Have a blessed day atheists!Thanks, buddy!
funny, how atheist rant and rave about atheism not being a religion and then you start a thread about atheism on a RELIGION BOARD!!!
Why do atheists have churches with ordained ministers? What's next, an atheist Bible? Or do they already have one?
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.
As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.
Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.
The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
why was my post deleted, who is the shitty moderator, WHO, WHO wont wear the ribbon?
fact of the matter is that these religious folk have no right blessing public property, why can't you guys just keep to yourselves? why do you think you have to right to do shit like this? just like the nativity scenes in washington, you are not special and deserve nothing.
Why are some atheists so angry?
Let's be clear, there are many "religious folk" that are equally as angry all the time. I think both angry parties become angry with those with differing beliefs that are genuinely content with their lives despite all the reasons that suggest they shouldn't be LOL. Some chalk it up to "ignorance being bliss" and others stay angry because others "CAN'T GRASP WHY I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!!" Many atheists and agnostics lead happy, peaceful lives because they belief there is nothing after they die other than to return to the cosmos that randomly formed them out of stardust.
I agree. That's why I said "some." One of my good buddies is atheist. Great guy. Happy. Really smart. A pleasure to be around. He's married to an atheist, who is the same way.
You are correct, there are plenty of angry atheists....Getbig has a number of them. It also has some peaceful atheists too....not many LOL, but some.
if you guys are basing character analysis based off a debate board on religious topics then i don't know what to tell you. I literally never talk about religion, am a doctor and help people everyday. I devote my life to others and reducing suffering, my gripe is alot of suffering in this world is due to religion and i will oppose something i deem evil with vitriol. It comprises all i hate, stupidity, faith, evil and irrationality, i see religion providing nothing novel.
there is nothing peaceful about people who believe i will burn in hell for not believing as you do, perhaps you guys should cast that judgement onto yourselves, not very christian of you to judge others, isn't that gods job. At least do me a solid and pretend to follow what you spew, your passive aggressive non-sense is not lost on me.
also, i see no reason to be kind to those who favor myth over reason nor see a reason why any atheist should put up with bullshit like homophobia etc. Beach bum claims to be christian yet this thread is a microcosm of his issues, he wishes not to discuss just attack, his posts in this thread alone bear that out. He also cannot think for himself as everything is a copy and paste. What noble lives you must lead, oh and beach bum if you didn't realize, which i'm sure you didn't my post was from seinfeld and the aids ribbon, it was a joke.
I didn't say anything about anyone's character.
I rarely talk religion in real life either.
I think you answered one of my questions about why some atheists are so angry: you get angry with people who disagree with you. You must be angry quite a bit. lol
What I posted (and will continue to post) are factual stories about paranoid anti-religious extremists. More to follow. Stay tuned. :)
you are passive aggressive, you quoted me and made the comment about angry atheists, thus implying i'm angry, and you formed it as a rhetorical question. I of course infer all of this immediately but you seem to either not realize you are being passive aggressive or are a coward and don't stand by what you speak.
I'm glad you post these stories, the whole bunch are stupid i just see a point or at least an ideal in the atheists actions that is noble, regardless of that it's a waste of time and idiotic. I'm not angry with people who disagree with me, i however, am angry at people who cannot concede points, who won't listen to logic and refuse to take others point of view.
I can admit god might exist, i can see where you are coming from, i have the sense of awe blah blah however, the religious have nothing of this trait, they simply have the answers and personally i feel there is no place in the future for closed minded bigots, maybe that's just me.Shit if evidence came out that hinted god might exist i'd jump on it, but on the flipside nothing can convince you otherwise. It must be nice having all the answers, especially to the most difficult questions, i'd call it arrogance, you call it faith.
Don't have a clue what your first paragraph means. You'll have to dumb it down some. Quoting you is being passive aggressive?? I don't know if you're actually angry, but you certainly sound angry. And bitter.
Nothing noble at all about the stories I posted. Just hypersensitive people with too much time on their hands.
Wait, you're "not angry with people who disagree with" you, you're just angry with people "refuse to take others point of view." lol. Seriously? Dude. Someone who refuses to take your point of view is someone who disagrees with you.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't have "all the answers." Probably don't have most of them. :)
yes, people who refuse to take others point of view are not worth anyone's time, in argument you always have to do this to gauge your position as well as glean insight.
no quoting me, clearly implying im angry then stating you never said anyone is angry is passive aggressive. I honestly don't care to respond any more as i can see where you are taking this via obfuscation. You seem to think unless you explicitly state something implication means nothing.
so one last time.
you quote me and state why are some atheists so angry,[
quote author=Beach Bum link=topic=424496.msg6103070#msg6103070 date=1336418277]
Why are some atheists so angry?
this implies i'm the angry atheist
this is the comment about character, then you stated you made no such inference. I'm fine with that. I am certainly angry towards religion, bitter no, but I truly detest something that enslaves minds and tells people how to think and offers absolute answers in an uncertain world. I truly see it as evil, i'm sure you are angry at pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc so if i was defending a pedophile i'm sure you would come off as angry.
disagree with me all you want, that does not anger me, however, if you simply refuse to acknowledge others points and have your mind made up that you won't concede it makes me angry and sad that people like you exist.
Ok. Here is where you are confused: saying you are angry isn't saying anything about your character. Yes, I quoted you as an example of an angry atheist. I have no idea what your character is like.Really? Where is all the debate within the Christian community over homosexual marriage?
You have a warped view of true Christianity. It doesn't "enslave" minds or tell people what to think. The true essence of Christianity is the exact opposite of what you say: it's all about choice. It's also about critical thinking, research, study, etc.
Really? Where is all the debate within the Christian community over homosexual marriage?
There are precepts to every religion which explicitly forbid open and honest research.
For instance, are Christians looking to disprove the existence of their god? Of course not. That line of thinking is a sin.
Face it, had you not been born to a predominately Christian community/ country/ etc., you would believe another thing.
Does that not show you how arbitrary and random it all is?
If Christianity is such a "fact" why are there so many Muslims and Jews?
The only "wiggle room" I see in Christianity is to allow their members wealth, although the bible itself is very explicit in its warning against this.
There is actually a lot of debate within the Christian community about homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general. You even have some denominations that have accepted openly homosexual ministers, etc.That's exactly my point.
That said, homosexuality isn't one of those subjects that's a gray area when it comes to Christianity, the Bible, etc. It's pretty clear. I think the debate should be around how a lot of Christians mistreat homosexuals. They don't "hate the sin, love the sinner." Not true of all, but certainly true of a disproportionate number of Christians.
Your questions aren't very logical. Why would a religion founded on a faith-based belief in God engage in study for the scientific nonexistence of God? That's worse than an oxymoron. Really doesn't make any sense IMO.
I never said "Christianity" is a "fact." It's a belief system. It's a way of life.
There is actually a lot of debate and discussion in the Christian community about all sorts of subjects, from homosexuality to abortion, etc.
That's exactly my point.
someone has to oppose ignorance and evil, I have no problem combating religion and all of the vile shit it brings into this world. The fact that you find it odd that atheism would be on a religious board strikes me as ironic and somewhat idiotic. Where else would atheism be? it exists only due to religion, it's goal imo should be to enlighten people and free them of primitive thought and childish beliefs which are quite clearly the root of most of humanities problems.pretty typical, you overlook all the good that religion brings and focus in on the bad.
I also, find it funny that beach bum can't formulate his own opinion and just copy and pastes non-sequitors, lol.
religion is a proven negative, even on society, why you cling to it I will never know, i guess comfort wins over logic for you.
I know. The point doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And it doesn't establish that there is a lack of critical thinking, research, debate, discussion, etc.You've already established absolutes even before you begin your "research".
pretty typical, you overlook all the good that religion brings and focus in on the bad.No, the whole basis of religion is the psychological comfort of pretending to know answers. Atheists don't have the answers, hence they are without its subsequent comforts.
Well you see many an atheist on getbig kick and scream when someone calls atheism a religion. Now you see the irony of starting an ode to atheism thread on a religious board do you not?
LOL religion isnt about comfort...
its much easier to be atheist than it is to be religious.
serious question, what basis do you use for your moral beliefs?
pretty typical, you overlook all the good that religion brings and focus in on the bad.
Well you see many an atheist on getbig kick and scream when someone calls atheism a religion. Now you see the irony of starting an ode to atheism thread on a religious board do you not?
LOL religion isnt about comfort...
its much easier to be atheist than it is to be religious.
serious question, what basis do you use for your moral beliefs?
No, the whole basis of religion is the psychological comfort of pretending to know answers. Atheists don't have the answers, hence they are without its subsequent comforts.
I know you like to troll around on here and try to piss people off, but this is the place for an atheism thread. Where should I put it, the sports board?
Atheism is the default position of not having a religion. It's up to religion to prove their wild claims, and to an educated person, they don't even come close.
Why don't you just stick to playing god and telling the world what is natural, since you have more insight than the rest of the human race.
You really don't challenge yourself mentally, do you?
Ok. Here is where you are confused: saying you are angry isn't saying anything about your character. Yes, I quoted you as an example of an angry atheist. I have no idea what your character is like.
You have a warped view of true Christianity. It doesn't "enslave" minds or tell people what to think. The true essence of Christianity is the exact opposite of what you say: it's all about choice. It's also about critical thinking, research, study, etc.
I know. The point doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And it doesn't establish that there is a lack of critical thinking, research, debate, discussion, etc.
You've already established absolutes even before you begin your "research".
Why study evolution, when you already KNOW that god created man in his image?
Why study what happens after death when you already KNOW you will go to heaven?
These absolutes put to rest any intellectual curiousit.
If you consider that to be a "warped view of true Christianity", a LOT of christian denominations then are warped views of true Christianity. Many of them tell people what to think. That's the whole point of getting to children when they are young. It's easier to get them to believe. IF it was really about choice, christian denominations would be AGAINST the teaching of Christianity to children. For example, Thomas Jefferson was against the teaching of christianity to children for this very reason in a letter he wrote to his nephew. Many people hold onto the "just believe" teaching, and if someone critically thinks or reflects, they are "complicating something which is very simple". Now if by "research, study" you mean prayer and reading the bible, then yes Christians follow that route. But to say that it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to disagree with the teaching of a church is utter nonsense. Many Christians feel that to do so is "sowing discord among the brethren". Many churches preach that the Bible is very simple, all one has to do is believe, trust, obey, etc. Remember the passage that praises those who are child like. That means people should accept what they are told. This is not an insult to Christianity (I think it says something about modern society when what I just typed^^ is taken to be an insult to Christianity), but it is what many Christians believe.
Can you give me examples of what you areas you think Christian churches tell people what to think?
Nothing wrong with training children. Teaching them about religion, science, literature, etc. at a young age is a good thing.
Where did Thomas Jefferson say he opposed teaching Christianity to kids?
There are parts of the Bible that are very clear, parts that require analysis, and parts that I don't understand.
the is nothing wrong with teaching facts, you are right. Religion is a guess, if you teach one why not teach them all, compare and contrast horus and jesus, you are lumping religion in with science when they couldn't be more diametrically opposed.
There is nothing wrong with teaching facts, theories, fiction, etc.
The reference to teaching was about parents teaching their own kids. Parents can choose to teach their kids whatever they want.
"Atheism" is positively boring, and is in fact an unhelpful term. Consider: we don't need a term designating our stance toward invisible gnomes (agnomism or some such), nor do we form our identities around the pretty obvious fact that there aren't gnomes. Why do we feel the need to do so with regard to a particular strand of mythology derived from Bronze Age myths?
What is interesting and worthwhile is not to form our identities around such a word and hold conventions in hotel ballrooms like a cranky minority group, but rather to put forward positive proposals about the way the world is, e.g., to discuss morality and justify it in the context of a godless universe.
Tread lightly there Syntax, I was raised on Bronze Aged Mythology copied from older myths over untold millennia and edited to serve each generations' purposes.
Why do atheists have churches with ordained ministers? What's next, an atheist Bible? Or do they already have one?
There is nothing wrong with teaching facts, theories, fiction, etc.You have your beliefs and choose to believe in them, but you haven't proven anything to anyone and you know it.
The reference to teaching was about parents teaching their own kids. Parents can choose to teach their kids whatever they want.
You have your beliefs and choose to believe in them, but you haven't proven anything to anyone and you know it.
All of your "Why do atheists...?" posts are generalizations. Your real question needs to be "Why do THESE atheists...?"
I am not insecure, insensitive nor do I have a church.
You might want to take a closer look at what I posted.
Why are so many atheists so insecure?
Why are some atheists so paranoid?
Why are some atheists so disrespectful?
I'm an Atheist and I'm not insecure, paranoid or disrespectful (except to that which deserves disrespect).
So your posts are generalizations.
Somewhat, although I wasn't referring to all atheists. That's why my comments were qualified. I know atheists who are not insecure, paranoid, or disrespectful.
And I know Christians who are insecure, paranoid and disrespectful and can provide sources proving this to be the case for specific Christians. So what is your point? Why post links about Atheists exhibiting negative traits when anyone can do it for Christians too? I don't get that.
U mad atheist bro?
And I know Christians who are insecure, paranoid and disrespectful and can provide sources proving this to be the case for specific Christians. So what is your point? Why post links about Atheists exhibiting negative traits when anyone can do it for Christians too? I don't get that.
Because this is an atheist thread, so I'm posting comments and questions about some atheists..
Because this is an atheist thread, so I'm posting comments and questions about some atheists.
So why did you say "some atheists"?
Because, as I said on page 1 of this thred, my comments and questions don't apply to all atheists.
I personally see no point to it in general. Any group of any people can include all sorts of bad people. Pointing out desperate, greedy, angry, frustrated atheists doesn't prove anything.
I didn't call anyone a bad person.
Pointing out that some atheists are disrespectful, paranoid, extremists, and just as dogmatic as devout Christians proves that some atheists are disrespectful, paranoid, extemists, and just as dogmatic as some Christians.
Who is claiming that there are NO atheists who are disrespectful paranoid dogmatic etc.?
I don't know. Are you?
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.does make you think...
A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems. The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses. the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this. I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
Sup Getbig atheists?!Chillin like a villain named Bob Dylan who sold smack cause he was hooked on penicilin.
Chillin like a villain named Bob Dylan who sold smack cause he was hooked on penicilin.
Chillin like a villain named Bob Dylan who sold smack cause he was hooked on penicilin.
Word.Thats Groovy - Right on Ace, to the max, Boo-yah, Catch you on the rebound, Ya Dig?, Jive Turkey, So Mellow out and Take a chill pill,
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.
A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems. The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses. the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this. I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
More from Einstein - this is why he is considered brilliant.
A Man's only real choice is to content themselves with their imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems. The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses. the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this. I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
Great explanation.
I've been agnostic since i was 18, i went to church for 18 years and quickly learned what it was all about. People need to study history and realize why religion was put in place.
8)
There's good news! Organized religion is not a requirement for a relationship with Christ.Christ is DEAD! No relationship possible, except an imaginary one!
Christ is DEAD! No relationship possible, except an imaginary one!
Try him for yourself...prove me wrong....I double dog dare ya!!I prefer the route of self reliance, way more reliable. Belief in make believe is a sure way to disappointment - no amount of belief in Santa Claus will see him come down the chimney at Christmas.
I prefer the route of self reliance, way more reliable. Belief in make believe is a sure way to disappointment - no amount of belief in Santa Claus will see him come down the chimney at Christmas.
"Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you will get neither."Like evolution or the sun being the center of the universe, for instance?
As far as belief in make believe is concerned you are correct that it will produce nothing, but faith in Christ opens eyes to things unseen.
Like evolution or the sun being the center of the universe, for instance?
.
And what purpose do homosexuals serve in the grand scheme of evolution, again?There are reminder that evolution is a flawed system, keeping mutations around for far too long.
And what purpose do homosexuals serve in the grand scheme of evolution, again?Good point. We need to keep reproducing at record levels.
Good point. We need to keep reproducing at record levels.
We barely have seven billion people on the planet, way too many resources and our pollution levels are incredibly low.
Keep reading that bible of yours and educating the rest of us.
.
McWay, you need to become a better Christian and reject evolution.
It's a plot by the libtards.
Thirty Percent of Texans Think Dinosaurs Lived With Humans
And Another Thirty Percent Say They're Not Sure!
This is so very embarrassing it makes me want to walk down every street in my neighborhood and conduct my own door-to-door survey - and if the results are as fantastical as this, relocate to a more enlightened part of the country. Honestly, are we living in 2010 or 1910? We all know that religious fanatics like Sarah Palin, James Dobson, and born-again Texas Governor Rick Perry believe there were velociraptors in the Garden of Eden, peacefully munching on ferns and fig leaves. But I simply can't wrap my head around the fact that one in three of my neighbors might be this scientifically challenged. Where's my clipboard? I'm ringing some doorbells.
Amanda Terkel at Think Progress delivers the bad tidings: A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune survey shows how destructive a politicized right-wing curriculum can be. A large number of Texans polled said they still don’t believe in evolution and are convinced that humans and dinosaurs co-existed... Refusing to believe in evolution is a point of pride for many conservatives, who are also trying to indoctrinate young people with their same misguided views. The right-wing Texas State Board of Education has been reviewing the direction of the state’s social studies curriculum and textbook standards. (Poll results below.)
•51 percent disagree with the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."
•38 percent agree with the statement, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."
•30 percent agree with the statement, "Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." Another 30 percent said they "don’t know" whether the statement is true.
From the Texas Tribune: The questions were devised by David Prindle, a University of Texas government professor who authored a book called Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution, about the late evolutionary biologist. "The end in mind is to establish the relationships, not just to get raw public opinion," he says. "We can do some fancy statistical stuff. Is it religion driving politics or is politics driving religion? My hypothesis is that religious views drive politics... Prindle says the results recall a line from comedian Lewis Black. "He did a standup routine a few years back in which he said that a significant proportion of the American people think that the 'The Flintstones' is a documentary," Prindle says. "Turns out he was right. Thirty percent of Texans agree that humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time." (Blatant ignorance like this is more than discouraging. It's downright scary.)
And this has what to do with what purpose homosexuality serves in evolution again? Maybe if you actually answer a question or two, you wouldn't sound as hollow and pathetic as you do.Why even bother arguing science with someone who holds wilful ignorance in such high esteem?
Why even bother arguing science with someone who holds wilful ignorance in such high esteem?
The book you base your life on has been proven empirically and demonstrably false so often that, to a reasonable man, it woul have been abandoned long ago.
Just forget the parts that are obviously wrong, ignore the sections that would appeal to mercy and use only what you can to hate and oppress others.
In other words, be a man of god.
BTW, I've already explained how homosexuality could be of benefit to the human race. You chose to ignore it, which has nothing to do with me.
.
Apparently, you need to take your own advice. Nowhere does it state that Adam and Eve has JUST two sons. Furthermore, it also state that one of them had a WIFE.
Thanks for playing.
I'm sorry. What would that purpose be for homosexuality again, in the grand scheme of evolution?
So you are just admitting that the population is due to incest?
Don't stop there. Include sterile/impotent people. The elderly. Children who have not reach child bearing capabilities yet. Don't limit it to a basis of sexuality.
And what would their purpose be, in the grand scheme of evolution, too? Maybe you can address this, since Garebear seems to be tongue-tied.
Yep! Of course, if you believe that man "evolved" from a common ancestor, then you basically believe the same thing.
So how did you come about? Every picture I have seen of Adam and Eve and the lot they were all white.
Who fucked who to give us the chinese? Are slanted eyes a result of parental sin as well like you claim MS, retardation, etc... are?
They have none. The point I was making is that you seem to base your argument on sexuality instead of encompassing a broader spectrum that harbors the same defining principle (they can't procreate)
So, the difference between your belief in a "common ancestor", as it relates to evolution vs. Adam and Eve would be......
If you bothered following the post, you would have noticed that Garebear made his arguments SPECIFICALLY on sexuality. Thus, my counter-arguments were also based on such.
I asked him specifically what the point was for homosexuality in the grand scheme of evolution. He has not answered that.
There is none, other than the criminal law that exists today that forbids one of them.
Again, how did we get blacks and chinese from incest?
You tell me. You're the one who thinks we evolved from a common ancestor. Either way, there's incest involved. And who said that common ancestor was white? For that matter, who said Adam an Even were white (other than European artists)?
I never claimed the common ancestor was white. I said it could have been purple. You don't know. Hell I never even claimed there was a single common ancestor as far as that goes. As far as God, Adam and Eve, Jesus, etc.. being white...... why the good old christians teach us that. They indoctrinate us with this in the form of art, books, paintings, movies, etc... Heck even the illustrated Bible story books that docs have sitting in their waiting room has whitey folks in it.
So to answer my own question, since you are avoiding it, it is IMPOSSIBLE for blacks, chinese, etc.. to have originated from a single race's inbreeding. I don't care how many thousands of years go by, you are not going to find black parents giving birth to chinese babies. Period. End of discuss. Stop sign.
.
My point of incest was not to deny it at all. Where did you get that? Hello?
The point is the hypocrisy of basing the entire human race on something that is both illegal and forbidden by God himself.
Again, why are Chinese parents not having black babies now days?
Something being initially permitted for a very specific purpose and then later forbidden for a new purpose by the creator is not hypocritical.
Of course it is. Saying otherwise is just hypocritical.
Like murder perhaps?
Sorry, it is. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You can't try to justify it with defining parameters just to suit your side of the argument.
What has murder got to do with it? Another example of God's hypocrisy. Despite telling everyone not to murder, he kills all his children. But hey.... that was for a valid specific purpose wasn't it? So was Rwanda depending on who you ask. Guess it was ok then too?
I'm not certain you understand what hypocrisy means and I don't mean that to be insulting either. Maybe I don't understand your definition of hypocrisy.
God murders all his children?
Apparently you haven't read the book that you claim to follow. You know... the flood? But hey, as long as murder is for a very specific purpose, it is alright.
And yet it hasn't happened again today.... why?
Or was Rwanda, Bosnia, etc.. justified?
The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.
God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
I suppose because the whole of the earth isn't corrupt today and those within it that are corrupted are not deemed beyond conversion.
Rwanda or Bosnia justified? Man do you reach and stretch.
You think the world is more or less corrupt today than then? Pick an answer.
As I said, murder is only justified when God does it even though it makes him a hypocrite.
I stand by exactly what I said. The whole of the earth isn't corrupt, but there is still evil in the world.
man just admit that god is a hypocrite would you? are you trying to fool yourself? Let's see thou shalt not kill, he kills everyone ::)
The consistent claims of "HYPOCRISY!!" completely ignore both purpose and justice.....divine purpose and justice at that. With no personal concept or believe in God there is no acknowledgement of divine purpose and/or justice. It's so very easy to strip out divine qualities, context, perspective, purpose, etc....and just review the act alone. It just doesn't work that way.
how do you know? are you divine? the only idea of hypocrisy that you can even define is the one in which we experience and relate to. Using the only definition of hypocrisy, god is just that. You can obfuscate the idea with meaningless concepts but god killed everyone basically, your god is terrible for obvious reasons.
how do you know? are you divine? the only idea of hypocrisy that you can even define is the one in which we experience and relate to. Using the only definition of hypocrisy, god is just that. You can obfuscate the idea with meaningless concepts but god killed everyone basically, your god is terrible for obvious reasons.
Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act. How is that hypocritical? I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction. Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change. Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept. Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=424496.0;attach=482068;image)I condone this based purely on the hilarity ;D ;D ;D
Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act. How is that hypocritical? I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction. Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change. Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept. Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.Translation : I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!
Again, God permitted an act for a certain purpose and when that purpose was no longer needed he then outlawed the original act. How is that hypocritical? I allow my own child to engage in certain behaviors given circumstances, but once those circumstances change the original behavior may no longer suit it and I have to guide my child in a new direction. Like I mentioned, remove context and purpose and all your left with is a capricious change. Theologians aren't in disagreement over this concept. Still, if you two want to sleep with your sisters you have the freedom to choose to do so.Hey that sounds familiar - isn't the ideology behind a DICTATORSHIP - DO WHAT YOUR TOLD WHEN YOUR TOLD AND IF WE DECIDE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS YOU ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO DO WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU TO DO. DON'T BACKCHAT! JUST DO WHAT YOUR TOLD OR I WILL GET THE ROD FROM THE CUPBOARD. Your poor children are going to grow up with the most skewed way of looking at the world, they will never understand Boundaries and will never be able to trust anyone as you have raised them in an inconsistent manner. Looks like the Apple won't be falling far from the tree! One religious Nutjob raising another religious Nutjob! Oh Brother, is there any hope for humanity!
Translation : I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!
Jesus, the cognitive dissonance you must experience writing something like this must be intense. If you tell your children not to steal yet you steal then you are a hypocrite. God can't forbid something he himself does, it completely negates any logic. Why should we abide by rules he himself cannot follow?
Oh ya divine purpose and all that bullshit. Doesn't god know the future? so he created all these people knowing he would later kill them? so fucked up.
Hey that sounds familiar - isn't the ideology behind a DICTATORSHIP - DO WHAT YOUR TOLD WHEN YOUR TOLD AND IF WE DECIDE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS YOU ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO DO WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU TO DO. DON'T BACKCHAT! JUST DO WHAT YOUR TOLD OR I WILL GET THE ROD FROM THE CUPBOARD. Your poor children are going to grow up with the most skewed way of looking at the world, they will never understand Boundaries and will never be able to trust anyone as you have raised them in an inconsistent manner. Looks like the Apple won't be falling far from the tree! One religious Nutjob raising another religious Nutjob! Oh Brother, is there any hope for humanity!
Translation : I'll do whatever the FUCK I want to do! BECAUSE THE bible TELLS ME So!
A dictator may make capricious changes or adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" approach, but there is certainly benefit for the dictator in doing so. Sometimes that benefit is one sided (always favoring the dictator) and other times it may not be; regardless, there is always a benefit (either perceived and/or realized) for the dictator and that beneficial change is contingent on the community of folks subject to the dictator's rule.Wow, I was waiting for you to flame on like a wrathful deity! but you kept your cool and responded well. Didn't Cain bang his mother though! He must have shagged Eve silly, otherwise we wouldn't be here right?
The difference here is God isn't dependent upon us for anything.....there is no benefit for God. God graciously, lovingly works within the context of our lives in order to benefit and strengthen us and draw us closer to him...that's the missing purpose and perspective. Doesn't mean we're going to follow his will or his law....we don't have to.
LOL! Again, if you fellas wanna bang your parents, siblings or cousins by all means go for it.
Wow, I was waiting for you to flame on like a wrathful deity! but you kept your cool and responded well. Didn't Cain bang his mother though! He must have shagged Eve silly, otherwise we wouldn't be here right?
Well, unfortunately, I'm used to folks taking potshots online or trying to anger me by suggesting things about my family (I think I've read every vile comment there is to read in that regard). Do I like the comments? Of course not, but me lashing out in kind doesn't represent Christ or my family; plus, I know if we were in person sitting across from one another in discussion how different the tone would be. With the internet comes unbridled chutzpah empowering most the freedom to unleash however they choose as oceans sometimes seperate those replying with one another.Oh, Cain's wife was his sister, that's alright then, for a moment there I though Cain did something really perverse, Like Shag his Mother! Thanks for clearing that up! ;D
Online, people say what they really feel, but in person with me.....LOL......not so much. In a strange way the online honesty is sometimes a good thing.
Oh yeah, Adam and Eve had many children so Cain's wife was one of the other kids.....his sister.
Oh, Cain's wife was his sister, that's alright then, for a moment there I though Cain did something really perverse, Like Shag his Mother! Thanks for clearing that up! ;D
Today incest isn't permitted or treated as appropriate. We understand the genetic implications that can arise from incest today, but prior to God outlawing incest there technically was no concept of "incest"......you simply married a relative because...well....that's all there was to marry. Once the generational lines had been expanded and the population strengthened God outlawed the "act of incest". Again, when the situation called for an appropriate change guided by definite purpose (conceivably because of the negative genetic implications) the act was ended for the betterment of people.
Yes, today the idea of incest is ridiculous and creepy because the standard has long been set concerning what appropriate relationships are and because we fully grasp the medical implications of incestuous relationships.
so as the genetic implications became less of a concern he outlawed it? wtf? it makes no sense, you know why something makes no sense, because it's not true. When what you are saying makes no sense, you are generally wrong.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. As the generational lines expanded the genetic implications became more of concern...the problem was escalated in essence.
The early generations weren't as far removed from the fall of man as the later generations; hence, earlier generations were seemingly less sensitive to implications of incestuous relationships.
This is how I've understood it.
I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?Yes as our belief is that our seed was stronger with Adam and has been watered down after every single generation. Put it this way if Noah was the father of all nations he would have had to have all the exceptional skills and traits of Blacks, Chinese, Europeans, Natives etc, so as his seed is spread the strength is hindered per generation.
Anyway as you believe in evolution and obviously do not consider this valid in any way.
This is how a theologian that studies this matter perceives this issues, so this is an explanation from our perspective, not interested in debating between the lines 8)
What I don't consider valid is the absolute lack of any scientific evidence to substantiate a position on a topic that is purely scientific. What it boils down to, if we play that game, is that I'll have keep taking your word for any subject. Gravity? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Solar eclipses? Forget science - theologians have answered that. Etc.There are 1000's of ancient documents of people who lived for well over 150+ years but the problem is anything outside of evolution is automatically BS.
You'd imagine that the various religions (and their adherents) learned their lesson after being forced to eat crow about the whole Galileo snafu. But, apparently, you'd be wrong.
There are 1000's of ancient documents of people who lived for well over 150+ years but the problem is anything outside of evolution is automatically BS.
Look who is talking, taking evolution at face value, now that is a joke, you should use what's inside the head of your ;)
I don't take evolution at face value, but even if I did are you suggesting that my actions justify your stupidity?No I am suggesting you practice what you preach
No I am suggesting you practice what you preach
If by that you mean examine evolution with a critical eye then you'll be happy to know I already have. I rely on facts and science, and the facts and the science tell me that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits the observable facts and which best predicts outcomes we observe. Could something better come along? Sure. Could it be discredited completely? It's possible, albeit very highly unlikely; worse case scenario, the theory is improved and strengthened.But that is your view but to some one else it looks silly. You are so convince that what you believe is the truth that you say it is science and everything else is baloni. Nothing I believe in hinders science in the slightest but yet you say it does cause you have created this idea in your mind that evolution is science, when in fact evolution is a myth. That is not a statement made from a religious perspective it is simply very vague in certain areas and based on much assumption that in my opinion and many others is flawed. Are there some valid points in evolution, of course, many.
You see, unlike you, I don't have blind faith in anything.
But that is your view but to some one else it looks silly. You are so convince that what you believe is the truth that you say it is science and everything else is baloni. Nothing I believe in hinders science in the slightest but yet you say it does cause you have created this idea in your mind that evolution is science, when in fact evolution is a myth. That is not a statement made from a religious perspective it is simply very vague in certain areas and based on much assumption that in my opinion and many others is flawed. Are there some valid points in evolution, of course, many.
Now let me give you an example of your close minded mind set. We have read such Greek Mythology and folklore and we have read the epics of Gilgamesh, these are clearly exaggerated stories that the author intends for you to not take them literally. Now there is the book of Jasher and this book is very incredible and has documented warfare that has in fact been verified through Archaeology and is an extremely accurate account of what took place. Clearly the author has absolutely no intentions on being inaccurate in anyway he only wishes that he documents everything to a T. In one such story the author has Abraham dying at 180 years old.
Now just so you can win an argument on getbig you classify the 2 stories as one category and you compare the story of the Patriarch in Jasher to that of Zeus and Hercules, why, because one line in the entire story that tells you he lived to 180 years, instead of accepting the possibility that maybe he did live to 180 years. There are lots of scientist who believe that it is possible under certain atmospheric conditions and under certain circumstance the nature of life could be completely different then what we see today and they keep within the compounds of science, but to you oh the story says he lived to 180, it is now mythology.
Oh BTW I rely on facts and science as well.
Sarcasm? is that how you chose to debate?
There you go again Comparing work of a manuscript that has every intentions of telling it how it is to a poem, Homer`s work is poetic, have you not read it?... it falls under folklore and not intended to be 100% accurate, unless you believe in Cyclops ???.....
I don`t automatically believe anything like you claim, I like to keep an open mind but I would not disregard a text or in this case hundreds of them that state humans lived very long as untrue
just cause I don`t believe humans can live long because I am restricted to that of a theory that`s states that it is not possible or just cause it is not possible today.
Many scientist believe it was possible, so they are all delusional right?
Now coming from Adam is a personal belief I have I don`t claim it to be scientific or a fact of any sort as I am the first to admit that I have no evidence of this whatsoever so you using that against me is stupid as I freely admit I can not prove it. See I don`t play games or presume to know things like you. I state theories and reasons that theologians have and I don`t think anyone is crazy cause they believe something bizarre. We don`t have the answers and everything is still a puzzle to the scientific community, we haven`t even scratched the surface. You can not say 100% that anything I believe is untrue, you can`t and as soon as you admit that you won`t be so closed minded.
don't have to "say 100% that anything [you] believe is untrue." The onus isn't on me to disprove or discredit your beliefs. The onus is on you to prove them if you want them to merit serious consideration.
I keep hearing this but that is not my point. My point is that my belief, sense you can not prove it to be wrong or I can no prove it to be right, falls into the same category as your theory of evolution, as I can not prove it to be wrong and you can not prove it to be right.
On what grounds do you say that the manuscript in question has any intention of being accurate? The fact is that the text of Book of Jasher is widely believed to be lost and the texts purporting to be it are not believed to be so.
What? did you just google that, lmao..... trust me it is accepted by theologians, those are a bunch of trolls that have bombarded google with that crap, lol, nice try. Do you actually think if was not accepted that the jewish Rabbis would reference it?
Last point sense we are chasing a dogs tail here. If a texts says someone lived for 180 years does not make it so, duh, of course not.
But it is a possibility regardless of how improbable it may sound and for you to say that I am not being rational for thinking that it is a possibility is ignorant and this ignorance is the result of your theory of evolution and it actually hinders science. Puts restrictions on what actually is possible.
Like I said some scientist, yes they have Phds believe people could have lived longer then they do today and they give a perfectly sound explanation for their reasoning.
What, you do not believe me, ya I am making that up ::).... Cmon now do not be lazy I am sure you can google that too, it is not hard and you seem to be a google king. If you really can not find anything on this then I will dig something up for you later, I guess :-\
I'm sorry, I really don't follow. It was ok for a little while, while the genetic pool was not diverse, but then, as the genetic pool grew more diverse then it became a problem?
Yep, that's the gist.
Moar details plz.
Don't have any at my fingertips to provide you. I have some books at home. Google?
If you make a claim then you must support that claim.Noted in my diary...thx!
Lol, well I believe you have read the Bible but you have not read Jasher, lol, it is not one of the Apochrypha books sorry.
You said so yourself that it is a possibility that the theory of evolution can be replaced in the future and if that is the case it obviously is not proven and something that can not be proven has to be taken by faith, hence the theory of evolution is religion not scientific fact, it falls in the same category. Have to go will be back later ;) have a nice day 8)
Evolution is a myth? Then explain why so many Christians get a flu shot every year.To help in not gettin the flu.
To help in not gettin the flu.
The concept of mutation via microevolution is accepted by many Christians.
macroevolution has been observed, why do you continue this lie?
With regards to evolution, what are creationists views on the skeletons that have been discovered of primitive humans...?Pics or it didn't happen.
And all the cave paintings of ancient humans that date beyond 6000 BC and that show them with wooly mammoths and other extinct animals?
I didn't mention macroevolution, but since you're fishing I'm just gonna be upfront and pass on the "transitional form, prehistoric deer to a whale, bacteria in the lab, radiometric dating, intelligent design" macroevolution "google warrior" back and forth today.
Even though I have no interest in this thread, and the qur'an does not dwelve on specifics of noah's ark like the bible in supposed intricate detail. You are an intellectual fraud, when you claim it says 50,000 and 2 million insects, etc... The bible says no such thing.I don't murder people when atheism is insulted.
You only reinforce the stereotype that atheists are only good at jesting, ridiculing and mocking to defend their insecure beliefs.
To be fair, 450 feet long ship is pretty impressive. That is what the Chinese Muslim explorer Zheng He's ship length was here is a comparison:
(http://www.alrahalah.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ChinaZhengHeShip1405vsSantaMaria500pxw.jpg)
The little insect ship is olombus' santa maria with whom he took muslims as slaves to 'india' I mean the new world lol :)
Lol God let that slide for only a few hours. Haha:Did god kill them because they said it?
(http://images.pcnabs.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/R7rOxQoKCmQAADOCWvc1/titanic%20new%20york's%20times.jpg?et=ye%2BqvWHecpL9%2B83j9kzQDg&nmid=&nmid=82719306)
No not laughing at the victims just at the guy who thought that God could not sink this ship ::)
No not laughing at the victims just at the guy who thought that God could not sink this ship ::)
I don't murder people when atheism is insulted.Zing.
microevolution as you mentioned is macro evolution, your implication was that is was a distinct thing, hence the acceptance as you stated.
Seriously, why do you deny reality, perhaps god choose this method? but denying reality seems a bit odd to me.
I'm denying or affirming anything....I just responded to the flu shot bit LOL. Y'all wanna have a knockdown, drag out discussion about evolution then by all means do that.
Because we don't come from monkeys stupid 8) Or sea creatures ::)
(http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/media/treeolif.jpg)
I see what you did there
You know I also find it funny how you guys open up to this monkey business when someone is agreeing with you but when someone doesnt believe this crap, you start either denying it no no its ont like that or no no you dont understand.
I have an encyclopedia circa mid 90s which has pages tackling lucy and an evolution tree, etc...
I could draw pretty pictures and imagine fairy tales of evolution too and if i was agreeing with you, youd be like good job son! Spread the truth haleluya! But if i was disagreeing youd be again "no no but you dont understand"
There is no evidence for your beliefs.
As mentioned already the only 'evolution' happening is adaptation in species within their dna design.
You can't explain squat, about how organs came to be and then the whole creatures as they are. You just speculate and resort to everything taking millions of years. Great proof you have.
you using microevolution indicates that you don't realize that no one uses that term in the manner which you used it. Small changes are usually called adaptations, macroevolution is speciation. This terminology is not something one see's throughout the literature, it's not a bad terminology, some do use it, but it's mostly associated with creationism.
Guess I already know where you are going.
I've stated my position before and I will again because it's very simple. I don't have all the answers.
When a scientific breakthrough occurs I don't slam my eyes shut, cover my ears and start bellowing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" and singing "Jesus Loves Me". I like finding the harmony between God and man's discoveries within his creation. I personally don't believe in 6 literal days of creation. Is evolution one vehicle for God's creation? I'm open to it.
Point is, I don't have all the answers and I'm humble enough to admit that.
Still, despite it all, I have experienced the risen Christ in my life and I want to share that with others with the hope that they can experience the same.
I am completely fine with your position, completely. Read more on evolution, it is a fact, many things can be disputed within the theory, that is the magic of science. Does punctuated equilibrium occur? I don't know, let's try and disprove it. etc etc.How can something be a fact if it is a theory? and avxo said that it is a possibility that the theory could be replaced with something different in the future, so how can this be a fact if there is a possibility that it can be replaced with a new theory or is avxo talking crap ???
How can something be a fact if it is a theory? and avxo said that it is a possibility that the theory could be replaced with something different in the future, so how can this be a fact if there is a possibility that it can be replaced with a new theory or is avxo talking crap ???
Where is this evidence you guys keep talking about ???
Fossils, genetics, homology, observation etc.
Besides making claims visually about creatures appearing the same or similar then giving gaps in between creatures and citing it takes millions of years or hundreds of million years. I see no real hard evidence at all?
first i would like to point out that completely intact fossils are rare, they are the exception. Also, you seem to misunderstand evolution.
The fossil record shows species appearing then dissapearing. The end. No in betweeners.
Then when it comes to these 'theoretical' transitional species and the millions of years of 'evolution'... how did they develop their distinct organs. They didnt just go poof there's an eye. poof there's a heart. Poof there's a liver. Poof there's lungs. Poof there's legs and arms.. poof wings appear. Poof vagina and penis appear.
no, the eye for example, could simply be a light sensing cell, which allows a creature to know there is light. Then it increases the number of cells for acuity and more sensing power. The cells then differentiate wavelength and voila color. Now it starts to become pitted, which allows for orientation, where the light is coming from, which would be beneficial and so on. nothing appears magically. You are confused my friend, everything is in transition, you wouldn't see half eyes that don't work because it offers no benefit to the host, things don't evolve for the sake of it.
I do not deny creatures adapting to their environment, but i understand this within their genetic confines. For example amongst humans different hair, different skin. But we fundementally remain the same creature with all the components of organs, systems, etc...
Radiation or mutation dont turn us into super heroes. They cause us to die and damage dna.
radiation is vastly different from point deletions, or various other deletions. sickle cell isn't anything like radiation poisoning.
The thing that baffles me is Darwin said sometihng along the lines of.. if a complex organism was found it would crumble his theory entirely and at his time he could not even see the contents of a cell, he saw a blob. We know today thanks to modern microscopes that cells are basically a small factory!
Personally I don't have certainty about 6 24hr days of creation.Are we even certain it means 6 24 hour days?
Are we even certain it means 6 24 hour days?
6 Days to god may be 1000's of years to people. I've always wondered about that, but I'm not well versed enough in the bible to argue what is said... but the question always sticks in my mind.... 6 days... to whom?
How can something be a fact if it is a theory? and avxo said that it is a possibility that the theory could be replaced with something different in the future, so how can this be a fact if there is a possibility that it can be replaced with a new theory or is avxo talking crap ???
why the confusion, what other type of days are there? I mean why speculate if you could never know the answer and we have an idea of what days are. I think it's clear as day what is meant, but because it's so incorrect, people twist it.
Fossils, genetics, homology, observation etc.
first i would like to point out that completely intact fossils are rare, they are the exception. Also, you seem to misunderstand evolution.
no, the eye for example, could simply be a light sensing cell, which allows a creature to know there is light. Then it increases the number of cells for acuity and more sensing power. The cells then differentiate wavelength and voila color. Now it starts to become pitted, which allows for orientation, where the light is coming from, which would be beneficial and so on. nothing appears magically. You are confused my friend, everything is in transition, you wouldn't see half eyes that don't work because it offers no benefit to the host, things don't evolve for the sake of it.
I think in done "debating" with people whose collective IQ is "potato". Man of Steel, even if we disagree you're a class act.
Guess how many hours the days on other planets are? What is time? It is defined via certain referenced paramters. In our case the sun and moon play a big role in how we determine 'time'.This is what I was speaking of. We define a day as sunrise to sunrise (on this planet). We have no idea how an entity like "God" would define it, especially since creation (be definition) happened PRIOR to humans coming into existence.
In islamic scholarship the understanding of the 6 days can be understood as periods and not necessarily 24 hours as per earth hours and earth days.
Empty statements repeated by "Oh but you don't understand". Yet again!
You yourself say fossils are rare and barely complete in other words you could take any rubbish bones and imagine whatever you want and conclude AAAH this is what must have been. If your faith of darwinism was true, the earth would be LOADED with these transitional forms.
Genetics? Oh really? Besides knowing that DNA is source code on which all life is derived. There is nothing that shows that mutations add genetic material but rather distort it and destroy it. Radiation doesn't cause us to become super heroes.
You can't start with a small 'bit' of dna then magically get a whole creature with developed heart, brain, liver, arms, muscles, skeletal system, nervous system, reproductive system, male and female repsectively unique of each other. It's programmed to work in harmony COMPLETE and whole. That's why otherwise we have DEFORMITIES if something is wrong with DNA or there is DNA damage
Oh I know... it took 'hundreds of millions of yeras'. That's so damn baseless you cant begin to imagine as you try to make me 'imagine' all this. It's ludicrous
I will post some examples which basically make a ridicule of the claim that genetics 'prove' that we are evolved. More on that later.
Homology? oOoOoOh classifying bones! That proves nothing. It's like a kid given a game to make similar things stand together in order. It means nothing.
Observation? Yeah okay! If I observe what's around us it shows in the absolute OPPOSITE of any of your claims! Unless you think that seeing visually 'similar' creatures with necks means that one must have evolved from another so its neck grew over millions of years.. and one who had legs magically transformed into wings.
That's why I said xmen, spiderman, superman, wonder woman... thats what you are proposing. Fiction and imagination. Not reality.
Lol. So you use your IMAGINATION to DRAW visually representations of creatures you've NEVER SEEN or know for sure what they are. Brilliant!
How is that a PIG TOOTH becomes THIS:
(http://evolutionisntscience.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nebraska-man-evolution-fraud.jpg?w=510)
Oh it was a 'mistake' riiight. It just shows what 'science' you employ to believe in this hocus pocus evolution theory.
Brilliant so you have an understanding of how a biological camera works. I do too. I love it, its beautiful its pretty amazing. But I dont conclude it magically evolved from some primitive cell then hundreds of milloins of years later through some unknown means VOILA evolution theory you have a whole eye that is now symmetrically a part of a human's face that sees in 3D!
And you are saying this magically just developed on its own somehow because it 'sensed' something and then POOF an eye? HMMMM strong evidence!
(http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/3400/vision/eye_human_detail.gif)
Hmmm evolution!:
A million years ago:
(http://magazine.bikeradar.com/files/2011/06/old-fashioned-video-camera2.jpg)
Today:
(http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/panasonic-3d-hd-camera.jpg)
The future:
(http://www.plunderguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/third-eye-camera.jpg)
How do you people explain Neanderthals? They were apparently smarter than primitive humans......did they not have a soul?
And what about cavemen? They existed way before 6000 BC....modern humans date back to about 40 000 years ago.
And how do you explain all the bones dug up by archaeologists....?
Isn't there even a corpse which was found in the Alps which dates back about 10 000 years...?
And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?
Then there's dinosaur bones..........they date back loooooong before 6000 BC.Yes and they appeared and then died off and dissapeared. Your point?
Humans were alive in the last Ice Age.....that's over 10 000 BC.
And you have proof that they were smarter because you spoke to these supposed humans? :)
And yet you were not there to know jack. You speculate basd on bone fragments and fabricat tales based off your own imagination and conjecture
Just as this pig's tooth:
(http://www.creationtips.com/Pix/peccary.jpg)
Claimed to be a 'humanoid tooth' of some kind turned into these:
(http://leesbirdblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nebraska-man.jpg)
(http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/wp-content/blogs.dir/435/files/2012/04/i-76fb151102f94d666e5ef30750ea60b9-nebman.jpg)
(http://www.creationproof.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/caveman.jpg)
How? They found a buncha bones? And? They draw pretty pictures. WOW
Great, so you're grave diggers too. Enlighten me.
Apparently you're not the only one interesting in drawings.
Yes and they appeared and then died off and dissapeared. Your point?
oookay? And? Again what are you getting to? Still proves nothing on darwinism. Humans exist and that's that.
Dude that is not even REAL it was a pig tooth. The same can be said about other 'bones' and your 'reconstructions'.
Take different artists and give them the same bones and each one will imagine what they want.
Even Dawkins 'amazing' eye evolution explanation what a farce. It's like deceitfully he understands how an eye works so he takes it apart and basically starts from reverse in bits and pieces saying well this animal, and this animal, and this animal, etc... THIS IS NOT PROOF of any kind of evolution. It's just deception and explaining how a lens/camera/eye works that's it.
And what PROOF do you have that they went from one creature to another. None. You have creatures disappearing and appearing that is the fossil record period. That's it.
You're not presenting any evidence just assumptions, conjecture and your own imaginary constructs
Dude that is not even REAL it was a pig tooth. The same can be said about other 'bones' and your 'reconstructions'.
Take different artists and give them the same bones and each one will imagine what they want.
Even Dawkins 'amazing' eye evolution explanation what a farce. It's like deceitfully he understands how an eye works so he takes it apart and basically starts from reverse in bits and pieces saying well this animal, and this animal, and this animal, etc... THIS IS NOT PROOF of any kind of evolution. It's just deception and explaining how a lens/camera/eye works that's it.
And what PROOF do you have that they went from one creature to another. None. You have creatures disappearing and appearing that is the fossil record period. That's it.
You're not presenting any evidence just assumptions, conjecture and your own imaginary constructs
These views are accepted by the entire scientific community, archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists etc.
The only people who refuse to believe these established facts are the minorities who who quote mystical ancient texts.
The one uses science to prove their views, the other uses an old book.
I love it how atheists repeat that its 'accepted by all scientists'. No actually it's not. It's just that atheists are loud as shit and annoying.
Facts? Yet its a theory that can change and does change at any moment's notice. Facts like the Nebraska man? A pig's tooth and lots of drawings?
You deceive people with pretty pictures. That's all you do. And cover the tracks by citing everything in unimaginable millions of years upon millions of years. While it's mere conjecture and you cannot prove it.
(http://evolutionisntscience.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/evolutionhorse.gif?w=510)
(http://img-harunyahya.mncdn.net/Image/horse1.jpg)
(http://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/horse-evolution.gif)
(http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/HorseEvolutionFraud.jpg)
(http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-horse-fundamental-concepts-biology-1970.gif)
Only ignorant and naive people will fall for these kinds of deceptions
And now you don't have to resort to shitty drawings you can use the latest in computer animation to paint the deceptive illusion as more real:
(http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_movie_2012_genesis_awards_humane_society.jpg)
Creationists are obviously living remnants of primitive humans.that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life ??? did you make that up. Well I hate to burst your bubble but your ignorance and emotions against someone that does not believe in evolution has clouded your perception, let me explain.... 7 billion people here and every single person believes in gravity yet there are over a billion people, and many smart, that believe evolution is wrong so cut the crap, your comment is childish and not intelligent at all, :-\ :-\ :-\
Arguing against evolution is like saying gravity doesn't exist and derives from some unknown mystical force.
How do you people explain Neanderthals? They were apparently smarter than primitive humans......did they not have a soul?
And what about cavemen? They existed way before 6000 BC....modern humans date back to about 40 000 years ago.
And how do you explain all the bones dug up by archaeologists....?
Isn't there even a corpse which was found in the Alps which dates back about 10 000 years...?
And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?
Then there's dinosaur bones..........they date back loooooong before 6000 BC.
Humans were alive in the last Ice Age.....that's over 10 000 BC.
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life ??? did you make that up. Well I hate to burst your bubble but your ignorance and emotions against someone that does not believe in evolution has clouded your perception, let me explain.... 7 billion people here and every single person believes in gravity yet there are over a billion people, and many smart, that believe evolution is wrong so cut the crap, your comment is childish and not intelligent at all, :-\ :-\ :-\
Now let's get on with it without the stupid meaningless gestures ;)
Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.
A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.
''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them ???
Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be. The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.
Human where around 10 000 years ago ??? Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.
Jesus, are you serious or joking?Clap Clap Clap, are you retarded? Not an insult, I really do want to know ??? These remark of yours are based on emotions and a waste of time, so save it, control yourself bro ;)
Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.
A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.
''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them ???
Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be.
The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.
Human where around 10 000 years ago ??? Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.
that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life ??? did you make that up. Well I hate to burst your bubble but your ignorance and emotions against someone that does not believe in evolution has clouded your perception, let me explain.... 7 billion people here and every single person believes in gravity yet there are over a billion people, and many smart, that believe evolution is wrong so cut the crap, your comment is childish and not intelligent at all, :-\ :-\ :-\
Now let's get on with it without the stupid meaningless gestures ;)
Neanderthals are pre-flood men who (because of different atmospheric conditions) were able to live longer, so certain bone features grew further then what we would see on modern man.
A date can be altered in catastrophic events. Depending on how big the event may be, in this case a world wide catastrophe, so caveman may date to 40 000 years but the dates are assuming regular and stable conditions. In an article in national geographic there where some seals that ended up dead after the result of some volcanic activity and their dead bodies yielded ages of up to 15 000 years.
''And what about all the ancient cave paintings in Africa and Europe....?'' Don't follow, what about them ???
Dinosaurs bones are never dated, never, nor will they ever be. The age of the dinosaur bones are established based on a huge myth the geologic column that is another fraud of your great theory.
Human where around 10 000 years ago ??? Not one single document of a King, a general, an army, a civilization, a culture, a war, a monument, a city, Nothing, zip, zero, nada. To put things in perspective there are literally 1000's of documents of culture, civilizations, wars, king, generals and even religious figures dating to 3000 bc, go back another 1000 years to 4000 bc and there is NOTHING. I think it is foolish to think humans where around without leaving a single monument, statue, a pillar, or any type of written work at all and please don't bring up Gobekli tepe.
Thousands of articles in national geographic and all kinds of information on this bro, all kinds. Btw the dating method used was carbon dating. all kinds of situations where a recently deceased animal date to 10 000 years or older, see these dating methods are accurate but not definitive, under intense conditions can be altered, I will dig some up for you but busy for a few days, pardon my spelling trying to get used to this tablet.
What do you mean prove they dont date bones from dinosaurs, that is just dumb what you just asked, they just dont. Ask anyone, they think the bones are 65 million years old so carbon dating is not possible as it only goes back less then 100 000 years so they dont bother
Thousands of articles in national geographic and all kinds of information on this bro, all kinds. Btw the dating method used was carbon dating. all kinds of situations where a recently deceased animal date to 10 000 years or older, see these dating methods are accurate but not definitive, under intense conditions can be altered, I will dig some up for you but busy for a few days, pardon my spelling trying to get used to this tablet.
What do you mean prove they dont date bones from dinosaurs, that is just dumb what you just asked, they just dont. Ask anyone, they think the bones are 65 million years old so carbon dating is not possible as it only goes back less then 100 000 years so they dont bother
Other radiometric dating methods are available... And sorry "it's been published many times before bro lol!" isn't evidence of anything. You made an extraordinary claim - you should provide evidence to support it.and i told you I will bro, relax bro
ya cus carbon dating is the only method. Listen, you have your reasons to believe the way you do, it's part of you. I don't give a fuck if we evolved, grew out of mud, out my moms ass etc. what difference does it make to me, I simply look at the evidence and make my conclusion. You on the other hand deny evolution, and for good reason, it conflicts with your storybook.
I watched a BBC documentary tonight called the History of the World.And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING. Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?
It stated that 'modern' humans date back 70 000 years and that there are cave paintings in Europe that date to 17 000 BC.
There was also a carved needle from 12 000 BC.
Also that Neanderthals lived and competed with humans for about 5000 - 10 000 years.
And that farming started 12 000 years ago, before that humans were hunter gatherers.
Interestingly, according to unearthed skeletons it seems that farm life was unhealthier than being a nomadic hunter-gather. The hard farm-work caused arthritis, tooth decay started for the time due to starchy food and humans became slightly smaller.
It also stated the last ice age was over 12 000 years ago and this allowed humans to cross over to America.
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING. Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING. Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?
And I have seen billions of shows like that too. Who hasn't, everything is claimed to be of old date, EVERYTHING. Tell me Einstein how do you date a piece of rock in a cave?
Wow... just wow.wow you guys are brainless, just wow, you know I know this, read the post I was responding to. Griffith was talking about a cave with drawings, that is what I was referring to, Mr. wow just wow, who thinks I don't know about radio metric dating, DUH ::)...... Ignorance I tell you. The cave has been there since the beginning of time Einstein so there is no way of measuring the date of when someone drew something brainiac, there you go eat your words, I don't normally get mad but your stupid comment made you look dumb, not me. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( ;D 8) :P wow just wow
avxo only has the ability to quote each word in quotes and then respond with cynical, sarcastic, self-glorifying superiority commentary that benefits absolutely no one. He is quite fond of his deception and lying by any means.all he says to refute everything is prove it, and ''you don't know what you are talking about'' then throws some fancy term in there, zero debate from his end. Then he will claim that whatever you say was not proof. It is predictable, his response that is. He claims the theory of evolution is proven, lol haha,... then he claims it is possible that it could be replaced, well then it isn't proven, lol... but then he will say proof means something else, funny guy.
It seems he will 'tear apart' anyone's arguments about being 'no evidence' (whatever you are discussing he'll conjecture up evidences from his ass for whatever he claims). But when it comes to others truly tearing apart his arguments then first he is insecurely in denial saying that only he knows what he's talking about and his lackeys, and that everyone else knows nothing and is uneducated, unscientific. Blabla.
Then when he has nothing more to say in his defense (or sarcasm/cynicism) he resorts oh wow oh wow.
I'm very dissapointed. In real life I certainly would not share a minute of my time with such an individual
wow you guys are brainless, just wow, you know I know this, read the post I was responding to. Griffith was talking about a cave with drawings, that is what I was referring to, Mr. wow just wow, who thinks I don't know about radio metric dating, DUH ::)...... Ignorance I tell you. The cave has been there since the beginning of time Einstein so there is no way of measuring the date of when someone drew something brainiac, there you go eat your words, I don't normally get mad but your stupid comment made you look dumb, not me. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( ;D 8) :P wow just wow
You can date the pigment used to color the color, however.No you can't, wow just wow how the tables turn, now it is my turn to say "you don't know what you are talking about" lol and "learn something"
avxo only has the ability to quote each word in quotes and then respond with cynical, sarcastic, self-glorifying superiority commentary that benefits absolutely no one. He is quite fond of his deception and lying by any means.
It seems he will 'tear apart' anyone's arguments about being 'no evidence' (whatever you are discussing he'll conjecture up evidences from his ass for whatever he claims). But when it comes to others truly tearing apart his arguments then first he is insecurely in denial saying that only he knows what he's talking about and his lackeys, and that everyone else knows nothing and is uneducated, unscientific. Blabla.
Then when he has nothing more to say in his defense (or sarcasm/cynicism) he resorts oh wow oh wow.
I'm very dissapointed. In real life I certainly would not share a minute of my time with such an individual
No you can't, wow just wow how the tables turn, now it is my turn to say "you don't know what you are talking about" lol and "learn something"
haha you lose, radiometric dating require something of a minium weight and it has to be material, lol now that's funny as hell "they can date the cave drawings cmon now avxo I expected more from you, I guess you forgot to google that one :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Yeah I've seen it in my other threads. He came uninvited, I had no intention of dweling on atheist matters personally but he came in to mock and ridicule a few religious threads. Then when I'm like okay lets talk, his 'talks' are merely cynicism, sarcasm, ridicule and 'this is not evidence' and 'you dont know anything' in circular fashion covered in deception, misinformation and lying... he's nothing but a fraud.
He has some issues that he has to quote each sentence and write ten paragraphs in response. Kind of hard to respond to this guy as a result and then he thinks he is superior in knowledge. Self glorifying fool as far as I'm concerned.
Not to mention he's an intellectually dishonest guy. Whenever he tries to 'slander' Islam and muslims he is not talking from islam he is talking of bs hearsay stereotypes and news. And when he TRIES to quote the quran he obviously does so out of context. He has never read the qur'an.
It's just futile to talk to him about ANYTHING at all
OWNEDWho, you?
OWNED8) I would say and let's see if he would admit he was wrong
''So the pigment isn't a material that you can scrape off the rock and date?''
No it is not big enough, it has to be solid, wow you really don't know anything on this subject do you?
Who, you?
You get owned on every thread.
Wrong. It doesn't have to be solid. Read about Isochron dating. Wikipedia explicitly (and conveniently) states "To perform dating, a rock is crushed to a fine powder and minerals are separated by various physical and magnetic means. Each mineral has different ratios between parent and daughter concentrations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_datingYou just don't get it do you. Unbelievable how stubborn you can be. Listen carefully bro. I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way. 1 is no one on the planet dates dinosaur bones, they just don't, ask any professor and ask any archaeologist and they will tell you this, not hard to understand any archaeologist who finds a dinosaur bone will not conduct any radio metric dating on it, in fact everyone in this field knows this, EVERYONE.
I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way.
You have been debating radio metric dating for 15 years?No, I have no beef with radio metric dating, scroll up this page and find the wikipedia link and I agree with everything it says. What I meant is I have been debating along the lines of these subjects long enough to know that no archaeologist on the planet has ever nor will ever radio metric date a dinosaur bone.
Now you asked for proof that Carbon dating can be altered through certain events that give off enormous amounts of carbon to the atmosphere such as volcanoes.
THANKS NECROSIS FOR THE WIKI LINK, HERE IS A PARAGRAPGH FROM YOUR LINK ;) ;) ;) ;)
The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates.
Now admit you were wrong again axvo and believe me 200 example of every single dating method having wacky numbers are coming your way bro. So I don't want to hear oh well they dated this to 15000 years in your argument again as we just confirmed that dates can be inaccurate
You just don't get it do you. Unbelievable how stubborn you can be. Listen carefully bro. I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way. 1 is no one on the planet dates dinosaur bones, they just don't, ask any professor and ask any archaeologist and they will tell you this, not hard to understand any archaeologist who finds a dinosaur bone will not conduct any radio metric dating on it, in fact everyone in this field knows this, EVERYONE.
2 is they do not conduct radio metric dating on cave drawings, they simply don't, so get over yourself for 5 seconds and accept this. Dating things cost a lot of money and they tend to use it conservatively so it is a custom to not date dinosaur bones and cave drawings and I mean NEVER, now go google this as you always do and see for yourself, woooooooooooooooooooooos h
No, I have no beef with radio metric dating, scroll up this page and find the wikipedia link and I agree with everything it says. What I meant is I have been debating along the lines of these subjects long enough to know that no archaeologist on the planet has ever nor will ever radio metric date a dinosaur bone.
Actually, I asked for proof about your specific example about the seals but a general case example will do fine.You are missing the point completely, there is certain things they don't radio metric date and that's the bottom line.
Interesting. I didn't know about the effects of volcanoes and excess carbon dioxide, although in retrospect it's reasonable. But I will add that 14C dating techniques that account for reservoir correction techniques can easily deal with this sort of thing, but obviously no correction is 100% perfect. None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though.
I learned something new. However, I wouldn't say I was wrong, since I never said that the scenario you described was impossible. I asked you to back it up instead of just saying "I once read in an article" which is about as good as "my grandfather's neighbor had a cousin that once heard..." It's ironic that you only did after Necrosis posted the link.
I would be interested in seeing examples of "wacky" Sm-Nd or Ur-Pb dating results, out of personal curiosity.
The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority. But let's assume, arguendo, that they aren't dated. The fact that they've these bones have been found below the K-T boundary strongly hints at their age. Of course, I'm sure you'll now challenge the dating of the K-T boundary too...
Right... ::) We can't waste money on this sort of nonsense. It's way too expensive! Why, last I checked at http://paleoresearch.com/services/14C.html it costs $500 a pop! That's like more expensive than a test-tube! And a test tube is reusable! We aren't made of money! Besides, that's like... 100 Frappuccinos at Starbucks! Why do science when you can sip delicious ice coffee?
You are missing the point completely, there is certain things they don't radio metric date and that's the bottom line.
"None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though."
Ahh, but it does, you see if the atmospheric pressure in the pre-flood era was drastically different then what we have today the % of carbon in our atmosphere would have been way higher, furthermore if you have a different pressure you have a different decay rate.
The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority.
Of course not, but my point was that they don't use radio metric dating on cave drawings and dinosaur bones and in 15 years I have only learned this a billion times
Did anyone ever tell you that you're annoying and a fraud?All of your arguments have been destroyed.
You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.Log off.
Like powder? Which you claimed you can't date? In 15 years nobody told you about isochron dating?why are you lying? why?..., You did not prove that they an date the pigment of the drawings and to think they can shows how little you know. read below../
You realize that is what reservoir corrections and calibration are for, right? Haven't those techniques come up during your debates? And do you have any evidence about the difference in atmospheric pressures?
First you claim you can't radio-date scraped pigment. I provide a link to isochron dating. Then you claim that they don't date because it's expensive. I provide you a link to very low and very reasonable prices. Then you say nobody dates dinosaur bones. I provide you with a link to a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal about U-Pb dating of dinosaur bones.
Apparently what you've learned 15 billion times isn't accurate. For future reference, you may want to consider doing your learning at an accredited institution of higher education.
You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.
bro you said nothing meaningful and if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.
Typical of someone who cowers when his make believe world gets demolished in front of his eyes. Your pathetic threads are a waste of getbig space. I suppose you've never used sarcasm in your posts right taliban boy? I read someof your past posts and it seems though you're a drug addict who injects himself with various drug cocktails to get big. LOL. What a pious life you lead.
bro you said nothing meaningful and if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.
Im not against people injecting themselves but this guy has thris holier than thou attitude and seems to be only here to assert that his religion is better and attack christianity and the west. He goes on about muslims leading clean lives when in reality they are no better than the rest of the world.Oh, I see
He also claims that he is a former christian and white. I think that is a lie. He's muslim since birth and just pretends to be white as if that will add more weight to his arguements
Oh, I see
why are you lying? why?..., You did not prove that they an date the pigment of the drawings and to think they can shows how little you know. read below../
Isochron dating is useful in the determination of the age of igneous rocks, which have their initial origin in the cooling of liquid magma. It is also useful to determine the time of metamorphism, shock events (such as the consequence of an asteroid impact) and other events depending of the behaviour of the particular isotopic systems under such events.
^^^^^ you see from your link, so stop making up lies, that is far from being able to date some writing on a rock.
Lie number 2 proving that archaeology have money to throw away, ya OK 500 dollars on a simple date when they have over 100 different artifacts and findings to date is an insane amount of money when the are on a limited bugdet, so you proved me right, not wrong, you are really exposing yourself on how very little you know in these areas.
Good day and stop lying. Isochron dating to date some marking on cave wall? hahahahhah that is halirious, lol :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Oh and another lie, saying they date the dinosaur bones. The way they date them is to categorize them into their mythological column, that's it that is how they come up with the dates. You are so funny, I thought you where freaking smart bro but recently you have exposed yourself now I know for sure you just front and google everything cause damn some of the stuff your getting wrong is pathetic, especially not knowing that archaeologist never use a radio metric method to date dinosaur bones. Try sending a dinosaur bone to any radio metric testing facility and they will send you the bone back and say it's policy that we can NOT date these bones cause they are dinosaur bones.
bro [...] if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.
You have made a few grammar and spelling mistakes yourself stud ;)
Just the other day I saw one and was going to mock you but decided not to scoop to your level ;)
bro research shows everything you can possibly think of, does not make it true and the research you provided does not say what you are saying and it is vague.
I can also show you scientific research that states steroids does not build muscle. Biased, full of assumptions.
Let`s pretend you are right for a second, still doesn`t change the fact that when archaeologist find cave drawings and dinosaur bones they don`t use these methods.
If you found an example of someone that did, it is a horrible lie
and even if it was not, it would represent 0.00001 % of the findings cause it is not a practice of the archaeologist.
I know of one time that a dinosaur bone was carbon dated and guess what the test result said, lmao, it said 30 000 years. You see that`s why they don`t do it cause it will expose their mythological column.
actually here in Canada we say scoop :D
Cool, thanks. I'll have to pull some of those books from the library and try to dig a bit more into this. I haven't really studied this topic, so I know very little about the history and the literature.I don`t think anyone intentionally lies, but they are convinced of something and the truth is exaggerated and altered. Some archaeologist find artifacts and claim they are from some distant date in antiquity just so they can get more funding, this happens a lot.
By the way I think that this quote alone serves to reinforce the point that I was making earlier. Scientists (regardless of field) have very little to gain from lying, because ultimately the truth will come out. Of course, I don't suggest that scientists never lie, only that there are built-in mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening and to correct things and set the record straight when it does happen, which ultimately makes lying in the first place a bad idea.
I don`t think anyone intentionally lies, but they are convinced of something and the truth is exaggerated and altered. Some archaeologist find artifacts and claim they are from some distant date in antiquity just so they can get more funding, this happens a lot.
So according to the Creationists are completely wrong.You are good at keeping to the subject, for that I thank you.
The Grand Canyon itself displays 2 billion years of the Earth's history and shows all the different layers of soil.
There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.
Some mountains and stones have also been formed by compacted shells over a period of millions of years.
The Marianas Trench is also the deepest canyon in the word and is in fact underwater and created by the movement of tectonic plates.
The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.
Africa and South America clearly fit like a jigsaw puzzle. The continents are in fact still moving apart.
But for the land masses to have broken apart and be where they are today would have taken BILLIONS of years.
You are good at keeping to the subject, for that I thank you.
all the worlds leading scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, anthropologists and geneticists
I don't think all, but definitely 90% of them and yes given that they all have something in common, they all are dedicated to their field with the pre-conceived notion that the theory of evolution is true
There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.
To be honest I find it a lot more convincing that a flood occurred and deposited those shells, in fact I find it absolutely preposterous to suggest a tectonic plate grew upwards and was able to maintain certain artifacts throughout all that momentum and not to mention to have survived for millions of years. Shells are found in every single mountain range.
The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.
There are many scientist who don't believe in the Pangea theory. South America and Africa have continental shelves that fit cause the ocean currents have carved them out that way but underneath the continental shelves there are enormous amounts of land mass that does not line up properly.
There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.
To be honest I find it a lot more convincing that a flood occurred and deposited those shells, in fact I find it absolutely preposterous to suggest a tectonic plate grew upwards and was able to maintain certain artifacts throughout all that momentum and not to mention to have survived for millions of years. Shells are found in every single mountain range.
You find it preposterous that a tectonic plate shifted upwards, but what you find a lot more convincing is that enough water poured down to raise the level of the oceans by almost 6 miles.
This calls for math!
Let's let REARTH represent the approximate mean radius of the earth, i.e.: 3,956.6 miles. The height of Mt. Everest is almost 5.5 miles so let REVEREST represent radius of the earth at the highest point of Mt. Everest. We know that the volume of a sphere is given by the formula: VSPHERE = (4 * π * RSPHERE3) / 3.
So the volume of water, give or take a few million gallons, that would be required to raise the water level by 5.5 miles is given to us by this formula:VEVEREST- VEARTH =
(4 * π * REVEREST3) / 3 - (4 * π * REARTH 3) / 3 =
(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3
We have:REARTH3 = 3,956.63 = 6.1939320973496 * 1010
REVEREST3 = (3,956.6 + 5.5)3 = 6.2197982480061 * 1010
So we calculate REVEREST3 - REARTH3 easily:
REVEREST3 - REARTH3 = (6.2197982480061 * 1010) - (6.1939320973496 * 1010) = 2.58661506565 * 108 or 258,661,506 cubic miles of water.
Back to our equation from above:(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3 =
(4 * π * 258,661,506) / 3 =
(1,034,646,024 * π) / 3
For simplicity, let's let π = 3 exactly. This will actually slightly reduce the volume of water that we will calculate as necessary but that's OK. Besides π being equal to 3 is Biblically approved per 1 Kings 7:23 ;)
Anyways, to make a long story short, we crunch the numbers and calculate that to raise the water level 5.5 miles, we would need... wait for it...1,034,646,024 miles3 - or over 1 billion cubic miles of water
Perhaps we could convert this to a figure that we can more easily understand, like gallons?1,034,646,024 miles3 ≅ 1,101,000,000,000 gallons.Or, in other words, over 1 TRILLION gallons of water.
Yes. That is perfectly reasonable. A trillion gallons of water rained down on the earth... ::)
You find it preposterous that a tectonic plate shifted upwards, but what you find a lot more convincing is that enough water poured down to raise the level of the oceans by almost 6 miles.You should know that I was taught in school, from grade 1 all the way through to university that if the glaciers in the north pole and the glaciers in the south pole melted, the entire surface of the planet would be covered in water. Same teachers that believe in Darwinian evolution and same teachers who do not believe in God. The glaciers are huge, there compositions and dimensions, the north pole glaciers are bigger then the US and they are tall as well. Also the height of the tallest mountain today may not have been as tall as it was in the time of the flood
This calls for math!
Let's let REARTH represent the approximate mean radius of the earth, i.e.: 3,956.6 miles. The height of Mt. Everest is almost 5.5 miles so let REVEREST represent radius of the earth at the highest point of Mt. Everest. We know that the volume of a sphere is given by the formula: VSPHERE = (4 * π * RSPHERE3) / 3.
So the volume of water, give or take a few million gallons, that would be required to raise the water level by 5.5 miles is given to us by this formula:VEVEREST- VEARTH =
(4 * π * REVEREST3) / 3 - (4 * π * REARTH 3) / 3 =
(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3
We have:REARTH3 = 3,956.63 = 6.1939320973496 * 1010
REVEREST3 = (3,956.6 + 5.5)3 = 6.2197982480061 * 1010
So we calculate REVEREST3 - REARTH3 easily:
REVEREST3 - REARTH3 = (6.2197982480061 * 1010) - (6.1939320973496 * 1010) = 2.58661506565 * 108 or 258,661,506 cubic miles of water.
Back to our equation from above:(4 * π) * [ REVEREST3 - REARTH3 ] / 3 =
(4 * π * 258,661,506) / 3 =
(1,034,646,024 * π) / 3
For simplicity, let's let π = 3 exactly. This will actually slightly reduce the volume of water that we will calculate as necessary but that's OK. Besides π being equal to 3 is Biblically approved per 1 Kings 7:23 ;)
Anyways, to make a long story short, we crunch the numbers and calculate that to raise the water level 5.5 miles, we would need... wait for it...1,034,646,024 miles3 - or over 1 billion cubic miles of water
Perhaps we could convert this to a figure that we can more easily understand, like gallons?1,034,646,024 miles3 ≅ 1,101,000,000,000 gallons.Or, in other words, over 1 TRILLION gallons of water.
Yes. That is perfectly reasonable. A trillion gallons of water rained down on the earth... ::)
Everest is almost 9 Kilometers high, that water-level would have not only killed all land animals but also all species of insects.Very valid points and yes I am fully aware of all the supporting evidence behind continental drift, but do not agree with it,it is a matter of perspective, after all it is only a theory
In regards to the tectonic plates and a once singular landmass, the plates are still moving.
This is after all the cause of tsunamis and earthquakes, due to the friction of moving slabs of rock as the plates move.
The continents are also still drifting apart at the rate of about 5-10 cm per year, in a direction that is away from the other continents.
Other evidence is also of the discovery of the same types of dinosaur bones and fossils on different continents but in areas that would have once been connected. Not only of dinosaurs but also fossils of the same vegetation.
About mountains being made of seashells, the amount of time it must take for these shells to be accumulated in such massive heaps must take an immense amount of time especially if they comprise parts of other rocks such as granite.
The question is then how did the shells get inside the granite or marble...?
These stones do not just take thousands of years to form, it requires millions of years.
You should know that I was taught in school, from grade 1 all the way through to university that if the glaciers in the north pole and the glaciers in the south pole melted, the entire surface of the planet would be covered in water. Same teachers that believe in Darwinian evolution and same teachers who do not believe in God. The glaciers are huge, there compositions and dimensions, the north pole glaciers are bigger then the US and they are tall as well. Also the height of the tallest mountain today may not have been as tall as it was in the time of the flood
It would, However, again there is no evidence of this ever occuring, I also, don't understand why you think that earth was always much hotter. It was, but not then, humans wouldn't be able to live. It would have to be rain and 1 trillion gallons of rain seems absurd.8)
You should know that I was taught in school, from grade 1 all the way through to university that if the glaciers in the north pole and the glaciers in the south pole melted, the entire surface of the planet would be covered in water. Same teachers that believe in Darwinian evolution and same teachers who do not believe in God. The glaciers are huge, there compositions and dimensions, the north pole glaciers are bigger then the US and they are tall as well.
Also the height of the tallest mountain today may not have been as tall as it was in the time of the flood
You were taught incorrectly. If all the ice melted, the total rise would be about 250 feet... compare that to 5.5 miles to get to the top of Mount Everest.250 feet, wow just wow, now you are smoking crack :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Oh, so after the flood, the mountains could have grown and you're OK with that, but before the flood, they couldn't?
250 feet, wow just wow, now you are smoking crack :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I do not have a problem with mountain formation before or after the flood, What are you talking about?
8)
Much hotter ??? ???
I think there is tons of evidence for this world wide catastrophe
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uieQJSaRXxk/TC0uU0O9WiI/AAAAAAAAB6A/aaGwNZN7rpA/s1600/atheism1.jpg)For someone who claims to not Insult other peoples faiths or beliefs, you sure do a good job of being a hypocrite.
I know everyone is arguing about the absurdity of the volume of rainfall in regards to the flood, but according to scripture the flood waters had two sources: rainfall and underground fountains.
Genesis 7:11
English Standard Version (ESV)
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
the number is still impossible, flat out impossible.
Saying it won't make it so :)
It's not the same, the proof is in the math directly above. How much water is on earth, roughly 323 trillion gallons, now look at that number, it would have to be an insane amount. It would have to be more water then three times what we currently have, do you not realize how absurd that is? the fact that I'm arguing this makes me feel retarded to be honest, even if it was possible noahs story is beyond reason.
And how much water came from under the ground? "...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth...". Two sources of water, not just one. I'm just tellin ya what it says cause the focus has been on rainfall as the only source. When the flood is debated everyone tends to focus only on rainfall, "...for 40 days and 40 nights...".
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?
I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.
Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?
See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.
In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.
My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.
And how much water came from under the ground? "...all the fountains of the great deep burst forth...". Two sources of water, not just one. I'm just tellin ya what it says cause the focus has been on rainfall as the only source. When the flood is debated everyone tends to focus only on rainfall, "...for 40 days and 40 nights...".
Man of Steel:
According to http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc2.html you need 26,067,840 gallons to rain down to raise the water level 1.5 inches over one square mile. I'm picking this number, since according to Wikipedia that's the highest level of rainfall recorded, per minute. Let's assume, for this discussion, that that much water came down, per minute, across the entire earth, which has a surface area of approximately 196,939,900 miles2. That would mean that 5,133,797,802,816,000 gallons would be coming down, every minute. That's more than 1.5 times the volume of water in Lake Superior.
At that rate to get to the amount of water required to cover Mt. Everest would take almost 140 days of non-stop rain pouring 26,067,840 gallons per minute per square mile.
"Ahh!" you may say, "That's how it happened. God is great, and can easily cause not just 26,067,840 gallons per minute per square mile but even 27,000,000 gallons per minute per square mile!" But before you do, let's examine this for a second... We can examine it in many different ways, but for fun let's try comparing this "drizzle" to a beast of a nuclear weapon: the Tsar Bomba!
Let's pick one spot on the earth. Call it X, and put in the center of a square that's one mile by one mile. We know that rain condenses at about 2 kilometers above the surface, so let's assume that instead of individual raindrops, we have one single 27,000,000 gallon rain-drop, exactly 2 kilometers above our "X" spot. Assuming that it's spherical, our epic raindrop would be more than 188 inches in diameter, and would weigh about 217,600,000 lbs. It would take about 20 seconds to fall to earth, and would impact at approximately 200 miles per hour, with a force of approximately 1935 gigajoules – or approximately 462 tons of TNT, yielding never-before-seen destruction.
But remember, we have 196,939,900 of these drops falling down over 196,939,900 different points, for a total force impact of 381,100 petajoules per spot. The Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb detonated by the Soviets had a yield of "only" 210 petajoules, so this impact would be equivalent to approximately 1814 Tsar Bombas exploding.
And remember, this is per minute... This bombardment would continue, minute after minute, for 140 days, releasing as much energy as detonating 365,702,400 Tsar Bombas would. :o
And for extra credit, let's also, assume, for the sake of argument that this was all possible and actually happened. How would this water then disappear? Let's assume it were to evaporate. At the standard, average rate of evaporation of water on our planet, the amount of water that poured down over those 140 days would take... wait for it... more than 15.6 TRILLION years to evaporate. Good thing Noah brought snacks with him!
Keep believing if you must Man of Steel, but realize, you are believing in something that's not just improbable but, arguably, impossible.
Might I add, that everything you've just noted and everything you previously posted via mathematics is also very compelling. Further, I agree with you....completely.....th e numbers just don't lie. In addition, I agree with Necrosis, the probability of the flood occurring according to modern standards of mathematics and science is pretty much impossible.....no.....it is ridiculously, completely impossible LOL!That's it? You just got owned like that and you advise taking courses in logic, science, history and math? That's what he just owned you with.
So, why do I still persist with my God delusion when the evidence against the flood is stacked so freakin high? Incredibly high!! Again, I don't object to what you've presented. Still, I have experienced the risen Christ in my life and that absolutely makes all the difference. Look, I know the ole "God is great, he can make the impossible possible" doesn't hold water with y'all (no pun intended), but I have full assurance in the heart.
Oh yeah, I know the heart is an organ...a muscle that pumps blood and doesn't express emotion or contain a soul.
Oh yeah, I also know that I need to use the appropriate language to convey my position.
Oh yeah, I also know that just saying something, doesn't make it so.
Oh yeah, I also know that emotional appeals about faith and God don't overule logic, common sense and peer-reviewed, validated, tested, fully accepted facts.
Oh yeah, I also know that I should go take a course or two in logic, science, history and math.
:)
That's it? You just got owned like that and you advise taking courses in logic, science, history and math? That's what he just owned you with.My suggestion would be to simply reread my post, but concentrate on my last sentence. I have a feeling you skimmed my post and that's fair....I skim a lot of posts too.
Delete this post and try harder. You're embarrassing yourself.
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?
I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.
Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?
See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.
In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.
My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.
lol i am not hypocrite. I am returning due where its due. I don't respect any of these atheists on here as they were sinister, rude, disrespectful, cyinical and sarcastic while boasting of their own self glorifying superiority. The picture was quite fitting. They showed not one ounce of respect in any of the threads relating to religion or God. They always come off as the supreme holders of 'evidences' against theists, yet when their beliefs are confronted they have nothing and are far more into lala land just angry and filled with hatred of those who believe in God. If some of them had the ability they would kill off all theists. Didn't one of them say those who believe in God are mentally diseased?
I had no intent of even talking to atheists on here as I know how they behave in 'debates' or discussions. However when they started being derogatory in theist threads I started responding.
Secondly I am disappointed in you man of steel. I guess the truth of what you believes comes out of you finally as well. I guess it angered you that I said that God is not a man and that God is not male in the God thread?
See unlike you, I would not ridicule Jesus as I believe in Jesus. I get angry and upset whenever someone ridicules Jesus, such as Israelis while no one here feels any remorse about that ironically. Atheists ridicule everyone who believes in God or anything related. So you are far more on their level than you think.
In the end, it changes nothing about Muhammad (pbuh) and who he was and what he did. Your lies and ridicule only show who you truly are.
My picture is a realistic reflection of what atheists are like on this forum subsection.
You are disconnected from reality. You are not free unless you think being in a forest all by yourself in an isolated island doing whatever you desires command. And what you suggest is whether it's good for you, or bad for you, or good for society or bad for society.
What you are basically saying is you are 'freeeeeeee'. Well you're not.
Daily you are told what you can, cannot do, what you can see, not see, etc... Take media as an example.
Take government as an example. They are commanding you what you can and cannot do, believe, etc... man made laws that you must submit to.
Just a while ago homosexuality was punishable in US states. Today it's being legalized and you are forced to accept it whether you like it or not.
Again you don't really understand what freedom is, all you have is rhetoric of 'freedom freedom' just as most government politicians keep talking about while they keep taking away civil liberties.
And the last point yes we Muslims would love to have our caliphate back, be united, 50 something countries. We'd be the richest, the largest, benefiting each other and the world. However, we can't as your government keeps applying old colonialist tactics of divide and conquer, imposing secular dictators, bribing people, etc... First you leave and dismantle all your military bases all around the world. You have like a thousand+ military bases all around the world!
Lastly, you can't stop people from embracing Islam. I am not an arab or a desi (indian/pakistani), I am a pale white european lol. People are embracing islam in the west with not a single battle being fought. Why? Because unlike some of you that are allowing yourself to be spoon fed by the media and government... there are people out there that are seeking the truth.
Truth is frail and fragile in this age.. as liars and frauds, those who are least trustworthy are the ones that are in power and leading the masses.
I don't see how I'm forced to accept homosexuality, or why it should be any of my business how consenting adults choose to use their genitals and various body cavities.
Your sarcasm makes me not want to even respond to any of your garbage.
You are forced to believe this and accept this if it's made law.
It is criminally punishable in some western countries now to even criticize homosexuality. Just one example. In the UK a priest said homosexuality is a sin and he was jailed for it. He appealed to the EU court of human rights (ironically).
In Canada likewise if you are not fined or jailed to a similar effect, you will be absolutely demonised in the media. While just a few years ago there was great opposition to homosexuality but the politics won in the other direction.
So yes you are told and forced to accept beliefs and dos and donts of society. You are not 'free' as your lala land definition of freedom instructs your brain to think.
You submit yourself to desires and man made law. I submit myself to God.
You are disconnected from reality. You are not free unless you think being in a forest all by yourself in an isolated island doing whatever you desires command. And what you suggest is whether it's good for you, or bad for you, or good for society or bad for society.
What you are basically saying is you are 'freeeeeeee'. Well you're not.
Daily you are told what you can, cannot do, what you can see, not see, etc... Take media as an example.
Take government as an example. They are commanding you what you can and cannot do, believe, etc... man made laws that you must submit to.
Just a while ago homosexuality was punishable in US states. Today it's being legalized and you are forced to accept it whether you like it or not.
Again you don't really understand what freedom is, all you have is rhetoric of 'freedom freedom' just as most government politicians keep talking about while they keep taking away civil liberties.
And the last point yes we Muslims would love to have our caliphate back, be united, 50 something countries. We'd be the richest, the largest, benefiting each other and the world. However, we can't as your government keeps applying old colonialist tactics of divide and conquer, imposing secular dictators, bribing people, etc... First you leave and dismantle all your military bases all around the world. You have like a thousand+ military bases all around the world!
Lastly, you can't stop people from embracing Islam. I am not an arab or a desi (indian/pakistani), I am a pale white european lol. People are embracing islam in the west with not a single battle being fought. Why? Because unlike some of you that are allowing yourself to be spoon fed by the media and government... there are people out there that are seeking the truth.
Truth is frail and fragile in this age.. as liars and frauds, those who are least trustworthy are the ones that are in power and leading the masses.
You are forced to accept homosexuality as legally binded law.
I don't want to be forced to accept homosexuality.
There are numerous things that are forced upon you. Don't fool yourself you are not free.
Can you spray swastikas randomly? No. There's limitations.
You are the ones trying to impose your 'values' upon Muslims, we are really not trying to impose anything on you except on ourselves and you have a problem with that. You have a problem with us explaining what we believe too.
You are forced to accept homosexuality as legally binded law.
I don't want to be forced to accept homosexuality.
There are numerous things that are forced upon you. Don't fool yourself you are not free.
Can you spray swastikas randomly? No. There's limitations.
You are the ones trying to impose your 'values' upon Muslims, we are really not trying to impose anything on you except on ourselves and you have a problem with that. You have a problem with us explaining what we believe too.
My suggestion would be to simply reread my post, but concentrate on my last sentence. I have a feeling you skimmed my post and that's fair....I skim a lot of posts too.You're right. My bad.
This just goes to show how evil the Moslem sect is. If it were up to you, you would probably want homosexuals killed.
Moslems hang or execute homosexuals.....maybe the West should do the same to Moslems for being Moslems and classify your people people as an abomination and a disease? How would you like that?
The question should be why should homosexuals be forced to accept you...?
Homosexuality at least occurs in nature but the policies of your sect do not and go against nature.
And no, I can't really spray anything randomly as everyone agrees this is good for basic public order and a civilized culture.
All other religions seem to be able to live in peace with each other except those of the Moslem sect who constantly seek to cause trouble and force everyone else to their ways.
Every single Moslem I've had met has tried to force their 'values' on me.
Romans used to shave their beards to distinguish themselves from Barbarians, and obviously some things haven't changed.
If Moslems want to live in a non-secular state then they must stay in the Middle East where everyone can persecute, kill and impose their cult and backwardness on each other and live in happiness.
They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.Which one is forward looking?
Islam is a primitive backward religion
They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.
Islam is a primitive backward religion
They have no problem fighting and hating on each other too.
Islam is a primitive backward religion
lol you moron I'm not Arab. I lived amongst Arabs. You don't 'flee' from places you travel through unless America starts bombing the countries then yes you have to flee, but I didn't have to.
.lol, wow that made me laugh :D
lol, wow that made me laugh :D
I would have added the 2 nukes dropped on Japan ^^^^
And Snooki & co. And the Kardashians!and "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo"
.
God will judge all sin accordingly....yours, mine, everybody's.
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.
If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine. Yep, sin is sin.
The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.
Why judge at all? I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).
If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine. Yep, sin is sin.
The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.
Why judge at all? I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).
Honest question here - what do you believe would have happened to us if Jesus did not "die for our sins?" Would we all go to hell?
I suppose we would have to continue the OT practices that early Israel did via blood sacrifice per animals, grain offerings, etc...to atone for our sins and reconcile ourselves with God. Essentially Christ's death and resurrection established a new covenant; that said, if Christ hadn't come as a man to pay the ultimate price we'd still be subject to the old covenant.
Never really considered that to be honest, but at first blush that's what I got.
I'm actually not familiar with the OT practices that you're referring to, can you expand a bit?
Oh man, that's a big ole request. I'd have to go through all of Leviticus for starters. When I get home from the gym I'll take a look at some verses.
Okay, thanks, you can give a short Coles notes version or I can try to look it up in google too.
Honest question here - what do you believe would have happened to us if Jesus did not "die for our sins?" Would we all go to hell?Maybe not, but the wages of sin is death, so maybe we would be done at the end of this life for good.
Wages of sin is death? Not necessarily.
Wages of sin is death? Not necessarily. We Muslims don't believe that for any sin we deserve death.
Ask God for forgiveness as God is the most merciful, it's pretty evident if we are sincere in our repentance God will forgive us as he is The forgiver, the most merciful, the most compassionate.
We don't believe in blood sacrifice/human sacrifice. Simply asking forgiveness and repentance is enough. Only certain types of sins that become publically manifested such as murder, rape, adultery, etc... are punishable, but we do not need to face death for sins. Ultimately God can forgive all sins except idolatry/associating partners with Him/worshipping the creation as opposed to the creator.
We certainly are born pure as children and don't have to be responsible for sins that some ancient dude be it Adam (pbuh) or great grandfather did.
Islam teaches responsibility and accountability. If your ancestors did something, they will be held accountable by God. If you do something, past, present or future people should not be accountable for what you personally do. Everyone is therefore justly delat with
As a starting point, it means I believe in - that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don't walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/barack_obamas_idea_of_staying_in_the_word_and_living_like_jesus.html#ixzz28LUa6Pwu
Well clearly America believes that that they can wash away their sins like obama despite attacking 5 countries and killing alongside bush 1 million muslims in ten years:Only 1 million Muslims, such a shame, America is going to have to do better than that if humanity is to rid itself of the Islam Plague. No wonder people criticise Obama, he has only managed to get rid of 1 Million Muslims, with Americas advanced weaponry, surely they could quadruple that in half the time. And here I was thinking that we were beginning to make inroads on the eradication of Islam, only 1 million, jeeez, not nearly enough. Oh well, I suppose that's 1 million less goat herding towel heads blabbing on about medieval shit nobody in the modern world gives a shit about, not too mention a decrease in terrorism and a reduction of beheading threats directed towards normal members of the public in their own countries by invading muslims.
yuck, can you imagine living in eternity, jesus that would be so boring, I would blow my brains out. Also, if all is eternal nothing we do matters, eternity negates purpose by definition.
If you prefer to remove "accordingly" that's fine. Yep, sin is sin.
The Lord will judge whether or not our sin is covered by the shed blood of Christ according to whether we honestly claimed Christ as savior.
Why judge at all? I suppose so that everyone has an opportunity to stand before the Lord and fully understand the finality of our decision to accept or deny God as we enter eternity (reconciled with or separated from him).
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.
I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.
Only 1 million Muslims, such a shame, America is going to have to do better than that if humanity is to rid itself of the Islam Plague. No wonder people criticise Obama, he has only managed to get rid of 1 Million Muslims, with Americas advanced weaponry, surely they could quadruple that in half the time. And here I was thinking that we were beginning to make inroads on the eradication of Islam, only 1 million, jeeez, not nearly enough. Oh well, I suppose that's 1 million less goat herding towel heads blabbing on about medieval shit nobody in the modern world gives a shit about, not too mention a decrease in terrorism and a reduction of beheading threats directed towards normal members of the public in their own countries by invading muslims.
Surah Dhariyat verse 56I am grateful to God for ensuring the West is superior and regularly destroys Muslims for practicing an evil ideology called Islam. Thanks God! Keep up the Good work slaughtering evil Muslims
"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."
As such we strive to please God almighty. God gives us criterion of how to live in this life, to be grateful to him for all he has provided for us including our existence.
This life is nothing but a test for us and a temporary residence. As a result, for our sincere good deeds he will reward us and for our sins punish us in the after life.
What awaits us are things no eyes have seen, no ears have heard and no mind has conceived. The best we have to imagine what this will be like are similitudes to this world but magnified to unimaginable degrees. That will be the reward in the next life, an eternal life. A life of living similar to this but better, without suffering, without corruption, without prejudice, without jealousy, without any evil.
A person who suffered all their life in this world when shown for a second heaven will be asked if he ever suffered will say verily I have not. After having a taste of heaven for a mere second.
A person who boasted of pleasures in this life but denied God and did evil, debauchery and vain desires... when he will be given a second of hell, he will be asked has he enjoyed this temporary life the dunya, he will say verily I have not, I had no pleasure.
God calls this life just a game/entertainment and a past time:
And this worldly life is not but diversion and amusement. And indeed, the home of the Hereafter - that is the [eternal] life, if only they knew. Verse (29:64)
Surah Dhariyat verse 56
"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."
This life is nothing but a test for us and a temporary residence. As a result, for our sincere good deeds he will reward us and for our sins punish us in the after life.
What awaits us are things no eyes have seen, no ears have heard and no mind has conceived. The best we have to imagine what this will be like are similitudes to this world but magnified to unimaginable degrees. That will be the reward in the next life, an eternal life. A life of living similar to this but better, without suffering, without corruption, without prejudice, without jealousy, without any evil.
A person who suffered all their life in this world when shown for a second heaven will be asked if he ever suffered will say verily I have not. After having a taste of heaven for a mere second.
God calls this life just a game/entertainment and a past time:
And this worldly life is not but diversion and amusement. And indeed, the home of the Hereafter - that is the [eternal] life, if only they knew. Verse (29:64)
.
Rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt. Two entirely different things....one was forced (antebellum South and Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (Israel). One was about inhumanity (antebellum South and Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (Israel). The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel. I could on, but I'll stop for now.So you're saying that a human being could take the bible and twist it to his or her own ends?
So you're saying that a human being could take the bible and twist it to his or her own ends?
Well, I'm shocked. Hope this never happens again.
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.
I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.
I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.
You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...
YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.
Surah Dhariyat verse 56BLASPHEMOUS BULLSHIT !!! ANY GOD THAT MIGHT EXIST IS NOT SOME INSECURE, JEALOUS LITTLE BITCH WHO CREATED HUMANBEINGS FOR THE REASON OF GAINING WORSHIP. FUCKING BLASPHEMOUS BULLSHIT I TELL YOU!!!!
"I have not created the jinn and men except for this that they should worship Me alone."
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.OH LOOK!!! AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!! LOL!!!! ;D HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!! BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!
This made me laugh for ten minutes straight. ;D
^^^ LOL !!!!!
YOUR ASSUMING THAT KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND HAPPINESS ARE ALL FINITE IN NATURE, YOU FOOL.
STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!! ;D ;D YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ?? ;)
It took 16 pages and 5 months for tdongz to discover this thread and all he can do is post misspelled incoherent ramblings in capitals. ::) No surprise.go ahead and make your first post in response to my comments.. im eagerly awaiting the beginning of our discussion.. :)
.
The animals were sent by God not gathered by Noah.
I am not sure if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I assume you do. Do you really believe that a ship large enough to fit two of everything classified under the "Animalia" kingdom could have been constructed?
You don't?
Certainly not by Noah.
I simply don't know what is meant by "kinds of animals" in the Genesis. I doubt it means species as we define it, so the population of animals must've been much smaller than we realize. Again, I simply don't know.
So then, after the flood, new animals - the ones we observe today - were created by God?Bro there is not that many different types of animals, remember we are talking about 1 kind of animal, so all apes fit under one animal, the zebra, the donkey, and the horse is one animal. The big cats like Lions and tigers are one animal, you see, I bet you can not name 100 different mammals and they are the only ones taking up space and not that much cause they would have been Babies, obviously not full grown.
Bro there is not that many different types of animals
remember we are talking about 1 kind of animal, so all apes fit under one animal
the zebra, the donkey, and the horse is one animal
The big cats like Lions and tigers are one animal
you see, I bet you can not name 100 different mammals
and they are the only ones taking up space and not that much cause they would have been Babies, obviously not full grown.
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.
I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.
You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...
YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.OH LOOK!!! AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!! LOL!!!! ;D HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!! BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!
*blink* you're kidding, right? I mean really... take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal when you get a chance.Well as soon as you get it through your thick skull that the terms you classify those animals under are what you believe the interpretation of the Bible is, I am telling you right now that this is not what the Bible means, you can not apply your 20th century terminology on what you think Noah brought into the Arké
While an orangutan and a chimpanzee may both belong in the hominidae family, I doubt that's what you refer to since they are in that family along with humans. Each, of course, is a distinct genus.
They aren't one animal. They are three distinct genera.
They aren't one animal. The are two distinct species.
I have to ask Onetimehard: do you have any scientific education? I mean, bare minimum stuff. Your posts suggest a complete and utter cluelessness and the fact is that you're obviously talking out of your ass, making shit up as you go and taking words and using them in whatever way you want and meanings be damned. That's not how it works.
Ignoring the fact that you make this ridiculous assertion without even the typical and flimsy "biblical basis" that is usually employed in such cases, let assume for a second - just for a second - that you are right. How do you account for these distinct animals today. I mean, you have orangutans and chimpanzees and gorillas, all very clearly distinct. They're all supposed to be the same animal? You have tigers and lions and very clearly distinct. They're supposed to be the same animal? How do you account for the horses, zebras and donkeys, all very clearly distinct? They are supposed to be the same animal?
I'm fairly certain that there's well over 5,000 different species of mammals recognized by science today, so 100 shouldn't be a problem... but then again, those crazy scientists don't use your "grouping" scheme that classifies horses, donkeys and zebras as "one animal". But let's try to play along and use your ridiculous "pulled out of your ass" definition by trying to avoid enumerating the over 100 different bats that exist in the world today. Are you ready asshole? Let's go.
aardvark, agouta, alpaca, anteater, antelope, armadillo
badger, bandicoot, banteng, bat, bear, beaver, bilbies, bison, boar
camel, capybara, caribou, chamois, chinchilla, civet, cuscus
deer, desmana, dibbler, dolphin, dugong
echidna, elephant
ferret
galago, gazelle, gerbil, gibbon, giraffe, goat
hare, hedgehog, hippopotamus, human, hyena, hyrax
jackal
kaluta, kangaroo, koala
lemur, lion, llama, lynx
manatee, meerkat, mink, mole, mongoose, monkey, moose, mouse
narwhal, numbat
ocarro, ocelot, opossum, orca, otter, ox
panda, pangolin, pig, pika, platypus, porcupine, porpoise
quoll
rabbit, raccoon, rhinoceros
saola, sea lion, seal, sengi, sheep, shrew, skunk, sloth, slow loris, squirrel, stoat
tamaraw, tapir, Tasmanian devil, tenrec
vole
wallaby, walrus, wambengers, weasel, wombat
zebra
Oh well... obviously they would have been babies! ::) Clearly they don't take up much space. Ignore the smallest of issues: the fact that mammal "babies" require suckling from their mother.
Well as soon as you get it through your thick skull that the terms you classify those animals under are what you believe the interpretation of the Bible is, I am telling you right now that this is not what the Bible means, you can not apply your 20th century terminology on what you think Noah brought into the Arké
So listen up, Bible lesson 101, there was no zebra, donkey and horse in the Ark, there was only one, and who gives a rats ass on you classifying them as different species, the Bible DOES NOT, GET OVER IT.
aardvark, agouta, alpaca, anteater, antelope, armadillo
badger, bandicoot, banteng, bat, bear, beaver, bilbies, bison, boar
camel, capybara, caribou, chamois, chinchilla, civet, cuscus
deer, desmana, dibbler, dolphin, dugong
echidna, elephant
ferret
galago, gazelle, gerbil, gibbon, giraffe, goat
hare, hedgehog, hippopotamus, human, hyena, hyrax
jackal
kaluta, kangaroo, koala
lemur, lion, llama, lynx
manatee, meerkat, mink, mole, mongoose, monkey, moose, mouse
narwhal, numbat
ocarro, ocelot, opossum, orca, otter, ox
panda, pangolin, pig, pika, platypus, porcupine, porpoise
quoll
rabbit, raccoon, rhinoceros
saola, sea lion, seal, sengi, sheep, shrew, skunk, sloth, slow loris, squirrel, stoat
tamaraw, tapir, Tasmanian devil, tenrec
vole
wallaby, walrus, wambengers, weasel, wombat
zebra
see what I mean you struggled making that list the size it was and that only fills up a small room considering the animals on the ark where all babies. Thanks for proving my point.
Bro there is not that many different types of animals, remember we are talking about 1 kind of animal, so all apes fit under one animal, the zebra, the donkey, and the horse is one animal. The big cats like Lions and tigers are one animal, you see, I bet you can not name 100 different mammals and they are the only ones taking up space and not that much cause they would have been Babies, obviously not full grown.this made me laugh
this made me laughWhy? please explain ???
Why? please explain ???
Dude, how did noah get the grizzly bear? did he travel across the oceans? What did the carnivores eat? jesus, I can't believe I'm responding to this :-\So you know where Noah lived?, funny cause I do not and I have read more Bible then you, you know where the animals lived?. Where they lived today does not mean they lived there before the flood, wow you must have some super powers to know all this. :D
what is happening to my life when I take the time to point out how retarded something like this is.
So you know where Noah lived?, funny cause I do not and I have read more Bible then you, you know where the animals lived?. Where they lived today does not mean they lived there before the flood, wow you must have some super powers to know all this. :D
So you know where Noah lived?, funny cause I do not and I have read more Bible then you, you know where the animals lived?. Where they lived today does not mean they lived there before the flood, wow you must have some super powers to know all this. :D
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.
I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.
You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...
YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.OH LOOK!!! AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!! LOL!!!! ;D HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!! BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!
STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT "THE BIBLE" TELLS YOU. OPEN UP YOUR MIND, JACKASS!!! ;D ;D YOU CANT THINK OF ANY REASON WHY AN ETERNAL BEING MIGHT WANT SOME COMPANY ?? ;)
this made me laughSorry, I was on my Kindle Fire and had trouble highlighting the part about there not being many types of animals.
But you know that zebras, horses and donkeys are one animal for ark purposes; that lions and tigers and other big cars are one animal for ark purposes. You know that despite the Bible never saying anything to that effect.Bro you are like the smartest one here and now you decide to play dumb, really? I expected a lot more from you :-\... So someone wants to bring animals into the Ark for over 1 year to preserve them and you some how think it is more logical to bring in a 10 000lb elephant then a 300lb elephant, really bro? WOW, JUST WOW
But you know that the male and female zebra-donkey-horses were "babies" to not take up a lot of space; that the lion-tiger-bigcats were "babies" to not take a lot of space. You know that despite the Bible never saying anything to that effect.
Why superpowers do you have to know all this? To pull nonsense out of your ass to explain a nonsense story while pretending that it's all perfectly rational and sensible?
avxo's response is lulz but I am using logic. Certain animals as you know require unique climates, say the polar bear. This fact alone would allow me to deduce that they would have to be in a northern region such as the baffin islands, the artic etc. Now Noah is but one man so I would assume that he lived in a relatively small geographical region, unless of course, he can multiply himself. Now based off those simply truths he would have to travel amazing distances to obtain said animals, or animals would have to venture towards him.Valid point, see is that so hard for you to do? bring a valid point and we will discuss it instead of always mocking and insulting.
Polar bears is just one example,Kangaroos? did they hop across the ocean?
Granted all animals were within distance, the climates would have to be dramatically different for them to survive as it is not their habitat. My view takes little to no contortion, while your's requires great leaps to supply your story.
Valid point, see is that so hard for you to do? bring a valid point and we will discuss it instead of always mocking and insulting.
OK a few things that you need to know about the Biblical Narrative. 1. is the pre-flood world was globally tropical, the Bible states the four seasons started after the flood and there is evidence to back this up since we know that the glaciers once had a tropical environment. Some theologians believe that the world wide catastrophe of flood was precisely related to the 23 degree tilting of the earth and there is evidence of the tilt not being there in the past as well. Also it did not rain before the flood so the climate was completely different then the climate we have today.
Let's concede that the earth had no tilt ( a dubious claim) and was generally tropical. The vast geological distances still rebuke your story. Seriously, what you wrote is pure screed.OK more valid points.
Let's look at some other problems:
what did that carnivores eat?
what did the herbivores eat? (would have to be quite a large supply of various vegetations to sustain such a massive population
did all the freshwater fish/creatures die? Obviously the worlds water would be salinated, or desalinated which as you know causes a huge problem for marine life.
the size of the ark? an old man made such a craft?
why is there no account of this flood from the ancient babylonians, chinese, Mesopatamians? we have documents during this supposed flood, surely they were killed though?
what of the agreed upon 300 foot rule for wooden craft, it has been attempted and never broken, even today. Noah apparently made a craft much bigger by himself, he was a genius seafarer.
please do your best to answer, thanks.
Oh I almost forgot LOL at avxo putting Dolphins on the list of 100 he provided, lmao :D :D :D :) ;) ;D
Why? They are mammals after all. Or did you not know that?are you dieting on low carbs or something? HELLO, they live in the water, they do not need to be in the ARK, ROTFL for 10 min, man you made my day, lol ;D
Bro you are like the smartest one here and now you decide to play dumb, really? I expected a lot more from you :-\
So someone wants to bring animals into the Ark for over 1 year to preserve them and you some how think it is more logical to bring in a 10 000lb elephant then a 300lb elephant, really bro? WOW, JUST WOW
The Bible uses the term ''after their kind" so yes it is indicating that the Zebra, donkey and horse are "one kind", bro I have studied the Bible a lot more then you and have read it front to back every single year, you really want to challange me on what the Bible says?
Are you familiar with Jacob and how he took care of Laben's cattle?... Well this is a fascinating story cause it clearly states that the cattle that pro-created had speckled and stripe off-springs, weird right?
So yes the Bible considers the Zebra and the horse one species.
Furthermore the Bible is clear the term "kind" is referring to pro-creating
if they are capable of having off-spring the Bible classifies this as "one kind" and yes the Lion and the Tiger can procreate but I do not think a Lion and a big car can pro-create ??? could be wrong though ;D
Go read your Bible before making false statements about it please ;)
are you dieting on low carbs or something? HELLO, they live in the water, they do not need to be in the ARK, ROTFL for 10 min, man you made my day, lol ;D
You asked me to name 100 different mammals and placed no restrictions on where they live.Well duh, I thought you would be smart enough to stick to the subject wooooooooooosh....
Is it just me or does this seem absurd? a grown man actually believing this?Bro I am fully aware of my position and I agree with you it is much easier to believe that these events did not take place, I can admit that. But you guy are presenting arguments and I am giving my answers. Believe me I do not expect you to walk away believing the flood story, that is not my reasoning for debating with you.
you are just dismissing the arguments presented with half cocked theories.
Well duh, I thought you would be smart enough to stick to the subject wooooooooooosh....
I laugh at your lack of knowledge of the Bible bro, you are amateur at best.
I said the donkey, zebra and the horse share a common ancestor, so yes through small changes in generations they develope different features.
We have been over this a thousand time with MOS, myself and many others, we have no problem with micro evolution, we believe it to be true but there is also a limit to the changes, no different then humans, black, white, orientals etc and here is why I laugh at you;
the story of Jacob and Laben describes where an animal that had no stripes pro-created and had an animal with stripes
so you can argue that it did not happen, that is fair
but there is no contradiction within the Bible
so that should shut the doors on the Biblical definition of the word -kind- or is your stubborn ass going to continue insisting that is not what it meant when I just showed you over and over that it is in fact what it meant.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Bro I am fully aware of my position and I agree with you it is much easier to believe that these events did not take place, I can admit that. But you guy are presenting arguments and I am giving my answers. Believe me I do not expect you to walk away believing the flood story, that is not my reasoning for debating with you.
serious question, what would happen if you didn't believe what you did. Do you consider the possibility that there is no god and you are in fact, wrong?see I respect that position cause you do not assume to be good enough to have all the answers.
I will answer that I concede that there may be a god, I have seen no evidence but I cannot rule it out.
You see the reference to -every- and yes it was every but Zebras did not exist at this point, like I said slight changes in features over time.
Bro you are making a fool out of yourself, seriously stop
Every theologian on the planet know that the Bible says only child when it is to his proper wife, he can have 10 other children but if they are with other woman that he is not married to the Bible refers to him as having his only child, it has to do with the language more so, Hebrew terminology
but no theologians have a conflict with this, everyone (except for you, lol) knows this.
BTW I can give a hundred more examples of where the Bible says -only child- and in the previous verses it stated that he had many children.
The subject was "I bet you can't name 100 mammals."
REALLY? ??? ??? ???
Cmon now
Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?
NO that is not the reason at all, you are making that up bro, It is a big theory bro, not all of it is wrong.
God sure chose to send his divine word in a language that, apparently, can't properly express what he means to say and requires extensive interpretation, hand-waving and a "divining dictionary" (pun intended).
.The new Testament is copied from minority text that are not that old, that is true, but the old Testament completed by the House of King James in 1611 was copied by certain Majority text of the 13 and 14th century, upon examining further manuscript circulating at that time the same was said "no 2 manuscripts where alike", of course lots of forgeries, lots of failed translation etc. This is to be expected, however when the dead sea scrolls where found in 1947 they where concluded to in fact be from the first century and some even as far back as 200BC. 38 out of the 39 books of the old Testament were found in the dead sea scroll and much to everyone surprise the manuscript of the 38 books where exactly the same as the manuscript used in the 17 century, 1600 years later and they where identical.
The new Testament is copied from minority text that are not that old, that is true, but the old Testament completed by the House of King James in 1611 was copied by certain Majority text of the 13 and 14th century, upon examining further manuscript circulating at that time the same was said "no 2 manuscripts where alike", of course lots of forgeries, lots of failed translation etc. This is to be expected, however when the dead sea scrolls where found in 1947 they where concluded to in fact be from the first century and some even as far back as 200BC. 38 out of the 39 books of the old Testament were found in the dead sea scroll and much to everyone surprise the manuscript of the 38 books where exactly the same as the manuscript used in the 17 century, 1600 years later and they where identical.
This means that the Old Testament has not been altered at all or has never changed in the last 2000 years how everyone claims. So just cause there are different contradicting manuscripts circulating today of the New Testament, it does not necessarily mean that the books were not copied by an identical text of the first century that has not been altered since..
I'm constantly having to squash the garebear memes I come across as well. He posts with reckless abandon and used to do it with not a single response...that ain't happenin anymore..
.That is a very dumb myth, people who believe this myth are gullible, people of the ancient world did not think the world was not round, teachers tell us this in elementary school, but I study history and every culture knew the earth was round so I don`t know where this stupid false image of ancient man came from. For crying out loud all you have to do is look at the moon to know the earth is round and people do climb high places and see the curvature of the earth, stupid myth.
serious question, what would happen if you didn't believe what you did. Do you consider the possibility that there is no god and you are in fact, wrong?
I will answer that I concede that there may be a god, I have seen no evidence but I cannot rule it out.
Well, regardless of whether or not this God stuff is nonsense you're getting exactly what you want.
If God is completely bogus, you've lived your life as you wanted to without any religious nonsense. If God is real then you still get to live your life without the nonsense and when you die you get to spend eternity without God then too. You can enter eternity, seperate yourself from God and all of God's attributes and lock the door between you and God from the inside.
For me, if God is completely bogus I'll have spent my life dedicated to something that isn't real and willingly wasted time worshipping something that was never there to begin with; although, when I die I won't know the difference as I'll simply cease to be and will have no realization, not a single instant, that it wasn't real. If God is real then I've lived my life for him and then get to spend eternity with him.
That said, why would I be willing to take such a gamble with my life with "no proof whatsoever"? Why would I willingly surrender my life for God? There has to be something else there that nonbelievers don't understand. I mean, I know you summarized the Holy Spirit with "tweak their brains so that a warm, fuzzy feeling resulted", but maybe there's still something more to it than that despite best efforts to reduce it all away? Maybe I'm just crazy, maybe I'm delusional, maybe I'm brainwashed, maybe I'm on drugs, maybe I'm uneducated, maybe I'm a moron or maybe.....just maybe.....I've experienced the risen Christ and it was more than a brain-tweaked, warm-fuzzy feeling beyond your best efforts to be reasoned away and reduced to nothing.
.
That is a very dumb myth, people who believe this myth are gullible, people of the ancient world did not think the world was not round, teachers tell us this in elementary school, but I study history and every culture knew the earth was round so I don`t know where this stupid false image of ancient man came from. For crying out loud all you have to do is look at the moon to know the earth is round and people do climb high places and see the curvature of the earth, stupid myth.Are you talking about religion here?
thinking as we know it is a temporal thing, not sure how an eternal being would think.you have no idea whether thinking is temporal or not. thats an assumption your making.
This... I could go for a 500 or 1000 year lifespan: imagine what you could learn, what you could do. But at some point, eternity would get boring. What good is living if you've done everything there is to do and learned everything there is to learn. And it would only take a finite amount of time to do those things.
I don't buy this answer. To date no one has been able to formulate a cogent argument explaining why god would create us, only to put us through a test and judge us, punishing us if we fail. And it gets even worse when you throw omniscience into the mix.
You're right. It's all fun and games... just fun and games. Eight-year olds begging to die to end the suffering from cancer? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/living-became-too-painful-for-8-year-old-lisa/)? It's fun and games... Children dying of hunger or malnutrition by the dozen (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2012/09/08/5-guatemala-tots-die-malnutrition-in-2012/)? It's fun and games... Women attacked and horribly burned with acid (http://bop.nppa.org/2008/still_photography/winners/index.php?cat=SPP&place=3rd&item=27609)? It's fun and games... Children sold, branded soldiers and used as cannon fodder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/sudan.humanrights)? It's fun and games...
YOU DISGUST AND OFFEND ME.
First of all, why judge at all? Second, the "accordingly" is nonsense. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death.OH LOOK!!! AVXO KNOWS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!! THAT MEANS HE MUST BE A GOOD PERSON TO GO TO FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!! LOL!!!! ;D HEY, JACKASSS!!!!! WAKE UP!!!! BIBLE WAS CREATED BY MAN!!! NOT GOD!!!! WHY YOU TALK ABOUT MANS CREATION IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD IS FUCKING STUPID AS SHIT!!!!!
.How does that compare to someone walking on water or healing the blind, oh and there were tons of witnesses :D ;)
How does that compare to someone walking on water or healing the blind, oh and there were tons of witnesses :D ;)
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheistDon't know. Never met him.
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheist
I'm guessing the guy on the right is an atheistDid you figure that out all by yourself :-[
.
.wHO IS THIS PSYCHOTIC WOMAN?
.
Season's greetings Getbig atheists and agnostics!! I trust that those of you in the US survived Thanksgiving and those of you outside the US are building enormous muscles while discussing all the fat Americans and their laughable holiday of obesity!
God Bless!!
Thanks - I hope you had a great Thanksgiving with family and friends MoS. And although it's somewhat early Merry Christmas.
It was good....busy but good. The wife and I promised ourselves after years of back and forth between families on Thanksgiving and Christmas that we would just attend one Thanksgiving get together and that's it. Suffice it to say one of my sisters threw us a curveball that forced us to end up traveling a bit. Still it was nice, but it made for a very long day!
I was most aggravated because those circumstances prevent me from eating until I get the meat sweats and then pass out into a fat girl coma.
LOL... "meat sweats" and "fat girl coma" ;D;D
Why are some atheists so hypersensitive about something they don't believe in?
Judge rules atheist court case seeking removal of Jesus statue meant as World War II memorial near Montana ski resort can continue
Published November 29, 2012
Associated Press
HELENA, Mont. – A lawsuit seeking the removal of a Jesus statue near a Montana ski resort will go on after a national group of atheists and agnostics produced a local member who says he is offended by the religious symbol whenever he swooshes down the slopes.
The Knights of Columbus and four individuals had asked a judge to throw out the legal challenge because the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation had not named anyone actually harmed by the statue on federal land next to Whitefish Mountain Resort.
Without such a person, the Knights of Columbus argued, the foundation had no right to bring the lawsuit.
So the foundation found William Cox, an atheist who lives 15 miles from the northwestern Montana resort. Cox submitted a statement that says he frequently goes to Whitefish and has skied many times past the statue, which he considers religious and offensive.
That was good enough for U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to deny the Knights of Columbus' request Tuesday and to proceed with the lawsuit. A trial is scheduled for March.
"I could just say, `Hallelujah,"' Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said Wednesday. "It was very obliging of the judge to let it proceed."
Charlie Harball, the attorney representing the Knights of Columbus, said he had anticipated the judge's ruling but he believed the motion to dismiss had compelled the atheists to produce a person as they are required.
"If we hadn't filed the motion in the first place, we still might not have an individual named," Harball said. "It's kind of forcing people to do what they're supposed to do."
Gaylor said they did not name anyone in the original lawsuit because the foundation wanted to protect that person from any negative response from others in the community.
"We just want to deflect attention away from him. We're at least long distance. We know how heated it gets," Gaylor said.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit in February, arguing the U.S. Forest Service is unconstitutionally sanctioning the 57-year-old statue maintained by the Knights of Columbus. The statue was originally conceived by World War II veterans who saw similar shrines while fighting in the mountains of Europe.
Several out-of-state conservative and religious groups have pledged their support in defending the statue's existence on its 25-by-25 foot patch of land, saying it represents the history and heritage of the region.
The Forest Service initially decided last year not to reauthorize a special-use permit for the statue, but reversed that decision and said its historic nature allowed it to remain.
Attorneys for the Forest Service said in court filings they had no position on the Knights of Columbus' request to dismiss the lawsuit.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/29/judge-rules-atheist-court-case-seeking-removal-jesus-statue-meant-as-world-war/?test=latestnews
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. - Albert Einstein
:o
“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” - Psalms 94:16That is a typo, it should read "The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
That is a typo, it should read "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
That is a typo, it should read "The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Here's a must-see video for all you atheists/agnostics.
From the highly-acclaimed Dispatches current affairs show comes a comprehensive look at the history of atheism and whether it can rightly be considered as the rational alternative to religion. Award-winning journalist Rod Liddle speaks to the world's most renowned scientists, theologians and philosophers and asks them the questions we have always wanted to ask ourselves. These include what happened before the Big Bang? Can Richard Dawkins really contend that the nature of our religious beliefs can best be compared to the spreading of a flu virus? Liddle weighs up the evidence from all sides and the answers that are presented throw up many thought-provoking arguments which reflect on our contemporary society, our history and human nature itself.LOL you are promoting a documentary hosted by a man who described Muslims as SAVAGES. The documentary itself advocates agnosticism.
http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Religion/The-Trouble-with-Atheism-4201203.html
Dont sook you baby.
You rant about islam, so i rant about your agnoticsm.
Dont cry.
what is agnoticsm? And non-muslims have no need to cry, we are the dominant culture on the planet, and our religion doesn't even demand that we be dominant like Islam does. It must suck to be part of a Religion that calls to dominate and not be dominated and yet they are The Western Worlds Bitch, we do whatever we want to Muslim Countries, if they piss us off, we invade and dominate them. Muslims are a great source of comedy, they rage like they are tough guys, yet they crumble like an old wall when called to fight. I actually feel sorry for you, like I said, it is my compassion for humanity that sees me try and help you, you are a victim of Islam, you just don't recognise it. I will continue trying to help you.
Your compassion?No. Muslims need tons of compassion, for they will treat you violently and with aggression, even when trying to help them. Saving Muslims is like helping an injured cat, they will lash out at you. Like I have said before, must people just look at Muslims as dirty, ignorant potential terrorists that are beyond help and leave them in their decrepit state, I on the other hand believe that underneath their hard shell of hatred and contempt for life and humanity, their is a glimmer of hope, much like Luke Skywalker viewed his father Darth Vader, Luke never gave up on that evil old bastard.
Joke right?
Believe it or not, the Lord Jesus Christ has performed a wonderful work in my heart and I truly care about the Muslims, agnostics, atheists, Christians, undecideds, etc....on this board and want desperately for all to experience the love of Christ in their lives like I have.
But jesus didnt care about everybody,^^^^ This is why MUSLIMS are HATED ! Somebody reaches out to them and true to Muslim form they do everything to heap scorn and hate on them. ISLAM = HATE
Jesus only came to the jewish tribes, not the whole world to be followed,
Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not,But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And he didnt care about everybody, because again he came only to help the jews,
Matthew 15:22-26
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
^^^^ This is why MUSLIMS are HATED ! Somebody reaches out to them and true to Muslim form they do everything to heap scorn and hate on them. ISLAM = HATE
^^^^ This is why MUSLIMS are HATED ! Somebody reaches out to them and true to Muslim form they do everything to heap scorn and hate on them. ISLAM = HATE
Why you defending Christianity?I am defending decency, something Muslims are not familiar with. And regardless of what I feel towards people who believe in a GOD, Man of Steel is actually influenced in a positive way by his religion, he has used it as a vehicle towards becoming a better human being, more tolerant and open, he overtly shows compassion and kindness. These are qualities that Muslims lack, Muslims present themselves as arrogant, insecure, envious, petty and violent, and to top it off they have zero self awareness, this combination proves that ISLAM negatively impacts on a humans character, it separates them from humanity and leads them to be despised for their wickedness, ignorance and intolerance. If ISLAM was responsible for creating good people, nobody would have a problem with it, but ISLAM and arseholes are drawn to one another like moths to a flame.
Didn't you say people who follow god are cowards?
So are Christians cowards?
Was I talking to you?A Christian offered you Goodwill, and then you immediately responded by Insulting the son of his GOD, something a Muslim would want to kill you for. Muslims hypocrisy knows no limits.
I don't hate Christianity, I'd be happy to have dinner with mos.just because I don't agree with the Christian doctrine, doesn't mean I hate them.
lol at e-kul trying to act like he loves christians when he is just trying to attack islam and muslims in his rage. Turns around and goes and talks crap about christians once Muslims are not around. Typical. You've already made filthy comments and posted filthy pictures ridiculing all faiths in the atheist thread before. You're such a sociopathic psychopathic freak man. You need some professional help.I own your mind a-ahmed. The moderators have told me what a cry baby sook you are and you have even had me blocked from some of your threads (a sure sign of my dominance over you) Real Men can tolerate criticism and a difference of opinion, Muslims act like spoilt children when confronted with such things.
But jesus didnt care about everybody,Hey stingray,
Jesus only came to the jewish tribes, not the whole world to be followed,
Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not,But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And he didnt care about everybody, because again he came only to help the jews,
Matthew 15:22-26
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
So atheists do have a heart.He pulled out due to medical reasons. This is just more Muslim lies and propaganda, when will you gullible Muslims wake up to the way deceitful Muslims work.
Stephen Hawking boycotting Israel in solidarity with Palestine
Cambridge - The world's most famous scientist has announced that he will boycott an upcoming Israeli conference to show solidarity with Palestinian academics and protest Israeli's oppressive occupation of Palestine.
The BBC reports that renowned British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking is supporting the worldwide academic boycott of Israel on the "unanimous advice" of his Palestinian contacts.
According to a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP):
Professor Stephen Hawking has declined his invitation to attend the Israeli Presidential Conference Facing Tomorrow 2013, due to take place in Jerusalem on 18-20 June. This is his independent decision to respect the boycott, based on his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there.
Hawking, 71, had originally planned to attend the conference and criticize the Israeli government in a speech, but decided not to travel to Israel. Part of the reason for this is that he is in very poor health.
Hawking joins a growing number of British personalities who have rejected invitations to visit Israel.
Former Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters is the most famous Briton to boycott Israel, accusing the Israeli government of "running an apartheid regime" and "laying waste to most of Lebanon."
The Israel apartheid analogy has been made by South African apartheid survivor and Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu, as well as his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners Jimmy Carter, the former US president, and Mairead Maguire, an Irish peace activist. Some critics go even further and accuse Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians by continued illegal settler colonization of the occupied West Bank.
In 2010, rocker Elvis Costello cancelled two scheduled concerts in Israel, citing the "deplorable conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians."
Super-producer Brian Eno, singer Annie Lennox-- who described Israel's 2008-09 Gaza offensive as "pornography of destruction"-- and award-winning filmmaker Mike Leigh have also boycotted Israel.
Last year, American music legend Stevie Wonder also canceled a scheduled US fund-raising performance benefiting the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
In the academic world, the Teachers' Union of Ireland last month became the first European lecturers' association to back a boycott of Israel, denouncing "Israeli militarism, occupation and apartheid." In the United States, the Association for Asian American Studies also voted last month to support a boycott of Israeli academic institutions "in protest of the illegal occupation of Palestine," among other crimes and human rights violations. The group is the first US-based academic association to support the boycot, divestment and sanction (BDS) movement.
The Raw Story reports that although Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past, most recently in 2006, he has since become a vocal critic of the Jewish State's policies and actions. He called the 2008-09 'Cast Lead' invasion of Gaza "plain out of proportion," adding that "the situation is like that of (apartheid) South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue."
Israel supporters reacted angrily to Hawking's decision to boycott Israel.
"The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic mission," Israel Maimon, chairman of the Israeli Presidential Conference, said in a statement.
"Rather than caving in to pressure from political extremists, active participation in such events is a far more constructive way to promote progress and peace," Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom, is quoted by the BBC.
Shurat HaDin, an Israeli legal center that represents victims of terrorism, called Hawking a hypocrite for boycotting Israel while using Israeli technology in his communication system.
"Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment," a representative of Shurat HaDin is quoted in the Guardian. "His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet."
He pulled out due to medical reasons. This is just more Muslim lies and propaganda, when will you gullible Muslims wake up to the way deceitful Muslims work.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/bds-lied-about-stephen-hawking-joining-anti-israel-academic-boycott/ (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/bds-lied-about-stephen-hawking-joining-anti-israel-academic-boycott/)
UK: WOMEN CONVERTS TO ISLAM ‘DISCOVER’ ABUSE AND OPPRESSION
University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!
Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?
Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.
The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.
In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.
Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.
The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.
The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.
It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.
According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.
The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.
Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.
For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.
One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.
When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.
The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.
Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.
It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.
Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.
“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”
Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”
The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.The Buddha never ruled out murder all together, if by killing someone who would bring untold suffering unto others, by killing them you produce less death of innocent others, then this is a justifiable death. Actually it is the most buddhist act of all to eradicate Islam, as it is this ideology that causes untold suffering and death to innocent people unnecessarily, because Islam rejects peace and embraces violence, it could rightly be considered the duty of all Buddhists, in the name of preventing the suffering of innocents, to eradicate Islam anywhere it resides. Islam is anti life, anti peace, it is the duty of good men everywhere to oppose it.
The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)
But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"
It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?
I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.
First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.
When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)
But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.
As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.
The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.
What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.
None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.
The world is too small for that.
^lolA Muslim was seated next to a little girl on an air-plane, the Muslim thought to himself what a wonderful wife this young girl would make if only he wasn't about to hijack the plane and kill everyone on board.
An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.
"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know anything about shit?"
And then she went back to reading her book......
Typical e-kul.To be fair, I've experienced a few folks employing this same strategy on this board....I won't name names though.
You ask him a question, when he cant defend it he posts up a video/article which has nothing to do with the first issue in the first place.
HA HA HA HA
The mussies built a mosque next door to this guy, look at the sign he put on his front lawn.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/10/article-0-0BFD7DD600000578-496_634x421.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385625/Angry-neighbour-lives-mosque-erects-Bomb-Making-Next-Driveway-sign-lawn.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385625/Angry-neighbour-lives-mosque-erects-Bomb-Making-Next-Driveway-sign-lawn.html)
Ken Weaver of the Community Men’s Fellowship told the Christian Post that though his group fundamentally disagrees with the atheists' stance on religion, it supports their right to express their beliefs freely.
Lately, I've been using warm, freshly grilled bacon slices as bookmarks while I read the Koran. Any tips on how to get the grease marks out?
Judging Mr. Weaver from this one statement alone, I am forced to wonder, why can't more people be like that?
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita that I bound between two large all-beef patties.
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita that I bound between two large all-beef patties.
I got a copy of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for my birthday.
:D
haha!! ;D
But I don't think you got the joke >:(
No. :-[ Can you explain? Although I tell people it sorta takes the funny out when you have to explain a joke.
Apparently that is a book popular w/JW's and they don't celebrate birthdays.
I read my Book of Mormon in Starbucks and my Torah at Red Lobster.
:-\
^Were they halal beef patties?
Apparently that is a book popular w/JW's and they don't celebrate birthdays.
I read my Book of Mormon in Starbucks and my Torah at Red Lobster.
:-\
AAAHAHAHAH!!! ;D
I was invited to a bar mitzvah later this year and I already have a beautiful copy of the KJV of the NT on order with Shlomo's name in gold on the cover!