Sign in to follow this  
Bidiot Bales

"An excellent thread."

Recommended Posts

Let me ask this: are we talking about the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Bible? The Catholic bible is the original source, most Protestant Bibles have stuff taken from and added to it.
Practically every denomination of Christianity will claim to have the most authentic version. Something you may be alluding to is the biblical Apocrypha, which are basically scriptures which may or may not be part of the biblical canon depending on who you ask. Catholics and Lutherans tend to count them, Protestants less so, but 'original source' is rather pushing it. We're talking about texts that were compiled and decompiled and recompiled over the course of centuries, such that it's very difficult to make such statements.

Check the table at the bottom of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Also, they've been translated back and forth between many, many different languages and writing systems, each translation adding new errors and misunderstandings. Most of the earlier phonetic languages, for instance, have no punctuation, vowels, or demarcations between words. And this isn't even taking into consideration the amount of time the scriptures spent as and oral tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrews 4:12-16

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Corinthians 1:10-2:16

I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.”

Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise

and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.

But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.

Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. Therefore, as the Scriptures say, “If you want to boast, boast only about the LORD.”

When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters, I didn’t use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God’s secret plan. For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified. I came to you in weakness—timid and trembling. And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit. I did this so you would trust not in human wisdom but in the power of God.

Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God—his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began. But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord. That is what the Scriptures mean when they say,

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard,

and no mind has imagined

what God has prepared

for those who love him.”

But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. For,

“Who can know the Lord’s thoughts?

Who knows enough to teach him?”

But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling this thread would descend into anarchy.

Please continue though!

It's amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though that might just mean Jesus IS the evil one.

Depends. Some systems of ethics say you can't do evil without knowing what you're doing is wrong first. I think immortal eldrich abomination hive-minds might have radically different ethical consideration than humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a continuity error is that John totally didn't get the memo about how the Gospel stories were supposed to go. i mean, that cat is seriously out in left field.

CAT_03_RK2266_06_P.JPG

A picture of John in his cat period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the bible isn't a mess of contradictions or things so left open to interpretation that they've spawned a plethora of those factions that Paul was so concerned about, it certainly LOOKS that way.

It certainly LOOKS like a thing compiled and written by people, just as flawed as you would expect an old set of documents like that to be, with all the apparent discrepancies, contradictions and so forth things you'd expect from a text like that.

(And it certainly LOOKS like something that people with a vested interest on people not asking too many difficult questions would put together.)

Maybe it isn't all of those things, but you can see why the multiple quotes in the bible that essentially say 'don't ask too many questions or waver in your belief, just have faith' doesn't exactly fill me with... well, faith.

Examples: the dubious moral of the story of Doubting Thomas "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

James 1:6

But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.

1 Kings 18:21

Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.

--

Doubt is one of the finest tools we have, and I will not follow any text that implies otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error. Here's a strange logical error in Modern Scientific thought: "There's no hell. We proved it. We have discovered that the inside of the earth is a huge molten fire." Now that is an amazing commitment to the practice of Orwellian doublethink.

article-1370724-0B601F4F00000578-53_468x443.jpg

Oh, and before you say, "But the very center is solid you filthy nincompoop!!" in a strange coincidence Dante wrote in the 14th century that the center of hell is a giant ball of ice that encases traitors who betray the confidence of those who have reason to trust them.

gustave-dore-illustration-for-the-divine-comedy11.jpg

In this world

We walk on the roof of hell

Gazing at flowers

Kobayashi Issa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error. Here's a strange logical error in Modern Scientific thought: "There's no hell. We proved it. We have discovered that the inside of the earth is a huge molten fire." Now that is an amazing commitment to the practice of Orwellian doublethink.

You have a strange idea of what "Modern Scientific thought" is. Modern science has nothing to say whatsoever about hell, If it said anything at all, it would be "We have no evidence at all for such a place existing, and in fact some versions of what hell is supposed to be may simply be untestable in principle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Yes, also, who in the hell WOULD believe that? Science is a process of systematic doubt. Without believing in human error, science wouldn't even remotely work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Those who believe in wacky popular modern scientific theories that have no basis in reality.

G.K. Chesterton:

‘I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that

The theory of evolution is more a natural result of the need to have a religion for the dog eat dog mentality of the industrial age than out of any truth that lies in the idea. So when someone stabs you in the back or cuts your throat in the business world they can simply say, "It's evolution baby." and relieve his or her tormented conscious for a moment, because, well, aren't they being scientific about their evil ways. Now before you say "oh well but science and business are separate you doughhead," let me say that you're naive if you believe such a thing as that. Most of the "science" that gets done in this world is paid for by the business community.

Here's an example: MTV is a huge corporate entity that lives and dies by the cut throat ideals of evolutionary theory so it's only natural that they would release a cartoonishly nihilistic and cruel music video by Pearl Jam called "Do the Evolution." The song isn't about the science of evolution, it's about a belief that one should have about the world. Everyone is evil especially those who believe in God.

Admire me, admire my home

Admire my son, he's my clone

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

This land is mine, this land is free

I'll do what I want but irresponsibly

It's evolution, baby

I'm a thief, I'm a liar

There's my church, I sing in the choir:

(hallelujah, hallelujah)

I can imagine when they fire someone at MTV they just send the person to a room with a small black and white TV and a VCR. The person is asked to rewind the VHS tape and watch it. It plays Do the Evolution for an hour and they are then asked to take this charitable scientific lesson and leave.

Anyway, this is evolution. It's all an illusion that serves rich people in crushing poor people. I mean I understand if you keep believing it's true because it's coming to the point where you probably won't even be able to get a job if you don't believe in it but this is the truth of it.

Here's the same lesson from the massive media conglomerate News Corp which owns Fox and the enduringly popular Simpsons:

34a30a9f899a5703db4798bf3de57afeb866e2d9_m.jpg

This is how evolution becomes a reality to all. Not through cold hard science but through the pictures of flaky artists like myself.

Science: "This is how dinosaurs look"

296.jpg

"Wait, now they look like this"

SgSJk.jpg

"Or wait, maybe this was it, hold on a sec, I'm thinking"

dinoriders1.jpg

"Okay, wait, I got it. I went to the NC Museum of Natural Sciences and I've come back with dinosaur science. Here it is"

i-3e000e52342e16ca6f187afa8d6f0800-Dinosauroid4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Those who believe in wacky popular modern scientific theories that have no basis in reality.

G.K. Chesterton:

‘I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that

The theory of evolution is more a natural result of the need to have a religion for the dog eat dog mentality of the industrial age than out of any truth that lies in the idea. So when someone stabs you in the back or cuts your throat in the business world they can simply say, "It's evolution baby." and relieve his or her tormented conscious for a moment, because, well, aren't they being scientific about their evil ways. Now before you say "oh well but science and business are separate you doughhead," let me say that you're naive if you believe such a thing as that. Most of the "science" that gets done in this world is paid for by the business community.

Here's an example: MTV is a huge corporate entity that lives and dies by the cut throat ideals of evolutionary theory so it's only natural that they would release a cartoonishly nihilistic and cruel music video by Pearl Jam called "Do the Evolution." The song isn't about the science of evolution, it's about a belief that one should have about the world. Everyone is evil especially those who believe in God.

Judging from what you've written, you don't even know what the theory of evolution IS. And I'm sure scientists drowning in a mountain of evidence have little to no interest on what G K Chesterton's uninformed opinion on the subject was.

And make no mistake, the evidence is so strong that it would take an INCREDIBLE amount of new evidence to overturn it. The genetic evidence alone (evidence that was unavailable in Darwin's time) would be enough to confirm it, even if there were no fossil record.

But you seem to have little interest in attempting to examine what you criticize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Those who believe in wacky popular modern scientific theories that have no basis in reality.

G.K. Chesterton:

‘I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that

Judging from what you've written, you don't even know what the theory of evolution IS. And I'm sure scientists drowning in a mountain of evidence have little to no interest on what G K Chesterton's uninformed opinion on the subject was.

And make no mistake, the evidence is so strong that it would take an INCREDIBLE amount of new evidence to overturn it. The genetic evidence alone (evidence that was unavailable in Darwin's time) would be enough to confirm it, even if there were no fossil record.

But you seem to have little interest in attempting to examine what you criticize.

This mountain you speak of wouldn't be called Mt. Doom would it?

Lesson number one when defending evolution: When your argument for evolution fails miserably appeal to the insurmountable authority of a high priestly class of scientists that can not be challenged by the mere mortals you are arguing against. Since the ethereal mist of evolution can in no way be defended the argument must come to an end yesterday, so do everything in your power to suggest that behind the scenes there is class of wizard scientists so wise that to even suggest a word against them is to bring your incomprehensible and inhuman stupidity out in to the open for all to see, and hold against you, until the end of time.

Lesson number two: Always put a word or two in caps. IS and INCREDIBLE, in this instance. Congratulations, you've won the argument and now evolution is true.

Lesson number three: In case you haven't won the argument yet use the word evidence a lot but never give any examples of what this magical fairy dust evidence could possibly be. Now you've won the argument. Congratulations, you can now back to enjoying the glory that is Dino-riders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Those who believe in wacky popular modern scientific theories that have no basis in reality.

G.K. Chesterton:

‘I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that

Judging from what you've written, you don't even know what the theory of evolution IS. And I'm sure scientists drowning in a mountain of evidence have little to no interest on what G K Chesterton's uninformed opinion on the subject was.

And make no mistake, the evidence is so strong that it would take an INCREDIBLE amount of new evidence to overturn it. The genetic evidence alone (evidence that was unavailable in Darwin's time) would be enough to confirm it, even if there were no fossil record.

But you seem to have little interest in attempting to examine what you criticize.

This mountain you speak of wouldn't be called Mt. Doom would it?

Lesson number one when defending evolution: When your argument for evolution fails miserably appeal to the insurmountable authority of a high priestly class of scientists that can not be challenged by the mere mortals you are arguing against. Since the ethereal mist of evolution can in no way be defended the argument must come to an end yesterday, so do everything in your power to suggest that behind the scenes there is class of wizard scientists so wise that to even suggest a word against them is to bring your incomprehensible and inhuman stupidity out in to the open for all to see, and hold against you, until the end of time.

Lesson number two: Always put a word or two in caps. IS and INCREDIBLE, in this instance. Congratulations, you've won the argument and now evolution is true.

Lesson number three: In case you haven't won the argument yet use the word evidence a lot but never give any examples of what this magical fairy dust evidence could possibly be. Now you've won the argument. Congratulations, you can now back to enjoying the glory that is Dino-riders.

This is childish. It's not my damned job to research for you the evidence for evolution. It would take volumes to document, volumes that I have at least taken the time to attempt to understand in broad strokes, though not being an evolutionary scientist I of course don't have the detail. So, start here perhaps: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Furthermore, your pitiful attempt to brand me as appealing to the "insurmountable authority of a high priestly class of scientists that can not be challenged by the mere mortals you are arguing against" are, well, er, pitiful. I appeal to the evidence, as anyone with a suitably skeptical outlook does. It's true that I rely on scientists who have spent now centuries of study on this to present me with a laypersons understanding of the evidence, but I have seen enough, and understand enough of it to find the evidence extraordinarily compelling.

You, on the other hand, appeal to conspiracy theories and wild ranting which has no evidence basis whatsoever, and is grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject on which you speak.

You can accuse me of shirking if you like, but you don't understand evolution, your arguments don't even make sense and it's not even worth talking to you about the subject any further unless you trouble yourself to get even a rudimentary understanding of what the scientific claims are that are actually being made. Good luck with that.

(Also, ooooh, I capitalised some words? Horror! GROW. UP. There's two more for you.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is like a parody of all those terrible "scientists" that my Christian school tried to shove down my throat as a kid. It's quite enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This guy is like a parody of all those terrible "scientists" that my Christian school tried to shove down my throat as a kid. It's quite enjoyable.

It's sort of enjoyable until you realise there's a real person behind it (unless, of course, trolling - in which case I'm the victim of Poe's Law), and then it's just sorta kinda sad. I guess that's why I at least attempt for an earnest response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arn't TV actors rly pised they won't be big named holwood stars when they think there THE BNBESHRRH best ACTOR EERREVER EVER!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's strange that people believe the field of religion is the only one open to human error.
Who in the hell would believe that?

Those who believe in wacky popular modern scientific theories that have no basis in reality.

G.K. Chesterton:

‘I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that

Judging from what you've written, you don't even know what the theory of evolution IS. And I'm sure scientists drowning in a mountain of evidence have little to no interest on what G K Chesterton's uninformed opinion on the subject was.

And make no mistake, the evidence is so strong that it would take an INCREDIBLE amount of new evidence to overturn it. The genetic evidence alone (evidence that was unavailable in Darwin's time) would be enough to confirm it, even if there were no fossil record.

But you seem to have little interest in attempting to examine what you criticize.

This mountain you speak of wouldn't be called Mt. Doom would it?

Lesson number one when defending evolution: When your argument for evolution fails miserably appeal to the insurmountable authority of a high priestly class of scientists that can not be challenged by the mere mortals you are arguing against. Since the ethereal mist of evolution can in no way be defended the argument must come to an end yesterday, so do everything in your power to suggest that behind the scenes there is class of wizard scientists so wise that to even suggest a word against them is to bring your incomprehensible and inhuman stupidity out in to the open for all to see, and hold against you, until the end of time.

Lesson number two: Always put a word or two in caps. IS and INCREDIBLE, in this instance. Congratulations, you've won the argument and now evolution is true.

Lesson number three: In case you haven't won the argument yet use the word evidence a lot but never give any examples of what this magical fairy dust evidence could possibly be. Now you've won the argument. Congratulations, you can now back to enjoying the glory that is Dino-riders.

mal-speechless.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The theory of evolution is more a natural result of the need to have a religion for the dog eat dog mentality of the industrial age than out of any truth that lies in the idea. So when someone stabs you in the back or cuts your throat in the business world they can simply say, “It’s evolution baby.” and relieve his or her tormented conscious for a moment, because, well, aren’t they being scientific about their evil ways. Now before you say “oh well but science and business are separate you doughhead,” let me say that you’re naive if you believe such a thing as that. Most of the “science” that gets done in this world is paid for by the business community.

You seem to be under a really bad impression of what "evolution" is.

Lions don't "win" evolution against gazelle.

Sharks don't "win" evolution against fish.

Natural Selection doesn't "pick" the meanest, killingest bully around. If it did, we'd ONLY have predators, we'd NEVER have symbiotic relationships in nature.

But look, that evil "evolution" "picked" the clownfish and the sea anemone, who work together to keep each other safe and healthy.

Nature selects for a lot of stuff. Sometimes it's evasion through fleeing, sometimes it's just raw breeding output, sometimes it's cooperation, sometimes it's self-protection through poison, sometimes it's

It's not just parasitism and predatory behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that bit of stupidity rendered me momentarily speechless. Since I happen to actually be one of those "insurmountable authority of a high priestly caste" scientists, I think I can answer some of your questions. Also, I really like that title. I'll see if I can swap my PhD out for that.

First of all, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what we call the scientific method. This is the methodology that we use to ensure that any "fact" we have is as accurate as possible. Anyone can use this, not just scientists. First, you make a hypothesis. This is basically a guess at how the process happens. You see something in the environment, and based on what you know already plus the observation, you come up with a reasonable explanation for it working the way it does. Then you test it. If you hypothesis is untestable (like you said birds fly by magic), you have to come up with a new hypothesis, something that you can design an experiment where the only variable is the thing you want to test. Then you perform the experiment. If the experiment seems to prove the hypothesis, Woo! Success! You design more experiments to test other facets of the hypothesis. If it doesn't, that's the end, you create a new hypothesis. When a hypothesis has survived a huge number of tests, it becomes a theory.

In the case of evolution, calling it the theory of evolution doesn't mean scientists are still deciding whether it happens. Evolution is pretty much guaranteed. The main question is how it happens, and that's where the theory part comes in.

You'll notice that through this process, there's a constant amount of testing and when you test something constantly, you find new things. The reason the definition of dinosaurs has changed over time is because scientists constantly find new evidence that challenges a previously held hypothesis. So they do new experiments and change the hypothesis. I'm not sure why you're saying that's a bad thing. Would you prefer for science to just hold onto their original ideas and ignore evidence to the contrary *coughlikereligioncough*? You've basically destroyed your own argument by one moment laughing at how science has different ideas about how dinosaurs work and the next claiming scientists to be priests to a new religion. Which is it, already? Do we dogmatically hold onto one concept or constantly change our position? XP

A lot of people make the argument that evolution can't be tested or proven because we can't watch it happen. This is incorrect. In addition to the fossil record, which we are constantly exploring and finding out new things, there is a concept of "micro evolution" that we can witness happening in real time. Ever wonder why you never develop immunity to the common cold no matter how many times you get sick? It's because it is constantly evolving to work around your immune system. And we can literally watch this happen. I have more specific examples that I could provide if you want, but for now I'll just leave this one.

Now, I understand that it might be frightening to think that you are really no different from any other animal on this planet. But closing your eyes to the truth will only lead to you living a shallow, vapid life and being regarded as ignorant and cast a shadow on your religion for it's blindness in the face of the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I like about scientists. They are willing to take their time to explain why someone maybe wrong even though that person doesn't really understand and/or care and will make up some hyperbole to refute hard science which doesn't work and then just run away shouting "You're wrong!". But despite all that the scientist will still try and educate the next wayward soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been said, I am not here to argue with you all and "win" the thread due to amazing debate skills or some such. It is apparent that if you don't believe then you will find any argument I might make as foolish and ignorant.

However, the point I might make about evolution is that it requires an enormous amount of faith to assume that the entire process happened completely at random. I don't mean the ability for life to generationally adapt to its environment. I'm referring to the notion that --despite the variety, complexity and harmony of life on this planet--all life originated from the same single protozoan ancestor without outside help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flood can be proven to have happened by looking at fossil records and the way rocks are layered under the sea, but I'm no scientist so I can't explain it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a religious argument for evolution is needed, is it so impossible that God could have just caused the Big Bang in such a way that the universe would end up the way it is now? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he should be able to predict the precise location of an infinite number of atoms and orient them in such a way through an explosion that they would be able to come together after billions of years in the exact configuration to make life possible. Insisting that God could have only created everything in seven days as it appears today places human limitations on his abilities.

Also, there was no flood. Well, not one that would have covered the entire earth while humans were in existence. When we see fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains, this is due to plate tectonic movements, where the process of the plates moving and crashing into each other causes previously underwater areas (such as California) to be raised above sea level. Using California as an example, we can see this continuing to happen in the high amount of seismic activity along the San Andreas fault as well as other fault lines in the area.

The best explanation for the flood stories I've found is a major flood that happened in the Black Sea just when the Earth was coming out of the last Ice Age. Glaciers were melting, and the Mediterranean overflowed into the Black Sea, causing major floods around its shores. There were lots of settlements in that area (shown through archaeological evidence) and it's highly likely that a flood of that magnitude inspired a lot of stories, which these people spread as they searched for a new homeland, explaining many of the flood myths that have worked their way into creation stories around that region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a religious argument for evolution is needed, is it so impossible that God could have just caused the Big Bang in such a way that the universe would end up the way it is now? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he should be able to predict the precise location of an infinite number of atoms and orient them in such a way through an explosion that they would be able to come together after billions of years in the exact configuration to make life possible. Insisting that God could have only created everything in seven days as it appears today places human limitations on his abilities.
This is my belief.

However, I do not condemn those who do believe in a 7 day creation...

Romans 14:1-19

Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval.

In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. For we don’t live for ourselves or die for ourselves. If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead.

So why do you condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For the Scriptures say,

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bend to me,

and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.’”

Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. So let’s stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.

I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. And if another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. Then you will not be criticized for doing something you believe is good. For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't condemn them... except that they elect people who want to force me and my potential children to believe this as well. As soon as someone's religious belief begins to decide political agendas and interfere with my life, it ceases to have the protection of being a religious belief as far as I'm concerned. Once it's out in the public, deciding policy for everyone believers and non-believers alike, it's not a privately held conviction, it's a debate point and an erroneous one at that. Keep the religion in the church and science won't follow it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this