This is just too stupid for anyone to try and correct. Mixing evolution, radioactive decay and paleontology into a stunningly idiotic statement.
Mouse, you're funny sometimes, but you'll die ignorant.
This is just too stupid for anyone to try and correct. Mixing evolution, radioactive decay and paleontology into a stunningly idiotic statement.
Mouse, you're funny sometimes, but you'll die ignorant.
Come again?
Have you read my other posts? I agree with you that religion gets marginalized and as a Christian I do also believe in the Resurrection and all because I have to and it makes sense to me.
That said, I'm also a woman of reason.
Given what I've studied of genetics and biology, I don't think you can sensibly argue against evolution on a micro-level/smaller scale. Being able to adjust to what's happening in your environment is part of what differentiates living organisms from inanimate objects. It would be incredibly asinine to also argue that genetics isn't a big part of what traits get passed down in a given population.
Where things get sticky is with the issue of where it all began. On this front I say "God created" because I find that easier to believe than the "something out of nothing it all evolved" theory. Since I'm also a Christian I just attached the Intelligent Designer to God and the rest is self-explanatory.
I've taken evidence from both sides and formed an opinion.
You sound very religious.
I think the God depicted in the bible that most read is more than a little inconsistent.
Not sure I would buy that has been established.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-10-2012 at 06:03 PM. Reason: fixed link
Horrible list. The Bible's a big book and if you cherry pick specific sentences without reading the whole thing you can pull anything you want out of it. I've read it about 6 times myself and while I'll admit to not remembering everything, I can guarantee you that I have a better understanding of it than those guys.
While the actions taken definitely vary, there's no question that the personality behind them was constant throughout the Bible. The goals stayed the same and the requirements stayed the same as did the priorities.
Evolution has been reproduced under controlled settings. There is a famous, multi-decade and still going, experiment with bacteria that have developed the ability to metabolize (citric acid? can't remember exactly which)
We also know, in a very detailed manner, how mutations happen, and generally what causes specific mutations.
We have done a LOT of drilling down into the basic molecular DNA/RNA level to figure this out.
I got to audit my wife's class on evolution a few times to get the newest stuff, but we are doing some serious tinkering with the building blocks to see how this all works.
See that little critter that just waddled out of the ocean? That is the beginings of an elephant. Oh yeah and an eagle.
Pretty hard to grasp.
Why all the wicked so strong?
Tom Waits
According to evolution that's where it all started.
paste...
Like the plants, animals evolved in the sea. And that is where they remained for at least 600 million years. This is because, in the absence of a protective ozone layer, the land was bathed in lethal levels of UV radiation. Once photosynthesis had raised atmospheric oxygen levels high enough, the ozone layer formed, meaning that it was then possible for living things to venture onto the land.
To some extent it is cherry picking, but one only has to find one or two instances out of the 100+ to disprove the statement "God is consistent".
I also wonder why Isaac was spared, but Jepthah's daughter was not.
That seems pretty unambiguously inconsistent to me.JDS11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
JDS11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
JDS11:32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
JDS11:33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
JDS11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
JDS11:35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
JDS11:36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
JDS11:37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
JDS11:38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
JDS11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed
Oh look, mouse is pretending to have some maturity again!
Answer my question.
An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.
Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.
Isaac as Abraham's sacrifice vs. Jepthah's daughter?
I think probably the major difference was that God was the one originally requesting Isaac as a sacrifice while Jepthah was the one who made the original offer. In both cases the father involved was demonstrating that they loved God more than they did their children.
What you get from that is entirely up to you, but I don't find that necessarily inconsistent. Like I said, the actions may vary but the personality and the priorities don't. Sometimes you just have to look beyond the surface.
Don't get me wrong here. Despite being a Christian I do believe that Christianity has been/is kind of destructive for certain types of people. These just aren't really the reasons why imo.
You keep trotting this one out, despite being corrected numerous times.
No scientist has ever said that birds evolved from snails.
That is a bit like saying your cousin is your grandfather.
You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.
Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.
Isaac as Abraham's sacrifice vs. Jepthah's daughter?
I think probably the major difference was that God was the one originally requesting Isaac as a sacrifice while Jepthah was the one who made the original offer. In both cases the father involved was demonstrating that they loved God more than they did their children.
What you get from that is entirely up to you, but I don't find that inconsistent. Like I said, the actions may vary but the personality and the priorities don't. Sometimes you just have to look beyond the surface.
Don't get me wrong here. Despite being a Christian I do believe that Christianity has been/is kind of destructive for certain types of people. These just aren't really the reasons why imo.
Why did God let Jepthah carry through?
Why did God not stop him?
Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?
Thanks RandomGuy.You keep trotting this one out, despite being corrected numerous times.
No scientist has ever said that birds evolved from snails.
That is a bit like saying your cousin is your grandfather.
You see this Razon?
What does one find when one looks just beyond the surface then?An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.
Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.
Isaac as Abraham's sacrifice vs. Jepthah's daughter?
I think probably the major difference was that God was the one originally requesting Isaac as a sacrifice while Jepthah was the one who made the original offer. In both cases the father involved was demonstrating that they loved God more than they did their children.
What you get from that is entirely up to you, but I don't find that necessarily inconsistent. Like I said, the actions may vary but the personality and the priorities don't. Sometimes you just have to look beyond the surface.
Don't get me wrong here. Despite being a Christian I do believe that Christianity has been/is kind of destructive for certain types of people. These just aren't really the reasons why imo.
Does God then condone slaughtering non-believers?
God in the old testament pretty consistantly says that the penalty for conversion or denial of his existance should be death.DT13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
DT13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
DT13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
DT13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
DT13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
DT13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
All sorts of things get you the death penalty:
It doesn't take much digging, and it isn't cherry picking one thing here or there. The message about non-belief seems plain.ZEC13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
That bit is drawn directly from one of mouse's favorite gifs, that he seems to think supports his "we evolved from snails" factual mistake.
The "family" structure there is pretty much the same picture as the modern understanding of how life evolved.
It all gets distilled and looks a lot like family trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...istory_of_life
I tend to use the Bible portal:
http://bibleportal.christianpost.com/
Good search functions, multiple versions.
Most of the ire with evolution seems to be anthropocentric pride and emotional more than analytical.
That being said i would like Christianity a lot better if they got rid of all of Paul's bullshit.
Sure!
Whats the bottom line? What if no little creatures had left the ocean, now what?
EraCenozoicMesozoicPaleozoicPeriodQuaternary First Humans3 to 0 Million Years Ago. From the Ice Age to the Appearance of the first human beings.
Cretaceous Dinosaur
Birds
Mammals144 to 65 Million Years ago. Last part Of the age of Dinosaurs
Carboniferous Amphibians
Early Reptiles360 to 248 million years ago. Appearance of the first reptiles (laying their eggs on land).
Tertiary Dinosaur Extinction65 to 3 Million Years Ago. Dinosaurs inexplicably become extinct and mammals and birds become the dominant species.
Jurassic Dinosaurs
Birds
Mammals206 to 144 Million Years ago. This is the high point of the dinosaur age, there are a great number of species including giant plant eaters. Appearance of the first feathered birds.
Devonian Amphibians
Fish408 to 360 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the first amphibious creatures.
Triassic Dinosaurs
Mammals248 to 206 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the The first dinosaurs and the first mammals.
Silurian Fish438 to 408 Million Years Ago. Plants begin to cover the land.
Ordovician Marine Invertebrates
Fish505 to 438 Million Years Ago. The Oceans are teeming with invertebrate life. Appearance of he first true fish.
Cambrian Marine Invertebrates570 to 505 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the first marine invertebrates.
Christianity would still have some rather fatal logical flaws, even so. I don't have time to get really into it, at the moment.
Let's just say that apologetics have their hands full, and I am not talking about my paltry posts here, but about more basic, fundamental ontological flaws.
Then it is certain there would be no tool-using intelligent life forms. Whales, dolphins, octopi.
Intelligence, but no civilization. Civilization takes tools, and tools take fire, something of a problem for dolphins.
(edit)
The thing is though, that there is a huge evolutionary incentive to get onto land. If an aquatic organism can do it, and other water creatures can't, that is a huge new geography to spread without competition.
Oh i get that. Virgin births, zombies, heaven for contrition no matter what, and whatnot but even then that was John, Matt, et al making a lot of those claims.
I just find Paul to be the most reprehensible.
I quibbled because I was addressing the original charge of inconsistency.
For this particular instance, I think because it was more important for Jepthah to carry through on his promise.
I'd say you can see a lot of things by looking past the surface.
For example, I'm reading what you're saying and I think that besides your (fair and logical imo) objections, your main contention with the Christian God is morality. I'm sure there's a more technical name for the process but I pick things like that up. That's really what I meant there.
First of all, I think you're arguing from the "God is love" paradigm. I can't argue on behalf of that approach because I take a "God is the most powerful being in the universe" line of thinking. (There's a reason why other Christians and I tend to disagree on lots of points).
While he definitely does show support, mercy, and care for the people aligned with his goals, I find him pretty cool towards those that aren't even if he does extend grace to all people. Hence, the whole "if you're not a friend of God you're an enemy" sentiment that can be seen throughout both the Old and New Testament. It's reiterated over and over again that the consequences of not being on God's side is death. To me, those statements you listed off are an extension of that.
Jesus was sent over in the spirit of fairness (the justice side of God) and free will does allow people to make a choice. There's nothing to stop people from leaving the faith, denying, and sinning if they like, those are decisions they can make. The result is just death.
It goes back to what I said earlier about small wrongs by a finite being against an infinite being being only payable through death. In the Old Testament people/animals had to die physically to cover for those wrongs. Jesus by being perfect and dying was able to fix that although it's still up to the individual to accept their only means of escape.
In a lot of Christianity today, however, I'd argue that the cult of the individual really overlooks some of these points by emphasizing the rainbows and good feelings side and completely neglecting the grittier side.
Although God does embody love to a degree that most of us can't imagine, I don't think that's his main quality. It just goes back to the fact that he's infinite. You can disagree with the whole thing (and obviously you do) but I was originally arguing against the premise that Christianity doesn't make sense/lacks consistency overall.
Definitely a few chinks in the armour and likely some flaws I've overlooked here but I think it's disingenuous to suggest there's no rhyme or reason behind the beliefs that Christians hold.
Note:
Kind of long and I'm starting to ramble but I think I've covered the main points. I'm in a hurry here though so I can't stay back and edit. Just say something if I'm not making sense here.
Last edited by TheSkeptic; 04-10-2012 at 07:42 PM.
I keep bringing it out becase it hasn't sunk in yet in your very limited mind the point I try to make. So here goes again for the #198th time....You keep trotting this one out, despite being corrected numerous times.
No scientist has ever said that birds evolved from snails.
That is a bit like saying your cousin is your grandfather.
Scientist claim the earth was formed 4 billion years ago after two billion years the earth cooled down and in the huge pools of liquid very small oranizums swimming in these pools formed into various life forms one being a snail < IMPORTANT
Now put down the bing for 90 seconds and remember if snails were one of the first life forms to "Evolve" from this pool of liquid then....>IMPORTANT> any life form from that point on is a result from that very "Snail" including you your your cousin vinny and your very annoing ignorant stepson redzero.
Last edited by mouse; 04-11-2012 at 03:18 AM._____________________________
Last edited by mouse; 04-11-2012 at 12:13 AM.
Why do people get into extended discussions with a guy who has 1000 troll names and think they are going to achieve something?
I'm a happy haplorini, tyvm.
So now you shift the conversation to how many screen names a person has to avoid the subject?
What does it matter if I, or Aunt Jemima proves you wrong your still wrong.
This is a very desperate and Frankly pathetic move on your part especially since you have over 16,000 post you should not still be asking such meaningless questions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
