Any of you ACTUALLY believe our friend Jesus

[redzero]

mouse still acting like he wants to have serious conversations. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

[lint]

mouse still acting like he wants to have serious conversations. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

You are such an idiot.

[redzero]

Looks like you dropped the pretense of wanting a civil conversation. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

[Blake]

This chart you've posted ad nauseum doesn't imply that humans come from snails. You're the only one that is insisting that evolution means we must have come from snails.

You're a lazy idiot.

[mouse]

You're a lazy idiot.

I never thought Blake would stoop down to to Red zero's way of expressing ones self.

I knew the small brains in this topic couldn't comprehend what Science teaches and many of you all find it frustrating I am using your own Science books to expose your silly theories.

keep the insults coming I want many at ST to see who the weak minded wannabee debaters are around here.

Is there anyone still left here at ST that is mentally above the age of 16?

[Mog]

Looks like you dropped the pretense of wanting a civil conversation. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

Because only idiots like yourself would think that gravity should be a religion.

[Blake]

I never thought Blake would stoop down to to Red zero's way of expressing ones self.

I knew the small brains in this topic couldn't comprehend what Science teaches and many of you all find it frustrating I am using your own Science books to expose your silly theories.

keep the insults coming I want many at ST to see who the weak minded wannabee debaters are around here.

Is there anyone still left here at ST that is mentally above the age of 16?

You're too lazy, stupid, and too concerned with insults (yours included) to expose anything.

[Phenomanul]

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.

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

[redzero]

lol creationist

Because only idiots like yourself would think that gravity should be a religion.

I didn't realize that I was arguing that gravity should be a religion. Link?

[DarkReign]

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.

Admittedly, I am way out of the game with evolution anymore. I wasnt referring to basic organisms like bacteria in my explanation above, which doesnt make my statement about "controlled settings in a lab" any less true.

I was more referring to how birds of the same genus, when separated, will eventually become two separate and unique species given time. More or less referring to higher order organism evolution not being able to be reproduced in a lab, under controlled settings, because the life cycle on that experiment would exceed many lifetimes.

Again, my explanation was inherently inaccurate nonetheless.

[RandomGuy]

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....

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.

The communication problem is on *my* end...?

First off your "snail" here isn't a snail. It is a very primitive animal of some sort. Animal in this sense simply means "non-plant".

The picture you keep posting is a hugely simplified, and somewhat dated, example of a phylogenetic tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

You would be more accurate to use the word "eukaryote". Substitute that word for "snail" and you would have it correctly.

snails, birds, and humans, all do have common ancestors, but the split between humans and snails occurred in the very distant past. This split seems to have occurred from an ancestor that was barely multicellular, and quite possibly unicellular.

Snails were NOT one of the first forms of life to evolve, and that is NOT what "scientists say". Snails did come along much later, but still before humans, but they are not our direct ancestor anymore than our cousin is our ancestor.

[RandomGuy]

Admittedly, I am way out of the game with evolution anymore. I wasnt referring to basic organisms like bacteria in my explanation above, which doesnt make my statement about "controlled settings in a lab" any less true.

I was more referring to how birds of the same genus, when separated, will eventually become two separate and unique species given time. More or less referring to higher order organism evolution not being able to be reproduced in a lab, under controlled settings, because the life cycle on that experiment would exceed many lifetimes.

Again, my explanation was inherently inaccurate nonetheless.

Ah, gotcha.

You do have the basic mechanisms of evolution correct though, i.e. separation and time.

I am not aware of any larger animals that have been the subject of such experiments, but now that we have been looking, we have had almost 150 years or so to observe it happening in the wild and have several examples of new species that have arisen since we have really started identifying and classifying things.

These things tend to be short lived things like annual plants, insects, and small animals with shorter life spans.

[Blake]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

Rofl

Don't try to explain the obvious flaws of the Bible to Phenomanul. He'll simply get butthurt and cry that you're just being mean.

[Warlord23]

Admittedly, I am way out of the game with evolution anymore. I wasnt referring to basic organisms like bacteria in my explanation above, which doesnt make my statement about "controlled settings in a lab" any less true.

I was more referring to how birds of the same genus, when separated, will eventually become two separate and unique species given time. More or less referring to higher order organism evolution not being able to be reproduced in a lab, under controlled settings, because the life cycle on that experiment would exceed many lifetimes.

Again, my explanation was inherently inaccurate nonetheless.

Experiments have been done on more complex organisms than bacteria. There was this experiment regarding the color of fish in 2 different streams. It was originally observed that fish in one stream were brightly colored, while in the other they took on the color of the river bed (almost as a camouflage). This was correlated with the absence of predators in the first stream (allowing the fish to attract its mate by sporting bright colors) and the presence of predators in the second (where survival via hiding was the dominant gene that was passed down).

Now the experimenter took some colored fish and introduced them into a controlled environment where predators were abundant. Over a few generations, the fish stopped displaying bright colors and adopted dull colors similar to the river bed. The converse was also done, and mud-colored fish began showing off bright colors in a predator-free environment. IIRC several other factors were also introduced, and each time the genes that were passed down were the ones that, on balance, aided survival and reproduction the most. It's a terrific demonstration of natural selection in action IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Experiments have been done on more complex organisms than bacteria. There was this experiment regarding the color of fish in 2 different streams. It was originally observed that fish in one stream were brightly colored, while in the other they took on the color of the river bed (almost as a camouflage). This was correlated with the absence of predators in the first stream (allowing the fish to attract its mate by sporting bright colors) and the presence of predators in the second (where survival via hiding was the dominant gene that was passed down).

Now the experimenter took some colored fish and introduced them into a controlled environment where predators were abundant. Over a few generations, the fish stopped displaying bright colors and adopted dull colors similar to the river bed. The converse was also done, and mud-colored fish began showing off bright colors in a predator-free environment. IIRC several other factors were also introduced, and each time the genes that were passed down were the ones that, on balance, aided survival and reproduction the most. It's a terrific demonstration of natural selection in action IMO.

One has to be careful in distinguishing between actual species, and simply changing dominant traits *within* a species.

When one digs into the details and definitions, there is even some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a "species", simply because reality is not always stark black and white, with lots of shades of gray.

[RandomGuy]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

I am not sure what needs explaining.

Yes or no, is human sacrifice evil?

[RandomGuy]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

So you have the old covenant for jews. The new covenant for the gentiles, i.e. the jews that accepted Jesus as savior.

What about the people on the planet that don't fit into those two categories? What covenent do they get?

[Warlord23]

One has to be careful in distinguishing between actual species, and simply changing dominant traits *within* a species.

When one digs into the details and definitions, there is even some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a "species", simply because reality is not always stark black and white, with lots of shades of gray.

You're right, strictly speaking my example was about dominant traits and the role of natural selection in changing traits. However, If anything needed defending or proving, it might be natural selection, which is the prominent theory behind evolution.

Evolution itself is a fact. No reputable biologist will deny that. A few may consider alternatives to natural selection to explain evolution, but the argument about evolution itself doesn't exist outside closeted, ultra-religious circles.

[Blake]

So you have the old covenant for jews. The new covenant for the gentiles, i.e. the jews that accepted Jesus as savior.

What about the people on the planet that don't fit into those two categories? What covenent do they get?

Has the Old Covenant been scrapped, or are modern day Jews going to hell?

[RandomGuy]

Has the Old Covenant been scrapped, or are modern day Jews going to hell?

I dunno what exactly is canon in the various wings of Christianity. Not my cup of tea overall, although I have gained a fair familiarity with various dogmas.

[TheSkeptic]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

Thanks for the heads up.

I don't mind though. I like being challenged on the things I believe because then if I'm wrong about something I can change my position rather than continuing to be wrong for the rest of my life. Besides, I kind of like the way these guys think.

So you have the old covenant for jews. The new covenant for the gentiles, i.e. the jews that accepted Jesus as savior.

What about the people on the planet that don't fit into those two categories? What covenent do they get?

A Gentile is just someone who's not a Jew and everyone uses the New Covenant now.

I dunno what exactly is canon in the various wings of Christianity. Not my cup of tea overall, although I have gained a fair familiarity with various dogmas.

I would disagree with this simply because so far I've only seen you dispute the things said by the emotional/mainstream branch of Christianity that's popular today. That group just doesn't think and when they do I've found that a lot of them lack the ability to reason. Of course they're going to lack logical consistency more often than not.

I won't claim to have all the answers or to be perfectly rational when it comes to my beliefs and I definitely won't try to talk you out of your position though. To be honest, I just like conversing with intelligent people.

Really having fun talking to you RandomGuy

[Blake]

Thanks for the heads up.

I don't mind though. I like being challenged on the things I believe because then if I'm wrong about something I can change my position rather than continuing to be wrong for the rest of my life. Besides, I kind of like the way these guys think.

If you can't thoroughly scrutinize and dissect your own belief system, then what's the point of believing it, right?

[mouse]

Snails were NOT one of the first forms of life to evolve, and that is NOT what "scientists say". Snails did come along much later, but still before humans, but they are not our direct ancestor anymore than our cousin is our ancestor.

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!





I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

[Blake]

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!


I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

What's your best guess as to how man came to be?

[RandomGuy]

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!

I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

There you go. THAT is correctly stated, more or less.

It doesn't "blow [the] silly evolution theory all to shit" though.

Why do you think it does?

[mouse]

What's your best guess as to how man came to be?

Like you have the mental capacity to carry an adult conversation?

I rather not waste my time trying to educate you and the other Igmo's who can't absorb data they have never been exposed to.


And then to be called Idiot and other names you small brains use when you have no intelligent come backs.

Maybe if you can find someone like Agloco who claims to be highly educated and seems to know it all then I may return to further open your eyes....oh wait!.......

NBC news just aired yesterday how dental X-rays are linked to brain tumors. Never mind he is just as hard headed as you and the very limited minds on this website.


Maybe one day we can do lunch soups on me.

[mouse]

There you go. THAT is correctly stated, more or less.

It doesn't "blow [the] silly evolution theory all to shit" though.

Why do you think it does?

OMG now RandomLie wants in on the free seminar.

If you can't comprehend my last two postings why would a third be any different?

Ob course you can't have soup w/o water so Scientists add to the fairytale as they in attempt to cover their ass.





Earth floods for them it's called Science.





Earth floods for the Bible it's called science fiction?

One thing I can honestly say is ignorant people do have each others backs.

[Magua]

somebody PLEASE tell me the conspiracy theory schticks are just a trolljob from mouse. I need to hear this.

[TheSkeptic]

OMG now RandomLie wants in on the free seminar.

If you can't comprehend my last two postings why would a third be any different?

Ob course you can't have soup w/o water so Scientists add to the fairytale as they in attempt to cover their ass.





Earth floods for them it's called Science.





Earth floods for the Bible it's called science fiction?

One thing I can honestly say is ignorant people do have each others backs.

I...uh...I...He can't be serious.

[Blake]

Mouse with the sophisticated adult level put downs.