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.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
Thanks. I work to be even-handed and respectful, but am far from perfect.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.
A Gentile is just someone who's not a Jew and everyone uses the New Covenant now.
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
To be honest, though I do think the bible is pretty much bunk, and far from logical. It is hard to say that without sounding overly confrontational, but that is what I think.
As long as someone can answer questions honestly and fairly, I can return in kind.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
post6568713
Water has been found to be one of the most common molecules in the universe.
The forming of the earth entailed a cooling from a large molten blob, and a period of time before there were polar caps.
Hydrogen and oxygen combined to form water, and when it cooled enough, did condense.
This period of time had no existing life though.
The bible's flood is bunk because it would have annihilated most forms of existing life, and certainly any fresh water organisms. (edit) among many many flaws(/edit)
You can't equate the two, and attempting to is either highly dishonest, or incredibly ignorant, because you can't fairly or logically compare the two.
Have you seen mouse? I'm beginning to think he's trolling and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
I hear you. I think that since it's a religion that is more emotion-based I wouldn't expect it to be perfectly rational since there is that element of faith involved. It all really boils down to whether or not you believe the Christian God exists. If I didn't think so then I'd probably share your opinion on the whole thing.
As it stands, there's enough logic to not drive me crazy and at the very least I find it consistent. I won't try to talk you out of your opinion anything though.
It's one of those things where you either really believe it or you really don't.
That's what message boards are supposed to be for.
Nope. I am fairly sure he half believes all of them.
If memory serves, life on earth has sentient alien origins or similar, but he doesn't like admitting this, because then he has to defend it. Easier to pick pot shots at established theories than have one of your own.
His attacks on science stem almost entirely from a shocking degree of ignorance about science, absorbed from other people who are similarly ignorant, with a rather stubborn insistance on not subjecting anything to critical thinking.
Do you believe in Bigfoot?Have you seen mouse? I'm beginning to think he's trolling and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
I hear you. I think that since it's a religion that is more emotion-based I wouldn't expect it to be perfectly rational since there is that element of faith involved. It all really boils down to whether or not you believe the Christian God exists. If I didn't think so then I'd probably share your opinion on the whole thing.
As it stands, there's enough logic to not drive me crazy and at the very least I find it consistent. I won't try to talk you out of your opinion anything though.
It's one of those things where you either really believe it or you really don't.
That's what message boards are supposed to be for.
(serious question)
I think it's an interesting story.
I have a hard time believing that an animal that size would be undiscovered. Granted there are some places in Canada and America that are really remote and unexplored but with the sightings so spread out that would suggest a decent breeding population and a large roaming area.
If there's that many of them alive and all, there should be some evidence like droppings, hair samples, a dead body someone stumbled upon in the woods -something. Unless people want to start arguing that Bigfoot is supernatural, I just don't really think it exists or if it does it's a case of mistaken identity (i.e. a prank or perhaps a human that's withdrawn from civilization?).
That said, given the sheer number of sightings dating back a long ways, I won't say it's impossible. Just highly, highly, highly, implausible to the point where I don't object when people say it isn't possible.
Why?
You know, he was kidding after all Skept.
*shrug* I took the "serious question" in brackets to mean he wanted an answer.
No skin off my nose either way.
Thomas touched his wounds for proof. The wounds were somehow preserved on Jesus's new body as a lesson to teach the future doubting Thomas's.I'm a woman!
The preparation of rich people's tombs back then had nothing to do with the Bible (other than making appearances).
And the martyred original disciples I don't think were covered originally in the Bible either. Their deaths I believe were mostly recorded independently.
Where I really relied on the Bible there was in explaining to that other poster my opinion on the whole 3 days thing. In which case it'd be reasonable to take that event within the context of itself no?
What do you mean if he came back physically? I seem to recall that at one point after coming back he told them (disciples/women/followers) that they couldn't touch him although he did eat something at some point.
So I'm on the fence because while I have to believe that he did resurrect I'm not sure he came back completely normal.
I would assume he went back home. But like I said, he must've come back maybe in a slightly different form for him to have disappeared.
What do you mean he went back home? Jesus preached some to his close followers so they would keep his teachings alive.I'm a woman!
The preparation of rich people's tombs back then had nothing to do with the Bible (other than making appearances).
And the martyred original disciples I don't think were covered originally in the Bible either. Their deaths I believe were mostly recorded independently.
Where I really relied on the Bible there was in explaining to that other poster my opinion on the whole 3 days thing. In which case it'd be reasonable to take that event within the context of itself no?
What do you mean if he came back physically? I seem to recall that at one point after coming back he told them (disciples/women/followers) that they couldn't touch him although he did eat something at some point.
So I'm on the fence because while I have to believe that he did resurrect I'm not sure he came back completely normal.
I would assume he went back home. But like I said, he must've come back maybe in a slightly different form for him to have disappeared.
Had he not come back his teachings would have died with him on the cross. He would have been proven to be a fraud, as his followers were cowarding in hiding while he was dying. But the fact he came back gave them inspiration to continue his teachings and many of them even died for their beliefs.
Still doesn't mean something different hadn't happened by the time he resurrected though. Like I said, I'm on the fence on that one because he did tell someone not to touch him.
I don't dispute that he resurrected but I'm still looking at the logistics when Christ's actions are taken into account.
So you're disputing that he went back to heaven after resurrecting? He came back, appeared, and energized his followers but that doesn't change the fact that he went back to heaven which in this case was his home.
I am not disputing that he went to Heaven. I just didn't know what you meant.
Oh. No worries then. I just realized that that post came up a little harsher than I'd intended. Sorry about that.
When was the last time you attended a ST gtg where someone acually called you "The Sceptic" ? Your more TRoll then 1/2 the posters in this topic
So your saying you approve od DeadZero and his skate boarding TRolls outdated insults over my researched evidence ?and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
There went your creditability not like you really had any.
Why not get over your man love for me and add something worth reading to the subject at hand?
Have you even opened a science text book?
The pages are white the text is black Science doesn't say "we think" the earth is 4 billion years old they say it "is" 4 billion years old.
Have you even clicked on the link in my signature?
lol subject at handWhen was the last time you attended a ST gtg where someone acually called you "The Sceptic" ? Your more TRoll then 1/2 the posters in this topic
So your saying you approve od DeadZero and his skate boarding TRolls outdated insults over my researched evidence ?
There went your creditability not like you really had any.
Why not get over your man love for me and add something worth reading to the subject at hand?
you're an idiot and you know it
Open Mic night in the Club?
RandomLie your the king of Propaganda when it comes to
9/11
Age of Earth
Evoulution
And Science
No matter how many times I blow your paper thin theories out of the water you curl up in a fetal position and try and insult my character with outdated school yard insults that have as much effect on me as RedZero's re-fried pick up lines at a Lesbian wedding.
And yet you still find time to gloss yourself on that shinny Chrome plated high horse on witch you proudly post on your used 2G Cricket flip phone you found while busing a table at Bill Millers Bar B Q
Well you better make sure you take your rusty phone charger you paid 8 dollars for off Craigslist to work Thursday because I am done trying to dumb it down so you can try and keep up with my highly educated points of view.
Last edited by mouse; 04-11-2012 at 09:33 PM.
Hell, I can't even save that lame ass anti-marriage, mouse stalkin', gravity seduced maniac.
lol mouse-stalking
lol pretending yet again that you aren't a manchild
lol still not understanding my point about gravity
Dp
So, you don't believe this, because you have no proof that it exists?
I think it's an interesting story.
I have a hard time believing that an animal that size would be undiscovered. Granted there are some places in Canada and America that are really remote and unexplored but with the sightings so spread out that would suggest a decent breeding population and a large roaming area.
If there's that many of them alive and all, there should be some evidence like droppings, hair samples, a dead body someone stumbled upon in the woods -something. Unless people want to start arguing that Bigfoot is supernatural, I just don't really think it exists or if it does it's a case of mistaken identity (i.e. a prank or perhaps a human that's withdrawn from civilization?).
That said, given the sheer number of sightings dating back a long ways, I won't say it's impossible. Just highly, highly, highly, implausible to the point where I don't object when people say it isn't possible.
Why?
okaaay. Your point being?
We know the age of the earth within a pretty good range.
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Some things are a lot less ambiguous and subjective than others.
Science is the method through which we learn about our universe. Your hostility to the empirical method has always puzzled me.
So, how would you go about finding the age of the earth?
What do you think it is, if not 4.5Bn years?
What evidence supports your thesis?
Why do you discard all the other evidence we have?
You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:
Why did God let Jepthah carry through?
Why did God not stop him?
Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?Is human sacrifice moral to you?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.
Jepthah asked God for victory, promising a sacrifice. God granted his wish. God did not stop Jepthah, nor condemn him in any way.
Hey, I never said that believing in God was necessarily logical.
On most issues I'm a woman of reason but not so much in this case. I'll admit to that without any prodding.
While I definitely think it's a bad thing, my opinion on human sacrifice doesn't matter with respect to the topic...
I believe that's how the story went. I'm assuming that you want a response to what that's supposed to be about right?
Like I said earlier, I think it's because Jepthah was keeping his promise to God. One of the main commandments is to put God first and ahead of everything and everyone. By following through on his word in spite of what it costed him, Jepthah was following the first commandment as he understood it. Why would God condemn him in that case? On top of which, he didn't explicitly offer a human just the first thing that came out of his house. For all we know, he could've been expecting a dog or a bird to come out first.
Those are the facts. Now whether or not it was the right thing to do is a topic that's definitely up for debate.
Again, you're going from the "God is love" paradigm and then bringing morality into it. I'm the wrong person to ask that of because I don't buy into that particular belief system.
Thanks Blake.
And for the record mouse, I don't approve of trolling when anyone does it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
