Thread: middle east again...

  1. #226
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    "I see, well one would have thought that humanity would have inherited Adam's traits but ok, you can have that one. "

    If your parents had surgery, would you inherit it from them?

    Not so obvious to thousands of creationists who favour the young hypothesis because they believe that a literal intpretation of the bible means the universe is 6000 years old. I guess they don't know the bible right? And man has been Earth for over 100,000, so errrmmmm....

    Compare the genealogies in the Gospels. You will see that they do not include everyone. Hence, by adding up the ages of the people in the Bible you cannot derive an accurate age for the earth.

    "Finally, how do we know the earth is millions of years old? Well because the universe is expanding (we know this because light is red shifted, implying velocity)"

    Sorry, I should have said universe, not earth. That is how we "know" the age of the universe. The age of the earth is based on flawed radiation tests and circular reasoning.

    Oh my days how blinkered is your view? Yes they deserved to die kill them all!

    "For all have sinned..."
    "There is not one righteouss, no not one..."
    "The earth was covered in wickedness..."

    If you actually take time to read these bible stories you would see that God gave ample opportunity for everyone to escape who was righteouss. And about the fetuses and babys etc, how do you know there were any? These people lived for 900 years, they didn't need to reproduce constantly

    LOL, do you have any idea how many species of animal there are?

    I will have to check the logistics of this later, as I'm at school right now.

    Incidently in almost all cases you CANNOT POSSIBLY start a population with just 2 individuals, because you get expression of damaging recessive alleles that is why imbreeding is bad, that totally screws both the Adam and Eve fairy tale and the Ark faff.

    Yes. After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore.

    Yea... probably, probably because otherwise there be contradiction, i know whenever theres a contradiction lets just say it's "probably" due to translation, excellent.

    I say probably because I haven't studied the language in this section. BUT YOU COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT! The difference between a cloud and the water vapor that is required to produce the diffraction for a rainbow is not significant.

    "No, they were localised in one area."

    Haha another corker, the animals just happened to be one area, thats completely believeable yup yup, after all we all know that animals do not infact move, and that birds do not infact fly......~

    I mean there would be at least 2 of each animal within a short distance away, not every single animal ever made.

    Becuase this is poetic writing not scientific arrrgh!!!"

    Oh i see, so it's not literal, well, we knew that anyway, glad to have you onboard.

    Let me show you what I mean:

    In numbers, I believe, there is a reference to a bowl which will be three times greater around than across. Aha, you say, contradiction! We all know that C=2*pi*r so the bible claims that "Pi" is 3 when we know its really 3.141592653589793...

    THIS IS POETRY IT DOESN"T MATTER

    BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMALL ARTISTIC INTERPRETATION LIKE THIS AND FALSIFYING HISTORICAL EVENTS!!

    And you missed the point fantastically here, which is just how rediculous it is to suggest that one species of elephant was saved because it was "clean"

    When did I say that? I quoted it from a site YOU GAVE

    which then spontaneously evolved into 160 different species 158 of which became immediately extinct!! And where the heck did those other species of elephant come from anyway ???? Surely not..... evolution....... lol.

    If you define this as evolution, then there is nothing theisticly wrong with evolution. Why do we have different kinds of dogs? Well, breeding. Before we bred them, it was the environment. Now before you get all excited over this, remember what happens to all these dogs if they go back into the wild? Within a few generations, the sample group all reverts back to the same thing. They're all still dogs.

    More tomorrow on the flood, Darwin, and fossils.

  2. #227
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4
    I think the prime reason that a lot of people don't want to know about or accept God, Jesus, and the truth that is written in Bible, is FEAR.

  3. #228
    Incidently in almost all cases you CANNOT POSSIBLY start a population with just 2 individuals, because you get expression of damaging recessive alleles that is why imbreeding is bad, that totally screws both the Adam and Eve fairy tale and the Ark faff.

    Yes. After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore.
    You dont know what hes talking about do you? I for one have no idea what you're talking about here: "After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore." ... Ummm.... what?

    >>I mean there would be at least 2 of each animal within a short distance away, not every single animal ever made.

    You missed the point again. You're trying to say that the penguins and the lions were all 'dropped off' at the same stop? .... Nice.

    LOL, do you have any idea how many species of animal there are?

    I will have to check the logistics of this later, as I'm at school right now.
    No, really; Do that. I'll try to find this reference I have somewhere. Somebody took the time to calculate the size the ark would have to be (excluding food and supplies) to just fit 2 of every animal on board. We're talking square mileage here... I'll look when i have a bit of time. I apologise as i'm a bit pressed for it today.


    >>More tomorrow on the flood, Darwin, and fossils.

    I'll be tuned in.

    >>I think the prime reason that a lot of people don't want to know about or accept God, Jesus, and the truth that is written in Bible,
    >>is FEAR.

    Personally I think the prime reason people created, er, believe in, the bible, is because of FEAR. But we're not really going anywhere with that topic.
    "There's always another way"
    -lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)

  4. #229
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,403
    "If your parents had surgery, would you inherit it from them?"

    Well quite, and I did concede the point, but IF men did in-fact have 7 ribs, you can bet your bottom dollar that creationist would use it as "evidence" for creationist nonsense. Since man at that time had no concept of genetics nor evolution, it would seem reasonable that they would presume men shared Adam's physiological properties.

    "Compare the genealogies in the Gospels. You will see that they do not include everyone. Hence, by adding up the ages of the people in the Bible you cannot derive an accurate age for the earth. "

    So you say, but then why do all those bible toting Creationists seem to think you can? Anyway i notice you avoid the age of man.

    "Sorry, I should have said universe, not earth. That is how we "know" the age of the universe. The age of the earth is based on flawed radiation tests and circular reasoning. "

    LOL you know what's really funny here, you on the one hand argue that you cannot determine the age of the Earth from the bible, yet on the other have decided that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, a figure which multiple differrent scientific disciplines have independantly arrived at.

    Do you understand the principles radiometric dating? I presume of course that you do, because surely only an ignorant fool would dismiss a topic as "flawed" and based on "circular reasoning" without first having a firm grasp on the central theory, so since you understand the topic so well, perhaps you could explain to me how it works and what is wrong with it.

    "If you actually take time to read these bible stories you would see that God gave ample opportunity for everyone to escape who was righteouss. And about the fetuses and babys etc, how do you know there were any? These people lived for 900 years, they didn't need to reproduce constantly "

    Of course! OF COURSE the 900 year people I nearly forgot, LOL this stuff just gets better and better! How remarkeably different their biology must have been, as little as 6000 years ago you say? Well of course, of course after all it does say so in the bible....... lol.

    "Yes. After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore"

    Pardon me? Lets examine the stupidity of this particular argument shall we

    A: Are you claiming that for a brief period after the Ark found land, the Earth suddenly became "protected from radiation" and then equally suddenly this protection vanished? Uh huh.

    and B: It doesn't matter if you had ZERO radiation (which incidently means no light) you still couldn't start a population from 2 individuals because you would still get the exact same thing happening: Expression of damaging recessive alleles.

    "I say probably because I haven't studied the language in this section. BUT YOU COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT! The difference between a cloud and the water vapor that is required to produce the diffraction for a rainbow is not significant"

    A cloud is a specific word, you have no clue what the translation is do you? You're just bending it to suit your particular argument!:

    Me: I question the validity of claiming the bible is a literal interpretation of an all powerfull God.
    You: Why?
    Me: In the bible it says clouds cause Rainbows, that is patently false.
    You: Well it's "probably" not clouds the bible "probably" says water-vapour.
    Me: Why do you think that?
    You: Well because we know the bible's true...

    -welcome to circular reasoning 101.

    EDIT: LOL my brain must be suffering otherwise i would have realised this before: water VAPOUR doesn't cause rainbows ANYWAY! Rain causes rainbows, water droplets.

    "I mean there would be at least 2 of each animal within a short distance away, not every single animal ever made"

    And that helps how?

    It still means the animals very nicely decided to stand in pairs close to one another, how nice of them, like i said before it's a good thing that animals don't move, otherwise they might have like run around and stuff.

    But HEY we had 900 year old men, water orbitting in space, supernatural comas, seemingly entirely different genetics, so whats a few paralysed animals eh? (man i should write all of this stuff down it would make a really good bed time story........ oh wait a minute!)

    "THIS IS POETRY IT DOESN"T MATTER

    BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMALL ARTISTIC INTERPRETATION LIKE THIS AND FALSIFYING HISTORICAL EVENTS!! "

    If the bible is the literal word God, then surely the "poetry" in the bible would both be more beautifull then any other poetry (which it is blatantly, blatantly not) and more importantly it would also be ACCURATE, see, you grant human beings "poetic license" because they are NOT ABLE to be both accurate and beautifull. So that leaves two possilibilities, either God was just plain ignorant, or he wasn't that great at poetry. Hmm....

    "If you define this as evolution, then there is nothing theisticly wrong with evolution"

    Oh I see! So you accept that through evolution speciation can occur but just as long as the species look similar? Well excellent I can see that all my explanations of evolution have not been in vain you truly have a great understand of the theory....... or...... maybe not.

    "Now before you get all excited over this, remember what happens to all these dogs if they go back into the wild? Within a few generations, the sample group all reverts back to the same thing. They're all still dogs"

    Oh of course, if i let my labrador out into the wild in a couple generations he'd be a wolf dontcha know. HAHA of course he would whatever you say.

    "More tomorrow on the flood, Darwin, and fossils."

    I'd like to see what fantastic explanation you will come up for the flood, I can guess that you will quote some idiot creationist claiming there was evidence for the flood and neglecting to mention it was from a few million years ago, and not even a 10th of the water required to cover the mountains. In fact, there is NOT enough water on the Earth to account for the biblical flood, there is no way in hell even if every polar ice cap melted that you cover everest.

    Anyway i await the comedy tommorow will bring.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-08-2002 at 07:42 AM.

  5. #230
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,490
    holy hell(pun intended), this topic is long. forgive me for not reading through it all.

    the bible is loaded with discrepancies. it's a false story. it's a religion.

    jesus divided up a couple fish and loaves of bread and spread it among thousands of hungry people. a miracle. can miracles happen in the literal sense of the word? no. it may seem like a miracle. but everything that happens is caused by and/or causes something else. there is nothing that cannot be explained, or reasoned out.

    eg: wood is wood. it has celluose fibers. it comes from trees. trees grow from nutrients and water sucked from its roots, and uses sunlight to combine air, water, and soil to build itself.

    take any part of the paragraph and it can be explained. it was caused by other stuff. scientists don't claim to know everything. even evolution is merely a theory which has been proven. it may be proved false. but to prove something false, you need proof.

    the bible is a hopeful message to people. period.

  6. #231
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    746
    900 year old people !!!!

    i don't know whether to laugh or cry.....

    this is either depressing, or funnier than the joke thread.....
    can't make my mind up.

    what is your religion Mike ??? what is it known as ?? i'd love to know......
    Last edited by stevey; 05-07-2002 at 03:38 PM.
    Steve

  7. #232
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    How about Mike_K and Seditee get together? I think Mike's been crossing some of those dimensions Seditee was talking about earlier.
    I especially like the one where God created a pre-aged universe, just to look older than it is and fool us humans. That's my kind of God, a practical joker.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  8. #233
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    746
    to take the bible totally completely literally is either frightening or humourous....how many people do that ???
    ive heard Jehova's Witnesses do but he says he aint one, 7th day adventists ?? i'm interested, tho largely so's i can avoid em like a biblical plague !!
    Steve

  9. #234
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    "Evoulution is fact, Bowie. A lawyer might say we have an evidentiary trail. There is no scientific basis for creationism. Still, people believe in it. Why do you think that is?"
    "I guess people want to believe in something. They want somebody to tell them this is how it is."
    "Why not believe in science?"
    "Because it keeps changing. We know one thing today and another thing tomorrow. Science is the search for answers. Religious beliefs are answers. Or what passes for answers. And they don't seem to change."

    from The Snowfly, by Joseph Heywood
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  10. #235
    back? dbaryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    597
    Originally posted by stevey
    to take the bible totally completely literally is either frightening or humourous....how many people do that ???
    ive heard Jehova's Witnesses do but he says he aint one, 7th day adventists ?? i'm interested, tho largely so's i can avoid em like a biblical plague !!
    Well, I guess I happened to be one of those poeple you want to avoid now, stevey! I take the Bible literally as well [like the Adam 'n Eve story]...
    This is my signature. Remind me to change it.

  11. #236
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    746
    well you may grow out of it hopefully......

    so, is it the old or new testament you believe literally ??

    you can't believe both, because they are totally contradictory !!

    ie eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek??

    vengeful god, or benevolent god ???

    if you can believe both, i think thats what i'd call a willing suspension of disbelief. ie faith
    Steve

  12. #237
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Here's another one from the Bible - the Book of Job.
    God makes a bet with Satan that righteous Job will never turn from God no matter what. God then proceeds to inflict all kinds of horrors on Job, who, remember, is among the most God-fearing and righteous of men, yada yada. After almost a the whole Book of this, Job denounces God, who then gets mighty ........ed and gives Job a divine smackdown.
    Now, is this the God you want to worship as all loving, the magnificent creator? And BTW, why is God making a bet with Satan? Besides, doesn't omniscient God know the outcome in advance?
    To believe in the Bible literally, you have to ignore any intellect God gave you, which could be seen as disrespectful of His gift.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  13. #238
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    746
    hey that Job thing was on Southpark last week !!!

    (well its last week in the UK, we may be months behind you guys)
    Steve

  14. #239
    Unregistered
    Guest
    hi everyone I'm back (everyone groans)

    I had a really busy week at work so this is the first I've been able to come back and respond.

    "so, is it the old or new testament you believe literally ??

    you can't believe both, because they are totally contradictory !!

    ie eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek??

    vengeful god, or benevolent god ???
    An eye for an eye was the Law. This was the Old Testament, or the Old Covenant It was just, but it was not very good. It provided a cure for sin, but not for our iniquity. That is why God sent his son to die, fulfilling the requirements of the law, and instituting a new law, grace. This is the New Covenant. Jesus taught us that he would (forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors). In other words, just as he gave his life to save us from hell, we are to follow his example and forgive those who wrong us, even though we are not required to by law.

    If you want a contradition, you don't have to look between the old and new testaments. The very verse you quoted says "It is written 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' " directly before he says to turn the other cheek. Jesus even attests to the authority of the Law: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one stroke of the pen can be broken from the law" What he is saying is that although we have the right to extract vengeance under the law, we should not.

  15. #240
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    746
    ????????

    so somebody kills my mate Kenny, i think "you bastards!!!", and i find them and kill them.....
    did i have a right to do that ???
    yes according to the Law, no according to "thou shalt not kill"

    the bibles a contradictory mess.....obviously the old and new testaments are not one work, they totally contradict each other.


    sorry, but theres more sense in the contents of my Diapers IMHO.
    speaking of which, what have you got to say about Job. killing his family, bringing disease and suffering just to win a bet with the devil ???


    anyway i'm off to covert my neighbours oxen, its a real beauty i'll tell ya........
    Steve

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Staying vs Leaving the Middle East
    By BobMcGee123 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 08:15 PM
  2. New source of oil in the middle east?
    By Lionmane in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 03:59 AM
  3. the definition of a mathematical "average" or "mean"
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-03-2002, 11:15 AM
  4. Binary searches
    By Prezo in forum C Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2002, 09:54 PM
  5. trying to sort a middle value
    By Led Zeppelin in forum C Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2002, 12:05 PM