't mention aliens specifically.

the bible is just a book, written by men whose ultimate goal was to remove the personal relationship with god that christ preached and turn it into a means of control.

Preach On
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QgcIP-pa2II/SUbQw9KAJcI/AAAAAAAAAX8/TygI4OQWl-E/s400/GomerPyle.jpg

[StoopTroup]

Not sure He changed it so much as just started the Church of England in Direct competition with the Papist ;)

Yep.

[soonerbrat]

My Given Name is Thomas.

In Honor of St. Thomas More

http://www.st-thomas-more.org/images/saintt04.jpg



To me....he made a huge sacrifice and stuck to his principles and not for himself....but for the Church and the future of the Church.

i'm not reading all that right, my eyes are too tired. remind me tomorrow :D

[GKeeper316]

Not sure He changed it so much as just started the Church of England in Direct competition with the Papist ;)

because the pope wouldn't grant him a divorce.

he didn't do it out of any particular love of god, he did it because he didn't like the rules, so he just changed em to what he wanted.

[olevetonahill]

Not sure He changed it so much as just started the Church of England in Direct competition with the Papist ;)


because the pope wouldn't grant him a divorce.

he didn't do it out of any particular love of god, he did it because he didn't like the rules, so he just changed em to what he wanted.

So did he Change it?
No :rolleyes:

[87sooner]

ya i knew a dumbass like that in college. refused to admit the possiblity of life on other planets because the bible didn't mention aliens specifically.

the bible is just a book, written by men whose ultimate goal was to remove the personal relationship with god that christ preached and turn it into a means of control.

pure hogwash

[olevetonahill]

pure hogwash

Dont paint Gomers statement with a white brush
Dude is whacked :rolleyes:

[Collier11]

Hey, I've had to argue with people that evolution was fact and that "theory" doesn't mean there is a chance it didn't happen.

I think it is ridiculous that people cant allow for both to be true, I have no doubt that Evolution exists but I also believe it was a part of Gods plan

Now, go ahead and freak out :D

[StoopTroup]

i'm not reading all that right, my eyes are too tired. remind me tomorrow :D

You can find plenty of books about him. That IMO is a good summation of what happened between St. Thomas and Henry.

I'll never call him a king as he was just an out of control Power Monger with an Ego larger than Hitler. Thankfully he didn't see the World through Hitler's eyes.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So I haven't been around much, but I just have to say to 99% of the people in this thread: "Oh, for ****'s sake!"

[OhU1]

I think it is ridiculous that people cant allow for both to be true, I have no doubt that Evolution exists but I also believe it was a part of Gods plan

Now, go ahead and freak out :D

This has been the stance of the Catholic Church for some time I think.

There has been a centuries long pattern of the church attacking and trying to suppress science. Then when it is no longer possible to deny the science the church's doctrine becomes a little fuzzier in that area and the new scientific discovery is accepted and adopted as part of God's plan. I have no doubt the same will be true when the mechanics of abiogenesis and the deeper questions about physics are better understood in the future.

[soonerbrat]

This has been the stance of the Catholic Church for some time I think.

There has been a centuries long pattern of the church attacking and trying to suppress science. Then when it is no longer possible to deny the science the church's doctrine becomes a little fuzzier in that area and the new scientific discovery is accepted and adopted as part of God's plan. I have no doubt the same will be true when the mechanics of abiogenesis and the deeper questions about physics are better understood in the future.

that's what I was taught in Parochial school.

[OU_Sooners75]

pure hogwash


Care to prove it otherwise? Or do you just want to say this with blind faith, yet again?

[87sooner]

Care to prove it otherwise? Or do you just want to say this with blind faith, yet again?

prove someone's opinion about the bible is hogwash? to YOU?
you've proven to be a complete dumbarse on two boards....

[2121Sooner]

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt55/brewsben8/Jesus/JesusRidingDinosaur-1.jpg

[OU_Sooners75]

prove someone's opinion about the bible is hogwash? to YOU?
you've proven to be a complete dumbarse on two boards....


I guess that is one way to actually prove your point.

You are the one looking like a damn fool in this thread. Your blind faith is just that, blind.

But, hey, lets be good christian-like folk and start name calling those that we disagree with, okay?

[OU_Sooners75]

BTW, 87...when are going to give us some facts about the bible being more than a bunch of made up fairtales?


:pop:

[AlboSooner]

BTW, 87...when are going to give us some facts about the bible being more than a bunch of made up fairtales?


:pop:

Are you just trying to get a rise out of 87?

There are parts of the Bible which test the faith, and to completely call it fiction is unfair. There are historical books in the Bible which are quite accurate. There are books of prophesy, like the book of Daniel those prophecies have been proven true. There are books of philosophy which portray the human problems quite well. There are books of proverbs and truisms, which are quite true.

The poetry in the Bible is quite nice too.

[2121Sooner]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SD7e0Cq2WKU/TV3ynVpjBEI/AAAAAAAAB14/h1orMxbBDsI/s1600/bible-circular-logic.jpg

[AlboSooner]

Non-Biblical historical evidence, and archeology, are not part of the so-called circular argument. There is more historical and archeological evidence that support the Bible than any other document of the same time. Proof, though, has been the cure of cynicism.

[OU_Sooners75]

Are you just trying to get a rise out of 87?

There are parts of the Bible which test the faith, and to completely call it fiction is unfair. There are historical books in the Bible which are quite accurate. There are books of prophesy, like the book of Daniel those prophecies have been proven true. There are books of philosophy which portray the human problems quite well. There are books of proverbs and truisms, which are quite true.

The poetry in the Bible is quite nice too.

Like what?

You mean the flood?
Oh, you mean the man was created and not evolved?
You mean, jesus raising from the dead and ascending to heaven?

What prophecies have been proven true? What stories are true?

I could write a book tomorrow about the troubles of mankind and it would be true...it doesn't make the book written by anyone or anything other than man kind.

If the bible was written in gods word, don't you think that the bible would include all the books, not just a few of them? I mean, God wrote the bible, but man gets to pick and choose which books are included?

Okay...ill believe that one! :rolleyes:

I have said more than one time. I think the bible is a good piece of work that can teach us morals and how to deal with life's little problems.

However, it is quite fictional.

[OU_Sooners75]

AND FYI Albo...no I am not trying to get a rise out of 87...the guy is going to start calling names like a good little christian, I want him to give actual proof that any of the stories in the bible are actually TRUE!!!

He can't...however, his blind faith says it is true, so it must be true.

And he wants to be the first to call people dumbasses.

[OU_Sooners75]

Non-Biblical historical evidence, and archeology, are not part of the so-called circular argument. There is more historical and archeological evidence that support the Bible than any other document of the same time. Proof, though, has been the cure of cynicism.


Like what exactly? People can talk about it being true...yet that is all they do is talk about, they present very little factual evidence to prove it.

That is what I am asking for.

If the world was flooded in the time of Noah, where is the proof that this flood occurred world wide?

If God created earth then created man, why is there evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth? Why doesn't the bible say anything about the dinosaurs?

I have said before, I believe there is a higher power, but I do not believe what the christians want to believe and that is the bible being literal on every account.

[AlboSooner]

You seem predisposed not to believe anything I have to say. Sorry but I won't get more into it.

Since you seem to know about evolution, I'd like for you to tell me how is it possible that : A) natural elements self-assembled ex-nihilo into complex being, B) where is the evidence that one species changed into another C) the explanation by which evolutionary chemical processes went against entropy, D) the formation of enzymes despite Levinthall's paradox, E) how were early chemical processes catalyzed in the absence of enzymes.

I hope you can explain these, or else your faith in evolution is blind at worst, and unproven at best.

[OU_Sooners75]

You seem predisposed not to believe anything I have to say. Sorry but I won't get more into it.

Since you seem to know about evolution, I'd like for you to tell me how is it possible that : A) natural elements self-assembled ex-nihilo into complex being, B) where is the evidence that one species changed into another C) the explanation by which evolutionary chemical processes went against entropy, D) the formation of enzymes despite Levinthall's paradox, E) how were early chemical processes catalyzed in the absence of enzymes.

I hope you can explain these, or else your faith in evolution is blind at worst, and unproven at best.

No, see, I do not believe totally in evolution either. I am one that thinks that something created all of this, but not how the bible wants to describe it.

But I will wait for you to give me that evidence you said you had about the bible being true.

Though I probably shouldn't hold my breath huh?

[AlboSooner]

How does the Bible describe it?

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm still waiting for an answer...


of course i believe in science...
science explains God's creation...

Alright, I want the scientific proof for the following.

Scientific evidence where dinosaurs lived in the time of men.
Scientific evidence of two people able to hold all the genetic information to make all the races in the world.
Scientific evidence for the lack of inbreeding due to all the family relations that had to go on.
Scientific evidence of a massive worldwide flood.
Scientific evidence how all the animals were able to be placed on islands and separated on the different confidents when they all left the same Ark which landed in, presumably, Middle East/Turkey.
Scientific evidence of a man named Moses, Moses going to Egypt, the 10 plagues, leading Israelites out of Egypt, and wandering 40 years in the desert.
Scientific evidence of a man named Jesus.

This statue was made around 15,000 years ago. I want the scientific evidence to show why that's wrong and why it's less than 6,000 years old since man has only been around 6,000 years according to the Bible.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XpoiUxSf9Yg/TGvMB770MdI/AAAAAAAAAAY/cpi4L2_MAtE/s320/small_Venus-of-Willendorf-24000BC.jpg

As somebody mentioned you can scientifically look at the 10 plagues and figure them out. However, that relies on a volcanic eruption and a series of events that would be very rare and take weeks to develop. The Bible said they were one day after another and the Israelites were spared.

[AlboSooner]

There is no scientific evidence that G. Washington existed, so that means he didn't exist? lol.

For historical figures, it is reasonable to demand historical evidence.

The Bible has no timeline about creation.

[OU_Sooners75]

How does the Bible describe it?

I will take this as a diversion in answering the question facing you...as in giving me this proof that you have when it comes to the bible being true.

[OU_Sooners75]

There is no scientific evidence that G. Washington existed, so that means he didn't exist? lol.

For historical figures, it is reasonable to demand historical evidence.

The Bible has no timeline about creation.

What a lame *** argument.

And unless I am reading it incorrectly, the bible does in fact have a timeline about creation. Now, read carefully.


Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26a)] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Genesis 1 states that the earth, moon, stars, sun, seas, land, birds, plants, humans, land animals, sea animals, were created within 6 days.

Time line...6 days. But if god did this in 6 days, and man is only 200,000 years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old....well, you get how long his days are.

Still...I am asking where the evidence is that proves any of the stories in the bible as true.

I won't hold my breath.

[AlboSooner]

I will take this as a diversion in answering the question facing you...as in giving me this proof that you have when it comes to the bible being true.

Right back at you. I know it's easier to bring down walls than to defend them. If you're going to refuse to even show "your" walls, then I won't show mine.

Just as a general point, the biggest obstacle is always God's existence, because after that is established, the question simply becomes: Can an omnipotent God do miracles? The contradiction in the question is evident.

[87sooner]

I'm still waiting for an answer...



Alright, I want the scientific proof for the following.

Scientific evidence where dinosaurs lived in the time of men.
Scientific evidence of two people able to hold all the genetic information to make all the races in the world.
Scientific evidence for the lack of inbreeding due to all the family relations that had to go on.
Scientific evidence of a massive worldwide flood.
Scientific evidence how all the animals were able to be placed on islands and separated on the different confidents when they all left the same Ark which landed in, presumably, Middle East/Turkey.
Scientific evidence of a man named Moses, Moses going to Egypt, the 10 plagues, leading Israelites out of Egypt, and wandering 40 years in the desert.
Scientific evidence of a man named Jesus.

This statue was made around 15,000 years ago. I want the scientific evidence to show why that's wrong and why it's less than 6,000 years old since man has only been around 6,000 years according to the Bible.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XpoiUxSf9Yg/TGvMB770MdI/AAAAAAAAAAY/cpi4L2_MAtE/s320/small_Venus-of-Willendorf-24000BC.jpg

As somebody mentioned you can scientifically look at the 10 plagues and figure them out. However, that relies on a volcanic eruption and a series of events that would be very rare and take weeks to develop. The Bible said they were one day after another and the Israelites were spared.

that's the beauty of it.....there is no proof and there never will be that you would accept...
and even if there were.....what would you do with it?
people saw the red sea part....they saw many miracles...and some didnt' believe....or only believed for a very short time...
i have my proof...you'll have to find yours on your own...

[AlboSooner]

just posting to say that I read post # 336, there are perfectly good answers to it, and I choose not to post them. Jesus warned us of people trampling on truth regardless of the evidence to it.

Btw, it makes no sense to demand scientific evidence for an historical figure. I can't even wrap my mind around that kind of demand.

[87sooner]

You are the one looking like a damn fool in this thread. Your blind faith is just that, blind.


as is yours...
at least i know what i believe..
you live your life in confusion....
you thought capel was a good coach...

[OU_Sooners75]

Right back at you. I know it's easier to bring down walls than to defend them. If you're going to refuse to even show "your" walls, then I won't show mine.

Just as a general point, the biggest obstacle is always God's existence, because after that is established, the question simply becomes: Can a omnipotent God do miracles? The contradiction in the question is evident.


Well, since you want to deflect all the time, like any good christian is taught...good for you.

As far as evolution. I am the last guy to explain that one. I think it is a combination of both creationism and evolution. Hell, the last 1,000 years backs evolution more than creationism. How far has the human brain developed the last 1,000 years is just amazing.

As I have said before, I believe there is a higher being or power. I just do not believe humans came about like the Christian bible describes.

Did we come from Apes? I don't want to believe we did, but there is genetic evidence that human and apes are very closely related.

What really boggles my mind is when a christian is presented with such a debate, they go on blind faith and very little factual evidence.

Like I have said multiple times in this thread. Where is the evidence that a great flood covered the earth? Where is the evidence of 10 plagues in 10 days? Where is this disease or plague that kills just the first born child?

Where is this evidence when it comes to any and all stories in the bible?

Last question....maybe you will be able to actually answer this one.

Did Humans and Dinosaurs roam the earth at the same time?

[OU_Sooners75]

just posting to say that I read post # 336, there are perfectly good answers to it, and I choose not to post them. Jesus warned us of people trampling on truth regardless of the evidence to it.

Btw, it makes no sense to demand scientific evidence for an historical figure. I can't even wrap my mind around that kind of demand.


Really?

I am not demanding any evidence of historical figures. I too believe Jesus lived...but that is as far as it goes right now.

If there are perfectly good answers, isn't your duty as a Christian to show the non-believers the truth?

[AlboSooner]

If there are perfectly good answers, isn't your duty as a Christian to show the non-believers the truth?

It is not a Christian's duty to reveal truth to someone who is predisposed to reject it no matter what. It is actually prohibited to do so.

[okie52]

Really?

I am not demanding any evidence of historical figures. I too believe Jesus lived...but that is as far as it goes right now.

If there are perfectly good answers, isn't your duty as a Christian to show the non-believers the truth?

You mean a christian has to believe in a 6,000 year old earth?

[OU_Sooners75]

You mean a christian has to believe in a 6,000 year old earth?

:confused:

[OU_Sooners75]

It is not a Christian's duty to reveal truth to someone who is predisposed to reject it no matter what. It is actually prohibited to do so.


This is where you are wrong. I am not predisposed to reject anything. I sent you a PM.

[87sooner]

If there are perfectly good answers, isn't your duty as a Christian to show the non-believers the truth?

yes....it is..
the truth is....Jesus....the Son of God....died on the cross for the sins of all mankind....
He is the Savior of all mankind.....
without Him....you will be separated from God for eternity...
you can accept Him as your Savior and ask for forgiveness....or you can reject Him....it's your choice....

if you need scientific proof of the flood and the dinosaurs and the plagues....etc.....that's why we call your types "lost"....

[okie52]

:confused:

Any more validity to a Christian believing in a 4.5 Billion old earth?

How about a Christian that doesn't believe all things are literal in the bible?

[OU_Sooners75]

yes....it is..
the truth is....Jesus....the Son of God....died on the cross for the sins of all mankind....
He is the Savior of all mankind.....
without Him....you will be separated from God for eternity...
you can accept Him as your Savior and ask for forgiveness....or you can reject Him....it's your choice....

if you need scientific proof of the flood and the dinosaurs and the plagues....etc.....that's why we call your types "lost"....

Well that fall in lines with Islam calling all of us that do not believe in Islam as infidels or zionist. And yet, still does not answer any questions.

hmmm.....interesting indeed.

[AlboSooner]

This is where you are wrong. I am not predisposed to reject anything. I sent you a PM.

Replied

[OU_Sooners75]

Any more validity to a Christian believing in a 4.5 Billion old earth?

How about a Christian that doesn't believe all things are literal in the bible?

Not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here....sooo......

Hell, even the head of the Christian religion, has allowed scienctific proof to alter some of their ideals.

hmmm.... Must be a protestant thing then.

[okie52]

Not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here....sooo......

Hell, even the head of the Christian religion, has allowed scienctific proof to alter some of their ideals.

hmmm.... Must be a protestant thing then.

Oh, it seems the point of this thread is to discount Christianity based on the fact that some that feel the earth is 6,000 years old.

Who is the head of the Christian religion?

[OU_Sooners75]

Oh, it seems the point of this thread is to discount Christianity based on the fact that some that feel the earth is 6,000 years old.

Who is the head of the Christian religion?


The Pope....LOL

My thing is not to discount Christianity at all.

And with that, I am going to remove myself from this thread. Albo helped quite a bit in what I was searching for.

Thanks Albo.

[87sooner]

Who is the head of the Christian religion?

i'll give you a hint...it starts with a "J";)

[OU_Sooners75]

i'll give you a hint...it starts with a "J";)


No, Jesus is a Jew.

[87sooner]

Well that fall in lines with Islam calling all of us that do not believe in Islam as infidels or zionist. And yet, still does not answer any questions.

hmmm.....interesting indeed.

your tactics are definitely "interesting"....tho not surprising...
if you've "studied" the bible as you claim....you should recognize yourself in some of the descriptions/warnings contained there..

[okie52]

i'll give you a hint...it starts with a "J";)

I'm Episcopalean. I don't think we have an exalted one. Really we are an offshoot to Anglicans and catholics...except we have no rules.

[87sooner]

No, Jesus is a Jew.

Jesus is of jewish descent....but He is still head of the christian Church...

[87sooner]

The Pope....LOL




the pope is the head of the catholic denomination...fyi

[okie52]

Jesus is of jewish descent....but He is still head of the christian Church...

So 87...I don't really have a dog in the fight here but I am wondering if you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. I don't really care beyond the sake of discussion.

[okie52]

The Pope....LOL

My thing is not to discount Christianity at all.

And with that, I am going to remove myself from this thread. Albo helped quite a bit in what I was searching for.

Thanks Albo.

Don't remove yourself. Questions are well and good.

[87sooner]

So 87...I don't really have a dog in the fight here but I am wondering if you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. I don't really care beyond the sake of discussion.

that's a very broad/general question...

[StoopTroup]

I'm Episcopalean. I don't think we have an exalted one. Really we are an offshoot to Anglicans and catholics...except we have no rules.

Except for that thing in 1789 where nine dioceses met in Philadelphia to ratify the Church's initial constitution.

And those later Canons that were added.

Yeah no need for rules or conventions or really anything....lol

[StoopTroup]

No, see, I do not believe totally in evolution either. I am one that thinks that something created all of this, but not how the bible wants to describe it.

But I will wait for you to give me that evidence you said you had about the bible being true.

Though I probably shouldn't hold my breath huh?

I think a good portion of folks would rather dismiss most evidence as to go down that path might lead you to a life that would require you to really commit to finding the proof you seek. Many Scholars have spent their entire lives searching for what you flippantly request from people of faith. We all have been on our own journeys in life and many of us don't really commit to what it really takes to discover God, Jesus, Allah, Mohamed, Buddah or who ever we wish to believe in or dismiss.

Discussions such as these usually end in people going their separate way as neither is committed to finding a solution nor really taking their social mask off on the internet.

Scientific hypothesis vs. philosophical speculation...the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe as Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God.

Theistic vs. atheistic theories of evolution...The Christian theory of evolution demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism....Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time. Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.

Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution...To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable. The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.

As far as Evolution....maybe some of you should decide where you wish to argue and to what end?

[SoonerBread]

I think a good portion of folks would rather dismiss most evidence as to go down that path might lead you to a life that would require you to really commit to finding the proof you seek. Many Scholars have spent their entire lives searching for what you flippantly request from people of faith. We all have been on our own journeys in life and many of us don't really commit to what it really takes to discover God, Jesus, Allah, Mohamed, Buddah or who ever we wish to believe in or dismiss.

Discussions such as these usually end in people going their separate way as neither is committed to finding a solution nor really taking their social mask off on the internet.

Scientific hypothesis vs. philosophical speculation...the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe as Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God.

Theistic vs. atheistic theories of evolution...The Christian theory of evolution demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism....Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time. Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.

Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution...To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable. The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.

As far as Evolution....maybe some of you should decide where you wish to argue and to what end?

Good post, good points.

[Collier11]

What a lame *** argument.

And unless I am reading it incorrectly, the bible does in fact have a timeline about creation. Now, read carefully.

Genesis 1 states that the earth, moon, stars, sun, seas, land, birds, plants, humans, land animals, sea animals, were created within 6 days.

Time line...6 days. But if god did this in 6 days, and man is only 200,000 years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old....well, you get how long his days are.

Still...I am asking where the evidence is that proves any of the stories in the bible as true.

I won't hold my breath.


Your argument is flawed 75, you say prove it is true, I say prove it isnt...TaDa

[Blue]

Good post, good points.

Good Copy and Paste. :D

[SoonerBread]

Good Copy and Paste. :D

Huh? I can't hear you.

[JohnnyMack]

I think a good portion of folks would rather dismiss most evidence as to go down that path might lead you to a life that would require you to really commit to finding the proof you seek.

The irony police called, you're arrested.


The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology.

No. It isn't.

This guy spoke at TU a couple of years ago. A fascinating lecture: http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1302574565&sr=8-7

[Blue]

Huh? I can't hear you.

huh?

[okie52]

Except for that thing in 1789 where nine dioceses met in Philadelphia to ratify the Church's initial constitution.

And those later Canons that were added.

Yeah no need for rules or conventions or really anything....lol

And how are the episcopaleans faring now? Loved by the Catholics and Anglicans alike.

Stinkin Catholics still won't give us communion.

I want my wine.

[SoonerBread]

huh?

Zack Lee....

You're prolly right, but it's still a good post. Hell, 1/3 of this thread is copy/paste or linked.

[starclassic tama]

The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology.

this is not true.

[OU_Sooners75]

Your argument is flawed 75, you say prove it is true, I say prove it isnt...TaDa


Its not flawed at all. It is called asking questions to get a better understanding of things. ;)

The topic of this thread about the age of earth:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.


Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.
Now, some will try to say...but....well go for it. Here is some information that can and has been tested when it comes to the age of the earth.

To combat the bible, many will use Noah's flood. There is no real evidence that suggests that it actually happened within the 40 days that bible says it does.

I am not saying the bible is not true...but what I am asking is for evidence from those that take the bible literally word for word.

That is not me saying that a God does not exist. It is not saying that I think evolution is the right way.

Honestly, I do not know which side of the argument is correct. Maybe they both are? Who knows for sure?

[OhU1]

Theistic vs. atheistic theories of evolution...The Christian theory of evolution demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism....Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time. Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.

Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution...To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable. The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.


"Christian Theory of evolution."

I thought I had heard every theistic spin and rationalization out there but clearly that is not the case. Truly, there is no limit to what religion will claim and co-opt. Christian "rock" is bad enough. Now we have "Christian Evolution."

There does seem to be Christian evolution going on - Christianity evolves like a mutant virus and adapts to its surroundings by co-opting ideas and changing to survive, infect, and spread.

[MR2-Sooner86]

if you need scientific proof of the flood and the dinosaurs and the plagues....etc.....that's why we call your types "lost"....

So if I don't believe your views because of no proof, I'm lost and going to Hell? Gosh where have I heard this line of thinking?

http://morrisonworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg

http://www.omdurman.org/europe_cancer.jpg

Either you're a really good troll or a brainwashed neophyte.


if you've "studied" the bible as you claim....you should recognize yourself in some of the descriptions/warnings contained there..

Oh I've studied the Bible. Have you?

Why did a loving God kill innocent children in Egypt because of the Pharaoh? Why didn't he just smack the Pharaoh? Is it because God works in mysterious and ineffective ways? I mean punishing the people but innocent children?


Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Care to explain that one to me?


Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.


Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

I'm pretty sure we had a Civil War over this line of thinking.


you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


Do not allow a sorceress to live.


Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Jealous much?


bserve the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.

You really going to feel good enforcing that one?


Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Does it matter?


If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

If the other ones aren't to be used into context today, why do Christians still look to this one?


If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

Again, why is this important?


A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.

Isn't this what the Christians did to the Pagans before killing them and taking their traditions?


If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

I know allot of preacher's daughters too.


Then the LORD said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

God damn I'm going to be stoned!?


When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Sounds fair.


Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

Why?


If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

So make a girl marry her rapist? Awesome.


No one born of a forbidden marriage[b] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.

So no bastards in church? Got ya.


Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Infants? Yup, God is Love.


Now I know the same thing Christians say, "That no longer applies to today. When Jesus came he took all those laws away." Alright, then why are they in the Bible? To show what an ***hole God was before Jesus?

[Pricetag]

When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
Conan! What is best in life?

[SoonerNate]

I'm so sick of people and their religious crap. Just keep it to yourselves nut jobs.

[StoopTroup]

"Christian Theory of evolution."

I thought I had heard every theistic spin and rationalization out there but clearly that is not the case. Truly, there is no limit to what religion will claim and co-opt. Christian "rock" is bad enough. Now we have "Christian Evolution."

There does seem to be Christian evolution going on - Christianity evolves like a mutant virus and adapts to its surroundings by co-opting ideas and changing to survive, infect, and spread.

Al I was trying to say was....it's pretty silly for us to argue about something that is so personal. Some people put more thought and studying into things than others. This stuff about people wanting proof vs Folks who have faith is where I just question their commitment. If you had to devote your entire life to studying the truth if it were presented to you....would you even listen to it? Or....would you just call it spin?

As you read the Bible....people asked Jesus for proof that he was the Messiah. He presented them with the truth and 2000 years later....People are asking people around them who believe to show them proof. They argue that any of what was written ever happened and that it is all myth. Then you get in an argument about whether man evolved from a lower species and someone uses logic/Philosophy or a theistic spin to try and explain that they may not really be up for the search of proof so why waste their time?

If a person just denies the existence of God, Jesus or even a higher power and they were to meet someone who challenged them to listen to arguments....they might be saved or they might turn even further away. That's the real challenge of it all IMO. Faith.

Listening to your heart. Where does that come from. People who all over the world live in different lands with different languages and different laws are completely raised differently but when faced with the idea of murdering someone....they may turn away from it or go on a quest to pile up as many human bodies as possible. What stops one and yet the other puts his or her life in jeopardy to stop the senseless slaughter of pregnant Women. There are plenty of women around....what would make one more special than another? Why would people rise up against evil instead of just let survival of the fittest just play out? Why do humans organize and other animals cling to one strong dominant male? Why are most religions bring forth a positive message where evil is usually just evil?

Why did Philosophy in Rome lose to survival of the fittest and Rome became a failure and now Countries all over the World come together to stop a Hitler or Bin Laden or a Gaddafi? Why are we obsessed with stopping people who hurt other people but yet let our own society run amuck until it's so bad we must rise to the occasion and kill those that oppose us?

We continue to write history. We all seem to even argue about what was written yesterday so I have little faith that what was wrote 2000 years ago will go without some arguing. Logic and philosophy must play into this in order for us to figure out what was important enough for us to believe and what was worth ignoring.....

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm so sick of people and their religious crap. Just keep it to yourselves nut jobs.

But how will we come to an agreement on such an important issue without such reasoned debate?

[OhU1]

All I was trying to say was....it's pretty silly for us to argue about something that is so personal. Some people put more thought and studying into things than others. This stuff about people wanting proof vs Folks who have faith is where I just question their commitment. If you had to devote your entire life to studying the truth if it were presented to you....would you even listen to it? Or....would you just call it spin?

That's cool StoopTroup, and I think I understand the gist of what you're getting at. In my opinion when someone throws out multiple rapid fire questions they are using a rhetorical debating technique and are not sincere in wanting to hear an answer. This tactic is common on both "sides" in religious arguments. I agree with you on questioning the commitment of such folks to really wanting to understand and discover what is true and what is false.

What I objected to in your prior post was your source's wild spin on evolution and philosophizing a scientific discipline into theology. The source material appears to have been written 100 years ago so maybe that explains the viewpoint.

Perhaps this is quibbling but I've heard the phrase "studying the Truth" and Jesus told them "the truth". People talk about "searching for the truth" or "Why do we exist"? These are bad inquiries or loaded questions. To believe there is a "Truth" to discover or a "Why" presupposes the answer to the question. "Truth" and "Why?" questions presuppose a purpose and by extension a creative agent in the universe. The better, more objective, and in my opinion better way to discover what is true is to ask: "We exist, the universe exists, what is the explanation?" and to proceed from there.

The bottom line for me is I want to discover what is true, to the extent that we can discover such things. I also want to know what is false.

If we discover new objective evidence then we need to be prepared to change our views in accord with that evidence - not our view of the evidence to fit our beliefs. The former view is what science attempts to do, the later religion. The concept of "the truth" is a religious or philosophical musing that supposes an ultimate answer, typically an answer you can receive as long as you as an individual submit yourself to a particular religious doctrine or let it "into your heart".

[JohnnyMack]

If we discover new objective evidence then we need to be prepared to change our views in accord with that evidence - not our view of the evidence to fit our beliefs. The former view is what science attempts to do, the later religion. The concept of "the truth" is a religious or philosophical musing that supposes an ultimate answer, typically an answer you can receive as long as you as an individual submit yourself to a particular religious doctrine or let it "into your heart".

So when the alien overlords come to our planet, it isn't god testing us, we should shoot back. Right?

[okie52]

that's a very broad/general question...

Come on 87-any areas at all that you don't take literally in the bible?

[Fraggle145]

You seem predisposed not to believe anything I have to say. Sorry but I won't get more into it.

Since you seem to know about evolution, I'd like for you to tell me how is it possible that : A) natural elements self-assembled ex-nihilo into complex being

This is about the origin of life, not evoluion. For the 100th time...


B) where is the evidence that one species changed into another

One species does not necessarily "turn into" another or several other species -Its not an instantaneous process. So your logic is flawed if you are assuming that one species will just poop out other species. First of all the definition of a species is tenuous at best and artificial at worst. If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment is a pretty good example of one "strain" of E. coli evolving into a totally different "strain." Is a strain a species? Well one of them can process citric acid and the other cant. It all depends on your species concept...


C) the explanation by which evolutionary chemical processes went against entropy,
Entropy doesnt apply because organisms and to a larger extent the earth arent closed systems. Ike has covered this already in this thread. You are also assuming that evolution is decreasing entropy by assuming that evolution is causing some sort of order of things. That isnt one of the assumptions of evolutionary theory.


D) the formation of enzymes despite Levinthall's paradox,

I dont understand what point you are trying to make about enzymes here talking about Levinthal's paradox? How does this relate to evolution? the fact that they fold non-randomly seems to be the most parsimonious explanation about why proteins can refold to their original structure. This seems like this ability was probably selected for early in process of evolution.


E) how were early chemical processes catalyzed in the absence of enzymes.

I hope you can explain these, or else your faith in evolution is blind at worst, and unproven at best.

Catalysis doesnt require enzymes :confused: Catalysis is just anything that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. Why do you need enzymes for this?

[Fraggle145]

...evolved from a lower species ...

There really isnt any such thing as a "lower species." This concept comes from the old trees and graphs out there that used to put humans at the top of the tree of life.
http://www.talkingsquid.net/blogpix/TOL1879.jpg


The tree of life looks much different today. Multicellular organisms, plants, animals, and humans make up just a tiny, tiny bit of the tree.

http://serc.carleton.edu/images/microbelife/microbservatories/nevadahotsprings/Tree_of_Life.gif

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/06/radial_tree_of_life/tree_of_life.jpeg

(That little thing on the left says "You are here"

This is a pretty good website about it: http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663.

[StoopTroup]

What I objected to in your prior post was your source's wild spin on evolution and philosophizing a scientific discipline into theology. The source material appears to have been written 100 years ago so maybe that explains the viewpoint.

You mean this?


Scientific hypothesis vs. philosophical speculation...the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe as Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God.

[StoopTroup]

This is a pretty good website about it: http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663.

What's funny is that all of that ends up with the two fellows with comments in that....who evidently consider themselves "Educated"....

Surrounded by a confusion of ideas. There is no answer there....just a bunch of theories.

[OU_Sooners75]

But how will we come to an agreement on such an important issue without such reasoned debate?

Some one stab me. I agree with Liztard. :eek:

[OhU1]

You mean this?

I don't really have a problem with that blurb as a theological interpretation of the bible (but don't necessarily agree with it as accurate).

There were statements trying to distinguish "Darwinism" from the Theory of Evolution which is a red herring at best. Other parts of the post repeated statements attempting to compartmentalize evolution into "plant vs. animal vs. human" which is nonsense. Then there is an attempt to reconcile the concept of a soul and spirituality with the biological science of evolution. This is nothing remotely scientific.

[Fraggle145]

What's funny is that all of that ends up with the two fellows with comments in that....who evidently consider themselves "Educated"....

Surrounded by a confusion of ideas. There is no answer there....just a bunch of theories.

I just liked the pictures.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

In my opinion, the earth doesn't exist..I'm just in a coma after dropping a giant turd while chilling on Planet Zartan and you are all a part of my dreams...

Fraggle is a very special part of this dream

[Fraggle145]

In my opinion, the earth doesn't exist..I'm just in a coma after dropping a giant turd while chilling on Planet Zartan and you are all a part of my dreams...

Fraggle is a very special part of this dream

You are part of my dreams every night, puddin'

[StoopTroup]

In my opinion, the earth doesn't exist..I'm just in a coma after dropping a giant turd while chilling on Planet Zartan and you are all a part of my dreams...

Fraggle is a very special part of this dream

Ever notice when Zartan's moons are aligning just right....it looks like the turds have corn in them?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

the moons must always be aligned then

[OU_Sooners75]

Come on 87-any areas at all that you don't take literally in the bible?


I ain't 87, but I can answer that for him. :D

[Jacie]

"We exist, the universe exists, what is the explanation?" and to proceed from there.

The bottom line for me is I want to discover what is true, to the extent that we can discover such things. I also want to know what is false.

If we discover new objective evidence then we need to be prepared to change our views in accord with that evidence - not our view of the evidence to fit our beliefs. The former view is what science attempts to do, the later religion. The concept of "the truth" is a religious or philosophical musing that supposes an ultimate answer, typically an answer you can receive as long as you as an individual submit yourself to a particular religious doctrine or let it "into your heart".

One side of this debate will tell you we already have the explanation, it was written right here in this little book of ours, there is no more truth to discover cuz all the truth you need is right here in this little book of ours, ditto for what is false (anything not in this little book of ours), and that there is no new objective evidence, that is all just a smoke screen thrown up by the debbil to keep you from seeing the truth, so there is/are no reason(s) to change views and that is also right here in this little book of ours.

[saucysoonergal]

One side of this debate will tell you we already have the explanation, it was written right here in this little book of ours, there is no more truth to discover cuz all the truth you need is right here in this little book of ours, ditto for what is false (anything not in this little book of ours), and that there is no new objective evidence, that is all just a smoke screen thrown up by the debbil to keep you from seeing the truth, so there is/are no reason(s) to change views and that is also right here in this little book of ours.

That sounds like Sally Kern.

[tator]

I've almost made my mind up. It'll probably take about 5 more pages.

[SoonerNate]

One side of this debate will tell you we already have the explanation, it was written right here in this little book of ours, there is no more truth to discover cuz all the truth you need is right here in this little book of ours, ditto for what is false (anything not in this little book of ours), and that there is no new objective evidence, that is all just a smoke screen thrown up by the debbil to keep you from seeing the truth, so there is/are no reason(s) to change views and that is also right here in this little book of ours.

Religion is nothing more than geographical customs. People conform to believe in the environment they are raised in. If you think about it, it is nothing more than a larger extreme of gang activity.

[The Maestro]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V452Ll6JHAE/Sb5SkDrA13I/AAAAAAAAAUE/9KBkqbPJ8yA/s1600/therules.jpg

[SoonerNate]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V452Ll6JHAE/Sb5SkDrA13I/AAAAAAAAAUE/9KBkqbPJ8yA/s1600/therules.jpg

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[cccasooner2]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V452Ll6JHAE/Sb5SkDrA13I/AAAAAAAAAUE/9KBkqbPJ8yA/s1600/therules.jpg

But, with some private counseling, I'm sure we can change that.

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://franksblog.hoferfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/divideby0.jpg

[SoonerNate]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/sweetpear_/jesus.jpg

[87sooner]

So if I don't believe your views because of no proof, I'm lost and going to Hell? Gosh where have I heard this line of thinking?

http://morrisonworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg

http://www.omdurman.org/europe_cancer.jpg

Either you're a really good troll or a brainwashed neophyte.



Oh I've studied the Bible. Have you?

Why did a loving God kill innocent children in Egypt because of the Pharaoh? Why didn't he just smack the Pharaoh? Is it because God works in mysterious and ineffective ways? I mean punishing the people but innocent children?



Care to explain that one to me?





I'm pretty sure we had a Civil War over this line of thinking.







Jealous much?



You really going to feel good enforcing that one?



Does it matter?



If the other ones aren't to be used into context today, why do Christians still look to this one?



Again, why is this important?



Isn't this what the Christians did to the Pagans before killing them and taking their traditions?



I know allot of preacher's daughters too.



God damn I'm going to be stoned!?



Sounds fair.



Why?



So make a girl marry her rapist? Awesome.



So no bastards in church? Got ya.



Infants? Yup, God is Love.


Now I know the same thing Christians say, "That no longer applies to today. When Jesus came he took all those laws away." Alright, then why are they in the Bible? To show what an ***hole God was before Jesus?

it sounds like you believe in God....but you hate Him.

[yankee]

Nothin' like a good ol' religion debate on the internet! You guys almost had me convinced to stop being a Christian...Maybe next time you'll throw out more funny pictures and then that'll probably convince me. :pop:

[StoopTroup]

Nothin' like a good ol' religion debate on the internet! You guys almost had me convinced to stop being a Christian...Maybe next time you'll throw out more funny pictures and then that'll probably convince me. :pop:

What if one of the farkers makes a nice animated video of an amoeba evolving into a tadpole into a fish into a sea snake into a alligator into a pig into a dog into a werewolf into a vampire into a bat into a duck into an Eagle into a Condor into an gargoyle into a Human.

Once you see how it all fits together....you'll see just how God doesn't exist because if he did....the Vampires would have written the bible instead of the Humans.

[SoonerNate]

I love the whole immaculate conception fable. Can you imagine explaining to your girlfriend's parents that you didn't knock their girl up. Instead an angel appeared and she got pregnant by magic by God?

[yankee]

What if one of the farkers makes a nice animated video of an amoeba evolving into a tadpole into a fish into a sea snake into a alligator into a pig into a dog into a werewolf into a vampire into a bat into a duck into an Eagle into a Condor into an gargoyle into a Human.

Once you see how it all fits together....you'll see just how God doesn't exist because if he did....the Vampires would have written the bible instead of the Humans.

:D

[Jacie]

Evolution made easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2QO3c9JL1A

[saucysoonergal]

p2QO3c9JL1A

Jacie, just hit quote and you can see how to do it!!! :D

[StoopTroup]

I love the whole immaculate conception fable. Can you imagine explaining to your girlfriend's parents that you didn't knock their girl up. Instead an angel appeared and she got pregnant by magic by God?

Yeah.....

They'd STONE YOU TO DEATH!

So.....instead of being stoned to death....Joseph Married her. Nobody back then would have done that if it wasn't their Child and even then....they might have passed and let her get Stoned to Death. Also....I don't remember their Parent's being around at the time....

Joseph was made a Saint because he protected Marry and the Child he knew wasn't his.

[OhU1]

I love the whole immaculate conception fable. Can you imagine explaining to your girlfriend's parents that you didn't knock their girl up. Instead an angel appeared and she got pregnant by magic by God?

Maurey Povich after opening DNA test results: In regard to Baby Jesus - Joseph - you are NOT THE FATHER!

[Pricetag]

http://www.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/1728animated_gif_not_the_father.gif

[sanantoniosooner]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?

[JohnnyMack]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?

Yes. I'm now Amish.

[sanantoniosooner]

Yes. I'm now Amish.

You have a horse powered laptop?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?

I did...the posters I thought were mildy ruhtard proved me wrong and went full throttle

[tator]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?
I still need about 4 more pages to make my decision

[crawfish]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?

We just plant seeds, God grows them. ;) :texan:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

i think after 21 pages, this thread may get good

[Fraggle145]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?

When the conversation stays on track and doesnt revert to name calling it can actually be pretty insightful (a surprise) and it helps people understand where the other side is coming from.

[olevetonahill]

I just wanted to discuss the age of the Earth.

[SoonerNate]

I just wanted to discuss the age of the Earth.

LMAO

[87sooner]

I just wanted to discuss the age of the Earth.

then the thread would have been about 2 posts long....

[JohnnyMack]

I just wanted to discuss the age of the Earth.

Why ask us? You've been here since it cooled off in the first place.

[olevetonahill]

Why ask us? You've been here since it cooled off in the first place.

I aint as old as dirt
But i did hold the Light when god throwed out the 1st shovel full

[sanantoniosooner]

When the conversation stays on track and doesnt revert to name calling it can actually be pretty insightful (a surprise) and it helps people understand where the other side is coming from.

Code for "find the weakness in their argument"

[Ctina]

I have something important to contribute to this thread....





It is not to be taken literal

The word "literal" should not be used in this context, it should be "literally." That is all I have that is noteworthy. Thank you. Goodbye.

[tator]

Has this been settled yet?

[soonerbrat]

yes. no one agrees with you.

[cccasooner2]

This recent find is clearly in error. Probably faked by them commie chinks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/largestfossilspiderfoundinvolcanicash

[Mississippi Sooner]

I don't want to be in a place where spiders can catch birds.

[MR2-Sooner86]

:pop:

[saucysoonergal]

I don't want to be in a place where spiders can catch birds.

That would be flipping awesome!!!

[87sooner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

You really going to trust this guy?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ize2uBcCw_M/TTH1j4ys6fI/AAAAAAAAABs/TW8EB_md2SU/s400/pope-benedict-palpatine.jpg

At least Emperor Palpatine didn't touch little boys before covering it up, was a Hitler Youth, or inadvertently kill millions in Africa from AIDS due to his stance on contraceptives.

[sooner59]

So is Luke Skywalker really Jesus?

[soonerbrat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you know. Did you ever think that maybe a higher power directed evolution? And what say you about all the Gospels and other books that were eliminated from the New Testament?

[StoopTroup]

You really going to trust this guy?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ize2uBcCw_M/TTH1j4ys6fI/AAAAAAAAABs/TW8EB_md2SU/s400/pope-benedict-palpatine.jpg

At least Emperor Palpatine didn't touch little boys before covering it up, was a Hitler Youth, or inadvertently kill millions in Africa from AIDS due to his stance on contraceptives.

Nice spin....your depth perception is a bit off though.

http://www.indiaonrent.com/forwards/f/funny-animated-wallpapers/res/_uytsh.gif

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Quick question....

Did a single person change their mind during this thread?

I did. I now believe we are on Zartan in STEP's ****ter.

[Fraggle145]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

Sad that the pope doesnt even know his own religion's stance on evolution.

Being the pope doesnt mean he knows a goddam thing about science.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I did. I now believe we are on Zartan in STEP's ****ter.
http://thm-a04.yimg.com/nimage/a2eaf3d388624f54
YES!!

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Being the pope doesnt mean he knows a goddam thing about science.

he does have good fashion sense though

[Bourbon St Sooner]

he does have good fashion sense though

And lots of bling

[87sooner]

they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you know. Did you ever think that maybe a higher power directed evolution?

it's possible....if there was actually any evidence...
but then i'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "evolution"....






And what say you about all the Gospels and other books that were eliminated from the New Testament?

not an expert on this subject...
but i don't think there was anything "eliminated" from the new testament...


what do YOU say about it?

[87sooner]

Sad that the pope doesnt even know his own religion's stance on evolution.

Being the pope doesnt mean he knows a goddam thing about science.

i don't think you know a ******* thing about the catholic church's stance on evolution...

[Aldebaran]

i don't think you know a ******* thing about the catholic church's stance on evolution...

Care to illuminate us (for the first time)?

[Fraggle145]

i don't think you know a ******* thing about the catholic church's stance on evolution...

I grew up catholic, taught CCD, and investigated the issue heavily as I grew to know more about evolution. For a long time, when I still believed in god I took the catholic church's stance on evolution.

Care to continue talking out your ***?

[87sooner]

"Pope Benedict XVI marked the holiest night of the year for Christians by stressing that humanity isn't a random product of evolution."



"Church teaching holds that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds: A Christian can, for example, accept the theory of evolution to help explain developments, but is taught to believe that God, not random chance, is the origin of the world. "



so explain to me how the pope doesn't know his own denomination's (catholocism isn't a religion) stance on evolution....

[Aldebaran]

That seems to be inline with what I know about the catholic approach to accepting the fact of evolution with the caveat of human exceptionalism (It wasn't clearly defined in the pope's statement, but I think they still go with special creation for humans, which is somewhat implied by the statement I guess).

[Fraggle145]

so explain to me how the pope doesn't know his own denomination's (catholocism isn't a religion) stance on evolution....

Here let me google that for you... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catholic+beliefs+on+evolution)

No Catholicism is the original, all the other denominations are cheap knockoffs because an english king wanted to get a divorce.

The catholic church has believed that humans are a special case and that it is up to the interpretation of the individual catholic to determine whether they believe that humans were created through previous forms or all at once as either are divinely possible. The soul however is not up for discussion and was created divinely by god.

This discussion started before this pope appeared (pre-Vatican II) and the current position was largely defined by Pope Pius XII.

[87sooner]

That seems to be inline with what I know about the catholic approach to accepting the fact of evolution with the caveat of human exceptionalism (It wasn't clearly defined in the pope's statement, but I think they still go with special creation for humans, which is somewhat implied by the statement I guess).

the catholic approach to evolution....if you read the quotes above...is "to help explain developments"

[Fraggle145]

The other thing I would stress is that natural selection and in turn evolution isnt random.

and for the final ****ing time ( I know I have already said it once in this thread):
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

[87sooner]

Here let me google that for you... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catholic+beliefs+on+evolution)

No Catholicism is the original, all the other denominations are cheap knockoffs because an english king wanted to get a divorce.

The catholic church has believed that humans are a special case and that it is up to the interpretation of the individual catholic to determine whether they believe that humans were created through previous forms or all at once as either are divinely possible. The soul however is not up for discussion and was created divinely by god.

This discussion started before this pope appeared (pre-Vatican II) and the current position was largely defined by Pope Pius XII.

you may not believe in God anymore....but catholic habits of superiority are much harder to break...

[Aldebaran]

the catholic approach to evolution....if you read the quotes above...is "to help explain developments"

Whatever. That's like tomayto vs. tomahto. I'm not saying it's a full acceptance, because obviously the church is keen to hold on to humans being a special case which is patently absurd under the rubric of accepting the fact of evolution given that we're animals with a traceable evolutionary path.

Regardless, this is an important retreat by the church away from questions that can and should be answered scientifically.

[OhU1]

The other thing I would stress is that natural selection and in turn evolution isnt random.



Fraggle you are a patient man.

When a creationist launches objections to evolution he is not actually debating evolution, he is asking you to teach him biology. Something the creationist should have learned in his formal education or on his own by reading a science book. You would think someone should understand evolution before they launch objections to it. Clearly that is not the case with the majority of creationists.

[Fraggle145]

you may not believe in God anymore....but catholic habits of superiority are much harder to break...

In OK catholics are far from superior. In my home town they were borderline persecuted for not being "christian" enough.

Regardless, nice try to change the argument :rolleyes: . All you have to say is that you were wrong.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I want my love monkey to evolve inside your poop passage..srsly pm me, fraggle

sorry, wrong thread

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle you are a patient man.

When a creationist launches objections to evolution he is not actually debating evolution, he is asking you to teach him biology. Something the creationist should have learned in his formal education or on his own by reading a science book. You would think someone should understand evolution before they launch objections to it. Clearly that is not the case with the majority of creationists.

Well its not completely their fault when their teachers refuse to teach it to them in high school because they 1) dont understand/believe it themselves or 2) are afraid of the backlash if they do try to teach it. Furthermore, it isnt really tested on those standardized tests they use to tell us if kids and schools are doing well and should get funding.

[Aldebaran]

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/lanamaniac/evrIDeJAomkIeJDagFuceGqAnEyGiIgahEsvtqjpAyfetJawbd HlCjBCICAq/media_httpcontroversy_zCdFv.gif.scaled500.gif

[87sooner]

In OK catholics are far from superior. In my home town they were borderline persecuted for not being "christian" enough.


catholics i know (my entire family for generations....and also my wife's)....don 't even know why they believe in God....it's just habit....and like you...eventually that habit when fully questioned....is forgotten




Regardless, nice try to change the argument :rolleyes: . All you have to say is that you were wrong.

i'm sure the pope knows his church's stance on evolution...
but this pope actually has a bit more spine than previous popes...and he seems to speak more about biblical truths...that previous popes were too eager to ignore.

[87sooner]

The other thing I would stress is that natural selection and in turn evolution isnt random.

and for the final ****ing time ( I know I have already said it once in this thread):
[B]EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE[/B

when do you presume science will have the slightest clue about the true origin of life?

[saucysoonergal]

catholics i know (my entire family for generations....and also my wife's)....don 't even know why they believe in God....it's just habit....and like you...eventually that habit when fully questioned....is forgotten




i'm sure the pope knows his church's stance on evolution...
but this pope actually has a bit more spine than previous popes...and he seems to speak more about biblical truths...that previous popes were too eager to ignore.


Like how great it was being a Hitler Youth? ;)

[sooner59]

He is emperor palpatine.

[tator]

when do you presume science will have the slightest clue about the true origin of life?
Probably at exactly the same time religion will, but you will probably reject the proof.

[Fraggle145]

when do you presume science will have the slightest clue about the true origin of life?

when do you presume religion will have the slightest clue about the true origin of life?

[Fraggle145]

catholics i know (my entire family for generations....and also my wife's)....don 't even know why they believe in God....it's just habit....and like you...eventually that habit when fully questioned....is forgotten

I disagree with that. It isnt just a habit. I am the only one in my family to go the other way. I dont think it has to do at all with denomination (maybe baptists brainwash harder?) I think faith is an individual property and each individual will perceive evidence their own way and make up their own mind.


i'm sure the pope knows his church's stance on evolution...
but this pope actually has a bit more spine than previous popes...and he seems to speak more about biblical truths...that previous popes were too eager to ignore.

Or he is just dumber. And previous popes realized the intractability of following a literal interpretation of the bible.

[Aldebaran]

when do you presume science will have the slightest clue about the true origin of life?

Evolution does not equal all of science.

Evolution = change + time
Origin is a supposed moment.

Science has also shed some light on origin of life. Here is some 411 on it in case you haven't found all the true answers you're looking for in some mystic spiritual book.

http://m.npr.org/story/134855880?url=/2011/03/25/134855880/Did-Ancient-Eruptions-Form-Lifes-Building-Blocks

[SoCaliSooner]

Alde, you need to let go...and let God.

[The]

Alde, you need to let go...and let God.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20051230.gif

[okie52]

Evolution does not equal all of science.

Evolution = change + time
Origin is a supposed moment.

Science has also shed some light on origin of life. Here is some 411 on it in case you haven't found all the true answers you're looking for in some mystic spiritual book.

http://m.npr.org/story/134855880?url=/2011/03/25/134855880/Did-Ancient-Eruptions-Form-Lifes-Building-Blocks

Lightning striking the primordial ooze...very Baron Von Frankenstein.

[okie52]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20051230.gif

LOL

[Midtowner]

http://rudd-o.com/en/uploads/2007/06/ca230_1trever.gif

[87sooner]

when do you presume religion will have the slightest clue about the true origin of life?

you're the highly evolved/super intelligent (actually the most intelligent being)....why don't you just answer the question?

[87sooner]

I disagree with that. It isnt just a habit. I am the only one in my family to go the other way. I dont think it has to do at all with denomination (maybe baptists brainwash harder?) I think faith is an individual property and each individual will perceive evidence their own way and make up their own mind.

as a former catholic who is now baptist...i can assure you it's not even close..catholics brainwash much harder....much sooner in life...
my wife still cannot ditch the guilty feeling of missing church..




Or he is just dumber. And previous popes realized the intractability of following a literal interpretation of the bible.

only mildly amusing your types associate faith with intelligence....or lack thereof
how does it feel being the smartest being in the universe?

[Aldebaran]

Lightning striking the primordial ooze...very Baron Von Frankenstein.

No.. You got it all wrong... Volcanoes too. It's more like Baron von Frankenstein has gay hatesex with Haroun Tazieff and life emerges from their same-sex copulation (NTTAWWT) .

[okie52]

No.. You got it all wrong... Volcanoes too. It's more like Baron von Frankenstein has gay hatesex with Haroun Tazieff and life emerges from their same-sex copulation (NTTAWWT) .

Oops...missed page 2 etc...

pretty interesting.

[The]

No.. You got it all wrong... Volcanoes too. It's more like Baron von Frankenstein has gay hatesex with Haroun Tazieff and life emerges from their same-sex copulation (NTTAWWT) .


No hateditch involved?

[Aldebaran]

No hateditch involved?

That's Chapter 1983: The Rise of the Stevo.

[Fraggle145]

as a former catholic who is now baptist...i can assure you it's not even close..catholics brainwash much harder....much sooner in life...
my wife still cannot ditch the guilty feeling of missing church..

You've never been to Owasso have you?


only mildly amusing your types associate faith with intelligence....or lack thereof
how does it feel being the smartest being in the universe?

I never said having faith makes anyone unintelligent. I think having blind faith is different.

[Fraggle145]

you're the highly evolved/super intelligent (actually the most intelligent being)....why don't you just answer the question?

Are you mad at me because I've gone to school for a long *** time? I've never said that makes me or anyone more intelligent or evolved. Maybe more educated, especially about evolution.

I'm not sure humans are the most intelligent beings...

Science could have an clue tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade. People are working on it. We've actually already have some clues if you would bother to investigate it further you would probably know that.

But there are a ton of other interesting, perhaps more applicable/important questions that are perhaps more salient to humans as a whole than the origin of life.

[tator]

Page 25, finally. Ok thanks, my mind is made up. You can all go home now.

[OUDoc]

Page 25, finally. Ok thanks, my mind is made up. You can all go home now.
How old is my home? :confused:

[tator]

How old is my home? :confused:
We need a new thread for this, what does the Bible say about your home?

[tator]

If your home isn't mentioned in the Bible, then your home doesn't exist, from my experience.

[OUDoc]

Crap! What am I going to tell my wives?