Org Mobile Site
Thread: Evolution v Creationism
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Ah but you miss the later injection into the gene pool , the giants from on high . They came down and had lots of sex with humans because they like the food . But humans being humans liked the sex but didn't like the big fellas taking the food so they killed the giants .
But then of course the giants hadn't been killed and were evil and ungodly so when the really big fella got annoyed he killed them all too with his really big rainstorm(together with all the humans apart from a really amazingly good boat builder and his little family) which somewhat diminished the gene pool ever so slightly.
But then the gene pool expanded again because lo it is written there were more giants breeding with humans.
So what we really need to settle this debate is for a cretinist to dig up a fossilised giant.
It should be easy , after all they were all killed along with the dinosaurs in the flood so all the fossils should be together , well apart from those who were around after the flood but I think they must have been illegal immigrants so don't really have any standing despite being very tall.
I wonder about the two of every animal thing. I assume he also got a bunch of seeds, too, or do the plants on dry land love being submerged by ten thousand feet of saltwater? And what's really cool is that there's not actually that much water on the planet by a longshot so it physically couldn't happen as it says in the Bible to make all the dry land disappear, unless the mountains all crumbled under the sea, and the sheer earthquakes would have killed everyone anyway.Ah but you miss the later injection into the gene pool , the giants from on high . They came down and had lots of sex with humans because they like the food . But humans being humans liked the sex but didn't like the big fellas taking the food so they killed the giants .
But then of course the giants hadn't been killed and were evil and ungodly so when the really big fella got annoyed he killed them all too with his really big rainstorm(together with all the humans apart from a really amazingly good boat builder and his little family) which somewhat diminished the gene pool ever so slightly.
But then the gene pool expanded again because lo it is written there were more giants breeding with humans.
So what we really need to settle this debate is for a cretinist to dig up a fossilised giant.
It should be easy , after all they were all killed along with the dinosaurs in the flood so all the fossils should be together , well apart from those who were around after the flood but I think they must have been illegal immigrants so don't really have any standing despite being very tall.
Also, he was very nice to collect two of every species of beetle, because that must have taken him a LOOOOONG time. And how did he collect two of every species from other continents? Like the Panda?
How did Noah collect the Pandas? How about the Penguins and the Polar Bears? Yeah. What about the species native to North and South America? Yeah. He was an elderly dude but apparently, like Santa Claus, he can fly around the world faster than light and visit all the animal species in existence and collect them and put them on a rickety wooden boat. Oh, and he must have also got them food, too. And a place to poo. And fresh water for all those species. And how did he keep the lions from hunting the zebras and the frogs from eating the mosquitoes? And how did he stop the unicorns from having sex with the bubblegum faeries?
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.
I believe we basically agree, my trusted old sparring partner - even though you sound a bit like a 1927 Volvo crying 'I did not descend from a Fiat!'I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.
Of course there is more than physical similarity. Mutation has been observed both in vitro and in the field, for instance. The main problem besetting neo-Darwinism (gradualism) seems to be that mutation does not add information, hence does not explain the increasing complexity of successive organisms. A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over previous forms.
This is why Richard Dawkins was always left speechless (except for gobbledygook or insults) in debates with that great American mind Stephen Jay Gould.
I guess I'll drop my question whether you had alternative hypotheses on one or more aspects of speciation. Mind you, I wasn't asking you to explain Askthepizzaguy in one go. That's too tall an order for even the direst evolutionist.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over precious forms
Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over precious forms
Transitional features don't necessarily need to be improvements, just differences which accumulate to the point where they make a distinction between one gene pool and another and eventually one succeeds and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.
It may, in future. But various proposed transitional forms between reptile and human in particular would have had terrible disadvantages leading to extinction. Of course blindness can be a transitional stage toward human perfection, in which case you and I would be prime examples. In that order, mind you.Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.
Originally Posted by :
[..]and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.
You are just the tonic that this forum needed. [..]and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.
Originally Posted by :
I wonder about the two of every animal thing.
Don't be silly , two of every animal would only need an impossibly massive boat , as this bloke was a really amazing shipwright he made one that took a male and female only of certain animals , for all the rest of the animals and all of the birds he took 7 males and 7 females .I wonder about the two of every animal thing.
I have thought long and hard about this. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Bible and science can be reconciled. It would involve both intelligent design AND evolution, however.
God makes the world, there's the Adam and Eve poofed into existence, then there's the murder and the women that didn't come from Eve, then there's the 2 of every animal thing and there was the flood. Now, obviously the world is covered in seaweed and all the plants are dead, and Noah really only had room for several species, and most of them died during the voyage from lack of food and/or were used as a sacrifice later on an altar. (Man, they prepared for everything!) But the one species which did survive was the bunny rabbit. And they had lots and lots and lots of bunny sex.
Now, there were rabbits EVERYWHERE and they had to eat something once all the other animals starved to death since all the plants were dead, so they ate up all the seaweed and then they left little rabbit poops which fertilized the entire landscape and they had so many litters of baby bunnies that they started evolving and changing and adapting into the many species we have today, like the bunnybear, the bunnychicken, and of course, the bunnybilled-platypus. Some bunnies even laid eggs and turned into reptiles, and that's why the Easter Bunny leaves us colored eggs everywhere. Each egg is a new species. So; with a rapidly mutating bunny species and lots of leftover seaweed, and... I dunno... magic beans which turned into all the existing forests and jungles to this day, which came from the same place Cain's wife came from I suppose... that explains everything.
I present this as the Grand Unified Theory of Intelligent Bunnyvolution. There are still some kinks to work out, but I'd say it's a pretty good work in progress, and the parts we don't fully understand are easily explained away; "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it" which I saw as a bumper sticker, and I have to say, it's a conversation starter. There are so many ways you can go with that, like "I agree" or remaining silent.
God makes the world, there's the Adam and Eve poofed into existence, then there's the murder and the women that didn't come from Eve, then there's the 2 of every animal thing and there was the flood. Now, obviously the world is covered in seaweed and all the plants are dead, and Noah really only had room for several species, and most of them died during the voyage from lack of food and/or were used as a sacrifice later on an altar. (Man, they prepared for everything!) But the one species which did survive was the bunny rabbit. And they had lots and lots and lots of bunny sex.
Now, there were rabbits EVERYWHERE and they had to eat something once all the other animals starved to death since all the plants were dead, so they ate up all the seaweed and then they left little rabbit poops which fertilized the entire landscape and they had so many litters of baby bunnies that they started evolving and changing and adapting into the many species we have today, like the bunnybear, the bunnychicken, and of course, the bunnybilled-platypus. Some bunnies even laid eggs and turned into reptiles, and that's why the Easter Bunny leaves us colored eggs everywhere. Each egg is a new species. So; with a rapidly mutating bunny species and lots of leftover seaweed, and... I dunno... magic beans which turned into all the existing forests and jungles to this day, which came from the same place Cain's wife came from I suppose... that explains everything.
I present this as the Grand Unified Theory of Intelligent Bunnyvolution. There are still some kinks to work out, but I'd say it's a pretty good work in progress, and the parts we don't fully understand are easily explained away; "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it" which I saw as a bumper sticker, and I have to say, it's a conversation starter. There are so many ways you can go with that, like "I agree" or remaining silent.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.
Oh the irony.But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
I believe we basically agree, my trusted old sparring partner - even though you sound a bit like a 1927 Volvo crying 'I did not descend from a Fiat!'
I believe we basically agree, my trusted old sparring partner - even though you sound a bit like a 1927 Volvo crying 'I did not descend from a Fiat!'
Originally Posted by :
Of course there is more than physical similarity. Mutation has been observed both in vitro and in the field, for instance. The main problem besetting neo-Darwinism (gradualism) seems to be that mutation does not add information, hence does not explain the increasing complexity of successive organisms. A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over previous forms.
This is why Richard Dawkins was always left speechless (except for gobbledygook or insults) in debates with that great American mind Stephen Jay Gould.
Of course there is more than physical similarity. Mutation has been observed both in vitro and in the field, for instance. The main problem besetting neo-Darwinism (gradualism) seems to be that mutation does not add information, hence does not explain the increasing complexity of successive organisms. A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over previous forms.
This is why Richard Dawkins was always left speechless (except for gobbledygook or insults) in debates with that great American mind Stephen Jay Gould.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
It may, in future. But various proposed transitional forms between reptile and human in particular would have had terrible disadvantages leading to extinction. Of course blindness can be a transitional stage toward human perfection, in which case you and I would be prime examples. In that order, mind you.You are just the tonic that this forum needed.
You are referring to the vertebrate eye or to any Creationist (I was about to write Creationalist It may, in future. But various proposed transitional forms between reptile and human in particular would have had terrible disadvantages leading to extinction. Of course blindness can be a transitional stage toward human perfection, in which case you and I would be prime examples. In that order, mind you.You are just the tonic that this forum needed.
) objection called irreducible complexity. On this I must jump fences a bit because on the eye issue the current science has discovered that each part made the light-detecting apparatus more adaptive, even in the absence of some or all of the other parts. The old theory was that each part of the eye can't function without the other and only the sum of working parts makes it a functional eye, hence it would seem not to fit in with evolution. Originally Posted by :
I guess I'll drop my question whether you had alternative hypotheses on one or more aspects of speciation. Mind you, I wasn't asking you to explain Askthepizzaguy in one go. That's too tall an order for even the direst evolutionist.
I don't really subscribe to any of the theories out there as a true agnostic. But I guess I'll drop my question whether you had alternative hypotheses on one or more aspects of speciation. Mind you, I wasn't asking you to explain Askthepizzaguy in one go. That's too tall an order for even the direst evolutionist.
There is still some areas which can still be called non sciences.
a few previous non sciences has become science in this century f.ex. geopoetry -> geoscience and cosmology. There were no way of testing hypotheses in these areas in the past and therefore they were non sciences. Today there is one particular which is called origin of cellular life. It seems it is still an irreducible complexity. But hey, someday it might not. Science advances into non science areas all the time as history testifies to. The origin of cellular life could lend an ear to the watchmaker anolgy, but then it becomes a Aquinas fallacy doesn't it?
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
You are referring to the vertebrate eye or to any Creationist (I was about to write Creationalist) objection called irreducible complexity.
About the complexities: yes, some are apparently irreducible - at this moment in time. Complexities that were previously considered irreducible can now be explained because the workings of regulating dna have been gradually explored. You are referring to the vertebrate eye or to any Creationist (I was about to write Creationalist
) objection called irreducible complexity.Most of the regulating dna in (all) animals has remained unchanged for at least five hundred million years. It encodes organising principles, not just protein production codes. This insight has resulted in a an emerging school of thought in biology, called 'evo-devo'. You have probably heard of it, but anyway. Evo-devo considers evolution as a competition between opposing and/or complementary organising principles, which find expression in organisms of successively higher scales of complexity. It could explain apparent jump-mutations in ways that gradualism can't.
Speaking of gradualism, regulating dna also explains the evolution of the eye. The regulating part of dna, called 'eyeless', was isolated in 1995 by a Swiss team. In other words, the code for the human eye has been there since five hundred million years ago, but it has found its present expression only in Habilis and his contemporaries.
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
Oh the irony.
I had to laugh at that one, too. Sure, the work of generations of evolutionary researchers and theorists is a real stretch, whereas the idea that god created Adam and Eve out of dust is far more plausible. Truly, a no-brainer. Oh the irony.
ATPG, the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately. Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.
Oh yeah Adrian/Melendil you know I am talking about the scripture so sorry no irony.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Roadkill,
Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?
SFTS,
Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?
Wakizashi, same question.
Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?
Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.
I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.
I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here
Edit: Too much moderation on these boards.Roadkill,
Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?
SFTS,
Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?
Wakizashi, same question.
Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?
Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.
I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.
I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here
Oh yeah Adrian/Melendil you know I am talking about the scripture so sorry no irony.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
I am tempted to paraphrase Einstein on infinity here, but the mods might take issue.
I don't remember that one, I do however, remember:I am tempted to paraphrase Einstein on infinity here, but the mods might take issue.
"God does not play dice"
Quantom theory has refuted this, there is a random element to the universe.
I find it interesting that no one has yet explained how any of this wonderful knowledge has demonstrated that the Universe was not ultimately created by God.
Originally Posted by :
the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately.
Is the problem you have that you are having to invent "scripture" because scripture itself is letting you down?the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately.
Originally Posted by :
Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.
Really ? how far down the time line does incest become a no-no in scripture? Is it after God created two people or after God created a new world by destroying all humankind except for one special family? Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.
It appears Rhyfylwer that though you are basing your views on biblical stories you are having to rewrite the bible at the same time because your views don't add up
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Is the problem you have that you are having to invent "scripture" because scripture itself is letting you down?
Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.Is the problem you have that you are having to invent "scripture" because scripture itself is letting you down?
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Really ? how far down the time line does incest become a no-no in scripture? Is it after God created two people or after God created a new world by destroying all humankind except for one special family?
It appears Rhyfylwer that though you are basing your views on biblical stories you are having to rewrite the bible at the same time because your views don't add up
Incest is always a no-no God's laws don't change. *awaits people eagerly pointing out how God tells people different stuff at different times, and I tell them to look at covenant theology*Really ? how far down the time line does incest become a no-no in scripture? Is it after God created two people or after God created a new world by destroying all humankind except for one special family?
It appears Rhyfylwer that though you are basing your views on biblical stories you are having to rewrite the bible at the same time because your views don't add up
Originally Posted by :
Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.
Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.
Originally Posted by :
Incest is always a no-no God's laws don't change.
OK I take it all back , you are not attempting to rewrite the bible , you just havn't read it in the first place and are making your views up out of thin air.Incest is always a no-no God's laws don't change.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
OK I take it all back , you are not attempting to rewrite the bible , you just havn't read it in the first place and are making your views up out of thin air.
So in the beginning there wasn't the word, and the word was not with God, and the word was not God?! And Jesus isn't the lamb slain before the foundation of the world because back in the foundation in the world sins didn't count?!OK I take it all back , you are not attempting to rewrite the bible , you just havn't read it in the first place and are making your views up out of thin air.
Read the first line before you talk
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I don't remember that one, I do however, remember:
"God does not play dice"
Quantom theory has refuted this, there is a random element to the universe.
Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.I don't remember that one, I do however, remember:
"God does not play dice"
Quantom theory has refuted this, there is a random element to the universe.
Originally Posted by :
So in the beginning there wasn't the word, and the word was not with God, and the word was not God?!
Not according to the Hebrews you took the book fromSo in the beginning there wasn't the word, and the word was not with God, and the word was not God?!
Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.
Would this be something were my line of "down to interpretation" which i used as an argument in favour of evolution earlier, would work in favour of the bible... and your line of "if its put down bluntly" which you used as an argument against evolution, would work against the bible ?
I realise i haven't exactly got your words down there, and the comparison doesn't exactly match up. But can you see where im coming from ?
God doesn't mention all the evolution stuff and he doesn't mention all the other people that were around to breed... (assuming god exists and the bible is accurate) it would probably be done for simplicity...
Edit: to my point, maybe if you can consider the bible doesn't give you all the information with regards to the first humans maybe you should consider it doesn't give you all the information regarding the construction of humans ?
Or maybe rather it gives a very simplified version...
Would this be something were my line of "down to interpretation" which i used as an argument in favour of evolution earlier, would work in favour of the bible... and your line of "if its put down bluntly" which you used as an argument against evolution, would work against the bible ?
I realise i haven't exactly got your words down there, and the comparison doesn't exactly match up. But can you see where im coming from ?
God doesn't mention all the evolution stuff and he doesn't mention all the other people that were around to breed... (assuming god exists and the bible is accurate) it would probably be done for simplicity...
Edit: to my point, maybe if you can consider the bible doesn't give you all the information with regards to the first humans maybe you should consider it doesn't give you all the information regarding the construction of humans ?
Or maybe rather it gives a very simplified version...
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.
Ok, does that refer to my every post in the Backroom? Or just this thread?Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.
As far as Einstein goes, I'm pretty certain my quote is correct, and I know it's generally agreed that he ascribed to a belief in a determanistic universe and a naturalistic God. When I asked the question, "does God play dice" to a physicist at the University here the answer was, "If God exists, he plays dice" I asked why and was reffered to to Quantom theory. Since I don't have the understanding to grasp Quantom theory I have to take his, and the other people I have asked, word for it.
As to Evolution, I have no problem with it, though I do question whether it it strictly Darwinian, or whether there is some other naturalistic force at work.
As to the Bible, the only time I have remotely touched on it was when you asked me why God created the world, and I gave you a somewhat glib answer. More properly, the consensus seems to be that he desired "companionship". Overall though, I am not interesting in Biblical Creationsim. It is crude, theological bancrupt and arguably blasphemous.
I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"
ohh and incase anyone is wondering the Einstien quote refered to (one of my favourites) is...
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... im not sure about the universe though...
Thats the general gist of it... unless theres another Einstien Infinite quote i don't know about...
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... im not sure about the universe though...
Thats the general gist of it... unless theres another Einstien Infinite quote i don't know about...
Oh, that one. I do remember that now, I tend to agree. Apparently Einstien was very popular with the ladies as an undergraduate, very witty and pithy.
I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"
Edit: oops posted early
I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...
I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge
*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....
Edit: oops posted early
I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...
I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge
*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....
@LG: I see where you're coming from, and I don't think evolution is impossible from a Biblical perspective. But it would mean that other passages in the Bible would have to be said to be false, for example the genaologies from Adam to Jesus (whether you take each character as an individual or the patriarch with descendents in between).
Or maybe I just made that up since I don't actually read the Bible according to Tribesman (yeah that was bitchy of me).
Or maybe I just made that up since I don't actually read the Bible according to Tribesman (yeah that was bitchy of me).
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"
Edit: oops posted early
I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...
I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge
*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....
From what I have read, "Six day Creationsim" was the lunatic fringe before Jesus was born, people were not stupid back then, and they knew their history went back almost as long as the Bible, leaving little time for the Great Flood and the Garden. They also understood about inbreeding, and could see that Adam and Eve were not a very deep gene-pool. Further, they could see the inconsistancies and downright errors in the Scripture for themselves. Augustine complained that the Bible was unsure of Joseph's father, and couldn't agree on the date of Jesus' birth. Philo in the 1st Century AD recognised that Chapter 1&2 of Genesis contradict each other.I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"
Edit: oops posted early
I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...
I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge
*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....
Nevertheless, Che, among others here, seems to think that because bits of the story don't fit it must therefore all be rubbish. This was what I objected to and why I entered the debate.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"The only definitive place that god exist, is in the human mind" (A guy from the 1700's, even after a google search I still cannot find his name)
A great question, but it assumes the priest was right in order for there to be a problem.
Originally Posted by :
Or maybe I just made that up
In keeping with what you have written in this topic eh ?Or maybe I just made that up
Originally Posted by Veho Nex:
"The only definitive place that god exist, is in the human mind" (A guy from the 1700's, even after a google search I still cannot find his name)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"The only definitive place that god exist, is in the human mind" (A guy from the 1700's, even after a google search I still cannot find his name)
A personal relationship with Jesus is the greatest thing a man can experience.
I don't usually like to enter these debates because my relationship with God is mine and what I do in my personal time is my buisness.
I take the position God has no place in politics, now some would say I am corrupted for simply believing but those people are idoits.
If you truly don't understand why the faithful believe then don't make a snarky quote or .jpg acting like you do. Debate the merits, fight the intolerance, kick and scream when a religon begins to impede on freedom but do not think you can undo thousands of years of faith with two sentences and a cool backdrop. Espacilly when ignorance is the overiding factor in your snarkiness
Edit: Im not attacking you personally Veho but those quotes have as truth as a virgin on promnight
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
In keeping with what you have written in this topic eh ?
So where did I misunderstand the scripture then. I mean, you tell me I haven't read the Bible because you disagree with something, so then I show with the first sentence in the Bible you are wrong, and then you go back to atheist point of view and just say "you took the book from the Jews lulz".In keeping with what you have written in this topic eh ?
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO