PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Refuting Creationist Beliefs
       Part 1 of 2

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've read many Creationist arguments on this and other forums, and the bulk of them can be broken down into two arguments.  I'll address the first here, and the second in a later post.

The first argument goes something like this:
"There's this (article | scientific paper | report) about FOO, which proves that the Earth is only 6000 years old."  I call this the drawing a line from one point argument.

If something isn't directly observable, like, for example, the effects of gravity, then we are generally forced to draw conclusions about it through inference.  And regardless of whether you think the world is 3 billion years old or 6000, no one on this forum was around to observe.  Thus, the only way we can figure out the age of the Earth is by looking at all the evidence, and trying to draw a reasonable conclusion.  Let me emphasize that; looking at all the evidence.  No one bit of data will, be itself, be able to prove the case either way.  We need to look at everything.  And when we do we see 100,000 bits of evidence that support an ancient Earth, compared to 16 that support a young Earth.  Occam's razor rather forces us to conclude that there's something wrong with the 16 bits, rather than the 100,000.  The 16 bits may raise interesting points, and be worthy of further study, but they aren't enough to cause us to throw out the 100,000.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:57 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yep, don't mess with the Razor  

The fact is the are huge areas of unknown in the Earth Sciences (and even some what have been considered to be the knowns are open to question) and a degree of ambiguity resulting from the nature of the subject, and the age of what is being observed.

Some in the literal creationist camp use this to their advantage to undermine the well established fact that we live in on a very ancient planet in our terms. Plus it only take a few people to spot or create flaws in evolution (for example) and then produce large quantities of material to point this out to a creationist audience, and has an effect of creating false impressions and perpeuating untruths.

Reading creationist material concerning Evolution and the age of the Earth to expand ones knowlege of the subject is akin to refering to Percy Bysshe Shelley to learn about God


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:24 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't realize we had a celebrity here!  Do I owe you a nickle for use of your trademark, or anything?  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 07:11 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  And when we do we see 100,000 bits of evidence that support an ancient Earth, compared to 16 that support a young Earth.

Creationists and Evolutionists have the same earth today to study.  They have the same fossils, the same geological structures.  We use the same observational science, and then we draw very different conclusions.  Why is this?  

Kronus:  If something isn't directly observable, like, for example, the effects of gravity, then we are generally forced to draw conclusions about it through inference.

We would agree 100%.

Kronus:  Let me emphasize that; looking at all the evidence.  No one bit of data will, be itself, be able to prove the case either way.  We need to look at everything.

So to put it another way - we need to look at the 'big picture'?  Is that a fair assessment of your comments?

This is what creationists have been trying to get accross for many years.  That creationism is a 'big picture' science.  Our assertion is that the Bible gives us that big picture.  Many people say 'the Bible isn't a science text book, or a history book'.  Well, we agree.  It is a 'Big Picture' book and where it touches on science or history we believe it is accurate.  

So where does the disparity lie?  It is in the interpretation of our observations.  Usually, the same evidence that evolutionists use is the same evidence that creationists use.  For example, take the Grand Canyon.  Here is a topic that both sides point at as definitive evidence of their theories.  

I take no affront to looking at the big picture, but I would argue that the 'big picture' one see's depends greatly on nature of their pre suppositive ideas.  No one goes into the field to do the work of science completely objectively.  Everyone has spent at least some time developing a 'big picture' concept.  Most scientists are out to prove their theories.  It's like having 5 or 6 of your closest friends and family in the jury for your trial.  Of course they are going to be unobjective, they have already formed an opinion - why?  How does this relate to the evolutionary paradigm?  Because evolutionary thought is presented as the ONLY option in our public schools.  Our kids are taught that as fact from K through and into graduate work.  Right there, you have influenced the 'jury poole' in the favor of one side of an argument.  And it is our assertion that it is a wrong argument.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:11 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists and Evolutionists have the same earth today to study.  They have the same fossils, the same geological structures.  We use the same observational science, and then we draw very different conclusions.  Why is this?

Because creationists have "cafeteria style" science, where they pick and choose what they feel best supports their position, and ignore the rest.


1.That creationism is a 'big picture' science.  Our assertion is that the Bible gives us that big picture.  Many people say 'the Bible isn't a science text book, or a history book'.  Well, we agree. 2. It is a 'Big Picture' book and where it touches on science or history we believe it is accurate.  

1.It's not science, and how is it looking at the "big picture" to swear not to consider any evidence that disagrees with the bible, as many creationist "scientists" do?
2. And we've already shown many examples where this is demonstrated to be incorrect.

Usually, the same evidence that evolutionists use is the same evidence that creationists use.  For example, take the Grand Canyon.  Here is a topic that both sides point at as definitive evidence of their theories.

A nice example of what I was saying before.  If it was created in a massive flood in one year, why are there fossil burrows in one strata that don't cross to another?  Why are there sandstone dunes, evidence of a desert environment?  Why are there tracks on certain strata?  Creationists (like Gup) say "see, this gully was created in 100 years, so the grand canyon could have formed in 1!"  Wrong, as is shown when you consider all the evidence, not just bits of random fact.

And then we have another mention of the S.S.C.!  How original!


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:36 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gub:  I take no affront to looking at the big picture, but I would argue that the 'big picture' one see's depends greatly on nature of their pre suppositive ideas.

And therein lies the beauty of science.  A scientist, at least a reputable scientist, doesn't just say "this is what I think, take it or leave it"  They carefully site the evidence they're using, fully describe their experimental procedures, acurately record their data, and give a detailed account of how they reached their conclusions.  If they have to make any assumptions or use any axioms, they'll be spelled out.  If you disagree with them at any point you can point to that specific point and say "there, right there your logic falls apart."

Heh.  You pushed my "beauty of science" button and got me off track there for a second.  Getting back on topic, I'd have to say that no, "big picture" is not a fair asssesment of what I meant, at least not as you use the term.  I believe that the phrase "look at all the evidence" accurately and succiently says what I meant.  "Big picture" could also mean that, or it could mean, as you seem to use it, to step away from the evidence, and filter it through some "higher" level of meaning.  It's that filtering that tempts Creationists to attribute so much weight to some findings, while ignoring others.  My argument is in fact that one shouldn't do that.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:47 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists and Evolutionists have the same earth today to study.  They have the same fossils, the same geological structures.  We use the same observational science, and then we draw very different conclusions.  Why is this?

Well I spot one glaring difference between the two demographics.

Those who believe in evolution come from all areas of religious belief; hindus, buddhists, christians, muslims, atheists, people who really don't care. Perhaps not an even spread, but still.

Those who believe in the science of creationism (young earth, anti-radiodating) always* lean towards fundamentalist christianity or fundamentalist islam.

So could a religious belief in the God of abraham and a tendancy to read the bible/koran literally, be something to do with the major difference** in conclusion?

*from my experience. There may be the odd exception out there but I cannot think of anyone

**as in the difference between the number 6,000 and the number 4,500,000,000
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 5:21 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My argument is in fact that one shouldn't do that

So Darwin should never have writtin his origin of the species?  One shouldn't look at the big picture?  One shouldn't assume millions of years when they see rock layer upon rock layer?

Void:  Those who believe in evolution come from all areas of religious belief; hindus, buddhists, christians, muslims, atheists, people who really don't care. Perhaps not an even spread, but still.

I think you have made your own very important distiction... that those people don't care.  To them, there is no need to 'get it right' they are content to keep their faith to themselves.  

However, it is a humanistic doctrine that has crept in and undermined these peoples basic basic belief sytems that allows them to separate the 'spiritual' from the 'natural', and apply a double standard.  

Void:  Those who believe in the science of creationism (young earth, anti-radiodating) always* lean towards fundamentalist christianity or fundamentalist islam.

It is so funny to me that you would use the 9/11 event in such a way.  The word 'fundamentalist' in your mind is some sort of dirty word.  Well, if I were to say "look at that baseball player... he really sticks to the fundamentals" or "look at that soccer player... he is so fundamentally sound", that would be a good thing.  The only time 'fundamentalist' is bad is when the thing that you are adhering to the fundamentals of is bad.  In the case of Islamic religion, the entire religion is based on proselletizing by death and the sword.  If they don't believe, kill them.  If they are jews, kill them, if they help jews kill them.  If they are women, rape them.  If you blow yourself up killing them, you get to go to heaven, where you can rape more virgins.  

However, what are the 'fundamentals' of christianity?  Peace, hope, love.  10 commandments.  redemption, freedom.  Good things.

Oh... and Kronus - you should subscribe to a creation science journal such as TJ, or something similar.   Creation science is real science done by real scientists who have earned real degrees from real universities.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:38 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, thank you for proving me right about your views. Have you ever studied Islam?  Have you ever read the bible?  Everything you accuse Islam of is found in the bible.  Everything you accuse Islam of is wrong.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:23 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Everything you accuse Islam of is found in the bible.

Thats just ignorance gone to seed - bearing abundant fruit.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:32 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Once again, read your bible.

1.If they don't believe, kill them.  2.If they are jews, kill them, if they help jews kill them.  3.If they are women, rape them.  4.If you blow yourself up killing them, you get to go to heaven, where you can rape more virgins.


3.Rape in the bible-
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
From http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html

"But collective punishment and indiscriminate war were also commanded or approved in the Hebrew Bible, especially in cases of idolatry. The first of the Mosaic commandments prohibited the Israelites from worshipping any other gods but Yahweh. God demanded purity and strict obedience, and idolatry and blasphemy were punishable by death (Exodus 20:3, 5). "

2.From http://members.cox.net/galatians/Luther.htm

""First, . . . set fire to their synagogues or schools and . . . bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians . . ..

"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
From Martin Luther

""Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.""
From Mein Kampf
Here's a list of anti-semitic remarks found in the bible:
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/humbug16.htm

4. This one is a complete fabrication.  Yes, some sects (not Islam itself) preach that if you die in battle with infidels, you are rewarded in heaven with virgin brides(you don' get to rape virgins!).  Kind of like the promises made to the crusaders I imagine, or any other christian warrior throughout history "Die in battle for god and you will be rewarded!"

sickening




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:55 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 5:38 PM on April 27, 2004 :
My argument is in fact that one shouldn't do that

So Darwin should never have writtin his origin of the species?  One shouldn't look at the big picture?  One shouldn't assume millions of years when they see rock layer upon rock layer?

To Void:
It is so funny to me that you would use the 9/11 event in such a way.


Having read many of your posts now I can only come to one conclusion.  You are a liar.  You deliberately and willfully misrepresent the truth for your own ends.  You're not an idiot.  You know how to present and to follow a logical argument.  But when logic or truth stands in the way of your beliefs you're more than willing to twist words, misquote, invent specious arguments, or, why beat about the bush, lie.  I had hoped to be able to have intelligent discussions on this forum, but I see in your case that it can't be.  I'll remind you now of Mat 15:11, and respectfully request that you no longer respond to any of my threads.  

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:56 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't let him chase you off Kronus.  I am enjoying your posts, and would hate to see you leave


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:01 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TQ at 7:01 PM on April 27, 2004 :
Don't let him chase you off Kronus.  I am enjoying your posts, and would hate to see you leave



Thanks, and don't worry.  I'm not going anywhere.  I'm just not going to bother trying to have any more serious discussions with Gup any more.  I do enjoy a good discussion, but if your opposite has to resort to such, well, low tactics, there's really not much point now, is there?

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:07 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  Having read many of your posts now I can only come to one conclusion.  You are a liar.  You deliberately and willfully misrepresent the truth for your own ends

Your opinion is incorrect.  However, I am willing to look introspectively - provide an example and I will consider it.  

Kronus:  But when logic or truth stands in the way of your beliefs you're more than willing to twist words, misquote, invent specious arguments, or, why beat about the bush, lie.

It is my belief that truth is on my side here - again, if you believe I have attempted to deceive you or anyone else here in any way - please by all means share what that is.  Most likely you have either mis-understood something I said, or are firmly decieved by your evolutionary paradigm.  

In fact I have gone to great lengths to expose the deception brought by evolution and humanism.  The quote you give before you call me a liar is just that - You stated that you should not filter your 'big picture' through a higher meaning - I asked rhetorically then if Darwin should not have writting Origin of the Species (as this is exactly what that book is).  Most scientists today do just that - they look through the lense that Charles Darwin created.  

TQ:  rape in the Bible

YOu fail to read in context -  Jdg 21:25 In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.  

Clearly it was saying the people were lawless and unruly.
The sites you posted clearly know nothing about what they are talking about.  For example, the first site says that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that if a man get caught raping a woman he pays the father 50 shekels and has to marry her.  In fact, it is talking about fornication (pre-marrital sex) not rape.  It talks about rape in the two verses previous to that.  It says that if a man rapes a woman, then he should be put to death.  So then, how is a man who is going to be put to death for rape going to be able to pay the father and marry the daughter?  These are rediculous.  You shoudn't believe everything you read without investigating it for yourself.  

Regarding point 2 - I didn't see any Bible verses in that... the views of Martin Luther are in obvious opposition to the Scripture - which states that those who help Israel will be blessed.  The Jews are a blessed people because their bloodline is where Jesus is from.  If the Jews had not have facilitated the crusifixion of christ, they would be going to hell regardless - Jesus dying on the cross and raising again is what enables ALL gentiles to be 'heirs together' according to God's promise to Abraham.  

On the other hand - Islam -
Quran: [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them.

(Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q.9: 5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax(Q. 9: 29).

As for women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (Q. 4:34).
It not only denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (Q. 4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the court (Q. 2:282).

This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslims to marry up to four views and gave them license to sleep with their slave maids and as many captive women as they may have (Q. 4:3). He himself did just that. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they call them kafir and allow themselves to rape their women.

Islam encourages the war against the non-Muslims by glorifying it 2:216, 9:41, 49:15, or by promising lust in paradise to the Shaheeds who die in such a war 3:142, 3:157-158, 9:20--21.

These Jihads - holy wars - are what enable the Islamic person to blow themselves up and they and their family are automatically guarenteed a place in heaven.  The families of these people actually encourage their children to do this because it guarentees their spot in heaven.  

This is quite the opposite view than Christianity.  TQ, you really don't know what you are talking about.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:16 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 8:16 PM on April 27, 2004 :
Kronus:  Having read many of your posts now I can only come to one conclusion.  You are a liar.  You deliberately and willfully misrepresent the truth for your own ends

Your opinion is incorrect.  However, I am willing to look introspectively - provide an example and I will consider it.  


This response is for the sake of others, so they won't think I'm blowing Gub off without cause.  I am fairly indifferent as to whether or not Gub reads it, since his claim to consider what I say is about as likely to be based on fact as anything else he says.

Gub: For a Christian or 'creationist' to profess belief in God, then in practical life demonstrate otherwise would truely be (as you say) "internally inconsistant".

Truth: I never said that

Gub: but isn't it convenient that you have absolutely no answer to his first quesion - origin of the universe... origin of time and space

Truth: Heh.  You'ld like me to give you the history of the universe?  I could give it a shot, but I'm afraid it would be such an abridged version that it might not be very useful.  However, we don't need to go back to the begining of time to discuss the theory of evolution

Gub: However, the chemical bonds that make up our DNA have the wrong kind of relationship for life to form.  

Obviously wrong, or we wouldn't be here

Gub: I am a little confused by the lottery example.  There are far too many variable assumptions and information systems that have to be in place prior to selling the lottery tickets.  For example, you have to have a money system in place, you have to speak the same language so that you can explain the concept of odds and explain why they should buy the ticket etc etc etc.  

Truth: No one could be that confused by such a simple analogy.


Gub: Your logic suggests that because something came from nothing, therefore something is the logical result of nothing.

Truth: I said nothing like that

Gub: So let me get this straight - you are telling us that something came from nothing while it was attempting to go nowhere?  In nothing's trip to nowhere, something came to be.  Even though nothing has no way of getting from nowhere to the somewhere we describe as nowhere else, and someting came to be on the way

Truth: Again, I said nothing like that, and it's stupid.

Gub:So to put it another way - we need to look at the 'big picture'?  Is that a fair assessment of your comments?
Me:I'd have to say that no, "big picture" is not a fair asssesment of what I meant
Gub: So Darwin should never have writtin his origin of the species?  One shouldn't look at the big picture?

Truth: Specious.

Void: Those who believe in the science of creationism (young earth, anti-radiodating) always* lean towards fundamentalist christianity or fundamentalist islam
Gub: It is so funny to me that you would use the 9/11 event in such a way
Truth: A lie and hateful.

Gub:In the case of Islamic religion, the entire religion is based on proselletizing by death and the sword.  If they don't believe, kill them.  If they are jews, kill them, if they help jews kill them.  If they are women, rape them.  If you blow yourself up killing them, you get to go to heaven, where you can rape more virgins.  

Truth: A lie, bigoted and hateful.

These are just from my threads, poke through others and I'm sure you can find more.

If there's one thing that both Creationists and Evolutionists can agree upon, it's that the truth has value.  Anyone who would devalue the truth for their own ends robs us all.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:54 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gup, out of all the examples listed on that site of rape in the bible, you address 2 of them and ignore the rest.  This proves your point how?

As for death to the unbelievers, I'm sure that is never mentioned in the bible, right?  Oh, imagine that!  It's actually one of the ten commandments!  If you believe in any other god, you die.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 11:18 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I take issue with the assertion that creationist make regarding 'same data different framework'.  This smacks of relativism and indicates that truth cannot be absolutely known because it depends upon the framework in which it is interpreted.  The statement contains just enough logic to make it dangerous.  Science operates within a certain paradigm, but that paradigm is built by tearing down old ideas via better observation.  In short, science at its very heart, is about an asymptotic approach to truth.  The reason ye-creationism is not adopted by the scientific community is because it offers no useful outcomes.  Ye-geology tenets fell by the wayside 150+ years ago because they could not be supported with observation.  Furthermore, all observations conflict with the notion of a young earth.  The 'framework' argument is a red herring.  Someone pointed me to this wonderful example showing why the 'framework' argument is ludicrous.

Two Frameworks?

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:28 AM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gub: For a Christian or 'creationist' to profess belief in God, then in practical life demonstrate otherwise would truely be (as you say) "internally inconsistant".

Truth: I never said that


And I never said, nor did I imply that you said that.  You said "If someone wants to belive that the Bible is literally true, and ignore what science says, then their beliefs are, at least, internally consistant. "  To this I responded that it would be internally consistant to believe in that the Bible is literally true and then act like evolution is true, because your actions give away your true beliefs.  Frankly, I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying that YOU were making my argument... clearly you made a statement I felt was false, and I responded with an argument.  It seems pretty cut and dry to me.  Where you get the idea that I was changing your statements is beyond me.

Gub: but isn't it convenient that you have absolutely no answer to his first quesion - origin of the universe... origin of time and space

Truth: Heh.  You'ld like me to give you the history of the universe?  I could give it a shot, but I'm afraid it would be such an abridged version that it might not be very useful.  However, we don't need to go back to the begining of time to discuss the theory of evolution


The point of my argument is, evolution (besides being an impossibility in mechanism) could never have started - because there is no mechanism to bring it about from nothing.  If nothing exists to bring about evolution, it could never have started i the first place.  Again, you completely miss the point.  Again you have failed to show us where I appearantly lied.

Gub: However, the chemical bonds that make up our DNA have the wrong kind of relationship for life to form.  

Obviously wrong, or we wouldn't be here


Sorry to say, my friend, but you have been lied to, and it's not by me.  I got this information directly from a man with a Doctorate in Biology (a man named Dr. Gary Parker).  Here is EXACTLY (in his own words) what he said:

The two basic ingredients in living things is DNA molecules and protein molecules.    DNA is a long string of repeated units called nucleotides or bases.  A protein molecule is a long string of amino acids.  In all forms of life, the sequence of DNA you inherit tells the cells how to line up amino acids to make each of the proteins responsible for structure and function.  So the cell takes a look at the genetic code and says "ok there are these three beads of DNA over here… I'll line up one amino acid over here..." and continues checking back and forth.  

Well what about that relationship?  Is that what you would expect by time chance and chemistry?  At first you might say so because after all DNA is a string of bases, protein is a string of amino acids, and nothing is more natural then the reaction between acids and bases.  So the evolutionist says "see - if you just wait long enough, bases will start lining up amino acids and life will begin just by time chance and chemistry, no creator is needed".  Exactly the opposite [is true].  The problem is that natural relationship between bases and acids is the wrong one as far as living things are concerned.

Bases and acids react alright - but when?  At death!  What is [biological] death anyway?  It is the triumph of chemistry over biology.  As soon as molecules in your body begin doing what they want to chemically, you begin to "return to the dust from which you are taken".  In DNA the bases stick out along the side of the chain.  IN proteins the acids are part of the chain.  If you let DNA and protein do what come naturally, it actually contributes to the aging process and finally the decomposition and destruction of life.

The living relationship, the one we need for living things, is using a series of bases taking 3 at a time to line up a series of amino acid R groups.  Those groups can be acids… but they can also be base!  Single ring, double ring, short chain, long chain, with or without sulfur - they can be almost anything chemically.  The point is this - there is no natural tendency for a series of bases to line up a series of R groups.  That relationship has to be imposed from the outside.  At this fundamental level, then, we have evidence that life on earth is a product of special creation.  

Dr.  Gary Parker (doctorate in biology)
Author of 5 Biology Textbooks  



Again... no lies here.  However, your comment Obviously wrong, or we wouldn't be here is telling.  If what Dr. Parker says is correct, and we really wouldn't be here, it is all the more convincing evidence for special creation.

Gub: I am a little confused by the lottery example.  There are far too many variable assumptions and information systems that have to be in place prior to selling the lottery tickets.  For example, you have to have a money system in place, you have to speak the same language so that you can explain the concept of odds and explain why they should buy the ticket etc etc etc.  

Truth: No one could be that confused by such a simple analogy.


I understand what you are trying to say, but what I am telling you is that it is an incorrect analogy.  Your analogy does not make sense when you match up the characters in your analogy with the 'real' characters.  For example, the Universe - in your analogy you gave this 'character' human intelligence as well as associating numerous information systems that must be in place (language, communication, money, knowledge of lotto and lotto tickets etc).  In reality, none of these information systems would have existed at the origination of the universe, and the universe itself does not contain this special infomormation quality as well.  THE POINT (which you seem to have missed) was not that I didn't understand your analogy, but that your analogy didn't make sense.  THE POINT is that you, along with all evolutionists, pre-suppose intelligence and information.  However, none of you seem to be able to give any explaination of where this information came from, or what mechanism brought it to be.  Even before what is currently considered "evolution" started, something had to 'cause' it ... something had to facilitate it.  In the evolutionary paradigm, this is often overlooked or ignored (simply because matter does not spontaneously give rise to information anywhere in nature).  There is a jump from 'nothing' to 'something' with no explaination, cause, or mechanism.    Again, I don't see how this gives any indication of me lying.  

Gub: Your logic suggests that because something came from nothing, therefore something is the logical result of nothing.

Truth: I said nothing like that


Hence the phrase "your logic suggests".  I am trying to get you to see that you don't suddenly get something when nothing exists.  In talking about origins, that is the concept we are dealing with.  How everything came to be before there was anything - when there was nothing - how did something come to be.  To ignore this is to be intellectually dishonest.  I am simply pointing out that truth.  I can see how you would mis-understand my argument "your logic suggests" to mean "you directly stated", however, this should clear up that misconception.  I was following your line of reasoning, pointing out the parts of your own reasoning you chose to ignore.  I was not trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to extend your thinking into the areas you obviously neglected.

Gub: So let me get this straight - you are telling us that something came from nothing while it was attempting to go nowhere?  In nothing's trip to nowhere, something came to be.  Even though nothing has no way of getting from nowhere to the somewhere we describe as nowhere else, and someting came to be on the way

Truth: Again, I said nothing like that, and it's stupid.


Of course you didn't say that, hence the question - "so let me get this straight".  I was trying to show you the line of reasoning that you were using.  You were not considering the full ramifications of your own point logically.  I was showing you the parts of your logic that you were refusing to consider.  A sort of 'if you follow that line of reason through, here is what you get'.  The point of me saying that is to show that you WERE NOT considering those things - not to say that you had said it.  Again, you completely missed the point.  

Gub:So to put it another way - we need to look at the 'big picture'?  Is that a fair assessment of your comments?
Me:I'd have to say that no, "big picture" is not a fair asssesment of what I meant
Gub: So Darwin should never have writtin his origin of the species?  One shouldn't look at the big picture?

Truth: Specious.


Let me remind the kids at home what you said:

"I believe that the phrase "look at all the evidence" accurately and succiently says what I meant.  "Big picture" could also mean that, or it could mean, as you seem to use it, to step away from the evidence, and filter it through some "higher" level of meaning. "

Do you believe that Darwin had "all the evidence"?  Do you believe that he accurately and succinctly measured all the evidence?  I would argue no, he did not.  Because of his humanistic values his Origin of the Species was intentionally exclusionary to any supernatural influence.  Does this sound like he measured ALL the evidence?  By definition it ignores specific evidence - namely any evidence that would show supernatural causality, or any evidence that confirms the Biblical account (which would by association confirm supernatural causality).  You claim to not believe in a 'big picture' paradigm, yet that is exactly what Darwin's book (full title) On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life presents.  A humanist version of the 'big picture' with which to interpret all scientific findings.  It is by design exclusionary to the supernatural, yet claims to prove the supernatural doesn't exist.  This is duplicitous, and specious. ;)

Void: Those who believe in the science of creationism (young earth, anti-radiodating) always* lean towards fundamentalist christianity or fundamentalist islam
Gub: It is so funny to me that you would use the 9/11 event in such a way
Truth: A lie and hateful.


Rhetorically - So do you believe that a sports player who is fundamentally sound is bad?  Do you believe that 'fundamentalism' is hateful?

Since 9/11 the word 'fundamental' has become a dirty word.  I was exposing Void's use of it as a 'low blow'.  However, it is only because Islam is 'fundamentally evil' that this word has gotten such a negative connotation.  

It's not that adhereing to fundamentals is bad - it's that fundamentally believing Islamics attacked the trade center towers, and blow themselves up in Israelie cities.  

It's not hateful, its the truth.  

Gub:In the case of Islamic religion, the entire religion is based on proselletizing by death and the sword.  If they don't believe, kill them.  If they are jews, kill them, if they help jews kill them.  If they are women, rape them.  If you blow yourself up killing them, you get to go to heaven, where you can rape more virgins.  

Truth: A lie, bigoted and hateful.


Quran: [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Just look at the Hamas Charter Document.  Hamas, one of the most evil and bloody terrorist organizations in the world, charter says "article 1 - they draw their guidelines from Islam".  "article 3 - The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Muslims who are devoted to Allah and worship".  On and on it goes.  Why do you think they do this?  

I am not being a bigot - I am being honest.  I am calling a spade - a spade.  I am calling evil - evil.  I bare no shame in exposing lies and the actions of evil persons, of which Hamas certainly is.  It is a humanistic worldview that says that every man's beliefs are valid regardless of what they are.  That world view assumes that there is not a greater authority than the authority of man.  This is fallacy.  I have exposed it as such, and will continue to do so.  I am sorry if the truth is offensive, it is not my intention to offend you, but that you should know the truth.  

Kronus:  If there's one thing that both Creationists and Evolutionists can agree upon, it's that the truth has value.  Anyone who would devalue the truth for their own ends robs us all.

Any you have yet to show an instance where I have not spoken the truth.  

Joe Meert - I take issue with the assertion that creationist make regarding 'same data different framework'.

I take issue to evolutionists assertion that life came to be as it is now by only natural  influence.  

This smacks of relativism and indicates that truth cannot be absolutely known because it depends upon the framework in which it is interpreted.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "

How can you know truth when your religion (humanistic evolution) is by definition exclusionary to all ideas (namely the supernatural)?

Science operates within a certain paradigm, but that paradigm is built by tearing down old ideas via better observation.

I have yet to meet a human who observed the origin of life on earth, or the universe itself.  

In short, science at its very heart, is about an asymptotic approach to truth.

Evolution, at it's very heart, is about an asymptotic approach to fiction.  (For TQ's sake I will admit to - what did you call it T?  Quote mining?  This parenthitical statment is a pre-emptive shuuush.

The reason ye-creationism is not adopted by the scientific community is because it offers no useful outcomes.

Because 'at it's heart', evolution is the 'science of proving there is no God'.  Creation science dispells that myth, and is therefore not considered 'useful' by those consumed in the evolutionary paradigm.  

In fact, many very useful advances in science could be made if science were to open her eyes to actual truth instead of trying to invent truth.  Think about how many pre-concieved notions about how our world and universe functions would change dramatically if the earth and universe are only 6000 years old.  Perhaps science is hindered by it's own unwillingness to accept any truth that disagree's with the evolutionary paradigm.  How do you know unless to are willing to examine it - which evolutionists are not (they are unwilling to accept any supernatural influences).  

Ye-geology tenets fell by the wayside 150+ years ago because they could not be supported with observation.

Another person who has had their proverbial 'head in the sand' for 150 years.  Let me ask you - do you think we can conclusively prove anything from Origin of the Species wrong today?  

And if 'ye-geology' fell by the wayside 150+ years ago, why is it alive and thriving today?

Furthermore, all observations conflict with the notion of a young earth.

It looks like you have been taking lessons from TQ in the art of 'rash, unsubstancial broad generalizations'.  

Someone pointed me to this wonderful example showing why the 'framework' argument is ludicrous.

When you put it in the perspective that evolutionists are like the woman who claimed her boys couldn't have done wrong (in spite of the evidence) I can see how compelling this little story is.  

You see it is the evolutionist who, by definition, excludes evidence.  The creationist is free to observe a mixture of supernatural and natural.  The evolutionist can ONLY consider the natural.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:35 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where you get the idea that I was changing your statements is beyond me.

You quoted him as saying "internal inconsistant".  He didn't.  When you put something in quotes (those little hashmarks around the words.  You see them?)  you are assigning those words to that person.  He never said that, you said he did, you lied.

The point of my argument is, evolution (besides being an impossibility in mechanism) could never have started - because there is no mechanism to bring it about from nothing.  If nothing exists to bring about evolution, it could never have started i the first place.  Again, you completely miss the point.  Again you have failed to show us where I appearantly lied.

Once again (how many times is this now?) Evolution does not touch on the origin of life.  It speaks about the diversity of life.  Once again, Kronus makes a valid point.  Also, since I'm still waiting for an answer and this touches on it, why is an eternal supernatural being outside space/time more logical than an eternal universe outside space/time?

THE POINT is that you, along with all evolutionists, pre-suppose intelligence and information.  However, none of you seem to be able to give any explaination of where this information came from, or what mechanism brought it to be.  Even before what is currently considered "evolution" started, something had to 'cause' it ... something had to facilitate it.

No.  The "point" he is making is that the life we see was not a predetermined end result of the formation of the universe.  There could have been absolutely no life at all, and the universe would have carried on regardless.  If you determine the odds of something/anything happening, then they are pretty good.  If you determine the odds of you being born, they are astronomical.  To clarify, someone will be born.  That is a certainty.  Someone being born who goes by the name of Gup20 and posts nonsense on a debate board is dependent on each and every one of your ancestors meeting and reproducing.  Astronomical odds.


I am trying to get you to see that you don't suddenly get something when nothing exists.

I'm going to use gup's logic against him here:
So, we're agreed then.  Creationism is ridiculous.  The thought that there was nothing then "poof!", there's a universe is absurd!

I was trying to show you the line of reasoning that you were using.  You were not considering the full ramifications of your own point logically.

Once again, look up logic.  Kronus was explaining to you that there is no set goal.  The odds of something happening are 1:1.  That we are the result of what happened is a happy occurence for us.

Because of his humanistic values his Origin of the Species was intentionally exclusionary to any supernatural influence.

As all science is by definition.  Thank you for proving your own point (Evolutionis a religion) wrong
By definition it ignores specific evidence - namely any evidence that would show supernatural causality, or any evidence that confirms the Biblical account

None of which has been found

yet claims to prove the supernatural doesn't exist

Origin of species does no such thing.
Since 9/11 the word 'fundamental' has become a dirty word.  

In your mind maybe.  Are you saying you are not a fundamentalist christian?  Any negative connotation of the word is purely due to your perception of it in such a way.

As for your rant on Islam, you are a bigot.  You have yet to adress the fact that I found all your Islam bashing points in the bible, which you proclaim is all sunshine and lollypops!   Yes, Islamic terrorists are responsible for some terrible acts, but there are many christian organizations throughout history which are responsible for acts just as terrible.  Once again, it comes down to the interpretation of the scripture.

Any you have yet to show an instance where I have not spoken the truth.

Just check out one of your posts.

I take issue to evolutionists assertion that life came to be as it is now by only natural  influence.

That's nice, but science isn't constrained by a persons feelings.

How can you know truth when your religion (humanistic evolution) is by definition exclusionary to all ideas (namely the supernatural)?

Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?  I'm just curious

I have yet to meet a human who observed the origin of life on earth, or the universe itself.

I have yet to meet a human who's seen gravity.  I have yet to meet a human who's seen an atom.  I have yet to meet a human who's seen a chemical reaction.  What' your point?

Evolution, at it's very heart, is about an asymptotic approach to fiction.  (For TQ's sake I will admit to - what did you call it T?  Quote mining?  This parenthitical statment is a pre-emptive shuuush.

This isn't quote mining, this is fabrication (ie a lie)

Because 'at it's heart', evolution is the 'science of proving there is no God'.  Creation science dispells that myth, and is therefore not considered 'useful' by those consumed in the evolutionary paradigm.  

No.  The ToE, as any scientific theory, says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of god.  If that is your warped perception, then that is all it is:your warped perception
And if 'ye-geology' fell by the wayside 150+ years ago, why is it alive and thriving today?

It's not, other than in fringe crackpots who ignore all the evidence to the contrary and invent conspiracy theories to explain why it isn't accepted.

It looks like you have been taking lessons from TQ in the art of 'rash, unsubstancial broad generalizations'.

Actually, as your failed attempts have shown, it's true.  There is no evidence to substantiate a young earth theory.  Every single bit of scientific evidence contradicts it, no matter what conspiacy theory you come up with to explain it.

The evolutionist can ONLY consider the natural.  

Which is why it is considered science and YEC is considered religion


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:57 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lets look at how foolish TQ is - AGAIN.

TQ: You quoted him as saying "internal inconsistant".  He didn't.

From Here:
Kronus:  If someone wants to belive that the Bible is literally true, and ignore what science says, then their beliefs are, at least, internally consistant. (emphasis added for your benefit, TQ).  

Lets see what else TQ has to say about this:
TQ: you are assigning those words to that person.  He never said that, you said he did, you lied.

Will we ever see a retraction of this from TQ?  Here i have irrefutable evidence proving him dead wrong, but will we see him correct himself?  If I were a betting man, I would put my odds in favor of no.

More TQ nonsense:  TQ: Evolution does not touch on the origin of life.  It speaks about the diversity of life.

So it is your position that Evolution and the ToE do not attempt to expain how the first cell came to be, nor does it explain how we could have gone from 'no cell' to 'single cell' to 'complex cell'?  (from nothing to something)

TQ: There could have been absolutely no life at all, and the universe would have carried on regardless.

Of course you have absolutely no basis for this assumption as you weren't there to observe it.  In fact, as we see throughout the universe, that is exactly the result of natural process - NO LIFE AT ALL.  But here on earth - one planet amoung billions without life - the perfect conditions for billions of forms of life to thrive in a multitude of diversity.  In a universe when the most consistent comological pattern is the lack of life - we are overflowing with it.  

Like I said - stick water in a freezer and it freezes - if we see a natural universal pattern (such as seeing no life anywhere else in the universe) we can assume that is 'natures way'.  So then, the earth is special.  That alone supports special creation.  

TQ: The thought that there was nothing then "poof!", there's a universe is absurd!

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created...

Evolutionary paradigm = nothing in beginning
Creationist paradigm = God in beginning

Gup20: Because of his humanistic values his Origin of the Species was intentionally exclusionary to any supernatural influence.

TQ: As all science is by definition.


Creation science is not exclusionary to supernatural.

TQ: Thank you for proving your own point (Evolutionis a religion) wrong

Religion is not dependent on the supernatural.  Dictionary.com gives the following:  

1 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
2 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

For example, humanism is a religion, who's foundational doctrine is exclusionary to the supernatural.  

TQ: None of which has been found

Plenty of which has been found.  You MEANT to say 'all of which I have ignored'.  

TQ: Origin of species does no such thing.

This after arguing that ALL science excludes the supernatural.  You are so very duplicitous.  

TQ: Are you saying you are not a fundamentalist christian?

What is a fundamentalist Christian?  Tell us, and I will tell you if I am that.

TQ: As for your rant on Islam, you are a bigot.

Per our earlier conversation I am obligated to  point out that this is Ad Hominem.  You dismiss the argument by attacking me personally.  

TQ: You have yet to adress the fact that I found all your Islam bashing points in the bible, which you proclaim is all sunshine and lollypops!

You provided two links to propagandist websites that I demonstrated were categorically inaccurate.  I encourage you to present a point, and I will provide a counter point.  I gave you a proportionately appropriate response to you posting two links to fallicous websites.  If you want a point by ponit response, by all means, post a point by point analysis.  

I remind you - Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

If you make a lack luster point, don't expect a press stopping answer when a passive one is good enough to refute your nonsense.  

Gup20: Any you have yet to show an instance where I have not spoken the truth

TQ: Just check out one of your posts.


As I suspected, you are still unable to do so.  I have repeatedly proved you wrong with real evidence here.  You have no ground to stand on.  

Gup20: It looks like you have been taking lessons from TQ in the art of 'rash, unsubstancial broad generalizations'.

TQ: There is no evidence to substantiate a young earth theory.  Every single bit of scientific evidence contradicts it, no matter what conspiacy theory you come up with to explain it.


Thank you for being the predictable parrot we all have come to know and love.  

TQ: No.  The ToE, as any scientific theory, says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of god.  If that is your warped perception, then that is all it is:your warped perception

Here we are again with TQ's duplicity - Before you said "As all science is [exclusionary to the supernatural] by definition. (emphasis to causitive statement added).

First you make the implication that evolution is 'real' science.  Then you say all science is exclusionary to the supernatural.  Then you say it isn't.  Then you again say it isnt'.  What's next?

The final statement in your post:  [i]Gup20: The evolutionist can ONLY consider the natural.   TQ: Which is why it is considered science and YEC is considered religion.

So here we are  again full circle.  You gave four statements throughout your post - two saying science is exclusionary to the supernatural, and two saying it is not exclusionary.  

AGAIN - YET ANOTHER example of how duplicitous you are... how you will say anything regardless of merit or credibility when it suits your argument.  You are the most inconsistant person I have ever seen.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:15 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: You quoted him as saying "internal inconsistant".  He didn't.


Kronus:  If someone wants to belive that the Bible is literally true, and ignore what science says, then their beliefs are, at least, internally consistant. (emphasis added for your benefit, TQ).  

Bold added for yours.

So it is your position that Evolution and the ToE do not attempt to expain how the first cell came to be

Exactly

Of course you have absolutely no basis for this assumption as you weren't there to observe it.

Wow.  I'm speechless at the stupidity on display.  I think it's safe to say that life or the lack of it on planet earth has no effect on the universe as a whole.

one planet amoung billions without life

So you've seen all these planets and can confirm there is no life anywhere in the universe but here?
the perfect conditions for billions of forms of life to thrive in a multitude of diversity.

Imagine that!  Life here is perfectly suited to the conditions!  It's almost like it evolved that way or something, isn't it?
Evolutionary paradigm = nothing in beginning
Creationist paradigm = God in beginning


Evolutionary paradigm = nothing in beginning
Creationist paradigm = God in beginning

once again, why is the idea of an eternal god fine, but an eternal universe is anathema?
Creation science is not exclusionary to supernatural.

Which is why it's religion and not science.

Religion is not dependent on the supernatural.  Dictionary.com gives the following:  

1 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

So, spiritual is not supernatural.  Spirit can be quantitatively defined now?

Plenty of which has been found.  You MEANT to say 'all of which I have ignored'.  

No, I said exactly what I meant
You dismiss the argument by attacking me personally.

You never presented an argument.  You simply stated that Islam is evil, and all who follow it are terrorists (or at the very least attempted to forge a connection).  To this, I state you are a bigot.
You provided two links to propagandist websites that I demonstrated were categorically inaccurate.  I encourage you to present a point, and I will provide a counter point.  I gave you a proportionately appropriate response to you posting two links to fallicous websites.  If you want a point by ponit response, by all means, post a point by point analysis.  

how many websites did I post again?  Let's count, shall we?
1. http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
2. http://members.cox.net/galatians/Luther.htm
3. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/humbug16.htm
This one contains a large number of bible quotes.
Then there's the fact that one of the ten commandments is "thou shalt have no other god", the punishment of which is death.   Once again, you ignore what is presented, and declare there is nothing there.
As I suspected, you are still unable to do so.  I have repeatedly proved you wrong with real evidence here.  You have no ground to stand on.

Done too many times to even begin listing here

First you make the implication that evolution is 'real' science.  Then you say all science is exclusionary to the supernatural.  Then you say it isn't.  Then you again say it isnt'.  What's next?

My god!  Are you really this far gone?  I say that the ToE does not speak about the existence or non existence of god.  I then say (as you quoted) that science does not speak of the supernatural.  How the hell is that duplicity?!?!  I said the exact same thing both times!
So here we are  again full circle.  You gave four statements throughout your post - two saying science is exclusionary to the supernatural, and two saying it is not exclusionary.  

In each and every quote of mine you posted, I stated that the ToE can only adress the natural, not the supernatural.  This is the same with anything scientific.  The only one making no sense here is you.  Seriously, anyone else reading this post, please point out where I contradicted myself.

how you will say anything regardless of merit or credibility when it suits your argument.  You are the most inconsistant person I have ever seen.

You quote me saying the same thing four times then and then accuse me of being inconstant!?!






(Edited by TQ 4/29/2004 at 02:58 AM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:42 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seems like gup doesn't like fundies.  Must suck to be a self-loather:
Well... christianity is not a religion.  Some would make it so, bit in it's 'fundmentalist' form, it is a relationship - a personal and real relationship - with the creator of the universe.  Would you accept this?




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:58 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Kronus at 07:11 AM on April 27, 2004 :
I didn't realize we had a celebrity here!  Do I owe you a nickle for use of your trademark, or anything?  


Well you could do, but in honesty I would have to give it too good 'ol William

A question to Gup20: Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses are misinterpreting the Bible in their belief that no person should accept a whole blood/red cell donation from another?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:57 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not being a 'Jehovah's Witness', I can't speak to what their belief is.

However, in researching the issue it seems the main argument involves Acts 15:29 which says:

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It seems like this is talking about eating meat and blood offered to idols.  

A blood transfusion is neither offered to idols, nor is it 'eating'.  I would say that I disagree with the Jehovah Witness' interpretation.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 9:02 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for quoting the source of their belief on the blood issue Gup.

I now have another question for you.

Are members of (many but not all) Brethern Churches correct in their interpretation of Paul's letters as a justification to prohibit women from taking roles of leadership and bar their direct participation in worship services?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:42 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:  
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:  


Here Paul says that God will pour his spirit out on woman as well as men.  

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Here is a man a wife team acting as pastors.

Act 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Here paul mentioned that the man he was staying with had 4 'prophetess' daughters.  

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".

1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."

---

Here is what gives many people the impression that women are somehow inferior (incorrectly).

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.  

Notice it doesn't say the head of every woman is every man... This seems to be speaking to husbands and wives.  If you read it in context it makes more sense...

1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.  


Another verse often quoted to put women down is :

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

However, this is again referring to a husband and wife situation.  Within the context of the whole scripture, we can see that this passage is speaking to psycology, and the family dynamic.  The passage continues by describing how men should love their wives and keep from provoking their children.  

With a superficial glance at these verses, those who would try to find 'biblical ammunition' for their chauvinism have some backing.  But as usual thorough study of those verses in context will show the real truth.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:15 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thankyou once again for the Biblical insights Gup20.

Having refered to someone with more knowledge of the subject than I do, I have the specific verses I was thinking of with regard to the Brethren:

1 Corinthians 14:34- As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35- If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I also remembered another point regarding women in the Brethren church, that of wearing of head coverings. This belief (taken from the below passages) ranges from demading a women to wear a head scarf always or an optional hat to services, depending on the church in question:

1 Corithinians 11:3- Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4- Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5- And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6- If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7- A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8- For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9- neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10- For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11- In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12- For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13- Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14- Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15- but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16- If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.


N.B. Passages taken from the NIV Bible.

Which brings me to the point I have been pursuing. Here we have a couple of examples where you have a differnent view to other present day Christians with regard to the interpretation of the Bible. I know the examples I have used can be seen as quite extreme, but I hope you can appreciate why.

The Bible is read as different things by different Christians. There are transcending fundementals, but the literal acceptance of the description of creation in Genesis cannot be said to be one, as viewpoints of Christians differ.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/3/2004 at 1:30 PM).

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/3/2004 at 1:31 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:28 PM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 speaks to women not asking their husbands questions during the services so as not to be a disruption.  It has nothing to do with women being in leadership or Ministry positions.  

When you look at it in the context of the rest of Paul's message you will see that he repeatedly makes it clear that men and women are equal in the eyes of God.  Moreover, there are many examples of female prophetesses, pastors, ministers that both Peter and Paul dealt with on a regular basis, as well as several husband and wife teams who were in charge of churches.  

You have to realize that much of the new testament is letters to specific churches giving them instruction for their fellowship.

OccamsRazor:  Which brings me to the point I have been pursuing. Here we have a couple of examples where you have a differnent view to other present day Christians with regard to the interpretation of the Bible. I know the examples I have used can be seen as quite extreme, but I hope you can appreciate why.

I agree - there are many interpretations of what the Bible has to say.  Truely no one can interpret it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Which is why it remains a mystery to those who have not recieved salvation (for the most part).  But God is wise.  He gives us clues for interpretation.

For example, in Genesis.  In the six day account of creation.  God uses specific words and phrases to give us clear meaning.  When he says 'the evening and the morning were the first day', He gives us more than we need to interpret 24 hour day.  The hebrew word for Day is yom.  It can mean 24 hour day... it can mean a period of time... it can mean an 'age' of time.  However, whenever it is used in conjuction with the word evening, it ALWAYS means a literal day.  Whenever it is used in conjunction with the word morning, it ALWAYS means a litteral day.  Here it is used with both evening and morning - therefore we can interpret confidently that it means a 24 hour day.  In this way, the Bible very frequently interprets itself.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:39 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void:  Those who believe in the science of creationism (young earth, anti-radiodating) always* lean towards fundamentalist christianity or fundamentalist islam.

Gup: It is so funny to me that you would use the 9/11 event in such a way.


No I wasn't doing that.

On a related note, a recent poll showed that 95% of hijackers believe in a pre-flood water vapour canopy above earth.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 05:13 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

VOID: No I wasn't doing that.

Well good.  That would be exploitative.
The fact of the matter remains - fundamentalism is only a bad thing if the idea being fundamentally followed is evil (such as Islamic/Muslim belief - ie fundamentally it is ok to blow yourself up in a crowded street full of non-Islamics).  

Void:  On a related note, a recent poll showed that 95% of hijackers believe in a pre-flood water vapor canopy above earth.

How many fundamentalist Christians hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings?  Again, you are confusing the evil counterfeit for the real deal.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:26 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, as I've explained to you time and time again, Islam is not evil.  You are a bigot.  Almost every example of evil you stated to be found in Islam, I showed you in the bible.  Funny, you ran out on that conversation too...


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:09 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 1:39 PM on May 5, 2004 :
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 speaks to women not asking their husbands questions during the services so as not to be a disruption.  It has nothing to do with women being in leadership or Ministry positions.

When you look at it in the context of the rest of Paul's message you will see that he repeatedly makes it clear that men and women are equal in the eyes of God.  Moreover, there are many examples of female prophetesses, pastors, ministers that both Peter and Paul dealt with on a regular basis, as well as several husband and wife teams who were in charge of churches.  

You have to realize that much of the new testament is letters to specific churches giving them instruction for their fellowship.


I agree with your interpretation of the passage, which once again differs from how it is interpreted by some elements of the Brethern Church.

I agree - there are many interpretations of what the Bible has to say.  Truely no one can interpret it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Which is why it remains a mystery to those who have not recieved salvation (for the most part).  But God is wise.  He gives us clues for interpretation.

For example, in Genesis.  In the six day account of creation.  God uses specific words and phrases to give us clear meaning.  When he says 'the evening and the morning were the first day', He gives us more than we need to interpret 24 hour day.  The hebrew word for Day is yom.  It can mean 24 hour day... it can mean a period of time... it can mean an 'age' of time.  However, whenever it is used in conjuction with the word evening, it ALWAYS means a literal day.  Whenever it is used in conjunction with the word morning, it ALWAYS means a litteral day.  Here it is used with both evening and morning - therefore we can interpret confidently that it means a 24 hour day.  In this way, the Bible very frequently interprets itself.


I suppose once again we come back to how one view's Genesis as a whole: a literal history, as you do, or as a poetic analogy as some other Christians see it...


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:38 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Gup20 at 12:26 PM on
Well good.  That would be exploitative.
The fact of the matter remains - fundamentalism is only a bad thing if the idea being fundamentally followed is evil (such as Islamic/Muslim belief - ie fundamentally it is ok to blow yourself up in a crowded street full of non-Islamics).


I don't think most Muslims would agree that Islam teaches them this. Perhaps its more to do with specific tactics that get results in specific situations.

How many fundamentalist Christians hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings?  Again, you are confusing the evil counterfeit for the real deal.  


Thankfully, it would appear very few if any. Lets hope they never start.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:46 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Gup, as I've explained to you time and time again, Islam is not evil.  You are a bigot.  Almost every example of evil you stated to be found in Islam, I showed you in the bible.  Funny, you ran out on that conversation too...

TQ Islam is indeed evil.  I successfully and sufficiently refuted all of your so called references in the Bible.  I showed you how they were grossly mis-interpreted.  I did not 'run out' on that conversation - I refuted your foolishness and moved on.  Killing yourself in the death of an infidel is fundamental to the Islamic faith.  It assures your place in heaven (as well as your family).  

The Bible says that as we can know the goodness of a tree by the fruit it produces, so also can we know the good of a doctrine by the fruit it produces.  Look at the fruit of Islam - this is a religion who's laws dictate that you spread the doctrine by the sword - any who will not accept the doctrine should be killed.  It is your duty to kill infidels - especially jews and christians.  It is your duty to give your life for Allah.  In christianity, Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for mankind - in Islam, you blow yourself up killing infidels for Allah.  In christianity, Jesus was loving, caring, healing, ministering - Mohammed was a rapist and a murderer.  In Christ there is freedom and life, in Islam there is bondage and death.  

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

I take the approach that I purpose to love the sinner, but hate the sin.  I would rather see all people be free and full of life.  I would rather see no criime or sin or death.  If that makes me a bigot, then so be it.  

By your extension of the word 'bigot' (in calling me a bigot) those who dispise a murderer or a pedophile are also bigots.  Those who fight against tyranny or oppression are also bigots.  Jews in Nazi concetration camps... they are bigots too?  

It is bigotry to dispise evil?  Is it bigotry to expose deception?

People love to throw that word around - everyone is so worried about being politically correct.  It is part of this humanistic influence we have been talking about.  How there is no absolute right or wrong.  Let every person do what is right in their own eyes.  Don't offend anyone by saying you disagree with them.  It's fallicous and wrong.  Not everything someone believes or does is right.  You may think I am intolerant - I am intolerant.  I don't tolerate evil - I don't tolerate deception.  The word tolerate (like fundamentalist) has changed in meaning over the last decade.  Tolerate used to mean to bearly put up with.  Now it's a politically correct term that means to accept all.  "we need to be tolerant of other people and their culture".  Blah bla bla.  Should we be tolerant of murderers and pedophiles?  Should we accept their behavior because that's their 'chosen life path'?  How rediculous is that.  

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:21 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW - according to your use of bigot - YOU are a bigot for not tolerating my belief in creationism and accepting it.  ;)

Thankfully, it would appear very few if any. Lets hope they never start.

This wouldn't happen - why?  Because fundamentally, there is nothing in the Bible that says to kill infidels.  The fundamentals of the Bible are love, peace, joy, redemption.  

That is not to say some whacko wouldn't ever try to use some obscure mis-interpreted verse out of context to support some crazy idea.  We call those people cult leaders - not fundamentalists.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:33 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because fundamentally, there is nothing in the Bible that says to kill infidels

What was that one commandment again?  Something about no other gods?  And what was the punishment?  Why, it was death?  Imagine that!

BTW, I'm taking Kronus's path and ignoring you from here on in.  Not only are you ignorant, you are a bigot who is attempting to spread falsehoods and hate.  I'll pray for you...


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:44 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 wrote: That is not to say some whacko wouldn't ever try to use some obscure mis-interpreted verse out of context to support some crazy idea.  We call those people cult leaders - not fundamentalists.


I know. Lets hope we never see the likes of cult leaders like Pope Urban II again

This thread has gone bad... time to move on and get back on topic methinks.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/7/2004 at 3:47 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:45 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: What was that one commandment again?  Something about no other gods?  And what was the punishment?  Why, it was death?  Imagine that!

The old testament is an example for us to follow.  It is God's covenant with the Jews is the first covenant.  The old testament is the Jewish Law.   Jesus and his sacrifice are the New Testament (or new covenant) with all mankind.  

Jesus fulfilled the law and the 1st covenant.  Christianity is the 2nd covenant - we are not under the law any longer - Christ fulfilled the law.  Those who are in christ are under grace.  

BTW - are you going to die?  Are you going to hell?  Those who are not in Christ are under the law and bound by death and hell.  Those who are in Christ are under grace and under his Resurrection.  

This is all very VERY basic Srcripture.  But it shows you have absolutely no concept of the Bible.

BTW, I'm taking Kronus's path and ignoring you from here on in.  Not only are you ignorant, you are a bigot who is attempting to spread falsehoods and hate.  I'll pray for you...

I could have predicted this the first time I posted here.  All evolutionists tend to run away when they are thoroughly refuted.  Be sure to run with your hands cupped over your ears yelling "I can't hear you!  I can't hear you!"

This thread has gone bad... time to move on and get back on topic methinks.

The Thread Topic is "Refuting Creationists Beliefs".  It would seem from the defeatist attitudes of Kronus and TQ, that they were unsuccessful at 'refuting [a] creationists beliefs'.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:16 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 wrote: The Thread Topic is "Refuting Creationists Beliefs".  It would seem from the defeatist attitudes of Kronus and TQ, that they were unsuccessful at 'refuting [a] creationists beliefs'.


That comment was as disingenuous as it was unnecessary. If you think that is why Kronus and TQ are done here you are only telling yourself what you want to hear.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:12 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR: That comment was as disingenuous as it was unnecessary. If you think that is why Kronus and TQ are done here you are only telling yourself what you want to hear.

By all means - I have submitted my 'theory' for peer review - if they know it to be otherwise, I suggest they 'set the record straight'.  That's the lincense granted someone when you refuse to continue discussion - you basically commit to letting them say anything without review, right?

I would remind you -  

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Is that comment any more disingenuous or unnecessary then their diatribe proclaiming they were no longer responding to me?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:15 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.