View Full Version : $27 Million Evolution-Debunking Museum To Open
Finally, some good news in the headlines. :2thumbsup:
I hope they make this into a huge nationwide chain of museums.
I bolded part of the article that shows - despite the many rhetoric-based postings that often appear on this site with fabricated, low and inaccurate numbers - many more Americans are smart enough to not believe in the nonsense that is "evolution" than are often given credit for.
I say 50% not believing in the evolution crap that is shoved down their throats constantly in public schools and the media is a pretty good number seeing as reality does not receive the same push of constant propaganda to infest their minds.
Very disturbing how they had to hire explosive-sniffing dogs and extra security to prepare against the atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists who have threatened them. :idea2:
Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum By Andrea Hopkins
PETERSBURG, Kentucky (Reuters) - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.
A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.
"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.
The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.
For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.
While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.
"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.
FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN
While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.
Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.
Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.
"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.
Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.
The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.
"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.
"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.
Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.
"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.
The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.
The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.
The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.
Marshal Murat
01-15-2007, 04:28
A very good idea. You aren't being forced to view it, its not federally funded.
Atheist will de-cry it, but any publicity is good publicity.
If it flies, it flies.
And Muslims can't blow it up because its from the Bible!
Samurai Waki
01-15-2007, 05:24
*titters and walks off to a corner*
Kommodus
01-15-2007, 06:38
Hey, I know one of the sculptors who's creating the exhibits for this museum! I was just visiting with him this evening, in fact. Great guy; probably very talented (haven't actually seen his work). :yes:
If we could convince the Flat Earthers (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) and the Faked Moon Landing (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm) guys to build their own museums next door, we could get a theme park going. It goes without saying we could attract some alien abductionists (http://www.iwasabducted.com/) to the site.
We need to get them all in the same office park, you know, make it into a real destination. Then we could print money, and buy Sealand.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/logo7.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Flat1.gif
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/becomeMember_lg.jpg
[edit]
Cool! There's an interactive walkthrough (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/) with mock-ups of the exhibits!
Tribesman
01-15-2007, 07:55
Finally, some good news in the headlines
Brilliant news .
I was soooo disappointed when the cretinist idiots got the knockback on building bible-world for saying brainless things about Jews .
Wonderful way to spend 27 million dollars. People are starving, homeless are freezing, single mothers are suffering, yet churches see that this is far mor important. Calvanist hypocrits the lot of them.
Honestly 10,000 years? What does the museum say about dinosours? Guess they are merely mal-constructed elephants.
If we could convince the Flat Earthers (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) and the Faked Moon Landing (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm) guys to build their own museums next door, we could get a theme park going. It goes without saying we could attract some alien abductionists (http://www.iwasabducted.com/) to the site.
Why are you comparing joke sites with this very serious museum. That doesn't really make any sense. The museum has no place near any non-serious, joke buildings like what you are suggesting seeing as the museum is 100% serious and based on hard science.
Banquo's Ghost
01-15-2007, 09:44
Why are you comparing joke sites with this very serious museum. That doesn't really make any sense. The museum has no place near any non-serious, joke buildings like what you are suggesting seeing as the museum is 100% serious and based on hard science.
Now let's not be dismissive of other people's beliefs. There is a lot of very good evidence that the earth is flat. How many of you have actually sailed round it yourselves? Seeing is the only proof. Look at those alleged "photos" from space - dead flat two-dimensional disk. Sure people say that's just the paper, but they don't understand hard science. Not to mention it's clear that the "space program" is all fake anyway - God did not give us rocket-powered vehicles at any point in the Bible (well, maybe Elijah).
No-one ever mentions the thousands of explorers that have actually dropped off the edge of the world - currently located near Petersburg, Kentucky, I believe.
Now let's not be dismissive of other people's beliefs.
The operators of that site don't believe what they say. It is purposely a non-serious garbage nonsense site. Just look at what it says on the front page for obvious proof of that.
The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.
The operators of that site don't believe what they say. It is purposely a non-serious garbage nonsense site. Just look at what it says on the front page for obvious proof of that.
For some reason you believe the filthy rich leaders of those large multi million dollar Mega Churches believe what they say?:juggle2:
Why are you comparing joke sites with this very serious museum. That doesn't really make any sense. The museum has no place near any non-serious, joke buildings like what you are suggesting seeing as the museum is 100% serious and based on hard science.
Hard science does not use faith. It does not believe what it cannot prove. This museum is not based on science, it's sole idiot purpose is to be an annoyance to real scientists. Honestly this is a stain on the surface of the earth. They've spent millions building an idiotic museum, millions more to keep it running. When they could have been proving their faith, showing their faith by helping the communities they were in.
Instead they've shown their greed and ignorance by building a stain on this earth. Their faith alone wasnt even enough to convince others of their truth. So they dressed it up a bit and called it hard science, disgusting. Why is there a sudden need to prove your faith to others. I would assume your good deeds as a christian would be witness enough to convince others.
Banquo's Ghost
01-15-2007, 10:02
The operators of that site don't believe what they say. It is purposely a non-serious garbage nonsense site. Just look at what it says on the front page for obvious proof of that.
Even if that were true (I suspect the Flat Earth Society are as tired as other non-mainstream thinkers of being accused of crackpots so they get their retaliation in first) there are people who believe the earth is flat.
My science provides evidence that they are incorrect, as it indicates your creationism to be incorrect. I have no idea what your "hard science" would provide, because I don't understand its method, but I imagine there's scope for a flat earth, as the Bible appears to be geocentric. Is the earth the centre of the universe according to your view?
BTW, I have no objection to this museum at all. I have more anxiety about the fantasy peddled by Disneyworld. :beam:
$27 Million Evolution-Debunking Museum To Open
Well.... good for them.... I guess.... :shrug:
If that´s $27 Million less dollars to help child molesting priests re-locate....or $27 Million less dollars worth of people knocking on my door on sunday morning (I swear i´m gonna start answering the door naked)....then I have to say this is a good thing! :2thumbsup:
if people want to spend $27 Million of their own money in a building full of malarkey....hey...more power to them........I don´t think I´ll go there...well...maybe if I REALLY need a laugh one day.
For some reason you believe the filthy rich leaders of those large multi million dollar Mega Churches believe what they say?:juggle2:
Hard science does not use faith. It does not believe what it cannot prove. This museum is not based on science, it's sole idiot purpose is to be an annoyance to real scientists. Honestly this is a stain on the surface of the earth. They've spent millions building an idiotic museum, millions more to keep it running. When they could have been proving their faith, showing their faith by helping the communities they were in.
Instead they've shown their greed and ignorance by building a stain on this earth. Their faith alone wasnt even enough to convince others of their truth. So they dressed it up a bit and called it hard science, disgusting. Why is there a sudden need to prove your faith to others. I would assume your good deeds as a christian would be witness enough to convince others.
In general I've learned to not support Mega Church leaders because they are either motivational speakers who take the Christ out of Christianity or seed-faith scammers who should be locked up for scamming the stupid or elderly.
The "science" taught in public schools and that evolutionists use requires faith o'plenty. They are speculating based on faith about most of their wild claims which there is no actual proof for, or for which the "proof" is dependant upon their faith in the accuracy of their own flawed human interpretation of something.
This Museum will definitely help the community it's in and the US population at large. Finally the 40% (I recall a Poll posted on this board months ago that listed 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution) or 50% who don't get that evolution is a fraud, will have a great Museum to help them see the light.
This Museum has the potential to put millions of citizens on the right path in life. More than can be said for most other Museums that exist. :egypt:
Sjakihata
01-15-2007, 13:50
The "science" taught in public schools and that evolutionists use requires faith o'plenty. They are speculating based on faith about most of their wild claims which there is no actual proof for, or for which the "proof" is dependant upon their faith in the accuracy of their own flawed human interpretation of something.
The evolutionists at least uses a scientific approach, called the hypothetical-deductive method. You could call it speculation if you like, however, it is still a valid method as a scientific base. The opposite is of course the inductive method. Scientists is also using the abductive method, however, the one in question is the hypo-deductive one.
Basically, it was the same method used by Kopernikus. A scientist has a qualified guess about something in the universe, he cannot know for sure. He arrives at his guess through tradition, his own genius or a sudden realization. After you establish such a hypothesis you go about doing you empirical surveys (digging, measurements, etc.) and find if it was a valid guess or not. As it is now, there is plenty of evidence to support a theory of evolution, however, there are still anomalies. Scientists or pro-evolutionists do not hide these, actually they try to arrive either a better version of the theory (with part hypothesis to support the main hypothesis) or discard the theory and come up with another one.
Contrary to this, believers claim universal truth and do not go about changing their views, as soon as something better comes up. Scientists do change they theory according to relevant data. And as it is now, evolution better explains the biological development of this earth than creationism does. That is a scientific fact. To claim otherwise is simply not accurate, no matter how much pseudo-science you come up with.
the muesem can not possiblity debunk evolution. The last 400 years of domestic animal husbandry demonstrates that as a theory natural selection is possible since man has been using artifical selection to change different species to breed certain traits into the animal.
Marshal Murat
01-15-2007, 14:16
Alert to all people who complain about this 27 mil. going to a museum.
Its a mega church group, not Catholics/Methodists/Baptists/etc. all building one building.
If he wants to build a 'museum' on God's Creation, then I would ask about the necessity of 'museum' since museums are learning centers, knowledge spots if you will. The Bible and Genesis is highly speculative.
However, he is expressing his Freedom of Speech right, by building this 'museum' so that people can get educated about the creationist point of view.
No one is forcing anyone of you to go there, and if you thought that the museum was silly then I hate to tell you to not post, because any Orgah of good Backroom standing 'any publicity is good publicity.'
Britiney Spears anyone?
Is the earth the centre of the universe according to your view?
That's relative, in a subjective POV yes, it's the centre of the universe just as I am the centre of the universe.
In an objective POV, well, first find someone/something who/which has an objective POV...
And what you see is not the truth/reality in any way, what about people who are blind? Think of the matrix and that everything you see is just the interpretation of your brain of the signals sent to it by your eyes, created by incoming light waves/particles as far as we can tell.
How dare you say that what you see is reality, can you trust your senses?
I'm pretty sure that you are only a creation of the matrix I live in anyway.~D
Watchman
01-15-2007, 14:37
The cretinists apparently like preaching to the choir. Because judging by the online walk-through the museum - which seems to spend rather more space and time on yet again ruminating assorted bits of the Bible that haven't a jack to do with the whole creation/evolution topic - the only people who're not already Believers it can convince are ones with a very severe shortage of information and source critique.
Nevermind now the aftertaste of outright naïve infantilism. "T. rex—the real king of the beasts. That’s the terror that Adam’s sin unleashed!" ? "Repulsive. The world after Eden is disturbing. It makes sense only if you believe God’s Word from the beginning. God made everything ‘very good’—but rebellion against God’s Word brought death into paradise." besides a drawing of two vultures munching on a dead antelope (and the artist obviously didn't have a clue what vultures look like anyway...) ?
Who writes that stuff, elementary school kids who think kittens are cute but are horrified at the sight of mommy cat bringing them a bleeding little rodent to eat ? :rtwno:
Geh. Even without the categorical silliness of the whole Creationist thing this so-called museum is an offense to intellect and good taste.
Productivity
01-15-2007, 14:40
What a waste of money... but if that pleases them well whatever. Paris Hilton blows it on fashion, others blow it on fast cars, these guys blow it on annoying others...
Well whatever, it's their money.
Who writes that stuff, elementary school kids who think kittens are cute but are horrified at the sight of mommy cat bringing them a bleeding little rodent to eat ? :rtwno:
Geh. Even without the categorical silliness of the whole Creationist thing this so-called museum is an offense to intellect and good taste.
I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.
I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.
People who are not grounded in reality.
How is a cat killing a rodent, a brutal butchering of a lower sentient life form?
How is a cat killing a rodent for food something to be horrified over? How is butchering a cow for its beef something to be horrified over?
Its part of the natural cycle - something that God himself put in place.
yesdachi
01-15-2007, 15:20
mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Just because Americans believe it doesn’t make it true. How many things are there that Americans believe, that are as wrong as the day is long? A promotional museum equals fact like the National Enquirer equals truth.
Kralizec
01-15-2007, 15:22
It's not my money, so I couldn't care less.
*proceeds to preach heresy*
Banquo's Ghost
01-15-2007, 15:23
I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.
Marvellous. :laugh4:
So why did Jesus give those people fish to eat? After all, however miraculous the bounty, the first five were fished out of the lake.
:inquisitive:
Watchman
01-15-2007, 15:32
I'm pretty sure cats and mice aren't too different in their degrees of sentience and sapience anyway. One is however a carnivore and the other one of the things it feeds on (although as numerous accounts by soldiers on assorted "nightmare fronts" who've had their toes chewed off by rodents point out, mice are quite happy to munch on other animals if the opportunity presents itself as well).
Things eat things to survive. Fact of the world. If you don't like it, file a complaint with the Creator and/or the elementary laws of physics and biology according to personal preference. I can quarantee neither will give a hoot.
I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.I fail to perceive anything abnormal about it. To say it is not "normal" for the cat to do so is to fundamentally fail to cope with reality, which tends to be rather uncaring and harsh. Indeed, the descriptor "brutal" is entirely inappropriate in the context of nonsentient beings anyway - those are fundamentally incapable of any sort of moral choice, consideration or decision by default. Such adjectives are but naive anthropomorphization.
I find that whole way of thinking downright offensively ignorant, self-centered and outright delusional. It amounts to the statement of "I do not like this aspect of the world because it makes me queasy, therefore it must be somehow unnatural" which is reality-denial and hubris par excellence. As if the world existed for our convenience.
Stinks of an infantile longing after some rosy fantasy world where, as it were, the lion and the lamb sleep side by side - which would beg the question why the lion and its highly sophisticated arsenal for killing and eating the lamb existed in the first place anyway - which is pure escapism.
Banquo's Ghost
01-15-2007, 15:49
I find that whole way of thinking downright offensively ignorant, self-centered and outright delusional. It amounts to the statement of "I do not like this aspect of the world because it makes me queasy, therefore it must be somehow unnatural" which is reality-denial and hubris par excellence. As if the world existed for our convenience.
Stinks of an infantile longing after some rosy fantasy world where, as it were, the lion and the lamb sleep side by side - which would beg the question why the lion and its highly sophisticated arsenal for killing and eating the lamb existed in the first place anyway - which is pure escapism.
Let's be careful please that we don't stumble into personal attacks.
Navaros has a perfect right to promulgate his beliefs, as we have to question them and seek clarification.
However, they are his beliefs and they are shared by many people. Calling those beliefs "infantile" is stepping just a little over the line.
:bow:
Pannonian
01-15-2007, 15:53
Stinks of an infantile longing after some rosy fantasy world where, as it were, the lion and the lamb sleep side by side - which would beg the question why the lion and its highly sophisticated arsenal for killing and eating the lamb existed in the first place anyway - which is pure escapism.
Your knowledge of history is evidently as deficient as your knowledge of science. The answer is, of course, that the Devil put it there. Cats are the Devil's spawn, and the sooner we return to burning them in wicker baskets the better.
[Goes to get his pitchfork]
Watchman
01-15-2007, 15:59
I can use "naive" instead of course. But I actually think "infantile" is the proper word in the specific instance I used it in - it seems to me that the as such quite understandable longing for a world without death and pain is in fact a longing for the warm comfortable darkness of the womb before birth.
The desire for a "pure land" free of need and suffering is a very recurring theme in messianic peasant revolts brought about by intolerable socioeconomical circumstances for example, and abounds in many very widespread depictions of afterlife (not a few add the threat of an eternity of agony for good measure, but that's beside the point here). I'd say that suggests it to be a rather fundamental human longing - but also primitive and atavistic, as many such impulses are.
Rodion Romanovich
01-15-2007, 16:19
Finally, some good news in the headlines. :2thumbsup:
I hope they make this into a huge nationwide chain of museums.
I bolded part of the article that shows - despite the many rhetoric-based postings that often appear on this site with fabricated, low and inaccurate numbers - many more Americans are smart enough to not believe in the nonsense that is "evolution" than are often given credit for.
I say 50% not believing in the evolution crap that is shoved down their throats constantly in public schools and the media is a pretty good number seeing as reality does not receive the same push of constant propaganda to infest their minds.
Very disturbing how they had to hire explosive-sniffing dogs and extra security to prepare against the atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists who have threatened them. :idea2:
At least we "atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists" aren't killing Christians in inquisition courts, burning them at the stake, forcibly converting them to our beliefs on the threat of beheading, or taking out huge "agnosticism/atheism taxes". Instead, we let you freely express your ideas, build your temples freely, and now also a monumental museum for your religion.
I think this is yet another beautiful example of how the agnostic/atheistic tolerance and enlightenment that begun in the 18th century allows minorities with views contrary to that of the majority (which today happens to be agnosticism and atheism) to express their ideas freely and openly, and be respected for it! I hope all people who visit this museum enjoy it and remember that it is a result of the victory of the free choice over inquisition, crusades, witch burning, forced conversions and high church taxes. Whether you're religious or not, this is worth celebrating! Because today we can make our own choice - whether it is agnosticism, atheism or religion! :2thumbsup: :daisy:
KukriKhan
01-15-2007, 16:34
If a "Museum" is a Muse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse)-house, or a place to store and display objects meant to inspire man-thought, I don't understand the objections to this one being established - unless we think that anything less than the Louvre, or without pillars, arches, and marble cannot be a museum.
There's all kinds of museums in the US, from the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, to the less-famous UFO Museum in Roswell, New Mexico. There's even a Menstruation Museum in Maryland, devoted to the plusses and minusses of that biological function.
All have an "agenda" (they would use the word "theme"), and seek to inpire thought on their subject(s). Most were started by individuals or groups, and are run on a non-profit basis. What is different about this one?
If what it inspires is derision, contempt, and a closer reaffirmation of one's own beliefs, I submit that the viewer's/thinker's mind may not be as open to new data as he asserts. One would think that at the very least, a non-believer would find entertainment value, or some appreciation for the presentation.
By golly, that almost qualifies as a rant. Sorry.
Do please go on about how carnivorous behavior relates to the opening of a new museum.
English assassin
01-15-2007, 17:01
Although I largely agree with the post above, (with the caveat that the world probably does not need a hagiographic Museum of Fascist thought, and so there must be a line somewhere, and nonsense might be on the wrong side of the line too), I don't agree with this:
If what it inspires is derision, contempt, and a closer reaffirmation of one's own beliefs, I submit that the viewer's/thinker's mind may not be as open to new data as he asserts.
Its simply not possible to be open minded to every single bit of bubble-headed nonsense that someone with $27 million to blow might advocate. IMHO its perfectly reasonable, to take an example, to take biology A level, and a degree in biochemistry, and say that yeah, we looked pretty hard at the evidence for speciation by natural and sexual selection, that evidence entirely consistent with those theories was there in abundance, and that henceforth no further debate will be entered into. There is no "debate", any more than there is debate that water is wet. If the lead paper in Nature is ever "Darwin was Wrong: Adam's Skeleton found; one rib missing" then I will happily reconsider.
This isn't being closed minded, its simply prioritising all too finite mental resources.
People who are not grounded in reality.
How is a cat killing a rodent, a brutal butchering of a lower sentient life form?
How is a cat killing a rodent for food something to be horrified over? How is butchering a cow for its beef something to be horrified over?
Its part of the natural cycle - something that God himself put in place.
Killing other sentient life forms is horrifyingly sick and a disgusting perversion of natural order. What gives one life form the moral right to butcher another just because it is hungry? Reasonably, there is none. But we live in a perverse world where this has become "normal". Still, despite it's "normality", a wise man can see the sickness of it all.
God did not create this cycle. God created perfect peace and harmony. It is due to Adam and Eve allowing Satan to corrupt the natural order that the world became perverse and the butchering of other life forms became "normal", amongst all the other evils in the world.
From the posts in this thread of many who do not understand these concepts I can say a trip to the creation Museum would be great for explaining all of this much better than I could. :2thumbsup:
Watchman
01-15-2007, 17:25
Excuse me, but where exactly do lifeforms inherently incapable of all and every form of moral choice and decision become concerned with "the moral right to butcher another just because it is hungry" to begin with ? Cows are biologically programmed to eat grass whe hungry, cats to hunt and kill mice; neither has the slightest choice in the matter.
Whether this is due to God having made them that way or some more complicated causes is irrelevant here; the point is that "morals", a singularly human issue, have no bearing on the matter at all.
And one might ask why the heck God made carnivores to begin with if them killing other animals for food was not part of the original design specs in the first place, anyway... Needle-like teeth and short intestine aren't exactly the equipement for subsisting on plants you know.
That aside, I've no issue with a bunch of Creationists with too much money making up such a museum per ce. I merely reserve the right to dispute everything they stand for and claim at every opportunity.
Killing other sentient life forms is horrifyingly sick and a disgusting perversion of natural order. What gives one life form the moral right to butcher another just because it is hungry? Reasonably, there is none. But we live in a perverse world where this has become "normal". Still, despite it's "normality", a wise man can see the sickness of it all.
Are you then an eater of only Plants? Because if you eat any form of meat you are just another hypocrit. Reason has one look at the bodies and abilities of the life forms involved. Cats have nice sharp teeth and claws for a reason. Man's teeth have the ability to grind and tear for a reason.
God did not create this cycle. God created perfect peace and harmony. It is due to Adam and Eve allowing Satan to corrupt the natural order that the world became perverse and the butchering of other life forms became "normal", amongst all the other evils in the world.
I suggest you read your bible a little more. This contradicts several passages in the Bible, especially Genesis Chapter 1 versus 28-31
28 And God blessed them, Gen. 5.1, 2 and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I await an answer that actually makes sense versus your last attempt.
From the posts in this thread of many who do not understand these concepts I can say a trip to the creation Museum would be great for explaining all of this much better than I could. :2thumbsup:
I see no need to go to such a muesem that is actually advocating hypocrisy versus enlightenment.
Are you then an eater of only Plants? Because if you eat any form of meat you are just another hypocrit. Reason has one look at the bodies and abilities of the life forms involved. Cats have nice sharp teeth and claws for a reason. Man's teeth have the ability to grind and tear for a reason.
I suggest you read your bible a little more. This contradicts several passages in the Bible, especially Genesis Chapter 1 versus 28-31
I don't only eat Plants, and I admit I'm a product of a perverse world and the fall of Adam and Eve has screwed me up just like it screwed up every human. But, at least I can have the moral sense to think about the butchering and realize the sickness of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't be so "fine and dandy" about the butchering of other life forms if they had to do it personally every day, because to be distant from it they can put it "out of sight, out of mind" to large degree. But being put to it directly would oftentimes help the sickness dawn on one who can't realize it otherwise. A innate feeling of disgust would take over, because there remains in man the remembrance of a better natural order.
What I said does not contradict anything in the Bible. "Have Dominion over" does not equal "go butcher any life whenever you feel like it". Those verses you quote said that God gave plants and fruit as food for all life (verses 29 and 30).
It should also be noted that when corruption entered the world, it changed everything. Cats and dinosaurs and man may very well not have been designed as mankind now understand them to exist. Rather, they may very well have devolved into their current forms when corruption entered the world.
Watchman
01-15-2007, 17:58
That does not compute. Do you mean to say the (supposedly benign) omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator was unable to prevent it ? The notion is incoherent. To argue that He decided to change the matters after a couple of dumb and easily impressionable kids ate a fruit He left sitting well within reach, and might as well have written Eat Me on, and did the nasty would at least make some sense - although it would smack of a total setup and/or hardcore pettiness.
I can understand the idea of changing Adam and Eve as a punishement, but why all the rest of the animals...?
It should also be noted that when corruption entered the world, it changed everything. Cats and dinosaurs and man may very well not have been designed as mankind now understand them to exist. Rather, they may very well have devolved into their current forms when corruption entered the world.
wait a minute......HOLD THE PRESSES!!!! :inquisitive:
are you actually suggesting that these animals might not exist in the same shape as they did at the time your God created them?(10 000 years ago give or take 4.5 billion years)
Would that go to mean that these animals....somehow.....*looks around nervously* (dare I say it? :fainting: ) .....Evolved? :idea2: :jawdrop:
ok...now this is getting TOO weird! Who are you mister and how did you hack into Navaros´s account???:eyebrows:
I don't only eat Plants, and I admit I'm a product of a perverse world and the fall of Adam and Eve has screwed me up just like it screwed up every human.
Then claim the title of hypocrit, and remember what Jesus stated about hypocrits.
But, at least I can have the moral sense to think about the butchering and realize the sickness of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't be so "fine and dandy" about the butchering of other life forms if they had to do it personally every day, because to be distant from it they can put it "out of sight, out of mind" to large degree. But being put to it directly would oftentimes help the sickness dawn on one who can't realize it otherwise. A innate feeling of disgust would take over, because there remains in man the remembrance of a better natural order.
I don't believe this in the slightest. I grew up on the farm, and have butchered plenty of animals. Never feeling sick about it nor disgust at the necessarity that requires that the human body requires protein in order to grow. I viewed the death and butchering of an animal as a necessity to survival. Should one feel guilty about survival? That runs counter to the word of God as stated in the text of the Holy Bible. Nor does it state anywhere in the Holy Bible, King James version anything remotely what you are claiming in either of your last two posts.
What I said does not contradict anything in the Bible. "Have Dominion over" does not equal "go butcher any life whenever you feel like it". Those verses you quote said that God gave plants and fruit as food for all life (verses 29 and 30).
Read a little deeper, remember that in the bible it also talks about fish as food. What did God provide Moses and the Jews for food? Here is the relative biblical passage.
12 I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God.
13 ¶ And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.
Nor did I say "butcher any life whenever you feel like it," it seems your faced with the dilemina of your own making that you feel the need to change my statement to be somthing not in evidence. I find that rather interesting and very amusing as well.
It should also be noted that when corruption entered the world, it changed everything. Cats and dinosaurs and man may very well not have been designed as mankind now understand them to exist. Rather, they may very well have devolved into their current forms when corruption entered the world.
And maybe attempts at literial translations of the bible demonstrate that man has missed the word of God because of man's own corruption.
wait a minute......HOLD THE PRESSES!!!! :inquisitive:
are you actually suggesting that these animals might not exist in the same shape as they did at the time your God created them?(10 000 years ago give or take 4.5 billion years)
Would that go to mean that these animals....somehow.....*looks around nervously* (dare I say it? :fainting: ) .....Evolved? :idea2: :jawdrop:
:
Yes indeed. Isn't rather amusing?
Watchman
01-15-2007, 18:16
Humans also seem to have gotten by right fine for millenia killing animals large and small for sustenance. Including ones they've practically raised into full size from infancy.
If present-day people had to butcher their own meat most would doubtless get a little queasy. Nothing odd about that, as it'd be an entirely new thing to them and gory to boot. I'm guessing it'd take them round two days, or until they get really hungry, to get over virtually all such qualms however.
Would that go to mean that these animals....somehow.....*looks around nervously* (dare I say it? :fainting: ) .....Evolved? :idea2: :jawdrop:
No, it means originally all creations were perfect, immortal, and didn't kill each other. After Adam and Eve and Satan, brought corruption into the world, God cursed the world and everything devolved into something much worse.
Comparing butchering animals before the world was corrupted and after the world was corrupted is apples and oranges.
No, it means originally all creations were perfect, immortal, and didn't kill each other. After Adam and Eve and Satan, brought corruption into the world, God cursed the world and everything devolved into something much worse.
The literial translation of the bible doesn't even say anything about devolving animals. It only talks about cursing man.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, 2 Cor. 11.3 and I did eat.
14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said,
Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; Heb. 6.8
and thou shalt eat the herb of the field:
19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,
till thou return unto the ground;
for out of it wast thou taken:
for dust thou art,and unto dust shalt thou return.
20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve; 3 because she was the mother of all living.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, Rev. 22.14 and eat, and live for ever:
23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
The Gardern of Eden was cursed ground for Man. God turned man out of the Gardern of Eden because of his disobedience.
Comparing butchering animals before the world was corrupted and after the world was corrupted is apples and oranges.
That does not address your comments of earlier at all. It seems your having a difficult time of defending your statements that run counter to the written words of the text.
Watchman
01-15-2007, 18:35
"Devolution" is a bit of a weird term, since it really just means evolution anyway. Save that with the connotation the speaker does not like the direction it takes.
Which, in any case, boils down to living things having changed and God having either done it Himself, or allowed it to happen for His fuzzy reasons (and by means of precondition having made said living things with the proper mechanisms to make change possible in the first place). And since "nature" is per definition His creation to arrange as He sees fit, such developements are just as "natural" as the original scheme - if only because they couldn't happen without His OK in any case...
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-15-2007, 18:40
If I recall Leviticus correctly, doesn't sacrifing animals and burning the flesh produce 'a sweet savour unto the Lord'?
And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Yeah, God really doesn't like us killing those animals.
Didn't God prefer Abel's animal sacrifice to that of Cain's grain and fruit? :inquisitive:
Didn't God prefer Abel's animal sacrifice to that of Cain's grain and fruit? :inquisitive:
Yes indeed, which lead to Cain doing a killing.
Adrian II
01-15-2007, 19:52
In its own quaint way, I guess this museum proves that 'dinosaurs and humans coexist'.
Kagemusha
01-15-2007, 19:58
Personally i dont get these creationist´s. Why do they have to create this kind of silly theories. Isnt it pretty universally accepted fact that bible was written by men, not God, so its only limited interpretation of men about how things went down.So why take it word for word? There is no mention exactly how God created the World.Maybe he did it by creating the first carbon based organisms and then let them evolve for 45 billion years and that evolution is still processing?
I dont understand why these fundamentalist´s have to always have enemies. Cant it be possible to believe and be atleast little bit rational at same time?:dizzy2:
Tribesman
01-15-2007, 20:02
Is it time for poll ?
Going by the opening post and that posters following contributions is that poster...
A Someone who is a Christian and is on a wind up
B Someone who is not a Christian and is on a wind up
CInsane
Jubilation T Cornpone
01-15-2007, 20:37
Well, I for one will be going along as soon as its open. I never thought I'd ever get a chance to meet P T Barnum in person and I'm not missing it now!
Kralizec
01-15-2007, 20:49
It feels kinda bad to gang up on a single person, but this question is itching me...
@Navaros: you know how halal meat is produced? And who decreed the procedure?
Banquo's Ghost
01-15-2007, 20:55
Is it time for poll ?
Going by the opening post and that posters following contributions is that poster...
A Someone who is a Christian and is on a wind up
B Someone who is not a Christian and is on a wind up
CInsane
Navaros advocating evolution and claiming his own hypocrisy has finally convinced me that he has conducted the most entertaining wind-up all this time.
I think he is a very committed Christian who likes to push our buttons and thus perhaps reveal our own intolerances.
I'm very impressed. :bow:
I am glad to see that nobody is arguing that such a museum shouldn't be built. After all, in the grand scheme of the American economy, $27 million is nothing, a tiny fragment of a drop in the bucket. If people want to donate their hard-earned cash to creating this museum, well, that's what the U.S. is all about.
Other Christian-themed learning centers have been built, with varying success. Heritage USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_USA) was a flop, but by contrast, Bob Jones University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University) is thriving. I disagree with the Creation Museum's ideology, but I'm glad they have the freedom to do what they like.
Major Robert Dump
01-15-2007, 22:16
Since there will be primitive humans represented does that mean the females will be topless? Maybe we'll get to see Adam's sausage as well. I bet when John Ashcroft visits he brings a tarp with him.
yesdachi
01-15-2007, 23:09
… I’m pretty sure everyone wore fig leaves back then. :dizzy2:
Watchman
01-15-2007, 23:16
If those Jehovah's pamphlets I've seen are anything to judge by, they also had pretty impeccable make-up jobs on all the time. :gorgeous:
...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.
Tribesman
01-15-2007, 23:24
...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.
Quite simply it is because they lack faith .
Watchman
01-15-2007, 23:31
Were that the case they'd have to be pretty queer to make themselves so ridiculous on a regular basis.
I think they just lack good taste in general.
...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.
It sells better at the gift shop.
Unfortunately, it's not just the religious nuts that do this over here. :stwshame:
Watchman
01-15-2007, 23:56
That much is obvious from merely seeing import films and other popular media - despite the vetting the import publishers do - but I didn't feel like generalizing beyond the bounds of the topic. ~;p
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-15-2007, 23:58
I wish you were right BG but this reminds me of other people I have met, they hang on to one truth and then warp the whole world around it.
Maybe he is on the wind-up though.
Tribesman
01-16-2007, 00:09
Were that the case they'd have to be pretty queer to make themselves so ridiculous on a regular basis.
Well we can take that as a pun on some other recent very vocal "religeous" nuts , who turned out to be pretty queer indeed:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
But lok on th bright side , Ham has slowly managed to change some of his views because even he could see that they were so ridiculous , give him time and maybe some more of his ridiculous views will fix themself .
The damn fool really should study the scriptures more though , especially the words he uses as "evidence" that are mis-translations of completely different words altogether .
But one ofmy favourites for the young earthers is about the date/time changes from the MT-LXX , because the people at the time had no record of events that had supposedly happened in their historical timeframe
KukriKhan
01-16-2007, 00:28
Originally Posted by Watchman
...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.
That much is obvious from merely seeing import films and other popular media
The Professor & the Midgets (Älykääpiöt) of Kummeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kummeli) of the much higher, non-cheap, non-vulgar, superior Finnish media.
I am no christian. Still, the ease with which their and any religionists' tenets get bashed, derided, and generally held up to ridicule here is alarming, and disappointing.
On any other subject I see reasoned, if impassioned, debate. Religion? Red cape + Bull.
Watchman
01-16-2007, 01:07
Never said our TV content didn't suck as well. But we at least have the decency to not import it in bulk. :balloon2:
I am no christian. Still, the ease with which their and any religionists' tenets get bashed, derided, and generally held up to ridicule here is alarming, and disappointing.
On any other subject I see reasoned, if impassioned, debate. Religion? Red cape + Bull.Fair enough, but given that the topic is largely based on faith instead of reason...
The fact is, for a nonbeliever most religious tenets will come across at best as vaguely amusing, or well-meaning but slightly odd; at worst, as downright ludicrous garbage. Neither makes for a convincing basis for argument, but the believers obviously see the matter differently - which results in a bit of a communication barrier. Incompatible premises, you could say.
And being told that for example evolution didn't happen because it conflicts with someone's interpretation of a Scripture gets old pretty fast; persistence on the matter changes that to annoying and eventually downright intellectually insulting - "so I'm supposed to swallow all this just because your dusty Scripture claims it is so?"
Goofball
01-16-2007, 01:17
My $0.02 for my fellow secularists:
You will never "win" a debate against a creationist by using science-based arguments. They are not valid currency. Faith in the Bible is the only legal tender as far as creationists are concerned. And this is fair enough, because we secularists are just as untrusting of their currency as they are of ours.
The only possible outcome of a secularist and a creationist arguing (at least in the Backroom) is that both of them walk away with a bad taste in their mouth.
Just as science can not disprove faith, faith can not disprove science.
I don't know if he is putting us all on or not, but there has been a lot of scorn heaped on Navaros in this thread because of his beliefs, which is a little disturbing.
The only time creationists should be scorned is when they try to force their beliefs on others.
If they are simply stating their beliefs and holding them out for discussion, then there is no need for scorn.
Have a nice day...
:beam:
Watchman
01-16-2007, 01:24
Navaros is free to believe what he wants. Belief is a private matter as far as I'm concerned. But expressing it publicly exposes it to the other side of the Freedom of Expression coin - opinion and critique.
And this sort of topic is one where the naysayers have a tendency to be pretty scathing. I suspect it comes partly from a resignation to the fact the discussion won't actually go anywhere, so people just idly and sarcastically pick apart bits that cath their eye to pass the time and on general principle.
Well, I do anyway. :sweatdrop:
Tribesman
01-16-2007, 01:43
You will never "win" a debate against a creationist by using science-based arguments. They are not valid currency. Faith in the Bible is the only legal tender as far as creationists are concerned.
But people do not have to use science based arguements to slap down a muppet like Ken Hams views , that would only be fair when he foolishly tries to use science himself (which he often does in his books and on his website) , it is just as easy to use scripture to show that he is talking garbage .
While there are many science based arguements completely destroying any credibilty in his "science" based claims , there are just as many scripture based arguements against his claims .
As I have said before , this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
Wonderful way to spend 27 million dollars. People are starving, homeless are freezing, single mothers are suffering, yet churches see that this is far mor important. Calvanist hypocrits the lot of them.
Honestly 10,000 years? What does the museum say about dinosours? Guess they are merely mal-constructed elephants.
No, decendents of primordal slime.
Try that they were parts of God's creation that went extinct.
I know, we should spend it on another of the thousands of evolutionary museums. Heck, why spend money on museums, or caffeterias, or theatres? Let's give it all to starving kids!!
That's society for ya. People like museums - if there is going to be one, it might as well be Chistian.
You know MODs, If anyone said half the things about islam or jewdeism that these members are constsantly saying about Christianity, they would be banned. I find it strange that they can discriminate against Christians as much as they like while they still can't say anything about any other religion. Please do tell me why this is.
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers - I hope I roasted them off.
Discrimination has to end on this board. I think I may start a thread in the WatchTower.
Night all
KukriKhan
01-16-2007, 05:47
It is true that we tolerate (as in: let stand) posts with content that, if it were on a religion board, might be considered blasphemous or sacreligious by true believers. We do step in when the content is personally slanderous toward another member, per Org rules.
The alternative would be to disallow any discussion of religion at all, lest we offend some sect. Yet, we observe the fact that a religion-related topic gets started every week. The membership here wants to discuss it. So we allow it, and watch closely, without favouring one religion or non-religion over another, as much as humanly possible.
If you feel those efforts are inadequate, you are certainly within your privilege to post a complaint in Watchtower. I look forward to seeing your suggestions for improvement of religion coverage in the Backroom.
Beren Son Of Barahi
01-16-2007, 06:03
I also think that members here know a lot more about western religions (Christianity) then they do about eastern ones like Hinduisms or islam... so naturally people stick to what they know. also religions hold up beliefs as cold hard facts. If i were to say the sun orbits around a teacup, people would quite rightly tell me i am a crackpot(pun intended).
If religion is grounds to say things like homosexuals are this or that, or people who have abortions are this or that, or people who have sex before marriage are this or that. Then people have the right to question, disagree and point out things about religions.
they are a lot of intelligent people on these boards,most of the people here are adults, it would be a shame to limit what can be discussed, or to censor what is said. most people are careful to attack the points, statements or posts and not the person or religions per say'.
~:grouphug: :whip:
PanzerJaeger
01-16-2007, 06:06
It is quite ironic to see the same people who are so understanding/apologetic of radical Islam every time a new article is posted on this board about some horrible muslim practice -whether its stoning women or cutting off children's hands - jump on Navoros and other Christians because they don't believe in evolution lock, stock, and barrel.
Im not particularly Christian, but the hypocrisy by some - not all - of the "seculars" in this thread is pathetic. :shame:
The only thing I've gotten out of this thread is that Navaros is claiming that Satan gave Man meat. Awesome.
The Gardern of Eden was cursed ground for Man. God turned man out of the Gardern of Eden because of his disobedience.
All ground, the world itself and everything in it became cursed as a result of Adam's disobediance to God. Not just the Garden of Eden.
Regarding the comments about animal sacrifices: sacrifices were required because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Eventually Jesus became the sacrificial lamb who shed his blood instead. If Adam, Eve and Satan had not corrupted the world then there would be no sin and no sacrifices would have been called for. Do not ask me why without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin; I'm not God so I don't know that. But it is God's law.
@Goofball's comment: That applies to evolutionists just as much. There is absolutely no possible way an evolutionist would ever come away from a debate with the thought that evolution did not happen, even if he suffered a devastating loss in that debate. The evolutionist's zealous faith in his own idea is too strong for that to ever happen.
I like all the scorn in this thread. It illustrates very well just how much zealotry is in the hearts of evolutionists, how zealously up in arms all evolutionists get at opposition to their faith in evolution. It's two sides of the same coin, although evolutionists happen to be on the incorrect side.
@The few different posters who stated that no one said the Museum should not exist: there's been plenty of people saying that in this thread. :dizzy2:
Whoa, wait a minute. Coins have incorrect sides?
Tribesman
01-16-2007, 07:58
It is quite ironic to see the same people who are so understanding/apologetic of radical Islam every time a new article is posted on this board about some horrible muslim practice -whether its stoning women or cutting off children's hands - jump on Navoros and other Christians because they don't believe in evolution lock, stock, and barrel.
Im not particularly Christian, but the hypocrisy by some - not all - of the "seculars" in this thread is pathetic.
What is ironic Panzer is that during your enforced absence you seem to have forgotten or missed which poster has been very vocal in supporting Muslim fundamentalism and the practices associated with it . Also with Judaic fundamentalism .
Would you like to guess who that poster is before you go off on one ?
Here have a clue ....try post #1
What is ironic Panzer is that during your enforced absence you seem to have forgotten or missed which poster has been very vocal in supporting Muslim fundamentalism and the practices associated with it . Also with Judaic fundamentalism .
Would you like to guess who that poster is before you go off on one ?
Here have a clue ....try post #1
This must be one the few times I'll ever agree with tribesman. But you are way off with that generalization Panther. Maybe you should go back through some of the old threads before making such a bold statement.
Nav are you seriously trying to say PETA is spreading god's word? Wheat, barley and all other plants are also living creatures. Is it somehow acceptable to Yawe that we choose to murder the apple instead of killing the animals? They both are living, both created, in your theology, by Yawe yet you kill it and feel no shame?
PanzerJaeger
01-16-2007, 08:44
I am aware Tribes, and Ive given my opinion on that as well.
In this particular thread, however, the intolerance of the tolerant seemed a bit more interesting than Nav's new found love for the muslims. I am certainly not rushing to his defence though - as if he needed it. :inquisitive:
Its just funny that certain people are so defensive of people like Nav when they happen to be muslim, but the same thought process doesnt apply to fundi-Christians.
Your irony is not lost on me however - game point to you for calling me on it. :boxing:
Watchman
01-16-2007, 09:19
IMHO that's because the discussion on Muslim ultras nigh invariably can't see the forest behind the trees. Plus most folks here frankly aren't qualified to discuss the faith to very profound degree on account of sheer unfamiliarity with the subject - which does not keep quite a few folks from issuing rather bold and sweeping statements at near regular intervals, which to my eyes at least have a noticeable habit of stinking of raw ethnocentrism and xenophobia. The confessional questions involved have a marked tendency to get severely mixed up with sociopolitical ones, which are quite different.
Various aspects of Christianity are something most people raised in "Western" cultures very nearly cannot but be fairly familiar with (which doesn't keep people from making incorrect statements about the faith; but that tends to happen rather more rarely and with a rather less hostile tone than with Islam for some odd reason...), ergo they can actually make reasonably informed statements regarding it. Moreover the religious divisor line here does not suspiciously overlap and get mixed up with various far more secular ones.
Besides, when was the last time a Muslim zealot posted anything on these boards ? Fervent Christians do it regularly, and get duly picked on by skeptics. Other faiths are glaringly absent in this regard for some reason.
Having just skimmed through this thread, i'm faced with the question: does anyone here actually believe the [censored] the museum is passing off as fact?
Having just skimmed through this thread, i'm faced with the question: does anyone here actually believe the [censored] the museum is passing off as fact?
Only people who already believe it presumeably. Hopefully anyway.
Humans worry me.
:P
All this is reminding me of a quote from some guy on the news the other day - "we're humans, not animals"
I gather he failed biology :laugh4:
Kralizec
01-16-2007, 13:27
...the thousands of evolutionary museums
Where would I find those?
All ground, the world itself and everything in it became cursed as a result of Adam's disobediance to God. Not just the Garden of Eden.
Frankly that is not the translation I have heard concerning the relative passage from Genesis that I posted about the disobenence of man.
Adrian II
01-16-2007, 14:20
(..) evolution crap that is shoved down their throats (..) constant propaganda to infest their minds (..) atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists (..)The initial poster did not exactly mince his words. This usually does not bring out the best in other posters.
All ground, the world itself and everything in it became cursed as a result of Adam's disobediance to God. Not just the Garden of Eden.Now he is a Cathar, too. :balloon2:
The initial poster did not exactly mince his words. This usually does not bring out the best in other posters.
It must be said I can't think of any secular terrorists either.
Not even sure when being secular would be relevant, or really have anything to do with creationism. You could happily be a secular Christian creationist.
The initial poster did not exactly mince his words. This usually does not bring out the best in other posters.Now he is a Cathar, too. :balloon2:
Yes, the Cathars. I knew it reminded me of something. Thanks Adrian!
does anyone here actually believe the [censored] the museum is passing off as fact?
According to the most recent credible polls, like the one mentioned in the article in the OP and the one linked-to on this board a few months ago, between 50% - 60% of Americans believe what the creation Museum says. Due to the existence and future popularity of the creation Museum, that number is bound to rise even more in the coming months and years. :2thumbsup:
English assassin
01-16-2007, 16:33
The only thing I've gotten out of this thread is that Navaros is claiming that Satan gave Man meat. Awesome.
:laugh4: I've been needing to update my sig for a while...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-16-2007, 16:37
Secularism is really nothing more than the recognition that people generally don't want someone elses's beliefs shoved down their throat.
As to bias, I will quite happily attack any unreasonable belief and I will try to do it in a reasonable way.
As to Satan, he has no power, he did not introduce sin into the world. You cannot sin without knowledge. Once man ate the fruit he had knowledge and therefore responsibility, because he had exercised his free will.
Angels on the other hand don't seem to have free will, so how could Satan defy God, unless it was God's will?
also, where in Genesis does it say the serpant is Satan or a servant of Satan.
Satan has about as much power as a retirred tax-man.
Kagemusha
01-16-2007, 16:45
Maybe Satan=evil is just a tool. I dont know what others think but while its sad i would say that many times things that mold people better persons are the bad things that happend in life,ofcourse those can turn people also worse,but isnt that the free will of man acting there.~:)
Samurai Waki
01-16-2007, 18:27
Satan and the idea of hell was really introduced by Greek Scholars, who wanted a little bit of say in Christian Dogma. Judaism doesn't have a hell, or a hell in the same sense Christian use, nor any tangible leader behind all the evil in the world.
However if you take a good look at Greco-Romano Paganism, You will then know were the idea of Hell and Satan come from, Pluto and Hades. Its obvious that some Scholars of the period didn't want to give up their beliefs entirely, so instead changed bits and pieces of the Bible so that it would resemble their own religion and cause less distress among the masses.
rory_20_uk
01-16-2007, 18:36
Similarly, many of the things that are "evil" are aspects of pre-existing religions to stamp them out more thoroughly, or are adopted as aprt of the religion - either way, ensuring that the only meme that is passed on is this one religion.
~:smoking:
English assassin
01-16-2007, 19:01
Satan and the idea of hell was really introduced by Greek Scholars, who wanted a little bit of say in Christian Dogma.
A little bit? The whole basic idea of a transcendent god outside time was a greek interpolation into the apocalyptic Jewish cult that was nascent christianity.
To be fair to Navaros though he follows the arbitrary tribal deity of the old testament, with none of this namby pamby new testament stuff. Its a wonder he even believes in an afterlife.
Tribesman
01-16-2007, 19:49
According to the most recent credible polls, like the one mentioned in the article in the OP and the one linked-to on this board a few months ago, between 50% - 60% of Americans believe what the creation Museum says.
Well that narrows it down , option Aon the poll in post #51 can be struck out , so that leaves B or C
SwordsMaster
01-16-2007, 19:58
Man, it keeps me entertained to imagine what would the world be like if, instead of doing everything in the last 6 days, God had actually taken time to think it through... My guess is he was the biggest slacker of all.
I mean, how many projects you did in the last 6 days before the deadline was actually good?
As of the museum itself, don't really have an opinion. As long as it gets people to read and travel, it is all good. They could open another one in Vegas while they're at it. Surely that would mean 5 milion visitors a year instead of just 1.
Where would I find those?
Nearly every museum in the U.S. If you can't find one of those, you should really stay in doors.
It is true that we tolerate (as in: let stand) posts with content that, if it were on a religion board, might be considered blasphemous or sacreligious by true believers. We do step in when the content is personally slanderous toward another member, per Org rules.
The alternative would be to disallow any discussion of religion at all, lest we offend some sect. Yet, we observe the fact that a religion-related topic gets started every week. The membership here wants to discuss it. So we allow it, and watch closely, without favouring one religion or non-religion over another, as much as humanly possible.
If you feel those efforts are inadequate, you are certainly within your privilege to post a complaint in Watchtower. I look forward to seeing your suggestions for improvement of religion coverage in the Backroom.
Dude, there is a difference between discussing and insulting religion. If I said half the things about mulsims that these people say about Christians, every muslim on this board would be rightly offended. Even if I said something both true and objective, such as islam is a religion of war, or the islamic religion is anti-female (Not that islamic people are, but that the religion is), I would probably be banned.
They can discuss their opinions of religion without throwing out slurs and jabs and insult about God, Christianity, and Christians. (In case you couldn't figure it out, all the insults, slander, and false accusations people on this board have said about Christian, they have said about me and other board members.) Again, think of it in a way that your politically correct little head may understand: If I said that all muslims were stone age, wife beating, murderous, sadistic perverts (all things said about christians on this board) I'd be banned. I find it VERY insulting and VERY offending when people say those things about Christianity. (Tell me, what would you do if I said all evolutionists were stupid cavemen?)
These people are mature and should be able to discuss religion; but should be made to do so in a mature way, not like a bunch of little schoolgirls.
I like the backroom and would like to continue here, but I find people's attitude and actions (and the moderators job of moderating) quite appalling.
I also think that members here know a lot more about western religions (Christianity) then they do about eastern ones like Hinduisms or islam... so naturally people stick to what they know. also religions hold up beliefs as cold hard facts. If i were to say the sun orbits around a teacup, people would quite rightly tell me i am a crackpot(pun intended).
If religion is grounds to say things like homosexuals are this or that, or people who have abortions are this or that, or people who have sex before marriage are this or that. Then people have the right to question, disagree and point out things about religions.
they are a lot of intelligent people on these boards,most of the people here are adults, it would be a shame to limit what can be discussed, or to censor what is said. most people are careful to attack the points, statements or posts and not the person or religions per say'.
~:grouphug: :whip:
I assure you, you know a LOT less about christianity than you suppose.
This must be one the few times I'll ever agree with tribesman. But you are way off with that generalization Panther. Maybe you should go back through some of the old threads before making such a bold statement.
Nav are you seriously trying to say PETA is spreading god's word? Wheat, barley and all other plants are also living creatures. Is it somehow acceptable to Yawe that we choose to murder the apple instead of killing the animals? They both are living, both created, in your theology, by Yawe yet you kill it and feel no shame?
GOD said that man could eat meat, not satan. See a discussion, not a mob stoning. Surely this is an improvement.
Man, it keeps me entertained to imagine what would the world be like if, instead of doing everything in the last 6 days, God had actually taken time to think it through... My guess is he was the biggest slacker of all.
I mean, how many projects you did in the last 6 days before the deadline was actually good?
That's why you are not God ;)
I don't think there is anything wrong with insulting religious beliefs. If people can't defend themselves maybe they need to rethink what they are dedicating (wasting?) their lives to.
That's not the same as ignorantly damming a whole group of people though just due to religion.
So I'd say insulting creationists beliefs is fine, whereas saying all Christians are ignorant haters of progress is clearly not true.
AntiochusIII
01-16-2007, 23:33
Vuk:
Nearly every museum in the U.S. If you can't find one of those, you should really stay in doors.The one who makes the argument, gives the example.
Dude, there is a difference between discussing and insulting religion.So you don't like people insulting religions and other ideas they find absurd. Fine enough. Well then,
Even if I said something both true and objective, such as islam is a religion of war, or the islamic religion is anti-female [emphasis by me] (Not that islamic people are, but that the religion is)...
Apparently you haven't followed your own advice very well. :juggle2:
They can discuss their opinions of religion without throwing out slurs and jabs and insult about God, Christianity, and Christians. (In case you couldn't figure it out, all the insults, slander, and false accusations people on this board have said about Christian, they have said about me and other board members.)Thou shalt not insult other members. Okay. That's good advice. So...
Again, think of it in a way that your politically correct little head may understandWasn't this an insult to another member? :idea2:
I find it VERY insulting and VERY offending when people say those things about Christianity. (Tell me, what would you do if I said all evolutionists were stupid cavemen?)The problem is, nobody's been saying that.
Also, please stop using the term "evolutionist." It is very offensive to me since that label is created with the inherent intention to slander and demean.
:smug:
As of the museum itself, don't really have an opinion. As long as it gets people to read and travel, it is all good. They could open another one in Vegas while they're at it. Surely that would mean 5 milion visitors a year instead of just 1.You said all that I needed to say. Congratulations for the town of Petersburg; I believe the museum would produce a nice boost in revenue for the local economy.
Obviously I'm not threading near the "discussion" going on.
Vuk:
The one who makes the argument, gives the example.
So you don't like people insulting religions and other ideas they find absurd. Fine enough. Well then,
...
Apparently you haven't followed your own advice very well. :juggle2:
I am not insulting the religion, I am making a statement of fact, and one I am qualified to make. If anyone here has read the koran and would like to discuss it with me, start a new thread - I am completely willing to hold what I said and defend it.
Most people here throw out stupid, schoolgirl accusation about Christians and Christianity without understanding Christianity, or, probably, even reading the Bible. I have not read the Bible in years, but I count myself qualified to make statements about Christianity in a Historical and Theological sense as well as state my own beliefs. Most people on this board know nothing about Christianity except what was fed to them in school. ei. that Christians are racist, kitty murdering wackos stuck in the stoneage.
...
Apparently you missed the whole point of my statement.
Thou shalt not insult other members. Okay. That's good advice. So...
Wasn't this an insult to another member? :idea2:
I was not insulting him but simply trying to make him aware of his predjudice and the fact that I am trying to put it in a way that will help him overcome it.
The problem is, nobody's been saying that.
??????????
AntiochusIII
01-17-2007, 00:01
I am not insulting the religion, I am making a statement of fact, and one I am qualified to make. If anyone here has read the koran and would like to discuss it with me, start a new thread - I am completely willing to hold what I said and defend it.Defend it, then. Else I'll be forced to "make a statement of fact" about "Christianity" (what sect are we talking about anyway? If it's Navaros' brand then I have no clue which denomination he follows) that I don't have to defend.
Most people here throw out stupid, schoolgirl accusation about Christians and Christianity without understanding Christianity, or, probably, even reading the Bible. I have not read the Bible in years, but I count myself qualified to make statements about Christianity in a Historical and Theological sense as well as state my own beliefs. Most people on this board know nothing about Christianity except what was fed to them in school. ei. that Christians are racist, kitty murdering wackos stuck in the stoneage.Yup. More insults. And strawmen. Avoiding "direct" insult with "most people" and "schoolgirls" don't make it any less of an insult. Besides, like I said, nobody's been throwing around accusations that Christians are dumb, kitty murdering racists stuck in the stone age. You gotta quote the guilty person out for us to see, sorry.
Apparently you missed the whole point of my statement.Which is?
I was not insulting him but simply trying to make him aware of his predjudice and the fact that I am trying to put it in a way that will help him overcome it.Yeah sure. Not insulting, just condescending. :wall:
Defend it, then. Else I'll be forced to "make a statement of fact" about "Christianity" (what sect are we talking about anyway? If it's Navaros' brand then I have no clue which denomination he follows) that I don't have to defend.
Yup. More insults. And strawmen. Avoiding "direct" insult with "most people" and "schoolgirls" don't make it any less of an insult. Besides, like I said, nobody's been throwing around accusations that Christians are dumb, kitty murdering racists stuck in the stone age. You gotta quote the guilty person out for us to see, sorry.
Which is?
Yeah sure. Not insulting, just condescending. :wall:
As this discussion you are moving torward has moved quite off topic, may I suggest you repost this in a new thread. I am afraid I am going offline now, but I'll be back tomorrow or later today. If you seriously want to discuss this make a new thread and name it something I can recognize.
Till then
Tribesman
01-17-2007, 01:45
Most people on this board know nothing about Christianity except what was fed to them in school. ei. that Christians are racist, kitty murdering wackos stuck in the stoneage.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
But but but ...there was no stone age , the so called stone age is still in existance today with people who wandered from the path of Gods righteousness .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey Vuk , if you want to defend a bunch of fruitcakes because they call themselves Christian and you see yourself as a Christian also , it might be an idea to find out about the fruitcakes you wish to defend .
Christians like Muslims come in many different flavours . People who call themselves Christian like Ken Ham does is fruit and nut flavour , there are others worse , a lot worse that are purely nut flavoured , can we see you springing to their defence aswell just because they call themselves Christian ?
If it's Navaros' brand then I have no clue which denomination he follows
Antiochus
That is because he will not say which denomination he folows , neither will he say which version of the Bible he believes is the one true literal word of god (thats why I am tending towards option B in the poll)
Beren Son Of Barahi
01-17-2007, 01:57
In reply to post 102 from vuk.
firstly i was not talking about my self, as an atheist i am not even remotely interested in what most religions says about anything, although i find some of what Budisim talks about to have a practical worth to it . i have never claimed to be an "expert" in religion, although some people on these boards do know a whole heap about it, and some of these people have come out again the first poster.
secondly, if you knew anything about Islam, you would know that it is the interpretations of the qur'an that make Islam such an easy target, and such an easy tool for people to abuse. A lot of popular or misrepresented parts of the qur'an are the ones that causes the most trouble. Also Islam is most common among poor and uneducated people in some of the harshest parts of the world.
for the most part Islam is about the inner struggle and fighting the urges from within (jihad). Eastern religions tend to take on form of binding effect that works along old lines of tribe, lands, countries, cultures and races, it is also is adapted to rally people in times of need, like invasions, of which there has been heaps...this is where it gets the war like tags, the middle-east is not divided up in to nice neat little countries, it is much more complex then that, with tribes, races, religions and countries all playing a role in what happens and what happens in one place might effect others, this is where the US got into so much trouble. like wise i am more then happy to converse with you about this, mind you i am a AID worker and not a Imam, so my knowledge is more based in real life, having lived and worked in the largest Muslim country in the world...i know a little about it.
as others have said, point out what is offensive to you, so people can be more careful, or the mods can step in if needed. the initial poster didn't start out in a nice way, and you seem to be throwing things around too. on the other hand, be a big boy and suck it up a little.... if we can handle it surely with the strength of your convictions you can too...
on another note, wasn't there a survey of the highest ranking high schools and colleges in the US, one of the questions was which side was germany on in WWII and over half of the people asked said the Allies>? polls are pretty good for nothing. polls can be made to say anything you want them too.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm
According to the most recent credible polls, like the one mentioned in the article in the OP and the one linked-to on this board a few months ago, between 50% - 60% of Americans believe what the creation Museum says. Due to the existence and future popularity of the creation Museum, that number is bound to rise even more in the coming months and years. :2thumbsup:
That's really, really sad. :thumbsdown:
It makes me worry that the majority of people in the most powerful nation on earth can't acknowledge pure scientific fact when it's stated plainly and simply and instead have to regress to spirituality to find a 'nicer' answer.
Tribesman
01-17-2007, 02:30
That's really, really sad.
Hey Sapi , what Navaros wrote about the poll isn't true , so don't get too sad about it :2thumbsup:
That's really, really sad. :thumbsdown:
It makes me worry that the majority of people in the most powerful nation on earth can't acknowledge pure scientific fact when it's stated plainly and simply and instead have to regress to spirituality to find a 'nicer' answer.
i dont see why its sad? --> they're allowed to have an opinion.. im willing to bet that creationists can come up with just as much "pure scientific fact when its stated plainly and simply" to back they're argument....
I don't think there is anything wrong with insulting religious beliefs. If people can't defend themselves maybe they need to rethink what they are dedicating (wasting?) their lives to.
That's not the same as ignorantly damming a whole group of people though just due to religion.
So I'd say insulting creationists beliefs is fine, whereas saying all Christians are ignorant haters of progress is clearly not true.
why? insulting any belief of any kind (and that includes creationist beliefs) is wrong, arguing against them is fine...
there is a difference between discussing and insulting religion. If I said half the things about mulsims that these people say about Christians, every muslim on this board would be rightly offended. Even if I said something both true and objective, such as islam is a religion of war, or the islamic religion is anti-female (Not that islamic people are, but that the religion is), I would probably be banned.
those arent true at all, but besides that its quite a good point...
:2thumbsup:
Watchman
01-17-2007, 02:47
im willing to bet that creationists can come up with just as much "pure scientific fact when its stated plainly and simply" to back they're argument....I guess they can be given brownie points for trying, true enough. The problem is their "facts" have a funny tendency to collapse in the face of sustained probing, in a fashion not found in tenable scientific theories.
Why do you think they've been down to "intelligent design" for a while now ? 'Cause everything else they've tried has already been debunked, and that one holds for the time being mainly on obstinancy as well.
The Genesis just sort of lacks street cred when pitted against carbon dating so to speak.
I guess they can be given brownie points for trying, true enough. The problem is their "facts" have a funny tendency to collapse in the face of sustained probing, in a fashion not found in tenable scientific theories.
Why do you think they've been down to "intelligent design" for a while now ? 'Cause everything else they've tried has already been debunked, and that one holds for the time being mainly on obstinancy as well.
The Genesis just sort of lacks street cred when pitted against carbon dating so to speak.
im sure they would say the same about opposing facts,
i never believe science, because just like religion (including genesis) all facts can be interpreted and even manipulated --> :2thumbsup:
Watchman
01-17-2007, 02:53
I believe in the computer I'm typing this with, though. It's applied science.
Let's see applied faith pull off with any meaningful degree of reliability the same stuff it can do.
:
Antiochus
That is because he will not say which denomination he folows , neither will he say which version of the Bible he believes is the one true literal word of god (thats why I am tending towards option B in the poll)
You might find a link to his denomination at the following site.
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/linksI18L.htm#CreationIntl_CANADA
I do not follow any denomination. Jesus said that Christians are supposed to be of one mind and have no division of thought among them, and that one mind is to believe in him and everything stated in the Bible. Denominations run contrary to that.
KukriKhan
01-17-2007, 05:14
Nearly every museum in the U.S. If you can't find one of those, you should really stay in doors.
Umm, he doesn't live in the US, and we'll set aside the "should really stay in doors" personal attack for now.
Dude,Bwaha-ha-ha-ha! (ahem), to continue
there is a difference between discussing and insulting religion. If I said half the things about mulsims that these people say about Christians, every muslim on this board would be rightly offended. Even if I said something both true and objective, such as islam is a religion of war, or the islamic religion is anti-female (Not that islamic people are, but that the religion is), I would probably be banned.(you just did; are you banned?)
They (who? Islamic people (your last subject & object) or Org posters?) can discuss their opinions of religion without throwing out slurs and jabs and insult about God, Christianity, and Christians. (In case you couldn't figure it out,(No argument there, I am kinda slow...)
all the insults, slander, and false accusations people on this board have said about Christian(s), they have said about me and other board members.) Again, think of it in a way that your politically correct little head(size 10 hat, thanks) may understand(I hope so): If I said that all muslims were stone age, wife beating, murderous, sadistic perverts (all things said about christians on this board)(show me such a post, I'll kill it) I'd be banned. I find it VERY insulting and VERY offending when people say those things about Christianity.(show me) (Tell me, what would you do if I said all evolutionists were stupid cavemen?)(laugh, honestly)
These people are mature and should be able to discuss religion; but should be made (by moderator's?) to do so in a mature way, not like a bunch of little schoolgirls.(:snort:)
I like the backroom and would like to continue here,(good to read; if you change your mind, we can accomodate that also) but I find people's attitude and actions (and the moderators job of moderating) quite appalling.(so you're SURE you want to stay in such an appalling place?)
I assure you, you know a LOT less about christianity than you suppose. (that assuration is unsupported. Please lay out your proof for that assertion of christian ignorance; on a personal note: I'm thrilled, THRILLED, mind you that I finally have another NT scholar to consult. First question: Do you think the Leviticus Prohibitions are superceded by the Nazarene's Beatitudes? I do. Or are you a rescisionist, instead? )
Dude, you crack this appallingly PC pinheaded mod up. Doesn't happen everyday.
+1 acumen. :bow:
p.s. To my mod collegues: I must recuse myself from judgment in this thread, since I got personally involved (somehow). I'll stay out to avoid flame-fuellage. My apologies. :bow:
Dude, you crack this appallingly PC pinheaded mod up. Doesn't happen everyday.
+1 acumen. :bow:
p.s. To my mod collegues: I must recuse myself from judgment in this thread, since I got personally involved (somehow). I'll stay out to avoid flame-fuellage. My apologies. :bow:
Well KukriKhan if you have a head that must wear asize 10 hat could you please teleport my mail to me, and insure that my check from Ed for $1 million arrives on time. Thanks in advance, but then you probably already knew that given the nature of your ESP.:clown:
I am not insulting the religion, I am making a statement of fact, and one I am qualified to make. If anyone here has read the koran and would like to discuss it with me, start a new thread - I am completely willing to hold what I said and defend it.
?
[emphasis Yunus]
erm learning to spell it would be a start :yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
In Arabic grammar, the word "Qur'ān" (not Koran) constitutes a masdar (verbal noun) and is derived from the Arabic verb قرأ qara'a ("to read" or "to recite") which is the root
:book:
Im sure Christians wouldnt like it if I refered to the Biabal.
as you say a topic for another thread
Topic: this whole poo fight appears to me to have evolved due to the confrontational manner this thread was started
had it been Christians "Got museum?" :2thumbsup:
Im sure it would not have been attacked or should I say counter attacked by the science club - instead the OP chose a more confrontational approach ala
Now we got a museum we can enlighten mankind that evolution is BS - in your face DARWIN :thumbsdown:
which is always going to agitate a percentage of the members
:clown:
[edit] GAH speeling
[emphasis Yunus]
erm learning to spell it would be a start :yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
In Arabic grammar, the word "Qur'ān" (not Koran) constitutes a masdar (verbal noun) and is derived from the Arabic verb قرأ qara'a ("to read" or "to recite") which is the root
:book:
Im sure Christians wouldnt like it if I refered to the Biabal.
as you say a topic for another thread
Topic: this whole poo fight appears to me to have evolved due to the confrontational manner this thread was started
had it been Christians "Got museum?" :2thumbsup:
Im sure it would not have been attacked or should I say counter attacked by the science club - instead the OP chose a more confrontational approach ala
Now we got a museum we can enlighten mankind that evolution is BS - in your face DARWIN :thumbsdown:
which is always going to agitate a percentage of the members
Might wanna quote from a credible source of information when attempting to prove someone else incorrect, which Wikpedia most definitely is not.
Sure I made a position clear with this thread title and the original post, but I see that done on this board all the time by people on the opposite side of the fence. Many people on this board were inevitabley going to call creationism BS in this thread regardless of the thread title or content of the original post. If I'm the one making the thread, might as well be pro-active with the same style that will be forthcoming in it from opposition posts. Evolutionists making threads in support of their beliefs certainly do.
Might wanna quote from a credible source of information when attempting to prove someone else incorrect, which Wikpedia most definitely is not.
Sure I made a position clear with this thread title and the original post, but I see that done on this board all the time by people on the opposite side of the fence. Many people on this board were inevitabley going to call creationism BS in this thread regardless of the thread title or content of the original post. If I'm the one making the thread, might as well be pro-active with the same style that will be forthcoming in it from opposition posts. Evolutionists making threads in support of their beliefs certainly do.
Are you attempting to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior? Isn't that rather un-christian of you?
Are you attempting to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior? Isn't that rather un-christian of you?
Don't agree with that characterization. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes.
The Genesis just sort of lacks street cred when pitted against carbon dating so to speak.
In my view this post is highly absurd. Carbon dating has been debunked as being wildly inaccurate and the "results" of it therefore are based on wild speculation about a wildly inaccurate method. Definitely little to no credibility in carbon dating.
Might wanna quote from a credible source of information when attempting to prove someone else incorrect, which Wikpedia most definitely is not.
.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
University of Southern Californ I A
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/
hey if you cant trust the islamic city - who can you trust
http://www.quran.org.uk/
The Quran has its own org!!! Lets hope their as well informed as our Orgers
I googled Koran and got the following:
About the Koran
This is an electronic version of The Holy Qur'an, translated by M.H. Shakir and published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., in 1983. The text was provided by the Online Book Initiative and subsequently marked up at the HTI in SGML. Like all the versions of this text derived from the Online Book Initiative, it is not free from errors. We will strive to correct any errors pointed out to us.
Hm looks like only the page title and then in the description they correct it
yeh - wikipedi = dodgy I agree - but not in this case
[Edit] Just read your recent post - two words - FOSSIL RECORD
dude the rocks dont lie - short of the big G man himself appearing to me in my office and saying "Dude - I just put those things there for people like you - who like to study them" and then maybe
Don't agree with that characterization. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes.
For one that claims a superiority in religious morality - someone is forgetting one of the basic tenants of his religion. I find that rather interesting.
In my view this post is highly absurd. Carbon dating has been debunked as being wildly inaccurate and the "results" of it therefore are based on wild speculation about a wildly inaccurate method. Definitely little to no credibility in carbon dating.
Oh boy this gets even better.
Just read your recent post - two words - FOSSIL RECORD
dude the rocks dont lie - short of the big G man himself appearing to me in my office and saying "Dude - I just put those things there for people like you - who like to study them" and then maybe
Rocks may and fossils may not lie but mankind's incorrect interpretation of them in order to support evolution is often lies.
Here's a link to some expert debunking on the subject:
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMd04.htm
Tribesman
01-17-2007, 08:12
I do not follow any denomination. Jesus said that Christians are supposed to be of one mind and have no division of thought among them, and that one mind is to believe in him and everything stated in the Bible. Denominations run contrary to that.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Which Bible Nav?
Samurai Waki
01-17-2007, 08:22
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Which Bible Nav?
Jerry the Sperm Whale's "Bible O' Revelations." second edition
Oh man. So good. I love the word "O'".
Rocks may and fossils may not lie but mankind's incorrect interpretation of them in order to support evolution is often lies.
Here's a link to some expert debunking on the subject:
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMd04.htm
yeah - I had a brief glance over that link - erm sorry but that is entirely garbage - only someone with very little knowledge of geology would believe any of those selected 'facts'. Being a palaeontologist I could debunk all the debunking - but that would be too much like work and I cant be bothered. Besides which science requires you have an open mind to new ideas - not a closed one full of supersticious preconcieved idea.
Scientists make observations and hypothesise a model (theory) which best fits the observations
Creationist have a model and go around looking for observations to fit it
see the difference
If people want to delude themselves thats upto them, personally I feel its every mans responsibility to inform himself about the world around him. And draw his own conclusions. If you dont want Christianity debunked then dont go around attempting to debunk the models of others.
Having spend the last 15years or so of my life studying this earth and the living things on it (both past and present) - In my view - there is no doubt - evolution of this planet both biologically and geologicaly is the best fit for the mountains of evidence and observations we now have. The only thing you can truely be certain of is change itself.
from your link
Exploration of the ocean bed has been carried out since 1872 when the British ship HMS Challenger took part in a four-year scientific expedition (Murray 1880-95).[8] The depth of sediment as determined seismographically in a more recent expedition varied from none at all to more than thirteen thousand feet,[9] while the samples examined contained only the countless millions of tiny shells of the single-celled protozoa such as the microscopic radiolaria and the foraminifera these shells are the skeletons of these organisms - in other words fossils(Pettersson 1950, 44). Occasionally, sets of shark's teeth are found, sharks are cartilagenous often their teeth is all that remains - ie fossils since these are virtually insoluble in sea water, but the ocean bottom is never found littered with dead bodies waiting to be fossilized. Oh I thought he just said it was littered with countless erm fossils. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
These happen to be my thing - my specialty is as a micropalaeontologist (try saying that when you've had a few beers and chatting up a woman at the bar) - I study the fossilised tests (shells) of microscopic foraminifera. The tests show morphological changes through geologic time (or the deeper you go into the rocks), they are popularly used by oil companies to 'age date' the rocks of their reservoirs - these ages are relative of coarse ie older than that form but younger than that one - when tied to other radiometric (polar reversals, Sr isotope, and Argon dating) forms of chronostratigraphy the absolute age can be determined.
As far as those geoid rock eggs - Im pretty sure they form by progessive crystalization of the magma around an air void. ie as the magma cools different mineral are crystalised out in progressive inner rings, as the composition of the magma changes due to the parts already crystalised, different minerals are crystalised in progressively larger crystals. As it cools the crystals formed become larger and larger due to the lower temp, the mafic mineral usually are the first, (the dark outer shell) and the felsic ones the last (the light quartz crystals) in the middle.
These should not be confused with stalagtites and stalagmites which form in caves through the gradual precipitaion of ground water - how can you tell the difference - everyone knows 'tights always come down'
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
see now this is not getting my work done ....
[edit] its not the words themsleves but the typing them thats the problem...
GOD said that man could eat meat, not satan. See a discussion, not a mob stoning. Surely this is an improvement.
Funny, Navaros disagree's with you here. Navaros claims that the god Yawe intended for man not to eat meat. That infact he intended for no one to eat meat, not even lions. That eating meat is a corruption brought by Satan himself. An idea I think PETA is readily supporting if not outright trying to spread.
According to the most recent credible polls, like the one mentioned in the article in the OP and the one linked-to on this board a few months ago, between 50% - 60% of Americans believe what the creation Museum says. Due to the existence and future popularity of the creation Museum, that number is bound to rise even more in the coming months and years.
Show me the study. Because the last poll I heard with results like this was a cluster poll that for some reason or another had a fascination with people from Kentucky and Tenessee. Though even if these were the real statistics, and the majority did believe this, why is there a need for a conversion museum?
Adrian II
01-17-2007, 13:11
[COLOR="Blue"]p.s. To my mod collegues: I must recuse myself from judgment in this thread, since I got personally involved (somehow). I'll stay out to avoid flame-fuellage. My apologies. :bow:Honest Warrior! That's +3 morale to Kukrikhan.
SwordsMaster
01-17-2007, 13:36
It is ironic how all these "untrustworthy dating techniques" have been used to date the bible and many other religious objects. And I didn't hear any so called christians complain about it being inaccurate.
By the way, believing in any kind of superior being doesn't in any way mean that belief in a book is necessary.
One of the rules I live by is:
"Beware of all men that read one book only"
And I am willing to advocate that that is one of the most sensible ones. I recommend it.
English assassin
01-17-2007, 14:09
These happen to be my thing - my specialty is as a micropalaeontologist (try saying that when you've had a few beers and chatting up a woman at the bar) - I study the fossilised tests (shells) of microscopic foraminifera. The tests show morphological changes through geologic time (or the deeper you go into the rocks), they are popularly used by oil companies to 'age date' the rocks of their reservoirs - these ages are relative of coarse ie older than that form but younger than that one - when tied to other radiometric (polar reversals, Sr isotope, and Argon dating) forms of chronostratigraphy the absolute age can be determined.
Sir, as a connoisseur of pwnage, I salute you for an especially fine example.
Also I will never again get a stalagmite and stalagtite confused. So, there, this thread HAS achieved something. :laugh4:
Tribesman
01-17-2007, 19:56
Jerry the Sperm Whale's "Bible O' Revelations." second edition
Heretic , the apostates who follow the first edition are bad enough but them second editioners are the spawn of Stan (thats Stan the eight tentacled monster of the depths with evil intentions of suckering any of Frogs followers why stray from the holy Shoal )
True believers only follow the authors own notes as sent to the publisher before proof reading .:yes:
Yanus , have you read the Cretinist "scientific" explanation for chalk on Hams website ?
It might give you a good laugh .
I'm confused how you can supposedly debunk radio-carbon dating. Radioactive decay is very predictable, and you can clearly see it happening with isotopes of shorter half-lives.
It'd be like living a billion years and clearly seeing evolution occuring, then saying it isn't happening.
Tribesman
01-17-2007, 22:36
I'm confused how you can supposedly debunk radio-carbon dating.
Well mistakes can be made in the process , which means it must be a flawed scientific method because it is not perfect like G*d would do it .
But the main reason it can be debunked is because the Bible says that the earth is only a few thousand years old , carbon dating says otherwise so carbon dating is obviously wrong and therefore thouroughly debunked .
BTW anyone seen Hams Tuesday news article ?
There is a carving at Ankor which clearly proves that people were living with dinosaurs in Cambodia less than a thousand years ago :yes:
I can't believe I missed this quote.
GOD said that man could eat meat, not satan.
Lies and slander! You Christians just don't have the nerve to admit that Satan had the good sense to invent bacon and your god didn't.
Samurai Waki
01-18-2007, 00:59
If god wanted us to be perfect he wouldn't have invented the taste bud... or maybe it was evolution's way of telling a human wether something was likely poisonous or not...
Beren Son Of Barahi
01-18-2007, 01:02
like a whale in a bath-tub, vuk and Navaros are out of their depths. like i said Vuk, if you want to talk about the Qur'an or Islam, i am more then happy to.
to the other Christians here; just because people are attacking the statements made by vuk and Navaros, doesn't mean we are attack you or your religion.
Here's a link to some expert debunking on the subject:
http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...ylorIMMd04.htm
also if wiki is a bad source of information, the surely relying on "www.creationism.org" for expert advise on radioactive dating, is certainly worst.
BTW expert in what exactly?? i' am an expert at farting in the mornings, but thats doesn't mean i should run about proclaiming the sun is a giant ball of orange juice...:spider: :whip:
or maybe it was evolution's way of telling a human wether something was likely poisonous or not
Considering the rampant rise of oral herpes, that must not be the case.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-18-2007, 03:09
like a whale in a bath-tub, vuk and Navaros are out of their depths. like i said Vuk, if you want to talk about the Qur'an or Islam, i am more then happy to.
to the other Christians here; just because people are attacking the statements made by vuk and Navaros, doesn't mean we are attack you or your religion.
Navaros doesn't qualify as any type of Christian as far as I am concerned, so you can attack his beliefs and statements as much as you want, absolutely nothing to do with me. I'll even join you.
I do actually want to talk about Islam. This "people of the book" thing which covers Christians and Jews. Does it mean that we don't go to hell? Or is it just that you're suppossed to put up with us, rather like the unfortunate cousin?
I'm not stirring, it's a serious question, because according to the Bible, tolerance or no, it's Jesus or the pit.
Beren Son Of Barahi
01-18-2007, 04:50
Navaros doesn't qualify as any type of Christian as far as I am concerned, so you can attack his beliefs and statements as much as you want, absolutely nothing to do with me. I'll even join you.
I do actually want to talk about Islam. This "people of the book" thing which covers Christians and Jews. Does it mean that we don't go to hell? Or is it just that you're suppossed to put up with us, rather like the unfortunate cousin?
I'm not stirring, it's a serious question, because according to the Bible, tolerance or no, it's Jesus or the pit.
Firstly i am not an Imam (the best people to answer questions about Islam), i am not even Muslim , i worked in indo as an aid worker for a long time, but having lived there i have had a pretty up-close look at the worlds biggest Muslim nation. Like i said earlier i am not as knowledgeable about the Qu'ran as i am with the real life workings of Muslims.
The Qu'ran just like the bible can be quoted to say just about anything, the focus of hardliners would be along the lines of any non believer is an infidel, without mention of the parts that state that tolerance is a main requirement of all Muslims. The moderates would say that tolerance, understanding along with love of all gods children is more important. there is however a strong feeling due in coarse of the history of invasions with-in the Muslim world that infidels on Muslim soil is to be meet with force. i can't give a good answer, but i will try to get one for you....
EDIT:: i have found link, it looks like the older style of moderates.::http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/people_of_the_book_the_muslims.html
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/the_pacifism_of_islam.html
it might be considered watered-down left crap by some, but many feel that the extreme views get too much credit.
jesus is where Islam and Christians differ, Islam has many prophets but only one god, the Prophets are not god themselves. the the emphases being on the Prophet Muhammad and god (Allah), where as Christians worship Jesus as the lord Christ and savior, believing that God and jesus are one and the same??
Reenk Roink
01-18-2007, 21:27
Same old creation bunk...same old evolution bunk...
Paul Feyerabend folks...Paul Feyerabend... :yes:
Anything goes :bow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-19-2007, 00:31
Beren: The Nicaean Creed established the Holy Trinity, one God with three faces, Yaweh being one, Jesus another and the Holy Ghost the third. However, other pre-Nicaean Christian sects, such as the Arians took a very different view.
Arian Christianity views Jesus the same way Islam views Mohammed.
Defend it, then. Else I'll be forced to "make a statement of fact" about Christianity...
Sorry, but I've been away for a while. Don't have much time now, but I will try to do my best...then I'll read all the posts I've missed.
Alright, lets take the war like nature of islam first.
I think it best to copy verses direct from my koran.
VIII/12: When thy Lord inspired the angels (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
XCVIII/6: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the people of the Scripture and idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
IX/5: Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor- due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
IX/73: Oh Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
LXIX/30-37: (It will be said)Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in Allah the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat.
XLIV/43-50: LO! the tree of Zaqqum (The tree that grows in the heart of hell bearing fruits like devil's heads) - the food of the sinner. Like molten brass, it seetheth in their bellies as the seething of boiling water. (And it will be said): Take him and drag him to the midst of hell, then pour upon his head the torment of boiling water. Saying: TASTE! LO! thou wast forsooth the mighty, the noble! Lo! this is that whereof ye used to doubt.
IX/123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
IV/144: O Ye who believe! choose not disbelievers for your friends in place of believers. Would you give Allah a clear warrant against you ?
And the one I love:
IX/29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility.
Sorry that is all I can do, I am very busy. Will come back soon with the one on women.
EDIT: Here also are some not from the koran, but very important to muslim teachings.
Sahih Al Bukhari, 216:"I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no God but Allah & that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah & until he performs the prayers & pays the Zakat."
Sahih Muslim, 217: "Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus if you kill, KILL WELL, & if you slaughter, SLAUGHTER WELL. Let each one of you sharpen his blade."
Now THAT'S peacefull
Goofball
01-19-2007, 00:51
Sorry, but I've been away for a while. Don't have much time now, but I will try to do my best...then I'll read all the posts I've missed.
Alright, lets take the war like nature of islam first.
I think it best to copy verses direct from my koran.
VIII/12: When thy Lord inspired the angels (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
XCVIII/6: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the people of the Scripture and idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
IX/5: Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor- due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
IX/73: Oh Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
LXIX/30-37: (It will be said)Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in Allah the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat.
XLIV/43-50: LO! the tree of Zaqqum (The tree that grows in the heart of hell bearing fruits like devil's heads) - the food of the sinner. Like molten brass, it seetheth in their bellies as the seething of boiling water. (And it will be said): Take him and drag him to the midst of hell, then pour upon his head the torment of boiling water. Saying: TASTE! LO! thou wast forsooth the mighty, the noble! Lo! this is that whereof ye used to doubt.
IX/123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
IV/144: O Ye who believe! choose not disbelievers for your friends in place of believers. Would you give Allah a clear warrant against you ?
And the one I love:
IX/29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility.
Sorry that is all I can do, I am very busy. Will come back soon with the one on women.
EDIT: Here also are some not from the koran, but very important to muslim teachings.
Sahih Al Bukhari, 216:"I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no God but Allah & that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah & until he performs the prayers & pays the Zakat."
Sahih Muslim, 217: "Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus if you kill, KILL WELL, & if you slaughter, SLAUGHTER WELL. Let each one of you sharpen his blade."
Now THAT'S peacefull
Dude, you need to read the Bible.
There's nothing in what you just posted that can't be matched intolerance-for-intolerance with quotes from the OT.
All of the Big 3 religions have in their basic tenets a precedent for killing or forcing conversion on non-believers.
Dude, you need to read the Bible.
There's nothing in what you just posted that can't be matched intolerance-for-intolerance with quotes from the OT.
All of the Big 3 religions have in their basic tenets a precedent for killing or forcing conversion on non-believers.
I'm listening...
Pardon me as I dust off my koran now and search for some good verses about islamic views on women.
What are women to islamic peoples:
II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will...
I don't like to compare religions, but you are always bashing Christians and saying they are evil and treat women poorly (which is BS as Christian men treated women better than any other men in the world did....), but if you read what the Bible says about women, it says that they are meant to be "an Help Mate", and a blessing, and only good things - a stark contrast to what muslims say!!
IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
First verse is about women and second is about men.
IV/15: If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.
IV/16: If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.
XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies...
From the hadith:
If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)
It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man except her husband when she is made up or well-dressed. (TR. P 430)
A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey which may last three days or longer, unless she is accompanied by her husband, son, father
A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her husband's father, brother and other male relations. (TR. P 432)
She is forbidden to spend any money without the permission of her husband, and it includes giving food to the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)
A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL) or observe fasting (other than RAMADAN) without the permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)
If prostration were a legitimate act other than to God, woman should have prostrated to her husband. (TR. P 428)
If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse the woman must come immediately even if she is baking bread at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)
The marriage of a woman to her man is not substantive. It is precarious. For example if the father of the husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do so. (TR. P 440)
A woman who seeks KHULA i.e. divorce from her man, without a just cause, shall not enter paradise. (TR. P 440)
Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)
If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband, she becomes the target of the curses of angles. Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's bed. (Bokhari P 93)
Women who are ungrateful to their men are the denizens of hell; it is an act of ingratitude for a woman to say: "I have never seen any good from you." (Bokhari P 96)
A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of her own body. Even her milk belongs to her husband. (Bokhari P 27) She is not allowed to practise birth control either.
Man I'll tell you, I would not like to be a muslim woman. Again, while I seriously dislike comparing religions, as this is about not being able to say true things about islam and other religion v.s. throwing out insults about Christianity, I think it appropriate to say, I'd rather be a Christian woman than a muslim woman any day.
Mod: If I am wrong, then please delete last paragraph.
Goofball
01-19-2007, 01:13
I'm listening...
Pardon me as I dust off my koran now and search for some good verses about islamic views on women.
*sigh*
I didn't think I'd have to bother, since you claim to be a Christian, and it's fairly well known even among us infidels that the Bible is full of crazy stuff, but okay:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. Deuteronomy 17:12
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. Deuteronomy 13:7-12
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. Leviticus 24:10-16
And you were saying something about women?
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Deuteronomy 20:10-14
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7-11
Oh, I don't know. It doesn't look like the Bible is any easier on women than the Quran is...
Beren Son Of Barahi
01-19-2007, 01:21
The Qu'ran just like the bible can be quoted to say just about anything, the focus of hardliners would be along the lines of any non believer is an infidel, without mention of the parts that state that tolerance is a main requirement of all Muslims. The moderates would say that tolerance, understanding along with love of all gods children is more important. there is however a strong feeling due in coarse of the history of invasions with-in the Muslim world that infidels on Muslim soil is to be meet with force.
firstly, your quotes fall under the above....In regards to Muslim Women, how much of that is culture and how much is religion? like all religions, Islam has been used for centuries to maintain control, or is used to keep people in power. but in Islam women and men are not treated as equals.
I'm listening...
Pardon me as I dust off my koran now and search for some good verses about islamic views on women.
I would suggest if your going to quote the Quran you learn how to spell it first. Which if you owned a copy you would know. Therefore I say all your reference are invalid and probably some anti-Islamic propaganda you've trolled up from Christian websites.
As said the biabal has equally as violent statements regarding non believers, Im pretty sure I saw it quoted in the Athiest thread
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73476&page=2
post 146
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
Should you persist in deliberately misspelling the Quran - I will consider it a slur against the Islamic faith
Goofball
01-19-2007, 01:26
firstly, your quotes fall under the above....In regards to Muslim Women, how much of that is culture and how much is religion? like all religions, Islam has been used for centuries to maintain control, or is used to keep people in power. but in Islam women and men are not treated as equals.
Nor are they by fundamentalist Christians.
My point was that adequate proof can be found in either book to support the idea that both Islam and Christianity have their basis in hate and intolerance.
But for the most part, moderate practitioners of both religions ignore all the really evil stuff.
Watchman
01-19-2007, 01:42
It tends to be kind of inconvenient anyway.
Tribesman
01-19-2007, 01:47
Just wondering Vuk , since you are now studying Islamic scripture :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: , could you tell me what it says about how people who righteously follow the teachings of the Torah or the Bible should be treated ?
Or does the website you found only seek out whatever negative snippets it can cobble together ?
As a side topic on the position of women in different religeous groups , have any of you ever been to a Jehovah's Witness wedding ?
I would suggest if your going to quote the Quran you learn how to spell it first. Which if you owned a copy you would know. Therefore I say all your reference are invalid and probably some anti-Islamic propaganda you've trolled up from Christian websites.
My spelling of the koran is neither a mistake or an insult to muslims.
As said the biabal has equally as violent statements regarding non believers, Im pretty sure I saw it quoted in the Athiest thread
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73476&page=2
post 146
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Well if that wasn't the most twisted thing I have ever heard. If you are not Christian, you do not live in the Isrealite camp. It is talking about Isrealites who transgress God's Covenant, not conquering and maiming other countries. It is simple. If you with to live in a Christian place, be Christian. They had special laws for nonbelievers. This is refering to Christians who start worshipping other gods inside the Isrealite camp.
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Again, they are talking about disobeying GOD'S law, not the priest's. It does well to read what comes before and after. Perhaps you should before you take a verse and present it as proof
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Never says you can't exchange greeting with them, but that you can't wish them God speed. (ie the blessing of God on their travels)
This was not God speeking to Christians, but a letter John wrote to the Church. It is NOT a law of God as God says you can. That was John's advice. This Book is added to the Bible in an historical sense. Times were different then, and he was not advising us, but the ancient church.
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
"Them who cause divisions and make offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them"
Not cut off their fingers...
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Ya, they are. You have to believe that if you are a Christian, duh! If He is and they say He isn't, then of course!
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
I agree. God's laws are goodness. If you don't obey His laws, then you are wickedness.
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Again, you point is? I don't see how this matches ANYTHING from the koran
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
They will, if not they will get the second death. When you think of it, we owe everything including our lives and souls to God. Who the hech are we to disobey Him?
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
He is saying that them who do His will do not do wrong. It would be quite apparent if you read what came before and after.
Should you persist in deliberately misspelling the Quran - I will consider it a slur against the Islamic faith
Consider it what you will. I refuse to spell the koran as you would have me. :D
*sigh*
I didn't think I'd have to bother, since you claim to be a Christian, and it's fairly well known even among us infidels that the Bible is full of crazy stuff, but okay:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. Deuteronomy 17:12
Talking about Christian Isrealites that try to pervert peoples hearts.
Again, this was iinstruction on how to rule the Isrealite people. If you didn't like it, you could get out. They are talking about perverters here.
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Christians had become perverted and turned away from God. He was talking about Isreal, not any nation they feel like.
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. Deuteronomy 13:7-12
He is talking about people who would bring the wrath of God on them. Again, talking about how to givern Christians, not other nations. During that time they got direct orders from God, so if they were ordered to do something and you think it wrong, you will have to take it up with God. God made it clear that that ended.
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. Leviticus 24:10-16
It is against God's law. Don't say it if you don't like it :D Serious things have serious consequences. I still don't see how this compares to the koran at all.
And you were saying something about women?
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Not as sex slaves. That was illegal (unlike with islamic peoples). As slaves (who after seven years got their freedom as you'd know if you read your Bible) The guys got it worse, because after seven years of labor they were not free to go, now, they died.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
No matter what, he can't divorce her. If he is caught doing anything to her, he can be stoned. As long as the wife obeys the law, she can do anything. If I was God, I'd say death to guy, but God knows best. (And I believe she can not marry him, but sentence him to death if she chooses.
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
They are saying if she willingly has sex with him. It is rape because the woman is bethrothed. He is put to death to, it is not unfair at all.
When a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, not sex slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7-11
That is saying if a guy breaks the law and his contract with the woman, he cannot sell her to a foriegn nation. I don't know what version you used, but...
If a slave owner broke contract with a guy servant, he could sell him to anyone.
Oh, I don't know. It doesn't look like the Bible is any easier on women than the Quran is...
To make a statement like that, I must come to the conclusion that you are smoking something really strong. Women were treated DAMN well in the Bible. Sure their lives were harder than modern women's, but men's were harder also. It was harder times. The Bible was not unfair to women at all.
I do not see that the bible is even in any small way near anything like the koran.
Tribesman
01-19-2007, 02:30
I do not see that the bible is even in any small way near anything like the koran.
So there are two possible options .
It is either a case of you haven't read your bible or you are living proof that there are none so blind as those who will not see .:thumbsdown:
But for the most part, moderate practitioners of both religions ignore all the really evil stuff.
Well, christianity is based on the new testament, the jews base their views on the old testament.
It's nice that youfound some quotes from the old testament, but one could say these rules don't really count for christianity anymore. Christians also don't sacrifice young lambs anymore, do they?
Tribesman
01-19-2007, 03:58
Well, christianity is based on the new testament, the jews base their views on the old testament.
It's nice that youfound some quotes from the old testament, but one could say these rules don't really count for christianity anymore. Christians also don't sacrifice young lambs anymore, do they?
Well the topic is fundamental Christains and the literal acceptance of every word from the Bible as the divinely inspired absolute truth .
So if they reject the truth about laws of God as set out in old testament scripture then what about the truth about the story of creation ?
Now Nav has been asked about this before , but all we got was a "well some of those laws don't apply any more because ....well because...." his ability to maintiain the wind up let him down when he couldn't identify which laws didn't apply and where there was later scripture saying they didn't apply .
So remember Husar , this topic isn't about Christainity as such , it is about the fundamentalist young earth cretinist branch .
As a little diversion , can anyone name the President of a Republic from the beginning of the last century(and the end of the previous one) whose fundamentlist Christian view was that the earth was indeed flat and not roundish at all ? (clue , he had rather a big beard) .
Cataphract_Of_The_City
01-19-2007, 04:01
The point is that while christianity transformed mainly to a good form (faith in jesus, going to church, charity etc) with only a few exceptions, the majority of muslims take the koran quite literally, especially the woman part.
Soulforged
01-19-2007, 04:20
Well, christianity is based on the new testament, the jews base their views on the old testament.
It's nice that youfound some quotes from the old testament, but one could say these rules don't really count for christianity anymore. Christians also don't sacrifice young lambs anymore, do they?
This is untrue. It might apply for deists, pantheists, pagans (heathens) or simple deniers. But the truth is that, logically (if that has any value on religion) Jesus came to fulfill the second "pact" between the people of Israel and God (the first made way back on the time of the twelve tribes), to save them (a lot of doctrine here, I will just jump it), as such it follows that both testaments have to be read as a whole total reveletion, wheter it's from man or God. If it's from God, and God is perfect, then there's no excuse to ignore the first and consider only the second, even with all their evident contradictions.
Apart from that, there was never a single word from the first Church wich stated that the Old Testament was not to be taken as a part of the christian faith, in fact many very old rules from those books still apply up to date, like the 10 commandments of course.
Is true, however, that you'll find a lot of people who call themselves christians because they allegedly follow the teachings of a man who lived thousands of years ago in the land of Palestina and Israel called Jesus. Now considering that the supposed history of this holy man is only told through the recounts of their partners (wich in many cases results in contradictory doctrine), I don't know how can anyone seriously say that they deny such paragraphs of such apostle or prophet, but they consider the other as valids. Christian is only that who accepts a group of basic principles of faith upheld by the Church as a whole, if he upholds his own basic principles is just an ordinary deist, wich happens to consider this person Jesus as someone holy.
As far as I know, and I know some jewish people, most jewish don't sacrifice lambs either. This is without a doubt the work of time and the increase of city's sizes and city's populations. Nothing directly related to faith, though it has several derived effects on it, evidently.
Finally, and this is somewhat a tiresome rethoric already, but, anyone who reads words or sees a picture and worships them will have serious problems when trying to not become a fanatic. Words are only valid if there's a reason to support them, and this reason has to be more than the simple fact that they were written by a given author in a given time or in the vein of certain ideals.
Watchman
01-19-2007, 05:07
The point is that while christianity transformed mainly to a good form (faith in jesus, going to church, charity etc) with only a few exceptions, the majority of muslims take the koran quite literally, especially the woman part.And you know this from what exactly...?
And moreover, have fun sorting out how much of that is actual religious content and how much is good old patriarchical conservatism of the same school thanks to which women in Christian countries were long told God made them intellectually inferior and whatnot and, as such, also not eligible to vote and so on...
You know, the same sort of stuff thanks to which the Finnish state church still hasn't gotten it through to all the clergymen that they're not allowed to decline working with female priests.
I do not see that the bible is even in any small way near anything like the koran.
you have been shown to be incorrect, your continued beligerance is ignorant at best, biggoted and blinkered at worst.
You and people like you are one of the reasons I have walked away from the Christian faith - the views you express about other religions are not what I would consider 'Christian' in any good sense of the word. Its interesting how you came in here crying about scientist attacking Christianity and now you zealously do exactly that to Islam.
pot meet kettle
*the ignore function has become my new best friend*
bye Vuk I wont be suffering any more of your biggoted views :thumbsdown:
Azi Tohak
01-19-2007, 07:46
I want to see anyone stick whatever chemical compounds they want, in a bucket, heat it, shake it, massage it whatever, and see if a bacteria grows. Remember, no bacteria to start with, just like the molten ball that was Earth billions of years ago when my high school english teachers were teenagers.
Isn't that how life started?
Azi
Watchman
01-19-2007, 07:51
I thought that experiment's been done a few times already ?
Azi Tohak
01-19-2007, 08:01
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#precursors
Found it!
If it wasn't 1am on a work night, I would read it. Gives me something to do tomorrow!
Azi
Banquo's Ghost
01-19-2007, 08:08
I want to see anyone stick whatever chemical compounds they want, in a bucket, heat it, shake it, massage it whatever, and see if a bacteria grows. Remember, no bacteria to start with, just like the molten ball that was Earth billions of years ago when my high school english teachers were teenagers.
Isn't that how life started?
i
You first. I want to see a beardy fellow in an ill-fitting robe snap his fingers and make a cosmos. :shocked2:
Silliness apart, try looking up the Miller-Urey experiment and developmental research links. If, of course, you are really looking for information.
You first. I want to see a beardy fellow in an ill-fitting robe snap his fingers and make a cosmos.
Tell me how all the matter that created the big bang got there in the first place. Matter and energy do not create themselves.
As banq pointed out, amino acids are easily produced in the labratory. One of the building blocks to life. There is also the find back in '98 of the marsian rock containing life, the results from that find have had a profound impact on how life could have developed. I can't even recall the term used for the sub cellular life found in the rock though.
Watchman
01-19-2007, 08:44
Tell me how all the matter that created the big bang got there in the first place. Matter and energy do not create themselves.Want to discuss the issue of where the assorted Deus Fabers came from in the first place...?
That, at least, seems to be a topic where science and faith draw equally blank.
Matter and energy do not create themselves.
Unless you're in a vacuum of course.
Virtual particles!
Goofball
01-19-2007, 17:16
Well, christianity is based on the new testament, the jews base their views on the old testament.
It's nice that youfound some quotes from the old testament, but one could say these rules don't really count for christianity anymore. Christians also don't sacrifice young lambs anymore, do they?
Christians don't follow the OT?
I was under the impression that the Bible was the Holy Book of Christians.
Bi·ble –noun 1.the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. 2.Also called Hebrew Scriptures. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hebrew Scriptures) the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament. 3.(often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the sacred writings of any religion. 4.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
English assassin
01-19-2007, 18:04
There is also the find back in '98 of the marsian rock containing life, the results from that find have had a profound impact on how life could have developed. I can't even recall the term used for the sub cellular life found in the rock though.
"inorganic", sadly. Although I gather from what we know of extremophiles on earth that no one is going to be very surprised if we do find that there was once, or possibly still is, simple life on Mars.
Oh, no, wait, that's not in the bible. Obviously there can be no life on Mars silly me.
Incidentally, anyone wanting a good read on astrobiology (and lets face it who wouldn't) could do worse than this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896/sr=1-1/qid=1169226014/ref=sr_1_1/202-1819798-7945406?ie=UTF8&s=books. very interesting indeed. The one sentence conclusion is that life at about the bacterial level is probably pretty common, large multicellular animals walikg abiout are probably very, very rare.
So take care of yourselves: you might be the only intelligent life in the universe.
The point is that while christianity transformed mainly to a good form (faith in jesus, going to church, charity etc) with only a few exceptions, the majority of muslims take the koran quite literally
Not really that true. There are just as many examples of christianity being used in a bad way as there are for islam.
the reason many muslims take the koran literally is because more muslims are uneducated, and therefore belive what they are told/are unable to read into it in the same way... this in no way makes islam a "bad form" religion, when taking the koran literally there is just as much peaceful stuff as bad stuff :2thumbsup:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-19-2007, 18:11
Christians don't follow the OT?
I was under the impression that the Bible was the Holy Book of Christians.
Bi·ble –noun 1.the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. 2.Also called Hebrew Scriptures. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hebrew Scriptures) the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament. 3.(often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the sacred writings of any religion. 4.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
The new testemant trumps the old.
For example, Jews are allowed to get divorced, Christians aren't.
Tribesman
01-19-2007, 18:40
The new testemant trumps the old.
For example, Jews are allowed to get divorced, Christians aren't.
Depends which verses you read from which books of the NT .
Paul is quite a funny read on the whole woman/marriage topic .
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-19-2007, 19:05
Oh, the NT is a mess granted. I often wonder why Paul is in there at all.
Tribesman
01-19-2007, 19:23
Yep , but I was thinking more along the lines of the contradictions between Matt And Mark , since if NT trumps OT surely Gospel trumps letters .
Goofball
01-19-2007, 19:48
I do not see that the bible is even in any small way near anything like the koran.
Unbelievable.
You quoted some Quran scriptures showing that "1$L4m = teh sux 4 girlz & infid31s." I posted Biblical scriptures that demonstrated exactly the same thing about Christianity (assuming both books are to be taken literally, which you are doing with the Quran).
Then you make up a bunch of crazy justifications saying how the Christianity is still "kinder and gentler" (you even went so far as to for Crissake change one of the Biblical quotes to suit your purposes), and say you can't understand what I am talking about.
Mental midgetry at its finest...
For the record:
I am not a big fan of either Islam or Christianity, as they are currently practiced (mostly hypocrisy and intolerance, instead of love and acceptance). I am not out to defend Islam.
I am simply pointing out to you that, well, I think Jesus said it best:
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...
Now Vuk, verily do I bid thee, go forth and sin no more.
Duke of Gloucester
01-19-2007, 19:50
Trying to find something different to say in this debate - how's this:
Let us suppose Navros is right - that the world was created in seven days as described in the bible and that if we don't believe it we will be eternally damned - then it really matters. You can understand why he (and others) are so passionate about it. This could be the difference between heaven and hell. If I believed that I would feel duty bound to try to convert everyone I knew to the right way of thinking. If I am right and the big bang theory and evolution are basically correct, what does it matter what Navros thinks? It won't save him in any sense of the word to be converted to the scientific view. Why then, are there so many passionate anti-creationists? Surely we just lay out the scientific evidence and if people accept it fine and if not, so what? Of course if people spout nonsense claiming it is science, we might say "no, it isn't" but even then why get worked up about it?
Goofball
01-19-2007, 19:57
Trying to find something different to say in this debate - how's this:
Let us suppose Navros is right - that the world was created in seven days as described in the bible and that if we don't believe it we will be eternally damned - then it really matters. You can understand why he (and others) are so passionate about it. This could be the difference between heaven and hell. If I believed that I would feel duty bound to try to convert everyone I knew to the right way of thinking. If I am right and the big bang theory and evolution are basically correct, what does it matter what Navros thinks? It won't save him in any sense of the word to be converted to the scientific view. Why then, are there so many passionate anti-creationists? Surely we just lay out the scientific evidence and if people accept it fine and if not, so what? Of course if people spout nonsense claiming it is science, we might say "no, it isn't" but even then why get worked up about it?
I can't speak for everyone, but as I mentioned earlier I am not anti-creationist.
I am simply against having creationists try to pass their beliefs off as science and teach them to my children in school.
I have no problem with this museum at all.
Azi Tohak
01-19-2007, 20:11
You first. I want to see a beardy fellow in an ill-fitting robe snap his fingers and make a cosmos. :shocked2:
Silliness apart, try looking up the Miller-Urey experiment and developmental research links. If, of course, you are really looking for information.
Sneering at a fellow board member by a Moderator? You have a responsibility to maintain the civility here and if you fail to do so, then why are you a moderator?
I said I was looking for information. It happened to be 1am when I found it. But I also found this:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
Note the objections raised to the admittedly interesting experiements.
So you can (sort of) claim that the basis of life can be formed. The next step is how they came to work together right? Now I'm hunting for info on that too.
Azi
Azi Tohak
01-19-2007, 20:16
I can't speak for everyone, but as I mentioned earlier I am not anti-creationist.
I am simply against having creationists try to pass their beliefs off as science and teach them to my children in school.
I have no problem with this museum at all.
I agree with Goofball.
I'm a Christian going to a strong Baptist church here in Texas. But I'm also a scientist (well applied science anyway, Chemical Engineering degree) and I fail to see why evolutionary theory is so often proclaimed as (pardon the pun) gospel.
My objection is that while evolution looks good, as far as I can tell it simply has too many holes for me to accept that it is a Law of Science, as so many people seem to think it is. Scientific Laws like those of Thermodynamics I have no problem with because I can't find a hole in them.
Azi
P.S. Sorry for the double post.
AntiochusIII
01-19-2007, 20:28
My objection is that while evolution looks good, as far as I can tell it simply has too many holes for me to accept that it is a Law of Science, as so many people seem to think it is. Scientific Laws like those of Thermodynamics I have no problem with because I can't find a hole in them.Meh. That's probably because with something like thermodynamics all you really have to do is test the whole thing in real life. Biology? You can't emulate millions of years of evolutionary process in a matter of days, months, or even years.
The study had always focused on both fossil evidence and living life forms, among other things. And, pardon the pun, the study of evolution is still evolving.
It's the same as history. There are an incredible amount of holes in our knowledge of human history despite the way it's taught as simple facts. Are we going to say history is false and Genghis Khan's a Chinese lie just because there are holes in our knowledge?
Oh wait, I think those extremists already did. 6000 years of Earth life my butt. My French teacher is older than that.
Also, the unusual stance that the Theory of Evolution takes in popular imagination -- the antagonist of your Most Holy Bible, an alternate Gospel -- is due to the religious' response, not the scientists' insistence. So the Church took issue with Darwin, a religious man by all accounts; now a bunch of nutjobs take issue with "evolutionists" (what a stupid term) just because. It all makes those who happen to support the theory defend it, and the nutjobs repeat their attack on it, so the supporters had to defend it again, and a vicious cycle is born. Bang. Evolution's now at the forefront of the public imagination.
It had something to do with Darwin's theory directly contradicting the Genesis, I guess. But I couldn't in my right mind somehow believe my Most Honorable Nameless Ancestor descended from some nudist in hott gardens 'round Armenia anyway.
English assassin
01-19-2007, 20:35
Trying to find something different to say in this debate - how's this:
Let us suppose Navros is right - that the world was created in seven days as described in the bible and that if we don't believe it we will be eternally damned - then it really matters. You can understand why he (and others) are so passionate about it. This could be the difference between heaven and hell. If I believed that I would feel duty bound to try to convert everyone I knew to the right way of thinking. If I am right and the big bang theory and evolution are basically correct, what does it matter what Navros thinks? It won't save him in any sense of the word to be converted to the scientific view. Why then, are there so many passionate anti-creationists? Surely we just lay out the scientific evidence and if people accept it fine and if not, so what? Of course if people spout nonsense claiming it is science, we might say "no, it isn't" but even then why get worked up about it?
Pascal's wager. I've always thought that was for cowards :beam:
I guess some of us just have this funny idea that truth matters. Actually I suppose both sides have that idea. One side prefers to find truth by disengaging brain and seeing what it says in the Big Book Of Not Thinking For Yourself, (AKA faith, AKA believing things without a good reason*) the other side engages brain, even if we all know that our brains are pretty fallable objects.
*this comment should be taken to be addressed at using faith to determine what to believe about observable phenomenon in the so called real world, where brain engagement is a viable option. No slur is intended at those who have faith that there is a god, or that god likes them, or any other theological issue, as to which it is only possible to have a faith based position. I thenkyew
Banquo's Ghost
01-19-2007, 20:56
Sneering at a fellow board member by a Moderator? You have a responsibility to maintain the civility here and if you fail to do so, then why are you a moderator?
I'm sorry that you felt I was sneering. Moderators happen to be allowed to have opinions too you know. :beam:
To explain: You opened your request for knowledge thusly:
I want to see anyone stick whatever chemical compounds they want, in a bucket, heat it, shake it, massage it whatever, and see if a bacteria grows. Remember, no bacteria to start with, just like the molten ball that was Earth billions of years ago when my high school english teachers were teenagers.
Isn't that how life started?
I read that as a pretty silly demand of science to prove its hypothesis by a clearly impossible demonstration.
My counter was to put the creationist viewpoint to the same silly degree of proof. I had an astonished smiley to underline the point, and added in the next paragraph, "Silliness apart..."
The idea was to highlight that the standards of "proof" demanded by creationists from science invariably are not applied to their own theories.
I said I was looking for information. It happened to be 1am when I found it. But I also found this:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
Note the objections raised to the admittedly interesting experiements.
So you can (sort of) claim that the basis of life can be formed. The next step is how they came to work together right? Now I'm hunting for info on that too.
I'm glad that you are really looking for information. :book2:
Duke of Gloucester
01-19-2007, 21:07
Pascal's wager. I've always thought that was for cowards :beam:
A similar argument I suppose, but I am not suggesting people believe creationism "just in case". It is more a case of seeing why people try to convert others to creationism, but not understanding similar zeal in the prophets of the Theory of Evolution.
I guess some of us just have this funny idea that truth matters. Actually I suppose both sides have that idea. One side prefers to find truth by disengaging brain and seeing what it says in the Big Book Of Not Thinking For Yourself, (AKA faith, AKA believing things without a good reason*) the other side engages brain, even if we all know that our brains are pretty fallable objects.
It is very egotistical to believe that our understanding of a situation differs from another because of some inherent superiority in ourselves, and that, therefore our ideas are superiour. I don't think for a minute that you or I have thought for ourselves more than Navros has. I could be wrong and you might have worked out evolution and the big bang from first principles or you could be a cosmologist or evolutionary biologist. If not, you are like me, influenced by different people from Navros. He doesn't believe the bible because he is too lazy to think for himself, but because things in his life have led him to believe the bible has authority. In the same way we rely on the scientific method because of our experiences and influences.
It is also not the case that the Big Bang and Evolution are "the truth". They are the best explanations that fit the scientific evidence as it stands. A truly scientific stance would embrace the possibility that they might be wrong - it might actually be excited at the prospect that just around the corner there will be some strong evidence that leads us away from these ideas in the same way we have moved away from the ideas of caloric and the phlogiston theory. This is another reason I can't understand the evolutionary zealots.
Of course one area where we can stand up for the truth is when false science is put forward to support creationism, but even then the rebuttals should be scientific and measured. That's the way scientists (are meant to) operate. Rival theories and disagreements are good for science.
doc_bean
01-19-2007, 21:11
Scientific Laws like those of Thermodynamics I have no problem with because I can't find a hole in them.
There are probably some holes in them if you look into quantum physics and related experiments. Almost all engineering is based on 18th-19th century science, combined with mid 20th century math, it's not usually state of the art as far as 'understanding' goes, that's not the point, the point of engineering is application.
NO law of science is absolute, or 'holy', that's what makes it science, it's debatable, open to scrutiny. So is evolution, but some people seem to take this as a hint that it's not a valid theory. It is, it is the best scientific theory available at the moment (and the only one on its subject, afaik). Just like Newtonian physics were once the best available theory for, well, physics.
Duke of Gloucester
01-19-2007, 21:21
There are probably some holes in them if you look into quantum physics and related experiments. Almost all engineering is based on 18th-19th century science, combined with mid 20th century math, it's not usually state of the art as far as 'understanding' goes, that's not the point, the point of engineering is application.
I think the Laws of Thermodynamics are sound (according to current understanding) and are a macroscopic manifestation of quantum mechanics in operation, but I agree that it would not make any difference to Engineering if it turned out there were exceptions in extreme circumstances.
NO law of science is absolute, or 'holy', that's what makes it science, it's debatable, open to scrutiny. So is evolution, but some people seem to take this as a hint that it's not a valid theory. It is, it is the best scientific theory available at the moment (and the only one on its subject, afaik). Just like Newtonian physics were once the best available theory for, well, physics.
:yes:
The point about there being no serious rival to evolution is interesting. The most interesting thought in science occurs when there are rival explanations, so maybe those who put forward Intelligent Design are doing science a favour by making biologists check evolutionary ideas more carefully.
Banquo's Ghost
01-19-2007, 21:49
The point about there being no serious rival to evolution is interesting. The most interesting thought in science occurs when there are rival explanations, so maybe those who put forward Intelligent Design are doing science a favour by making biologists check evolutionary ideas more carefully.
Your point is reasonable, except that Intelligent Design does no one a favour because it is not a testable theory. It doesn't make anyone check facts more thoroughly, because it's a joke theory masquerading as science. I have no problem with anyone positing that God or someone started the whole thing - but that's not science, its mythology - it can't be tested, because you can't test God. Similarly with ID - it may well be that someone is guiding the whole thing, but its inherently untestable, so it can't be science.
If God is behind evolution, he goes to immense lengths to disguise his presence. This is fine - again, I can't prove it either way, so I have no issue with those who believe this as a possibility. It doesn't affect the reality of evolution.
But: there are no serious rivals to the theory of evolution through natural selection, because it is very solidly based in observation, just like gravity. There are several competing strains of thought as to how selection works to create the evolution - for example, are the selective pressures at the gene level or the species level. There are several competing arguments as to whether evolution progresses steadily or in bursts and so on. These theories provide quite enough questions for our assumptions.
The last serious challenge to Darwinian evolution (natural selection) was Lamarckian evolution, which was still evolution but with characteristics learned and developed in life being passed on to subsequent generations, rather than mutuations being acted on by selective forces. Interestingly, there are some observational data that now make us think there may be some life in Lamarck yet in some circumstances, but probably only behaviourally.
It is a mistake to think evolution is a less solid theory than gravity or heliocentrism. Our understanding of how it happens is improving all the time, but all real scientists accept that species evolved from simple to complex forms. That's what evolution means. That's what all the data shows.
The only other theory that can be put against evolution of species is that all species were created at the same time, unchanging. That is clearly untrue and can be demonstrated very easily to be untrue - as science. If someone believes it as an article of faith despite the evidence, all well and good, but in the realm of science, it is a failed theory with not a shred of viable evidence.
Goofball
01-19-2007, 22:21
I agree with Goofball.
I'm a Christian going to a strong Baptist church here in Texas. But I'm also a scientist (well applied science anyway, Chemical Engineering degree) and I fail to see why evolutionary theory is so often proclaimed as (pardon the pun) gospel.
My objection is that while evolution looks good, as far as I can tell it simply has too many holes for me to accept that it is a Law of Science, as so many people seem to think it is. Scientific Laws like those of Thermodynamics I have no problem with because I can't find a hole in them.
Azi
P.S. Sorry for the double post.
Evolution is not a law of science. It is a theory, and no serious scientist ever holds it out to be anything other than that.
It's not necessary to buy into it 100%. That's the whole idea behind a theory. Theories are constantly tested against observations and are subject to change when observations and evidence suggest something contrary to the original theory.
So even if you believe the theory to be incomplete, there is no need to dismiss it entirely.
Creationism on the other hand, is static, untestable, and unchangable. It has no basis in science and should never be held out as such. That is the problem with what creationists are trying to do.
Keep your creation stories in religious studies classes, and we'll keep evolutionary theory in science classes.
Good God. Could you imagine what would happen if a scientist proposed that due to the "vast number of holes in creationist stories, we believe it only fair that scientists should be able to teach evolution in churches, just to offer an alternate point of view to children."
~:eek:
Duke of Gloucester
01-19-2007, 22:41
Your point is reasonable, except that Intelligent Design does no one a favour because it is not a testable theory. It doesn't make anyone check facts more thoroughly, because it's a joke theory masquerading as science. I have no problem with anyone positing that God or someone started the whole thing - but that's not science, its mythology - it can't be tested, because you can't test God. Similarly with ID - it may well be that someone is guiding the whole thing, but its inherently untestable, so it can't be science.
I don't think ID is what you say it is. ID, as I understand it, is the suggestion that organisms were designed by an intelligent creator. This is susceptible to scientific consideration. It may not be a testable theory, but the same criticism is leveled at evolution. The truth is there is more to science than the positing of testable hypotheses and their subsequent falsification or otherwise. It probably is a bit of a joke theory - after all there is enough redundancy and overlap of systems (mamalian brain for example) to suggest that organisms evolved rather than each creature being designed from scratch and those who put if forward are motivated by something other than the pure search for scientific truth, but if you think this makes them different from other scientists then you have an idealistic view of the way science is carried out.
It is a mistake to think evolution is a less solid theory than gravity or heliocentrism. Our understanding of how it happens is improving all the time, but all real scientists accept that species evolved from simple to complex forms. That's what evolution means. That's what all the data shows.
Surely it is more solid than either of these. It is accepted that our understanding of gravity is incomplete since we have not discovered the particle that mediates it. As for heliocentrism, the sun is at the centre of the solar system. The important point is that we should be ready for the theory to move on, either by modification at the fringes (in the same way as gravity) or by revolutionary thinking (no pun intended) like heliocentrism.
The only other theory that can be put against evolution of species is that all species were created at the same time, unchanging. That is clearly untrue and can be demonstrated very easily to be untrue - as science. If someone believes it as an article of faith despite the evidence, all well and good, but in the realm of science, it is a failed theory with not a shred of viable evidence.
Just because it is the only theory that is put against evolution of species, this does not mean it is the only one that can be. In addition you haven't stated the rival theory fairly. You have limited it by including "at the same time, unchanging". The "at the same time" bit is against the evidence of the fossil record, but I am not sure that means it is "demonstrated very easily to be untrue". The "unchanging" part can be demonstrated as false because change within a species can be observed. What has not been observed unequivocally (yet) is the emergence of a new species from an old one. Of course that does not mean that this has not happened in the past in precisely the way Darwin suggested.
Please don't think I am sticking up for ID. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who believes in creationism should have the intellectual honesty to say that their beliefs run contrary to the weight of scientific evidence and not just current scientific thinking. On the other hand science should be strong enough to stand or fall on its own evidence and not need to be promoted with a quasi religious zeal.
Duke of Gloucester
01-19-2007, 22:44
I am also a bit cautious about your use of the term "real scientists". There was a time when no "real scientists" believed in plate tectonics, or earlier the microbe theory of contagion. Science needs its mavericks and tends to be held back by a notion that there is an orthodoxy that must be followed.
Well, christianity is based on the new testament, the jews base their views on the old testament.
It's nice that youfound some quotes from the old testament, but one could say these rules don't really count for christianity anymore. Christians also don't sacrifice young lambs anymore, do they?
Christians were required to sacrifice lambs as a symbol of Christ coming and being sacrificed for them. You put your blame into the perfect lamb and he was slain for your sins and offerred to God. When Jesus died it was no longer nessecary. Jesus said that people should study God's Word. As there was not a New Testament at that time, He was obviously referring to the Old Testament. Jesus's death did away with the richuals of the law - not the law. The Old Testament is as relevant as today as when it was written.
The point is that while christianity transformed mainly to a good form (faith in jesus, going to church, charity etc) with only a few exceptions, the majority of muslims take the koran quite literally, especially the woman part.
Christianity is not unfair to women. Those were rules for THAT society, not ours. Those rules were to protect women and still be fair to men.
you have been shown to be incorrect, your continued beligerance is ignorant at best, biggoted and blinkered at worst.
You and people like you are one of the reasons I have walked away from the Christian faith - the views you express about other religions are not what I would consider 'Christian' in any good sense of the word. Its interesting how you came in here crying about scientist attacking Christianity and now you zealously do exactly that to Islam.
pot meet kettle
*the ignore function has become my new best friend*
bye Vuk I wont be suffering any more of your biggoted views :thumbsdown:
Saying the truth isn't Christian? You obviously don't know ANYTHING about Christianity.
You first. I want to see a beardy fellow in an ill-fitting robe snap his fingers and make a cosmos. :shocked2:
Silliness apart, try looking up the Miller-Urey experiment and developmental research links. If, of course, you are really looking for information.
Now I'm not quite sure, but I think that is bordering on blasphemy... Tell me, how do you now God has a beard? Or even a physical form? God said He created man in His image, but not that he ever had a physical form.
Unbelievable.
You quoted some Quran scriptures showing that "1$L4m = teh sux 4 girlz & infid31s." I posted Biblical scriptures that demonstrated exactly the same thing about Christianity (assuming both books are to be taken literally, which you are doing with the Quran).
Then you make up a bunch of crazy justifications saying how the Christianity is still "kinder and gentler" (you even went so far as to for Crissake change one of the Biblical quotes to suit your purposes), and say you can't understand what I am talking about.
Mental midgetry at its finest...
For the record:
I am not a big fan of either Islam or Christianity, as they are currently practiced (mostly hypocrisy and intolerance, instead of love and acceptance). I am not out to defend Islam.
I am simply pointing out to you that, well, I think Jesus said it best:
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...
Now Vuk, verily do I bid thee, go forth and sin no more.
My purpose was NOT to say that the koran (note the spelling :D) was bad to women/"infedels". I was simply defending that from my first argument as I was called on to do so. The Biblical Scriptures you posted were editted (which God said is a BIG no-no...you know, an eternal damnation type of no-no...)
I didn't say it was either kind or gentle, truth is, life isn't either. The Bible is completely fair and without fault. To tell you the truth, there are a lot of things in it I don't understand, but I know that what God said is right (It's called Faith). You twisted the Bible, not me. I took my quote DIRECTLY from my KJ Bible. Word for Word.
Also, I did not give my opinion on the koran, as I would probably be banned if I did. I simply stated fact. I don't think that all muslims are bad, but I do think that the koran is a book of hate. I think muhamed fabricated it, and I think it was written to get fanatical followers (which it has). That is fact; please don't ask for my opinion. I have read a lot on both muhamed and the islamic religion, and what I post is fact. The only religion I give my opinion on is Christianity. If that offends anyone, that is what ignore is for. I am Christian, and on a thread about Christianity, I will express my opinion where appropriate. Christians disagree on a lot of things, and no one knows everything (not even the mighty Vuk :D), but I KNOW that God created the world, and that Christ Jesus was His Son sent to save us. I also know that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. The blasphemous things people say about God and the Bible is very offencive (including things BG says...very disrespectfull. You don't here me going around talking about big bubba muhamed and his harem of pearls...). That was my point, and no one seems to be heeding it - convincing me more and more to start a thread in the WatchTower.
Soulforged
01-20-2007, 00:43
Oh, the NT is a mess granted. I often wonder why Paul is in there at all.
What do you mean Ironwall? Paul is what you could call the most important doctrinary of the earlier christians. In fact, you could consider his letters the most substancial part of the whole New Testament.
Goofball
01-20-2007, 00:53
My purpose was NOT to say that the koran (note the spelling :D) was bad to women/"infedels". I was simply defending that from my first argument as I was called on to do so. The Biblical Scriptures you posted were editted (which God said is a BIG no-no...you know, an eternal damnation type of no-no...)
I didn't say it was either kind or gentle, truth is, life isn't either. The Bible is completely fair and without fault. To tell you the truth, there are a lot of things in it I don't understand, but I know that what God said is right (It's called Faith). You twisted the Bible, not me. I took my quote DIRECTLY from my KJ Bible. Word for Word.
What about the billion or so Muslims who "have faith" that their book is the one full of truths and fairness? Why should I believe you more than them?
Also, I did not give my opinion on the koran, as I would probably be banned if I did.
Yes, you did.
I simply stated fact.
No, you stated opinion.
I don't think that all muslims are bad, but I do think that the koran is a book of hate. I think muhamed fabricated it, and I think it was written to get fanatical followers (which it has).
And you have just stated another opinion...
That is fact; please don't ask for my opinion. I have read a lot on both muhamed and the islamic religion, and what I post is fact.
...that you immediately tried to pass off as fact.
Quite pathetic, really.
The only religion I give my opinion on is Christianity.
I think we now both know that to be patently untrue.
If that offends anyone, that is what ignore is for. I am Christian, and on a thread about Christianity, I will express my opinion where appropriate. Christians disagree on a lot of things, and no one knows everything (not even the mighty Vuk :D), but I KNOW that God created the world, and that Christ Jesus was His Son sent to save us. I also know that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. The blasphemous things people say about God and the Bible is very offencive (including things BG says...very disrespectfull. You don't here me going around talking about big bubba muhamed and his harem of pearls...). That was my point, and no one seems to be heeding it - convincing me more and more to start a thread in the WatchTower.
Oh, please do. I wouldn't miss it for the world...
Let me take a guess at your possible choice of title. How about:
"Budha, You Fat Bastard..."
:idea2:
Happy Friday...
~:cheers:
What about the billion or so Muslims who "have faith" that their book is the one full of truths and fairness? Why should I believe you more than them?
Yes, you did.
No, you stated opinion.
And you have just stated another opinion...
...that you immediately tried to pass off as fact.
Quite pathetic, really.
I think we now both know that to be patently untrue.
Oh, please do. I wouldn't miss it for the world...
Let me take a guess at your possible choice of title. How about:
"Budha, You Fat Bastard..."
:idea2:
Happy Friday...
~:cheers:
I'm afraid you'll have to edit that to make it possible to read and understand before I can reply to it. Sorry, but I have no idea at all what you just said :P
AntiochusIII
01-20-2007, 01:16
"Budha, You Anorexic Bastard..."He tried to starve himself to death, after all. I'd consider the fatness to be an aftershock effect of the anorexic experience, hence an unfair accusation in this particular case of gravitational difference :smug: (ignoring that it's the Chinese who fed until he's fat, of course; the Indians, they taught him how to fast like a man :balloon: )
*nobody's taking this seriously, I hope? Else I'll lose a lot my faith in mankind*
Duke of Gloucester: While your concerns on those who trumpet Evolutionary Theory to be some sort of the herald of science is valid -- there are indeed those people around -- I don't believe it's really happening in this thread.
Moreover, I personally interpret Banquo's "real scientist" quip to mean not conformist thinking, but an ability to properly questions and challenges the existing dominant theory. Considering most of these creationists who keep complaining of holes in the evolutionary theory cannot even provide a good summary of what it entails, or explains about the actual holes, I'd consider their criticism to be not particularly engaging to the scientific community.
Vuk: For someone who appears to be extremely easily offended, you prove to be quite capable of being offensive yourself, I must say.
I'm afraid you'll have to edit that to make it possible to read and understand before I can reply to it. Sorry, but I have no idea at all what you just said :P
this bit is especially interesting -->
What about the billion or so Muslims who "have faith" that their book is the one full of truths and fairness? Why should I believe you more than them?
:2thumbsup:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-20-2007, 02:18
What do you mean Ironwall? Paul is what you could call the most important doctrinary of the earlier christians. In fact, you could consider his letters the most substancial part of the whole New Testament.
A lot of what Paul says directly contradicts Jesus, its late so I'm not going to post examples now but if you want I will tomorrow.
Paul makes Christianity pallatable to a Roman audience and hence to us. Without Paul we're all be circumsised and abstaining from pork.
Also, I did not give my opinion on the koran, as I would probably be banned if I did. I simply stated fact. I don't think that all muslims are bad, but I do think that the koran is a book of hate. I think muhamed fabricated it, and I think it was written to get fanatical followers (which it has). That is fact; please don't ask for my opinion. I have read a lot on both muhamed and the islamic religion, and what I post is fact. The only religion I give my opinion on is Christianity. If that offends anyone, that is what ignore is for. I am Christian, and on a thread about Christianity, I will express my opinion where appropriate. Christians disagree on a lot of things, and no one knows everything (not even the mighty Vuk :D), but I KNOW that God created the world, and that Christ Jesus was His Son sent to save us. I also know that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. The blasphemous things people say about God and the Bible is very offencive (including things BG says...very disrespectfull. You don't here me going around talking about big bubba muhamed and his harem of pearls...). That was my point, and no one seems to be heeding it - convincing me more and more to start a thread in the WatchTower.
So in the same paragraph, you say complain about people saying things you consider blasphemous, and you also call the foundation of several Org members' (including one of the Backroom mods) beliefs to be a "book of hate". You go right ahead with that Watchtower thread, I would be curious to see Dariush's comments. :laugh4: Good luck with that.
Now while I am a Christian and have a strong belief in God, I must say that does who claim that evolution is not a sound theory must review what has been called animal husbandry - which is the use of artifical selection to breed traits or to remove traits from domestic animals. Many of the current breeds of cattle, pigs, dogs, horses, cats, chickens, and just about any other animal that man uses has been changed by man through this selection process from the orginal species.
To claim evolution is not a valid theory falls flat on its face when faced with artifical selection as a validation observation. What one could argue is that there is gaping holes in the natural selection criteria, because Darwin's theory was primarily an observation based upon small sample, a micro-environment I believe is the term for it.
Now while I am a Christian and have a strong belief in God, I must say that does who claim that evolution is not a sound theory must review what has been called animal husbandry - which is the use of artifical selection to breed traits or to remove traits from domestic animals. Many of the current breeds of cattle, pigs, dogs, horses, cats, chickens, and just about any other animal that man uses has been changed by man through this selection process from the orginal species.
To claim evolution is not a valid theory falls flat on its face when faced with artifical selection as a validation observation. What one could argue is that there is gaping holes in the natural selection criteria, because Darwin's theory was primarily an observation based upon small sample, a micro-environment I believe is the term for it.
Those who claim that evolution is a theory fall flat on their face as it is not. It does not fit the nessecary criteria for a theory.
You are wrong you know. First, I don't see how you can believe in both, and I hope that's not what you're saying.
Second, selective breeding is accomplished by isolating exsisting traits, not making new ones. You cannot selectively breed a new species. God made all the genes that there are and you cannot make new ones. NO new genes have ever been created. God had to create the world in that way in order for people and animals to adapt to changing enviorments. The "theory" for lack of a better word, of evolution is so flawed that it is not worth considering. If you were to investigate it in detail, you would see what I mean. The fossil record, DNA, and everything else proves evolution wrong.
Those who claim that evolution is a theory fall flat on their face as it is not. It does not fit the nessecary criteria for a theory.
You do understand what constitutes a theory? There a plently of available websites that explain what a theory is and what it isn't.
You are wrong you know. First, I don't see how you can believe in both, and I hope that's not what you're saying.
That is exactly what I am saying. Nothing in my Christian Belief states that evolution is not a valid theory as an explanation of life. Nothing in belief in God requires an individual to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
Second, selective breeding is accomplished by isolating exsisting traits, not making new ones.
Care to bet. Did you know that they are finding out that some hybrid animals are actually fertile.
You cannot selectively breed a new species. God made all the genes that there are and you cannot make new ones. NO new genes have ever been created. God had to create the world in that way in order for people and animals to adapt to changing enviorments. The "theory" for lack of a better word, of evolution is so flawed that it is not worth considering. If you were to investigate it in detail, you would see what I mean. The fossil record, DNA, and everything else proves evolution wrong.
Care to bet, once again - take a look at hybrid animals - also know as cross breeding. Mules are the best know examble of such.
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/
http://www.bartleby.com/11/9001.html
Then if I really want to demonstrate some points - I would suggest you take a close look at what they are doing in horse breeding. There has been some fairly recent articles published on that. It was rather a new thing when I was involved with it prior to my joining the army.
And that isn't even half of it, Plants also.
Tribesman
01-20-2007, 04:28
The Bible is completely fair and without fault.
Which one Vuk ? there are a lot of them you know:laugh4:
Christianity is not unfair to women.
Which flavour of Christianity Vuk ? there are a lot of them you know :laugh4:
I also know that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: OK forget which version for now to make it easy for you to comprehend .
Pick a version of your preferance and answer these two simple questions .
If something in Letters directly contradicts something in Gospel which is true ?
If something in one Gospel directly contradicts something in another Gospel which one is true ?
Your statement does make me wonder how well you know the collection of books that you so loudly support .
As I said before , this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
So Vuk how well do you know scripture ? going by your posts you have read very little of it and understood even less .
You do understand what constitutes a theory? There a plently of available websites that explain what a theory is and what it isn't.
That is exactly what I am saying. Nothing in my Christian Belief states that evolution is not a valid theory as an explanation of life. Nothing in belief in God requires an individual to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
Care to bet. Did you know that they are finding out that some hybrid animals are actually fertile.
Care to bet, once again - take a look at hybrid animals - also know as cross breeding. Mules are the best know examble of such.
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/
God made some animals able to interbreed with others, but not to produce fertile offspring. No hybrid animals are fertile. A theory is something that can be tested again and again.
Soulforged
01-20-2007, 04:33
A lot of what Paul says directly contradicts Jesus, its late so I'm not going to post examples now but if you want I will tomorrow.
Paul makes Christianity pallatable to a Roman audience and hence to us. Without Paul we're all be circumsised and abstaining from pork.
This will sound as a mockery but I'm serious: Is there an evangelium from Jesus? From where do you get what Jesus says and does?
You'll certainly answer: From the apostles and not from THE apostle Paul. Because they supposedly lived with Jesus, and therefore they know better. However most of apostles are nothing more than narrators of the history, while Paul really talks about new separated rules expressed in some organized manner.
Now if we talk about faith and logic. Following christian catholic apostolic teachins God (and therefore Jesus) might communicate with us in a visual and auditive manner, it follows then that an enlightned person like Paul (as he was enlightned on subjects of religion) really had one of this experiences and God really spoke to him. So if Jesus is God and God is Jesus, if God dictates the rules of the Universe, if God is perfect, if God communicated with Paul, what makes the teachings of Paul the ones contradictory with the supposed word of Jesus.
About he making it more pallatable for the Romans, I don't know. Why do you say that anyway?
All this notwithstanding you could go forward and present the quotes.
Which one Vuk ? there are a lot of them you know:laugh4:
Which flavour of Christianity Vuk ? there are a lot of them you know :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: OK forget which version for now to make it easy for you to comprehend .
Pick a version of your preferance and answer these two simple questions .
If something in Letters directly contradicts something in Gospel which is true ?
If something in one Gospel directly contradicts something in another Gospel which one is true ?
Your statement does make me wonder how well you know the collection of books that you so loudly support .
As I said before , this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
So Vuk how well do you know scripture ? going by your posts you have read very little of it and understood even less .
There is only one Bible. I spent a lot of days and a whole thread explaining this to you before and am not about to do it again.
Nothing in any part of the Bible contradicts anything in any other part of the Bible. I have read the full Bible many times with many different translation. I have a much better understanding than a guy like you who probably never read the whole Bible once in your life.
Tribesman
01-20-2007, 04:48
There is only one Bible.
Oh dear you really don't know scripture do you
I spent a lot of days and a whole thread explaining this to you before and am not about to do it again.
You explain nothing , and it appears you remember nothing either .
Nothing in any part of the Bible contradicts anything in any other part of the Bible.
Oh dear oh dear you really really do not know scripture at all do you .
I have read the full Bible many times with many different translation.
Two possible explanations there , either that statement is false or you have demonstrated a particularly faulty memory .
I have a much better understanding than a guy like you who probably never read the whole Bible once in your life.
Now that young man is just about the most foolish assumption you could make .
Oh and finally can I repeat this little bit again......this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
So with this statement.....
No hybrid animals are fertile. ...you have definately managed to prove that your knowledge of science is just as limited as your knowledge of scripture .:oops:
You really are not doing very well are you .
Oh dear you really don't know scripture do you
You explain nothing , and it appears you remember nothing either .
Oh dear oh dear you really really do not know scripture at all do you .
Two possible explanations there , either that statement is false or you have demonstrated a particularly faulty memory .
Now that young man is just about the most foolish assumption you could make .
Oh and finally can I repeat this little bit again......this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
So with this statement........you have definately managed to prove that your knowledge of science is just as limited as your knowledge of scripture .:oops:
You really are not doing very well are you .
Talk, Talk, as long as you can, your talking doesn't add up to snuff, I'm the show sum proof man.
It is nice to just say things again and again, it is another thing to prove them.
Tribesman
01-20-2007, 05:03
Talk, Talk, as long as you can, your talking doesn't add up to snuff, I'm the show sum proof man.
It is nice to just say things again and again, it is another thing to prove them.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Proof :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Look Vuk , see if you can borrow a bible from somewhere and read it . Wigferth bought up a subject earlier .... Divorce .
Forget for now the contradiction between I Corinthians and Gospels , concentrate instead on the contradictions betwen the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew .
Then try and repeat your rather :dizzy2: Nothing in any part of the Bible contradicts anything in any other part of the Bible. statement .
God made some animals able to interbreed with others, but not to produce fertile offspring. No hybrid animals are fertile.
Incorrect - the cross breeding of draft horses to thoroughbreds has resulted in fertile hybrids. There was provided a link that demonstrates that some hybrid breed's females are indeed fertile.
A theory is something that can be tested again and again.
Artifical selection has been tested again and again.
Tribesman
01-20-2007, 06:21
Incorrect - the cross breeding of draft horses to thoroughbreds has resulted in fertile hybrids. There was provided a link that demonstrates that some hybrid breed's females are indeed fertile.
I don't think he want to listen Red:shrug:
Though there are better examples than domestic horses
But if he does want to listen would you like to introduce him to the bit where the fertile female hybrids male offsping are fertile or shall I ?
Or do you think perhaps that would be too much of a shock for his frail faith to handle ?
Anyhow .....
Nothing in my Christian Belief states that evolution is not a valid theory as an explanation of life. Nothing in belief in God requires an individual to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
you heretic :2thumbsup:
I don't think he want to listen Red:shrug:
Though there are better examples than domestic horses
But if he does want to listen would you like to introduce him to the bit where the fertile female hybrids male offsping are fertile or shall I ?
Or do you think perhaps that would be too much of a shock for his frail faith to handle ?
Well horses and dogs are what I know best. That and sheep and cattle. But yes I have even seen that report that some hybrid females are indeed bearing fertile male offspring. I think its covered in the link I provide also, however in my initial skim, I only read to the fertile females.
Anyhow ..... you heretic :2thumbsup:
Its a good thing I wasn't alive during the 1500's.
Tribesman
01-20-2007, 07:33
Its a good thing I wasn't alive during the 1500's.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: burn baby burn:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Though to go even earlier St Augustine does a nice little bit of spiel on the problems some people seem to find with scripture and science .
It is his words that I base my all too often repeated ......this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
....statement on .
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 08:04
This thread--
https://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7063/sciencefighter1fs.jpg
Duke of Gloucester
01-20-2007, 08:50
If you want another contradiction in the bible, which happens to be directly relevant to the discussion and you don't have to read very far through the bible to find it, look at the two creation stories. Genesis 1 says God created things in this order:
plants -> fish and other water creatures and birds -> animals -> men and women
Genesis one says the order of creation was:
man -> plants -> animals and birds -> woman
Which one is correct? (My view neither is literally true. Both contain important truths.)
Duke of Gloucester: While your concerns on those who trumpet Evolutionary Theory to be some sort of the herald of science is valid -- there are indeed those people around -- I don't believe it's really happening in this thread..
Nor do I. I just wanted to say something different. Most of this thread (including what I have written above) is a re-hash of old arguments.
Of course even on this threat there might be some examples (like the post directly above this one). True. Science does beat religion in the same way the my washing machine is much better at cleaning clothes than my car.
Moreover, I personally interpret Banquo's "real scientist" quip to mean not conformist thinking, but an ability to properly questions and challenges the existing dominant theory. Considering most of these creationists who keep complaining of holes in the evolutionary theory cannot even provide a good summary of what it entails, or explains about the actual holes, I'd consider their criticism to be not particularly engaging to the scientific community.
You are probably right about BG. I have certainly never seen a proper scientific challenge to the theory of evolution. The problem is that if we start to believe there can't ever be one, evolution itself moves from being a scientific theory to being an article of scientific faith. That would not be consistent with the way science is meant to be done.
Ser Clegane
01-20-2007, 10:03
I ahve not logged in since yesterday afternoon since I went to the cinema to see "Babel" with Mrs. Clegane.
Now what do I see here? A discussion that over the last 2 pages or so could also run under this title (at laest for a major part).
We had a lot of discussions about evolution vs. creation already and at this point I do not see that this thread adds a fresh and new perspective to the debate.
Adding to that, presenting personal views/opinions as undisputable fact and attacking other religions (which has nothing to do with the topic, BTW) is not really a sign of good debating/discussion culture.
This thread has passed its date of expiry.
My thanks (and my apologies for closing the thread) go to those who tried to have a good and civilised discussion here :bow:
Closed
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.