America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by Whistlebritches. 271 replies replies.
6 Pages<123456>
Just a few thoughts...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
FuzzNJ Offline
#151 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
hank56 wrote:
Is it not possible to offer each possibility? In the context of evolution and creation, no where am I aware even in parochial institutions are lab tests effected by religious dogma. The only science in dispute is creation vs evolution, and you say they cannot be presented in the same classroom?

I guess I have a more liberal view of possibilities than some. Or it might just be naivete on my part. Either way I am willing to expose students to more than one point of view of any given topic. Thus no topic can be excluded. Just the way I am I guess.


Creationism isn't science, it is religious belief. And there are dozens upon dozens of different creation myths, but only one scientific theory that expands and modifies as new evidence is discovered. The main thing that living things evolve though does not change. If no topic is to be excluded, just teaching the different creation myths would take half a lifetime.

This is not the only science in dispute either. Many religions don't allow medical intervention just as one other example. To them medicine is 'evil' or not to be trusted.
tailgater Offline
#152 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 4:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:
Again, first you say evolution is fact. Then at the end you say it isn't.

So that's strange.

Second, your misunderstanding of theory is shown again here in this post. It isn't merely a 'guess'. It is based on all evidence available and there is no equal or otherwise acceptable alternative with what is known. It is not ever final, in the sense that we can not learn anything anymore. We also have the Theory of gravity, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that gravity doesn't exist.

There is no such evidence for Creationism, none. Therefore it's only fantasy. I'm not saying that trillions of years ago xenu destroyed the earth with nuclear weapons, or whatever damn Scientology says, there's no proof either way, but I'm pretty damn sure, like so much sure I'll say I'm sure.



Fuzz.
Your lack of comprehension borders on imbicile.
Perhaps you're the early "victory" for dumbing down our tests??

I said that "evolution" is a fact. Plants and animals evolve. Survival of the fittest type thingy.
But that in no way proves that man came from monkeys came from fish came from amoeba came from dust came from etc.

As for theory?
I know what I've stated and I stand by it.
No matter how you want to repeat it, the "evolution from amoeba via the monkey" is purely speculative based on the complete lack of information.
I don't dismiss it.
But I find it counter productive to both accept it as fact and also criticize any opposing view points.

In fact, with information comes knowlege. And as we gain MORE insight into how the human being is designed, it become LESS likely that it was by chance.

Can you guess who said this?
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Hint: His initials were CD.


And by the way.
Had you interjected your pompous know-it-all attitude in favor of creationism, I'd be challenging you from the opposite side.

elk hunter Offline
#153 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 4:46 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2009
Posts: 10,331
FuzzNJ wrote:
Who is more arrogant. The person who thinks in the millions of years of human evolution they have found the right god and this all-mighty omnipotent being cares about them so much that it will heal their boo boos because they follow a theology that is, in the case of most American Christianity, less that 200 years old? Or someone who says that's a bunch of crap?

I didn't take offense at "someone says that you not believing is stupid you take offense" good grief learn to read. Reading comprehension is a lost art.

Again with the na na na you are going to hell crap. Why don't you go there? It's your imaginary concept, not mine.

And yes, Darwin was wrong about a whole lot of things. That's why science isn't a religion. Because knowledge advances and corrected as evidence is uncovered.



The person that says there is no God is the arrogant one... It takes a man to believe, and a boy to say God doesn't exist because he cant touch him...

You take offense to anyone that has a different opinion than yours...

You try and sound so educated then come up with a line like " Again with the na na na you are going to hell crap. Why don't you go there? It's your imaginary concept, not mine." You going to call me a doodiehead next??? LOL
tailgater Offline
#154 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 4:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:
Creationism isn't science, it is religious belief. And there are dozens upon dozens of different creation myths, but only one scientific theory that expands and modifies as new evidence is discovered. The main thing that living things evolve though does not change. If no topic is to be excluded, just teaching the different creation myths would take half a lifetime.

This is not the only science in dispute either. Many religions don't allow medical intervention just as one other example. To them medicine is 'evil' or not to be trusted.



You're only partially correct.
Creationism is indeed a religious belief. Not to be confused with intelligent design which isn't.

But the reason creationism is so popular is because the sole scientific theory has so many holes.
There so much unknown about the "Life from the unliving" theory that if you weren't fed a diet of Darwin from grade school and up you'd likely dismiss it as rubbish.

With that said, it remains the only theory accepted by the scientific community, and should therefore be the only theory taught in science class in public schools.
The proponents of intelligent design should not push their agenda on the schools, but rather on the scientific community.
HockeyDad Offline
#155 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 4:49 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
FuzzNJ wrote:
good grief learn to read. Reading comprehension is a lost art.




Hey, you're the one who likes the dumbed down standardized tests, wants to eliminate home schooling because of your fear of religion, and is happy when all education is in the hands of the government.

You reaped what you sowed.
ZRX1200 Offline
#156 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 4:54 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
I'll call you a doodie head Elk.
and no give backs.....
FuzzNJ Offline
#157 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 5:34 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tailgater wrote:
Fuzz.
Your lack of comprehension borders on imbicile.
Perhaps you're the early "victory" for dumbing down our tests??

I said that "evolution" is a fact. Plants and animals evolve. Survival of the fittest type thingy.
But that in no way proves that man came from monkeys came from fish came from amoeba came from dust came from etc.

As for theory?
I know what I've stated and I stand by it.
No matter how you want to repeat it, the "evolution from amoeba via the monkey" is purely speculative based on the complete lack of information.
I don't dismiss it.
But I find it counter productive to both accept it as fact and also criticize any opposing view points.

In fact, with information comes knowlege. And as we gain MORE insight into how the human being is designed, it become LESS likely that it was by chance.

Can you guess who said this?
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Hint: His initials were CD.


And by the way.
Had you interjected your pompous know-it-all attitude in favor of creationism, I'd be challenging you from the opposite side.



It's speculative based on all information and evidence we have at out disposal at this time. For example. The similarities between dolphins and cows has been discovered. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I do know from what I've read on the subject that there is much evidence out there supporting connections like this, both genetic and fossil that show these kind of similarities. So it's not just 'speculative' or a 'guess', it's scientific.

The opposing views I am criticizing are religious notions of a god making everything in whatever way your particular myth says it did. In this case I'm assuming the biblical myth, 7 days, literal or not, Adam and Eve on the 6th day, resting on the 7th (like a god needs rest) etc.

Your statement that it is less likely that humans came about by chance the more we learn is preposterous and deserves no comment.

I never said I knew it all, so stop saying I did.

As far as your Darwin quote, I've heard that before. It's used by creationists all the time, and for decades in an effort to make a point that doesn't exist because here's the entire quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Changes the entire meaning So right there, you are a dishonest person, or you simply don't know what you are talking about.
FuzzNJ Offline
#158 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 5:40 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
elk hunter wrote:
The person that says there is no God is the arrogant one... It takes a man to believe, and a boy to say God doesn't exist because he cant touch him...

You take offense to anyone that has a different opinion than yours...

You try and sound so educated then come up with a line like " Again with the na na na you are going to hell crap. Why don't you go there? It's your imaginary concept, not mine." You going to call me a doodiehead next??? LOL




lol, I don't take offense at differing opinions. If you say "I believe in God and this is how I worship and what rules I follow" well, good for you, I don't, I think it's crap. No offense, no offense intended, differing opinion. I take offense at the holier than though 'I'll pray for you' or 'You'll see hell soon enough' bullsh!t.

I don't try to sound anything other than me, so you get what you think is educated apparently and whatever you think that na na na line is. Big deal. It's all me, not sure what you're trying to say there. It's bogus man, totally spurious.
FuzzNJ Offline
#159 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 5:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
Hey, you're the one who likes the dumbed down standardized tests, wants to eliminate home schooling because of your fear of religion, and is happy when all education is in the hands of the government.

You reaped what you sowed.


Yup, all those things are so, so true, even though I never said any of it. You got me nailed there HD. Eliminate home schooling? No, can it not be discussed critically? Afraid of religion? On the contrary, I mock it and ridicule it without fear. All education in the government's hands? Hardly. Private schools and universities, parents teaching their kids, museums all that stuff, and more, great. Get knowledge from everywhere about everything, no restrictions, but put it in the proper context and proper class, ie religion in religion classes.
wheelrite Offline
#160 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 5:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
The Lost Doctrines of Christianity
Paradox of Genesis 1
How does the War of the Angels help solve the apparent paradox between an Earth that science claims is billions of years old while some theologians teach that Genesis records that God created the heavens and the Earth only 6,000 years ago? The war occurred in the realm of spirit but also had devastating consequences for the planet Earth.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. 2 And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. KJV

The answer to this paradox is in how Gen. 1:2 is commonly translated from Hebrew to English. In the original Hebrew, the words are (transliterated into the English alphabet) erets hayah tohuw bohuw choshek paniym tehowm ruwach elohiym rachaph al paniym mayim. The meaning of the these words, as cross-referenced in the Hebrew/English Dictionary of Strong's Concordance are:

(erets – Earth ) (hayah – was, come to pass, became) (tohuw – formlessness, confusion, chaos) (bohuw – emptiness, void, waste) (choshek – darkness, obscurity ) (paniym – face, surface) (tehowm – primeval ocean, deep) (ruwach – wind, breath, mind, spirit ) (Elohiym – God) (rachaph – move, hover) (al – over) (paniym – face, surface) (mayim – waters, waterflood).

The second Hebrew word in Genesis 1:2 is hayah, which should be translated as "came to pass," or, for the most accurate word for word translation, "became." If just a few words from the ancient Hebrew are translated more accurately into English, the translation that results provides a deeper understanding that solves the puzzle.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. 2 And it came to pass that the Earth became a wasteland, empty and chaotic; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The sentence in Gen. 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, can be treated as a statement that stands by itself. Millions or billion of years passed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. Instead of Genesis 1 being about how God created the heavens and Earth in seven days, it is about how God repaired (renewed) the Earth in seven days. The renewing was necessary because of the terrible cataclysm that had wiped all life off of the face of the Earth. The tragic event that required God to personally come down and repair the Earth was the War of the Angels. It was Lucifer who was responsible for plunging the planet into frozen darkness.


Day 1–Black Smoke and Dark Clouds covered the Earth: The world was frozen and covered with a dark atmosphere, choked with smoke and clouds. The air was so thick with corruption that no light could glimmer through it. Lucifer's destruction was so complete that possibly only a few deep-sea creatures were still alive. The seas were frozen or close to freezing up. If the Spirit of God hadn't intervened, eventually, even the deep-sea creatures would have died. Genesis 1:2 begins with the Spirit of God hovering over the water. Obviously, science understands the universe was not created from water. By accepting both Science and Genesis, understanding can be achieved. Conditions Similar to Nuclear Winter: The conditions described in Genesis resemble the same conditions of a nuclear winter. The term "nuclear winter" was coined to describe the effect a nuclear war would have on Earth's atmosphere. Hydrogen bombs exploding all over the Earth would raise so much dust into the atmosphere that the Earth would be completely cut off from the Sun's warming rays. The result would be a terrible, planet-wide winter. The Earth would be so cold and dark that all life would cease to exist. This pre-historic planet-wide freeze would explain why the mammoths were frozen so quickly that many have been found with food still in their mouths. It has always been a puzzle to scientists as to how or why they became frozen so quickly. Research indicates that many species disappeared over night, geologically speaking. Somewhere between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, the Earth lost mammoths, saber toothed tigers, giant armadillos and such. The best current scientific theory is violent climate changes. Gen. 1:2 …God divided the light from the darkness. On the first day, God cleared the atmosphere enough for light to penetrate to the Earth's surface. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. (KJV throughout unless noted otherwise)


Day 2–The Ice Melts: Gen. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. The temperature of the Earth was so cold that the seas were frozen and the land was covered in deep ice and snow. God warmed the Earth so that water separated from the ice to become water below and clouds above. This is what is meant to divide the waters from the waters to create the heavens. …And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Day 3–Dry Land and Plants Appear: Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. Warming the Earth and melting the ice caused massive flooding. The melted water settled in the low areas revealing the land. Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the Earth: and it was so. … And the evening and the morning were the third day. The cold had killed all the plants. God needed the plants to be back in place before placing animals on the Earth so they would have something to eat.

Day 4–Sun, Moon and Stars Revealed: Scientists criticize the accuracy of God supposedly creating the Sun, Moon and Stars on the fourth day. Since Genesis records God repairing the Earth, now the fourth day makes sense. On the third day, the atmosphere was still steamy and full of clouds. On day two, the ice had just been converted into water and vapor clouds. By day four, the atmosphere wasn't clear yet. Clouds still covered the Earth heavily on day three. As the floods subsided, God brought the water-loving plants back into the world, but the cloudy steamy atmosphere prevented a clear view of the celestial heavens.

Gen. 1:14-19 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

It doesn't match scientific evidence for the Sun and Stars to have been created after the Earth. What God did on the fourth day was to finish cleaning up the air and break up the cloud cover. The Sun, Moon and Stars were hidden up to this time because the atmosphere had become so polluted and dark by the War of the Angels. This theory matches the scientific record. The Sun came before the Earth and was not created a day after God put plants on the Earth. Gen. 1:1 states God created the heavens and the Earth. The Sun, Moon, and Stars are part of the heavens. Verse 2 is later in the timeline; it is not the beginning of a detailed commentary of Verse 1, which stands alone. God created the heavens and the Earth, period. The heavens are mentioned again in Verse 4, billions of years later than Verse 1 in the timeline. The Sun, Moon, and Stars existed before the Rebellion of Lucifer and were hidden by the darkness created by Lucifer. God cleared the air for the plants restored on day three so they could have sunshine. Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language: Why is the language of day four in present tense and not past tense? It doesn't read "God had made," it reads, "God made." Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. When it references the Sun and Stars, the original Hebrew does not indicate when the Sun and Stars were made, (i.e. present tense) but simply a statement that God made them to be for times and seasons and so forth. Genesis 1 is a record of God repairing the damage caused by Lucifer's war. The fourth day was the day the clouds were cleared by God so that the Sun, Moon, and Stars could be seen.

Day 5–Fish and Birds restored: Gen. 1:20-23 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the Earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth in the waters did God create. And every winged fowl after his kind did God place for his pleasure. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Day 6–Animals and Mankind restored: Gen. 1:24-27 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the Earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the Earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the Earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

SUMMARY: Genesis is not a record of God creating the Heavens and the Earth from nothing in seven days but instead a record of God repairing the Earth in seven days. From Verse 2 of Genesis 1 on, the remainder of this first chapter of the Bible is not describing the original creation of the Earth. But it is describing a renewing of the face of the Earth, after it had become waste and empty as a result of the sin of the angels.


Day 7–God Rests: Gen. 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Long before the Ten Commandments were given to Israel, God established a special day dedicated to rest and sanctification. The purpose of this day was to make it easy for mankind to get close to God every seven days. The spiritual ruler of this world has blinded mankind to the benefits of the Sabbath
FuzzNJ Offline
#161 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Wheel, there is very little I care less about than the the latest way the Catholic church explains their illogical and irrational theology, especially when they try to synch it up with modern day views. If it was really the eternal church you would expect they wouldn't have to do that, ever.
wheelrite Offline
#162 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Wheel, there is very little I care less about than the the latest way the Catholic church explains their illogical and irrational theology, especially when they try to synch it up with modern day views. If it was really the eternal church you would expect they wouldn't have to do that, ever.



Fuzz,,,
Religion is the creation of man. But, there is no question that there is and was a Supreme force that created all.
FuzzNJ Offline
#163 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Fuzz,,,
Religion is the creation of man. But, there is no question that there is and was a Supreme force that created all.


Sure it is. Man didn't create religion or anything. No question, no question at all. I'm gonna go with the Norse creation myth. That one sounds cool.
ZRX1200 Offline
#164 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:22 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Im praying for you Fuzzy.
wheelrite Offline
#165 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:23 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Sure it is. Man didn't create religion or anything. No question, no question at all. I'm gonna go with the Norse creation myth. That one sounds cool.


Bro,
As the enlightened dude that you are, surely you can comprehend that someone or something created the spark that spawned the universe.It did'nt happen by it's self. "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction"..
ZRX1200 Offline
#166 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Has MSNBC done anything on this??
wheelrite Offline
#167 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:35 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
ok,,,

As far as organized religion goes,for me...

Sure I have doubts but if the human factor is removed most of the doctrine is followed it is a good way to live one's life be it Christianity,Judaism,etc..

for example...

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

So even if one is an a atheist or agnostic living life while observing the 10 commandments is a good thing.yes ?


wheel,
FuzzNJ Offline
#168 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Bro,
As the enlightened dude that you are, surely you can comprehend that someone or something created the spark that spawned the universe.It did'nt happen by it's self. "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction"..


lol, I don't think I'm enlightened. I can't comprehend a lot of things, one of them being an omnipotent being that made idiots like us in 'HIS' image. If we are made in 'his' image, he's one f'd up omnipotent being for certain. Your action of writing that has me laughing in an equal way in opposition? or osmenthe. <---something (an inside joke only for my amusement)
FuzzNJ Offline
#169 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:42 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
ok,,,

As far as organized religion goes,for me...

Sure I have doubts but if the human factor is removed most of the doctrine is followed it is a good way to live one's life be it Christianity,Judaism,etc..

for example...

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

So even if one is an a atheist or agnostic living life while observing the 10 commandments is a good thing.yes ?


wheel,


Um no. It is best explained this way, can't be and has never been explained better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM
wheelrite Offline
#170 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:45 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
lol, I don't think I'm enlightened. I can't comprehend a lot of things, one of them being an omnipotent being that made idiots like us in 'HIS' image. If we are made in 'his' image, he's one f'd up omnipotent being for certain. Your action of writing that has me laughing in an equal way in opposition? or osmenthe. <---something (an inside joke only for my amusement)



"In his image"
is what separates us from all the other creatures that inhabit our planet.Meaning,we have an awareness of ourselves and a sense of meaning and purpose.sadly, my beloved labrador does not...
wheelrite Offline
#171 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:50 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Um no. It is best explained this way, can't be and has never been explained better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM


I always enjoyed Carlin..
But,that is not an explanation of anything.It's a cynical comedy show...
wheelrite Offline
#172 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 6:51 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Um no. It is best explained this way, can't be and has never been explained better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM


I always enjoyed Carlin..
But,that is not an explanation of anything.It's a cynical comedy show...
FuzzNJ Offline
#173 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 7:12 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
"In his image"
is what separates us from all the other creatures that inhabit our planet.Meaning,we have an awareness of ourselves and a sense of meaning and purpose.sadly, my beloved labrador does not...


My dogs don't either, but I'm not sad about it.

I'm assuming that you think this self-awareness means one has a soul?

You are aware that there are other animals that are self aware in that they know they exist and can recognize themselves and they are an individual being? This isn't just a human phenomenon?
FuzzNJ Offline
#174 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 7:17 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
I always enjoyed Carlin..
But,that is not an explanation of anything.It's a cynical comedy show...


Lol, yes, it's cynical, yes, it's also funny. But it's also exactly how I feel about the situation put into a funny, cynical (which I am) way. What the hell do I care about having no (other) gods before me or graven images or stuff like that? Be honest, trustworthy and love my wife and family and don't go around stealing and killing. Yay! Don't need Moses for that.
hank56 Offline
#175 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:02 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2008
Posts: 13,167
FuzzNJ wrote:
Creationism isn't science, it is religious belief. And there are dozens upon dozens of different creation myths, but only one scientific theory that expands and modifies as new evidence is discovered. The main thing that living things evolve though does not change. If no topic is to be excluded, just teaching the different creation myths would take half a lifetime.

This is not the only science in dispute either. Many religions don't allow medical intervention just as one other example. To them medicine is 'evil' or not to be trusted.



I suggested creation vs evolution and I am unaware of dozens of creation myths, which if not exaggerated means at least 24. I highly doubt that number.

Lets also keep to topic nowhere was it suggested anything being taught on religious dogma, medical intervention, I also question that many religions don't allow, too vague and nothing to do with any of my points up to date.

What I am seeing here is an unwillingness to entertain any possibility of you may wrong/incorrect in some of your assessments. While I agree with your standing up for your belief's I find it worrisome the appearance of your lack of acceptance that someone else's position may be valid or at least have merit.


Or you could just be arguing for the sake of argument.


Either way we are at a deadlock on the subject no need to beat a dead horse. Cheers!
elk hunter Offline
#176 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:03 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2009
Posts: 10,331
FuzzNJ wrote:
My dogs don't either, but I'm not sad about it.

I'm assuming that you think this self-awareness means one has a soul?

You are aware that there are other animals that are self aware in that they know they exist and can recognize themselves and they are an individual being? This isn't just a human phenomenon?



I for one am not an animal so right away your theory is flawed...

Of these "other animals", can you list another that can reason?

apachelm Offline
#177 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 04-26-2008
Posts: 8,549
FuzzNJ wrote:
Lol, yes, it's cynical, yes, it's also funny. But it's also exactly how I feel about the situation put into a funny, cynical (which I am) way. What the hell do I care about having no (other) gods before me or graven images or stuff like that? Be honest, trustworthy and love my wife and family and don't go around stealing and killing. Yay! Don't need Moses for that.


So just what do you think has made you feel you should live with those morals?
wheelrite Offline
#178 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
My dogs don't either, but I'm not sad about it.

I'm assuming that you think this self-awareness means one has a soul?

You are aware that there are other animals that are self aware in that they know they exist and can recognize themselves and they are an individual being? This isn't just a human phenomenon?



Really ?

enumerate please...
ZRX1200 Offline
#179 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Fuzzy steals money his wife earns......
FuzzNJ Offline
#180 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
hank56 wrote:
I suggested creation vs evolution and I am unaware of dozens of creation myths, which if not exaggerated means at least 24. I highly doubt that number.

Lets also keep to topic nowhere was it suggested anything being taught on religious dogma, medical intervention, I also question that many religions don't allow, too vague and nothing to do with any of my points up to date.

What I am seeing here is an unwillingness to entertain any possibility of you may wrong/incorrect in some of your assessments. While I agree with your standing up for your belief's I find it worrisome the appearance of your lack of acceptance that someone else's position may be valid or at least have merit.


Or you could just be arguing for the sake of argument.


Either way we are at a deadlock on the subject no need to beat a dead horse. Cheers!


Hank, you are serious? At least 24 yes, omg, yes. You don't think there's only one do you? Most have been discarded as total bullsh!t already but holy crap dude, there are too many to count right now. Please use the google or something.

As far as medical intervention, it is vague, as some allow different things, while others allow other things, some rely on only holistic healing, some only on prayer, some don't allow blood transfusions which means no surgery, well emergency anyway, or organ donation. There are a whole lot of peculiar rules and practices.

And yes, I'm not seeing anything that is convincing me to change my mind, you? Your beliefs have merit only as far as you are concerned, as my beliefs, or lack thereof, have for me. What doesn't, and shouldn't change are things like the dismissal of science because of 'faith', that I won't accept. Or the idea that anyone knows everything, and by that I include the notion of saying "god" did it, when you (not you in particular) doesn't have an answer, because that in itself is actually an answer.
FuzzNJ Offline
#181 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
elk hunter wrote:
I for one am not an animal so right away your theory is flawed...

Of these "other animals", can you list another that can reason?



Biologically you certainly are. If you want to get into a philosophical debate, try another forum. I'm not in the mood.
FuzzNJ Offline
#182 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
apachelm wrote:
So just what do you think has made you feel you should live with those morals?


The desire to live happily, peacefully and within that social construct. Those guidelines, as well as others, are ways to achieve those goals.
FuzzNJ Offline
#183 Posted: Thu, Apr 21 2011, 8:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Really ?

enumerate please...


I'm not your professor. Google it and read.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#184 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 6:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,591
This thread is really funny.

Fuzz, you haven't produced one iota of factual reference to back up ANYTHING you've said.

NADA.

You and the family should check out a service at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's more up your alley. They always go around seeking converts by yelling and talking to people the way you do. They also yell in the aisles of grocery stores about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Who knows, maybe you could be their Pope?
HockeyDad Offline
#185 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 6:32 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
The world needs ditch diggers and athiests too.

BABY JESUS still loves FuzzNJ.
madaxeman Offline
#186 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 8:08 AM EST
Joined: 03-29-2009
Posts: 526
This is what Fuzz wrote on, Nov 20, 2010


"As for the rest of you, f off. I no longer post here because the grand sum of IQ's here wouldn't be enough to win the average NBA game. "

Do everyone here a favor and go away for another 5 months.
chiefburg Offline
#187 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 8:47 AM EST
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
hank56 wrote:
I suggested creation vs evolution and I am unaware of dozens of creation myths, which if not exaggerated means at least 24. I highly doubt that number.

Lets also keep to topic nowhere was it suggested anything being taught on religious dogma, medical intervention, I also question that many religions don't allow, too vague and nothing to do with any of my points up to date.

What I am seeing here is an unwillingness to entertain any possibility of you may wrong/incorrect in some of your assessments. While I agree with your standing up for your belief's I find it worrisome the appearance of your lack of acceptance that someone else's position may be valid or at least have merit.


Or you could just be arguing for the sake of argument.


Either way we are at a deadlock on the subject no need to beat a dead horse. Cheers!

Hank: You are correct in assuming he's unwilling to entertain the notion that anyone else has a point. As always, Fuzz believes he is right and everyone who doesn't think his way is wrong - no exceptions.

I tend to believe that people have a choice in what they believe and I respect his right to believe the way he does. Unfortunately, he doesn't respect anyone else's right to believe what they believe. In fact, they are all wrong. Personally, I don't necessarily know what is true and what isn't true and I don't believe anyone living fully knows (except for Fuzz). What's worse, he only form of "proof" is to tell someone to "Google it." For some reason, he believes anything on the internet is true and Google is right. Of course, if I find some proof on Google that doesn't support what he believes, then that person is a right wing wacko. Google is only his friend if it supports his theory.

As usual, there is no point in trying to make logical points with Fuzz - he is unwilling and/or unable to accept any other opinion. Luckily, we live in a free country where he is free to believe what he wants to believe and I support his right to do so.
tailgater Offline
#188 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 8:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:
It's speculative based on all information and evidence we have at out disposal at this time. For example. The similarities between dolphins and cows has been discovered. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I do know from what I've read on the subject that there is much evidence out there supporting connections like this, both genetic and fossil that show these kind of similarities. So it's not just 'speculative' or a 'guess', it's scientific.

The opposing views I am criticizing are religious notions of a god making everything in whatever way your particular myth says it did. In this case I'm assuming the biblical myth, 7 days, literal or not, Adam and Eve on the 6th day, resting on the 7th (like a god needs rest) etc.

Your statement that it is less likely that humans came about by chance the more we learn is preposterous and deserves no comment.

I never said I knew it all, so stop saying I did.

As far as your Darwin quote, I've heard that before. It's used by creationists all the time, and for decades in an effort to make a point that doesn't exist because here's the entire quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Changes the entire meaning So right there, you are a dishonest person, or you simply don't know what you are talking about.


Dishonest?
Fuzz, I'm being very clear and I am ready to discuss the merits/flaws of your stance.
But you keep making this about "Creationism", and I have repeatedly told you that the debate need not be so limited.
I will not be drawn into a false arguement.

Religion and Science are two seperate things.
Many religious folks ignore science, and many scientists scoff at religion.
Both sides are idiots because there is no need to choose one OR the other.

Darwinism is the "best" science we have to explain what we simply don't know.
Yes, living things evolve. But to extrapolate that out to a firm conclusion that life (ALL life) was born from unliving things?

I talk about alternative viewpoints. From Intelligent Design to the fact that any scientific hypothesis that conflicts with or even questions Darwin is viewed as loony.
You counter with Adam and Eve.

Fuzz,
You don't want a serious discussion. And that's fine.
Just don't pretend that you do.

As for the Darwin quote? Read it again. Slowly.
For it's message is much broader than you suggest.
I've already used the "world is flat" analogy, which is akin to his use of the sun orbiting the earth. So Darwin and I agree on at least one thing: That a theory is only as relevant as the next set of facts.
You embrace his theory as the truth, when you should be much more open minded.
Don't let the faith of others impede your ability to think for yourself.
chiefburg Offline
#189 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 8:59 AM EST
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
tailgater wrote:
Dishonest?
Fuzz, I'm being very clear and I am ready to discuss the merits/flaws of your stance.
But you keep making this about "Creationism", and I have repeatedly told you that the debate need not be so limited.
I will not be drawn into a false arguement.

Religion and Science are two seperate things.
Many religious folks ignore science, and many scientists scoff at religion.
Both sides are idiots because there is no need to choose one OR the other.

Darwinism is the "best" science we have to explain what we simply don't know.
Yes, living things evolve. But to extrapolate that out to a firm conclusion that life (ALL life) was born from unliving things?

I talk about alternative viewpoints. From Intelligent Design to the fact that any scientific hypothesis that conflicts with or even questions Darwin is viewed as loony.
You counter with Adam and Eve.

Fuzz,
You don't want a serious discussion. And that's fine.
Just don't pretend that you do.

As for the Darwin quote? Read it again. Slowly.
For it's message is much broader than you suggest.
I've already used the "world is flat" analogy, which is akin to his use of the sun orbiting the earth. So Darwin and I agree on at least one thing: That a theory is only as relevant as the next set of facts.
You embrace his theory as the truth, when you should be much more open minded.
Don't let the faith of others impede your ability to think for yourself.


As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.
borndead1 Offline
#190 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:12 AM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
FuzzNJ wrote:
Who is more arrogant. The person who thinks in the millions of years of human evolution


Humans haven't been around for millions of years. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE STUPID!!!!!!


Hehehe....I'm kidding, Fuzz. I just wanted to talk sh*t like everybody else.
HockeyDad Offline
#191 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:14 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
borndead1 wrote:
Humans haven't been around for millions of years. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE STUPID!!!!!!


Hehehe....I'm kidding, Fuzz. I just wanted to talk sh*t like everybody else.




Your ancestors were pine trees. Deal with it!
hank56 Offline
#192 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 11-01-2008
Posts: 13,167
chiefburg wrote:
As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.



Interesting, so it might be argued that scientists have "faith" in their conclusions/data? Isn't faith belief in something without supportive facts? To take it another leap, science is therefore their religion? It can be argued that is a logical progression, true?

Religion is not exclusive to belief in a supreme being or creationism IMO, but more so the following of any dogma/teachings. It can also be argued that atheism is a religion by definition. Google it!

If you do Google that point you will find supportive info of that theory. I agree google is a tool to find more info, but there may be more/different info than one would agree with.


Just a thought.
tailgater Offline
#193 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:19 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
chiefburg wrote:
As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.



Chief,
The biggest problem that the science community will face is that no matter what they now find, they're already taking the very UN-scientific approach of having a preconceived solution.
If new evidence appears to disprove evolution, they'll dismiss it completely.
If it appears unrelated either way, they'll try to "reverse engineer" the solution to MAKE it fit.

For proof of this, please see: Global Warming (why even colder weather proves this statistically unsound concept)
tailgater Offline
#194 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:24 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
hank56 wrote:
Interesting, so it might be argued that scientists have "faith" in their conclusions/data? Isn't faith belief in something without supportive facts? To take it another leap, science is therefore their religion? It can be argued that is a logical progression, true?

.



Hank,
There are many supportive facts behind the theory of evolution.
It is more than just "faith".
Ignoring this only hurts the discussion.
FuzzNJ Offline
#195 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
This thread is really funny.

Fuzz, you haven't produced one iota of factual reference to back up ANYTHING you've said.

NADA.

You and the family should check out a service at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's more up your alley. They always go around seeking converts by yelling and talking to people the way you do. They also yell in the aisles of grocery stores about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Who knows, maybe you could be their Pope?


Who has? At least I've given you the ability to find the information yourself. I've got nothing to hide. Google the terms I've suggested, there is plenty of information out there to back up the statistics I've posted, or facts presented that lead to my opinions. For you to just say I haven't put it all here is intellectual laziness on your part.
FuzzNJ Offline
#196 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:37 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
madaxeman wrote:
This is what Fuzz wrote on, Nov 20, 2010


"As for the rest of you, f off. I no longer post here because the grand sum of IQ's here wouldn't be enough to win the average NBA game. "

Do everyone here a favor and go away for another 5 months.


Aww, I upset the amen fest here? Poor baby. I'll probably go away again when I get bored, but for now it's entertaining.
FuzzNJ Offline
#197 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:44 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
chiefburg wrote:
Hank: You are correct in assuming he's unwilling to entertain the notion that anyone else has a point. As always, Fuzz believes he is right and everyone who doesn't think his way is wrong - no exceptions.

I tend to believe that people have a choice in what they believe and I respect his right to believe the way he does. Unfortunately, he doesn't respect anyone else's right to believe what they believe. In fact, they are all wrong. Personally, I don't necessarily know what is true and what isn't true and I don't believe anyone living fully knows (except for Fuzz). What's worse, he only form of "proof" is to tell someone to "Google it." For some reason, he believes anything on the internet is true and Google is right. Of course, if I find some proof on Google that doesn't support what he believes, then that person is a right wing wacko. Google is only his friend if it supports his theory.

As usual, there is no point in trying to make logical points with Fuzz - he is unwilling and/or unable to accept any other opinion. Luckily, we live in a free country where he is free to believe what he wants to believe and I support his right to do so.


So tell me Chief. What is the difference between you or other 'christian' conservatives on this board standing up for their 'beliefs' and not changing their mind and me?

Where have I ever said that I "fully" know the 'truth'? As far as the googling thing, yes, I have done that by giving the key words to google because it's easy to do and there is a wealth of information out there that can answer the question asked better than I, or easier than cutting and pasting. Had I just linked or c&p, I would be jumped on for that, because it's been done before. So whatever tactic I use I'm criticized for, just a tactic used by people with no real argument.

If you do find an article that doesn't support something I said, sure, let's look at it. More than likely, however, it's a blog post or WND or the creation museum. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't accept a link from Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow, not would you?
FuzzNJ Offline
#198 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 9:57 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tailgater wrote:
Dishonest?
Fuzz, I'm being very clear and I am ready to discuss the merits/flaws of your stance.
But you keep making this about "Creationism", and I have repeatedly told you that the debate need not be so limited.
I will not be drawn into a false arguement.

Religion and Science are two seperate things.
Many religious folks ignore science, and many scientists scoff at religion.
Both sides are idiots because there is no need to choose one OR the other.

Darwinism is the "best" science we have to explain what we simply don't know.
Yes, living things evolve. But to extrapolate that out to a firm conclusion that life (ALL life) was born from unliving things?

I talk about alternative viewpoints. From Intelligent Design to the fact that any scientific hypothesis that conflicts with or even questions Darwin is viewed as loony.
You counter with Adam and Eve.

Fuzz,
You don't want a serious discussion. And that's fine.
Just don't pretend that you do.

As for the Darwin quote? Read it again. Slowly.
For it's message is much broader than you suggest.
I've already used the "world is flat" analogy, which is akin to his use of the sun orbiting the earth. So Darwin and I agree on at least one thing: That a theory is only as relevant as the next set of facts.
You embrace his theory as the truth, when you should be much more open minded.
Don't let the faith of others impede your ability to think for yourself.



Did you or did you not cut the quote short? Did Darwin say that, as your truncated quote is lead to make you believe, that natural selection is absurd in the highest degree? And does not the rest of the quote contradict that? Is this not the same quote, and the same tactic used for decades by creationists in an attempt to show that Darwin thought natural selection was a hoax?

The answer to all of those questions is yes. That is dishonest.

You also embrace the theory as truth, you have said so yourself. What you think is apparently, that each species was created and then evolves within that species.

For that you would need to do a more in depth study of evolutionary theory, and nothing I can say would be enough to convince you as I am not an expert, nor do I have the ability to explain it as well as the professionals.

Intelligent design is just creationism repackaged and some of the stories like the talking snake removed.
borndead1 Offline
#199 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
Fuzz

What are your thoughts on the origin of matter?
FuzzNJ Offline
#200 Posted: Fri, Apr 22 2011, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
chiefburg wrote:
As far as creationism goes, I find it odd that the scientists have never found "the missing link" that supposedly connects man to fish. Logically, it seems highly unlikely that we haven't discovered a shred of evidence about the missing link. There is talk the lemur-like creature found in Germany may suggest some origins, but there still isn't any proof that we were truly fish at one time - it's all speculation with much missing data. Science, as Fuzz likes to quote, still hasn't proved our complete origins.


It's not really a missing link that scientists are looking for, though the term is still used:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link

The term used more is transitional fossils and here are some.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And yes, more data is always added as it is found and studied, as I've said, as science defines it and as everyone here seems to not want to accept. There is no final answer to everything, and there probably will never be. Not every thing that dies makes a fossil and the earth is over 4 billion years old. Not gonna find everything and it can't be observed unless on invents a time machine, so I guess that means god did it. /sigh
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages<123456>
Back to Top