Originally posted by Echo2

I don't believe in sin. I don't believe in jesus and I don't believe that someone who doesn't even know me has any right speaking about my so called "sins".
We don't believe in your version of the magical sky fairy or as you call it, god. Almost every post you ever make here in the religion forum tells us what you dont believe in. Have you no faith in anything whatsoever?

Judging by the venom you post when you speak about my God i would say you are one bitter human being. Seems as if you blame my God for all your problems, even if you do not acknowledge His existence.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Judging by the venom you post when you speak about my God i would say you are one bitter human being. Seems as if you blame my God for all your problems, even if you do not acknowledge His existence.

I blame organized religion in general for most of the worlds problems, past and present. If you don't see that then you are blind. As for my personal problems, I have very few and those I have are mostly of my own making.

If you are going to call yourself a christien it would benefit you and your religion if you were less vicious. Your nastyness only solidifies non believers oppinions that christians are hypocrits.

Originally posted by Echo2
I blame organized religion in general for most of the worlds problems, past and present. If you don't see that then you are blind. As for my personal problems, I have very few and those I have are mostly of my own making.

If you are going to call yourself a christien it would benefit you and your religion if you were less vicious. Your nastyness only solidifies non believers oppinions that christians are hypocrits. Im not a recruiter. I personally could not care less than i do about whether or not you personally believe in God or judge my religion by my comments on this forum. You already have preconcieved notions anyway so I believe it to be a moot point with you.

I was making an observation. You sure are touchy for someone who spouts so much anger towards others. Oh, let me clarify that: Towards christians.

Since you didnt answer my questions I guess the answer is no, you believe in nothing.

Originally posted by Echo2
Sorry but I think I beat jerejere out on being the bafoon in this forum.

ROFL

Originally posted by Echo2
I blame organized religion in general for most of the worlds problems, past and present. If you don't see that then you are blind. I asked this of Dan in another thread so i'll pose the same to you.

Why are you putting the blame into religion Echo? It's man who has bastardized the message that most religions were founded for. Most religions preach love of God and self and set aside everyday rules or laws for man to follow. WHats so bad about that?


Mankind argues over everything that has any difference at all. Skin color, nationality, religion, history, opinions. Why would you throw most the blame at religion? As i have shown here, there are plenty of reasons for the problems of mankind. Even a blind person could see that.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Why are you putting the blame into religion Echo? It's man who has bastardized the message that most religions were founded for. Most religions preach love of God and self and set aside everyday rules or laws for man to follow. WHats so bad about that?

Religion is a man made institution. There is no message from anyone or anything. God only exists in the mind of the people who believe in him. Those who need a crutch.

And while most religions preach love of God and self, they do not follow their own preachings. I have met few christians that are truly loving. Ussually they are judgemental, oppinionated, dismissive of other peoples beliefs and hatefull of things that they feel are unaceptable (i.e. homosexuality).

Islam also teaches love of god and self. Just look what those nice loving religious people are doing with that message.

"thou shalt not kill" with the exception of people we don't like. - Very christian.

Originally posted by Echo2

I have met few christians that are truly loving. Ussually they are judgemental, oppinionated, dismissive of other peoples beliefs and hatefull of things that they feel are unaceptable (i.e. homosexuality).

You just described yourself. You sure you're not a christian? /sarcasm

Originally posted by HaVoK
You just described yourself. You sure you're not a christian? /sarcasm

LMAO! Echo, in post after post you say one thing and do the opposite. It's really quite amazing.

Intellegence, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you think of me and my posts is irrevelant to my life.

Obviously though you think about me and my posts enough to bother posting insults about them. I am honored.

Originally posted by Echo2
Religion is a man made institution. There is no message from anyone or anything. God only exists in the mind of the people who believe in him. Those who need a crutch.

And while most religions preach love of God and self, they do not follow their own preachings. I have met few christians that are truly loving. Ussually they are judgemental, oppinionated, dismissive of other peoples beliefs and hatefull of things that they feel are unaceptable (i.e. homosexuality).

You must not have met a lot of Christians then. You must keep yourself locked away in your world of logic, science, and atheism that you have not crossed paths with the millions of christians who love you.

Islam also teaches love of god and self. Just look what those nice loving religious people are doing with that message.

"thou shalt not kill" with the exception of people we don't like. - Very christian.

So...youre going to blame the sins of a few on an entire people? That sounds very intelligent.

The fact of the matter is there are muslims that are wacked. Their are Christians that are wacked. Their are athiests that are wacked. Their are Buddists that are wacked.



I really thing you are a bitter person Echo. I respect you, and find you very thoughtful and intelligent, but also bitter and repressed.

You told me instead of publically telling you about Christ, to go pray about it....but just a short month ago...when I told you and Vile I would be praying for you, you told me that was also offensive.

Originally posted by Echo2
Intellegence, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And, in my eye, I find your avatar very attractive!:D

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The fact of the matter is there are muslims that are wacked. Their are Christians that are wacked. Their are athiests that are wacked. Their are Buddists that are wacked.[/B]

In many cases it is religion they are wacking out over. And it is religion that has them wacked out. Ever wonder why a large majority of women that kill their kids and male serial killers have some sort of religious connection to their crimes? How many wars have been fought over religious beliefs or ideals? How many people have dies because of religion?

You told me instead of publically telling you about Christ, to go pray about it....but just a short month ago...when I told you and Vile I would be praying for you, you told me that was also offensive.

Obviously you don't understand sarcasm.

For someone who puts so much confidence in her own mind and reason, you are seamingly condeming religion because of the mind and reasons of some of its more extreme members.

It is not religion nor Gods fought when a terrorist kills. God commands to not kill.

It is not religions fought when these things happen. Money gets people killed all the time...I bet you dont hate it. Sex has gotten people killed....I bet you dont hate that. Disagreements get people killed....you are obviously a fan to be on a message board.

Blame the people commiting the acts, not the bodies to which they belong.

What seems strange to me is the fact that when someone gets killed it is not Gods fault.

When someone lives in a train wreck,etc., the first thing said is that " God saved them its a MIRACLE."

Thats convient logic isin't it.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
What seems strange to me is the fact that when someone gets killed it is not Gods fault.

When someone lives in a train wreck,etc., the first thing said is that " God saved them its a MIRACLE."

Thats convient logic isin't it. Belief in God is not a leap of logic, it's a leap of faith. Maybe you have the two confused.

I dont think you can look at religious belief analytically when you already have decided it doesnt exist. IMO it just doesnt work that way.

Thanks for the reply Havok.
I agree that a leap of faith is not logical, therefore I am not confused.
Belief in God has nothing to do with the answer to the statements above.
Did Moses close the waters on the Egyptians or did God kill them?
Did God have the walls of Jerico destroyed by the angels in order to kill the inhabitants or did man?
Did God kill thousands in Sadam and Gamorah or did man?
Did God kill millions in the Great Flood or did man?
According to the Bible God used Samson to kill 10,000 Phillistines.
So according to these statements when would a mortal know when God is using a human to kill other humans today?
If he can perform the miracle of saving lives today can he not also be taking lives today?

So Dan is speaking of fairness here. Do people interpret the causes and outcome of events in such a way as to favor their god?
Have they done so throughout history? I think it's a good question to ask.

Some questions for the thumpers...Are tragedy's god's will?

Like Roy of Siegfield and Roy getting mauled by a tiger. Was that god's will?

How about hurricanes that kill? Are they god's will?

What about people who are screwed up from childhood and grow up to kill - like Jeffrey Dahmer. Was he doing god's will? Or was it god's will that he was screwed up?

Does god cause all things to happen or just the good things - called miracles?

Or does god cause only things to happen that are outside of human control, like hurricanes and floods and famine and drought and disease. (He must be very busy).

On another line of thought, I have heard various platitudes when tragic death occurs. Things like "it was god's will" and "It is not for us to try to understand god's will". Insinuating that the tragic death was part of god's larger sceme and that he had the individual die for some purpose. Basically saying that god is useing peoples pain and death for his own purposes.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school. I was taught that god is good and loving while at the same time being threatened by his wrath if I didn't tow the line. The under current of those teachings was that he is vengefull, and manipulative. If I didn't completely believe in him and support the teachings of my faith I would burn in hell forever. Pretty scarry stuff for a little kid.

One of the problems with this is that we have become so accustomed to receiving and basking in God’s incredible mercy that we’ve come to believe that we deserve His favor.

We don’t. From our very first sin, we deserve God’s wrath. We deserve His punishment. However, He does not immediately give us what we deserve. He shows mercy. For those who accept it, this mercy will extend into eternity.

When tragedy happens, we have no right to go to God and whine, “why did this happen to me?” We’re only receiving what we deserve. As a matter of fact, we deserve much worse.

God has cursed this world because of sin. (See Gen 3:14 et al) Therefore, natural tragedies are the natural course of the current world we live in.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
One of the problems with this is that we have become so accustomed to receiving and basking in God’s incredible mercy that we’ve come to believe that we deserve His favor.

We don’t. From our very first sin, we deserve God’s wrath. We deserve His punishment. However, He does not immediately give us what we deserve. He shows mercy. For those who accept it, this mercy will extend into eternity.

When tragedy happens, we have no right to go to God and whine, “why did this happen to me?” We’re only receiving what we deserve. As a matter of fact, we deserve much worse.

God has cursed this world because of sin. (See Gen 3:14 et al) Therefore, natural tragedies are the natural course of the current world we live in.

Wow, you have a pretty low oppinion of mankind. You come across like you hate yourself and everyone else for being so sinfull. To go thru life believing that one is inherently bad and deserves wrath is counterproductive and boarders on mental illness. Ever heard of the "victim mentality? I pity you. What a negative outlook on life. Feeling like you are so full of sin must be a horribly shamefull feeling for you to carry around.

And this judgement is passed down by such a happy person :rolleyes:

He is exactly right. We do not deserve God's grace, but because of his love for us, he provides it anyway.

To answer your list of questions about God's will....yes yes and yes. Nothing happens that is out of God's will.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Nothing happens that is out of God's will.

So God wills us to sin and then punishes us?

To create something with free will, insist it worship you, and then punish it for not doing so is pure insanity.

To create a being with intelligence and logic and then insist it believe in you on “faith” alone is insanity.

To create a being with intelligence and logic and then leave ancient books with hundreds of contradictory passages and hundreds of dubious analogies for that being to try and decipher is cruel.

To allow for thousands of years, children and adults to die over squabbles of whether it exists is heartless, cruel and cold blooded.

If this entity exists, it is not loving or good and certainly doesn’t deserve to be worshiped. It should be hated and feared. Maybe Satan has pulled off a huge practical joke on all these people who think they are worshipping an entity that is good and loving.

I see nothing good and loving about this creature. I keep hearing about it being good and loving but have yet to witness any evidence that it gives a rats ass about human beings.

Just my oppinion.

Originally posted by Echo2
Wow, you have a pretty low oppinion of mankind. You come across like you hate yourself and everyone else for being so sinfull. To go thru life believing that one is inherently bad and deserves wrath is counterproductive and boarders on mental illness. Ever heard of the "victim mentality? I pity you. What a negative outlook on life. Feeling like you are so full of sin must be a horribly shamefull feeling for you to carry around.

God love ya echo. I get a real kick out of your posts.

Yes, my view of mankind is low, but not as low as God's. I understand that because mankind is so sinful, we need a redeemer. Thankfully, God has provided one in the person of Jesus Christ. It's far better to bask in his mercy than to reject it and try to fool myself into believing that I'm a good person all on my own.

I'm glad that I merit your pity, Echo, but I'm even more glad to have God's. Far from being a victim, I'm incredibly blessed to be living such a luxurious life, and I'm even more blessed to be redeemed by Christ's blood. I have a hard time seeing what's so negative about this outlook on life.

:)

Originally posted by Echo2
If this entity exists, it is not loving or good and certainly doesn’t deserve to be worshiped.

Not as it is defined by some Christians, no. But there are rather diverse opinions on what God is, exactly.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I'm even more blessed to be redeemed by Christ's blood. :)

This is the part I've never gotten a good grasp on.

How can a man of your intellect, Pagan, not grasp an idea so simple?

Christ died for our sins, and redeemed us before the father of our sins...how is it hard to fathom the thankfulness in that?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
How can a man of your intellect, Pagan, not grasp an idea so simple?

Christ died for our sins, and redeemed us before the father of our sins...how is it hard to fathom the thankfulness in that?
Well, I can't speak for him, but myself, I think that if I were immortal and could resurrect myself at a whim...if told millions would worship me for dying...I'd do it easily...and that, I think, is what makes the whole concept a bit odd, to me.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
How can a man of your intellect, Pagan, not grasp an idea so simple?

Christ died for our sins, and redeemed us before the father of our sins...how is it hard to fathom the thankfulness in that?

It's not the thankfulness I find incomprehensible...it's the symbolic nature of this act of redemption that I don't understand.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Well, I can't speak for him, but myself, I think that if I were immortal and could resurrect myself at a whim...if told millions would worship me for dying...I'd do it easily...and that, I think, is what makes the whole concept a bit odd, to me.

Do you know a lot of people who have did this Borg?

I only know of one man who died for our sins. He didnt die just so millions would worship him, he died so millions could worship WITH him before the throne of God in Heaven.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Do you know a lot of people who have did this Borg?

I only know of one man who died for our sins. He didnt die just so millions would worship him, he died so millions could worship WITH him before the throne of God in Heaven.
And you missed my point, which was that if I were to be promised resurrection, sure I'd die...no big deal, right?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It's not the thankfulness I find incomprehensible...it's the symbolic nature of this act of redemption that I don't understand.

I think you mean why did he have to die for our sins....if not just say the words, and Ill adjust my answer.

The bible says for the wages of sin is death. Christ died so that our sins would not kill us. He died so that we could ask for forgivness of our sins, because we all sin, everyone of us.

Christ took it all upon himself, so that we didnt have to.

It obviously was a very painful death, but I really think seperation from the father was what gave Christ the hardest time.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
And you missed my point, which was that if I were to be promised resurrection, sure I'd die...no big deal, right?

I do not think it mattered one iota rather or not Christ was resurrected. When he died for our sins he had intervened in all of us, and we were given a life long chance of accepting his grace.

Christ was resurrected so he could minister to the people that were so lost without him. He went and seen the deciples, his mother, and others. And finally before going to Heaven, he said, I go to prepare a place for you.

Can you imagine that. God made the world as beautiful as it is in 6 days, and hes been working on Heaven for over nearly 2000 years. Amazing.

I do not think it mattered one iota rather or not Christ was resurrected. \

If it didn't matter.....W..why did he do it? :confused:

Excuse me for not clarifying such a statement.

I meant, It wouldnt have mattered rather or not he raised from the dead, the fact is he still died for our sins.

Borg had said if he could die and comeback to life knowing everyone would love him for it, he would. I was making the point, that it wouldnt have mattered. Jesus did not do it to be impressive or anything, he did it to save the world.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Jesus did not do it to be impressive or anything, he did it to save the world.

Save the world from what?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Locke
[B

If it didn't matter.....W..why did he do it? :confused: [/B][/QUOT

(He died on the cross because he went up against the Jewish money changers,(bankers of that time.)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Save the world from what?

From the destruction of sin.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
From the destruction of sin.

This statement could be read several ways.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
This statement could be read several ways.

Not unless you purposely want to.

The bible says for the wages of sin is death. Christs death gave us the chance to be saved from an eternal death.

You have heard me say,

If you are born once, you die twice. If you are born twice, you only die once.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

The bible says for the wages of sin is death. Christs death gave us the chance to be saved from an eternal death.


I understand that's what Christianity teaches, but I find the whole idea to be mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I understand that's what Christianity teaches, but I find the whole idea to be mystical mumbo-jumbo.

What makes you feel this way Pagan? Do you not believe in hope at all...or only if it is provided through Christ?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
What makes you feel this way Pagan? Do you not believe in hope at all...or only if it is provided through Christ?

The idea that someone died 2000 years ago, and in the process absorbed all the worlds sins, past, present, and future, is utter nonsense. This idea is merely one part of the mechanism by which the church ensnares and retains its members, and perpetuates itself.

Of course I believe in hope. I hope that mankind will someday outgrow such childish superstitions and begin to become aware of our true place in the universe, unencumbered by backward ideas that do little to advance the human species, and do much to stifle progress and enlightenment.

You hope that mankind will outgrow beliefs that stops our development?

So youd rather believe in a world where we just happened to appear on Earth...and then die, never to be heard from again....rather than believing in a world, created by the creater of all things, where we have the opportunity to live in an eternal paradise?

I dont think my belief is the one that is stopping the growth and development of human progress.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The idea that someone died 2000 years ago, and in the process absorbed all the worlds sins, past, present, and future, is utter nonsense.

In your humble opinion, of course.:rolleyes:

The science of anthropology and evolution shows us that evolution does indeed happen. It has been proven to happen in animals, reptiles and fish. Christians can jump up and down and scream foul all they want but the proof is there, though they will deny it vehemantly, just as they denied that the world was round or that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Science scares the hell out of christians because it continually proves their beliefs wrong and contradicts their scripture. And it will continue to do so as science becomes more and more advanced. They deny it's authenticity because it threatens their beliefs.

It will be interesting to watch them scramble when off in the future sometime they are threatened with the discovery of life not from earth.

Reasoning with them doesn't work. They live on faith. Faith demands one subjugate logic.

Jerejere - you said you dont think your beliefs stop the growth and development of human progress. Have you forgotten that christians used to incarcerate and torture and burn at the stake people who brought forth scientific ideas that didn't agree with the christian teachings? The called it heresy and it was punishable by death.

Here is a great listing of the historical religious beliefs and the scientific discoveries that oposed them.

http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/welch/Anth104/Evolution.pdf

Originally posted by Echo2
The science of anthropology and evolution shows us that evolution does indeed happen. It has been proven to happen in animals, reptiles and fish. Christians can jump up and down and scream foul all they want but the proof is there, though they will deny it vehemantly, just as they denied that the world was round or that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Science scares the hell out of christians because it continually proves their beliefs wrong and contradicts their scripture. And it will continue to do so as science becomes more and more advanced. They deny it's authenticity because it threatens their beliefs.

Ive yet to see any proof in evolution other than a picture of a skull and some scientist's opinions.

It will be interesting to watch them scramble when off in the future sometime they are threatened with the discovery of life not from earth.

I dont think the finding of other life would matter much to me. The bible does not say that Earth is the only place life exists.

Reasoning with them doesn't work. They live on faith. Faith demands one subjugate logic. It isnt any easier to reason with your side. And I disagree with your little faith demands logic quote....I like to refer to it as, Faith demands courage.



Jerejere - you said you dont think your beliefs stop the growth and development of human progress. Have you forgotten that christians used to incarcerate and torture and burn at the stake people who brought forth scientific ideas that didn't agree with the christian teachings? The called it heresy and it was punishable by death.

And Christians are killed around the world for their faith as well. Which is still very commonly happening in todays time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you said you dont think your beliefs stop the growth and development of human progress. Have you forgotten that christians used to incarcerate and torture and burn at the stake people who brought forth scientific ideas that didn't agree with the christian teachings? The called it heresy and it was punishable by death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Christians are killed around the world for their faith as well. Which is still very commonly happening in todays time.

Just because christians have been persecuted does not change the fact that christianity has tried desperatly stop the growth and development of human progress over the years.

Ive yet to see any proof in evolution other than a picture of a skull and some scientist's opinions.

That is because you limit your reading material to those things that agree with your faith. Evolution has been proven to happen in animals, reptiles and fish. It hasn't yet been proven in man but it is very close to being proven. If you read up on it you would know this.

And I disagree with your little faith demands logic quote....I like to refer to it as, Faith demands courage.

I totally agree that faith demands courage. It takes courage to stick to an argument that is based in myth and superstition when faced with scientific evidence.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

Ive yet to see any proof in evolution other than a picture of a skull and some scientist's opinions.

Do they not teach evolution in school?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Ive yet to see any proof in evolution other than a picture of a skull and some scientist's opinions.
That is because you refuse to accept it in order to support your own conclusion. One doesn't make conclusions then search for evidence to support them, one finds the evidence then draws conclusions based on the evidence. We can't help you if you refuse to even consider the possibility.

Ive not rulled out the possibility. I dont believe in, however, I feel that if evolution was the way God brought us through, thats how it happened. However, the bible doesnt support this malarchy, so I dont buy it.

And to Pagan, no they do not teach Evolution. Maybe its a bible belt thing.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
However, the bible doesnt support this malarchy, so I dont buy it.
For the last time, THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK!!! THE BIBLE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!! EVOLUTION HAS!!!

Well I have a feeling it wont be the last time you say that, because we will continue to disagree on that statement.

The bible has proven itself through such things as most notably prophecy, and I hear well thats just interpretive. I find your acceptance of what a scientists says, mere interpretation on both parts.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The bible has proven itself through such things as most notably prophecy, and I hear well thats just interpretive. I find your acceptance of what a scientists says, mere interpretation on both parts.
Dude, if you're not going to believe a scientist (who has to go through RIGOROUS steps to get his hypothesis to even begin to be accepted by anyone), just who the hell are you going to believe? A book, which has NOT been through a thorough review and proven true?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
And to Pagan, no they do not teach Evolution. Maybe its a bible belt thing.

Glad I don't live 20 miles further south . . .

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I find your acceptance of what a scientists says, mere interpretation on both parts.

Well Jere, all science uses the same process of peer review and the like. We've ended up with computers, atomic microscopes, airplanes, etc., etc., etc. Is all this other science similarly suspect? And if not, what makes paleontology so untrustworthy?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

And to Pagan, no they do not teach Evolution. Maybe its a bible belt thing.

Ahh. That explains a great deal. I strongly urge you to educate yourself on the subject. It might surprise you.

Well Jere, all science uses the same process of peer review and the like. We've ended up with computers, atomic microscopes, airplanes, etc., etc., etc. Is all this other science similarly suspect? And if not, what makes paleontology so untrustworthy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been wondering the same thing. Is all science suspect to you? I bet you are living comfortably because af all the advancements made by science. Many sciences support evolutionary theories, paleontology, paleoanthropology, physical anthropology, archeology, phylogeny.........are they all wrong? I don't think you have explored enough of these disciplines to entirely write off their credibility.

While I understand it safe and warm and secure and predictable inside the box, I strongly suggest trying to think outside of it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Dude, if you're not going to believe a scientist (who has to go through RIGOROUS steps to get his hypothesis to even begin to be accepted by anyone), just who the hell are you going to believe? A book, which has NOT been through a thorough review and proven true?

Excuse me while I laugh.

:D...

Ok....you just said a book which has not been given a thorough review and proven true?

Are you kidding me? This book has been read by nearly every person who has graced the Earth with their presense for the past several hundred years. It has time and time proven itself true, as the all inspired word of God.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Ahh. That explains a great deal. I strongly urge you to educate yourself on the subject. It might surprise you.

I'm quite aware of the subject as why people believe in. Although I have seen nothing that makes me believe it.

Originally posted by creetwins
Well Jere, all science uses the same process of peer review and the like. We've ended up with computers, atomic microscopes, airplanes, etc., etc., etc. Is all this other science similarly suspect? And if not, what makes paleontology so untrustworthy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been wondering the same thing. Is all science suspect to you? I bet you are living comfortably because af all the advancements made by science. Many sciences support evolutionary theories, paleontology, paleoanthropology, physical anthropology, archeology, phylogeny.........are they all wrong? I don't think you have explored enough of these disciplines to entirely write off their credibility.

While I understand it safe and warm and secure and predictable inside the box, I strongly suggest trying to think outside of it.

Wow you are very talented at jumping to conclusions arent you.

I never said I think science is wrong, or that all scientists are uncrediable, I am specifically saying, why put so much stock in the words of scientists on a topic that HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!!

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I'm quite aware of the subject as why people believe in.

Huh?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Huh?

I meant, I understand why believers in Evolution think they believe in it.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I meant, I understand why believers in Evolution think they believe in it.

Ok...why don't you tell me why I "think" I believe in evolution.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Ok...why don't you tell me why I "think" I believe in evolution.

Because you take the words of scientists because they use the same "logic" as yourself.

Wow you are very talented at jumping to conclusions arent you.

I never said I think science is wrong, or that all scientists are uncrediable, I am specifically saying, why put so much stock in the words of scientists on a topic that HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who's jumping to conclusions? Did you not note the question marks in my post? I am Asking.

Speaking of things not proven, the bible is a perfect example....and look at the "stock" you put into that. At least my subject matter has piles of PHYSICAL evidence.

What do you make of the 100 or so Neandertal skulls found. All the other species....funny how your bible forgot to mention them......

Originally posted by BorgHunter
For the last time, THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK!!! THE BIBLE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!! EVOLUTION HAS!!!

Has evolution been proven, or is it still considered a theory by the scientific community at large?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Has evolution been proven, or is it still considered a theory by the scientific community at large?

The "fact" that evolution has occured has been proven, but the mechanism by which evolution takes place is still unclear.


In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

So in essence, we know that evolution happened, we just don't know how it happened.

Some other excellent statements on the subject:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983


It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.


Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434


Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15


The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

Thanks for that, Vil. I'll have to mull that over. For some reason, your link to talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) disappeared from the edited version of you post. I'm checking out that website, and have included the link here for others who may be interested.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Thanks for that, Vil. I'll have to mull that over. For some reason, your link to talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) disappeared from the edited version of you post. I'm checking out that website, and have included the link here for others who may be interested.

Oops...I included the link to their homepage and when I edited my post to include more quotes I wanted to link directly to the page where I got the quotes. Then I forgot to put the link back. My bad.

I like the part where it says, that a scientist cannot prove he is 100% right.

So arent you just accepting his word on faith? Obviously he shows you his "research," but all that is the best things they can find that do their best to prove themselves right.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
So arent you just accepting his word on faith?

No, we're basing it on evidence that has been reviewed by others.

Obviously he shows you his "research," but all that is the best things they can find that do their best to prove themselves right.

No, it's not just the "best things", it's all the data. Then you use the data to refine the theory. Science.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
No, we're basing it on evidence that has been reviewed by others.

I have offered you evidence in the Bible's truth...but you say, well thats just religious people's evidence.

So when you offer science, you give me scientists evidece, and accept that.

The bible proves it self over and over again, whether or not you are willing to see the evidence, science is over and over proved wrong, fallen short, or close but still no cigar.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The bible proves it self over and over again, whether or not you are willing to see the evidence, science is over and over proved wrong, fallen short, or close but still no cigar.
What the fuck kind of statement is this? "Science is proven wrong over and over again"? So we'd all be better off without that useless and always-untrue science? Medicine and a life expectancy greater than 30 is a bad thing? What about the whole idea of the Earth being a sphere and not a flat plane? Oh, that's just science, that can't be true! And let's get rid of everything from cars to compasses to the computer you are using right now, because we all know that SCIENCE made them, and science has never come up with anything correct or anything! And of course every object is made up of the following elements only: Earth, Water, Fire, and Rock! "Cells" and "atoms"? MADNESS, I say, because SCIENCE came up with them! And sicknesses! Caused by the Devil himself, none other! Nope, no such thing as bacteria or viruses, they were ideas brought up by SCIENCE! And the entire universe revolves around the Earth! And leeches are the only good medicine! ...Get my point yet?

Seriously, dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? What do you have against science?

What the fuck kind of statement is this? "Science is proven wrong over and over again"? So we'd all be better off without that useless and always-untrue science? Medicine and a life expectancy greater than 30 is a bad thing? What about the whole idea of the Earth being a sphere and not a flat plane? Oh, that's just science, that can't be true! And let's get rid of everything from cars to compasses to the computer you are using right now, because we all know that SCIENCE made them, and science has never come up with anything correct or anything! And of course every object is made up of the following elements only: Earth, Water, Fire, and Rock! "Cells" and "atoms"? MADNESS, I say, because SCIENCE came up with them! And sicknesses! Caused by the Devil himself, none other! Nope, no such thing as bacteria or viruses, they were ideas brought up by SCIENCE! And the entire universe revolves around the Earth! And leeches are the only good medicine! ...Get my point yet?

Seriously, dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? What do you have against science?

Thank you Borg, I wonder the same thing.

Maybe it is the fear of something he has no willingness to understand. You need an open mind to to explore things of a scientific nature.

I think what Jere is criticizing, and rightly so, is the religious fervor with which some people adhere to the current scientific theories.

To be sure, the application of science has produced a lot of great stuff, but it is not infallible.

I think it's more like he ran out of arguments but haven't changed the opposition's view much. Frustrated. Something like that. Too bad. Even when you are frustrated, can't just shoot out a crap statement like that. Puts yourself in a bad position. People will stop taking u seriously, man.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks


I have offered you evidence in the Bible's truth...but you say, well thats just religious people's evidence.

What you have offered is unsubstantiated opinion, not evidence.

So when you offer science, you give me scientists evidece, and accept that.

Scientific evidence that has been scrutinized, debated, experimented on and tested.

The bible proves it self over and over again, whether or not you are willing to see the evidence, science is over and over proved wrong, fallen short, or close but still no cigar.

Occasionally science makes mistakes...later science corrects those mistakes. Science is not a perfect way to find out the truth, just the best way we have invented so far. According to your belief, we already know the truth and need not look further.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
What you have offered is unsubstantiated opinion, not evidence.

You may think so, but I disagree.

I believe the over and over success of biblical prophecy is sign enough, especially to an unbeliever, in the total infalliable truth of the Bible.


Scientific evidence that has been scrutinized, debated, experimented on and tested.

And Biblical evidence hasnt been scrutinized, debated, and experimented?


Occasionally science makes mistakes...later science corrects those mistakes. Science is not a perfect way to find out the truth, just the best way we have invented so far. According to your belief, we already know the truth and need not look further.

Thats exactly what I was getting to, before everyone just wanted to run their mouth a little bit.

Science has been proved wrong. Numerous times. The Bible hasn't. You may say their are contradictions. You may say that their is no historical evidence.

But you have no actual evidence that anything in the Bible is wrong....their are countless examples of Science being wrong, but one of the Bible.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

Science has been proved wrong. Numerous times.

Right. By other scientists.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
"Science has been proved wrong. Numerous times."

You are correct, scientists continuelly add to and alter their theories as they gain more knowledge.

However, the same can be said for Christianity. It has been proven wrong numerous times. I cite the belief that the earth is flat, - they tortured and killed people for heresy if they proposed a different oppinion. The belief that the earth was the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies revolved around it, - again, they tortured and killed people for heresy if the proposed a different oppinion. The belief that women should not be given luadenum or chloriphorm during childbirth because the bible stated woman was to bring forth life in agony (not an exact quote but you thumpers know which one I am referring to). There are many instances where christianity had been wrong.

I do not recall one instance where scientists tortured and killed someone for having a different viewpoint.

My opinion is that these men who were claiming the Earth was flat, and believing in the Earth as the center of all the universe, and what have you....were plainly wrong.

I dont know how you tie that in with Christianity, because I have yet to see a bible verse that sais the Earth was flat or that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Prove to me that the Bible has been wrong about something.

Way back before science had much influence on people and most individuals did not know how to read or write, what we knew of the world was conjecture, put forth by the christian church in order to facilitate their teachings and back up their scriptures. The church believed that anything that went against their teachings was heresy and they were not too kind to people who disagreed. Much of their teachings about how the world worked did not come directly from the bible but was formulated as truth because it enhanced or backed up scripture.

The history of christianity and it's historical effect upon our culture is fascinating. Did you know that the reason most historical sculptures and paintings are religious is because that was the only way to communicate to the masses. Few people could read, but almost everyone could see. A number of times in history it was actually considered heresy to produce art that didn't have a religious significance.

At one point in England a monk experimented with peas. He actually spliced two separate types together and came up with a third type (we call them hybrids). He sat on his discovery for years fearing that the church would conemn him for heresy for producing a new plant. And when he did finally publish his workd, he was excomunicated. He is one of the fathers of hybrid horticulture.

Read some of the excellent books that are out on the influence of religion on the development of science. Or the influence of religion on history. They are fascinating. And FYI - the churches influence wasn't all bad. (wink)

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Prove to me that the Bible has been wrong about something.
Evolution. A great flood lasting "forty days and forty nights", drowning everything on Earth. A bat is a bird. Pi is exactly three. (1 Kings 7:23) A mustard seed is the smallest seed. (Mark 4:31)

Also, Ezekiel does indeed say the Earth is flat (with four corners) in Ezekiel 7:2...also, Jesus apparently saw "all the kingdoms of the world" from atop a mountain...obviously impossible unless the Earth is flat...(Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5)...also, Revelation 7:1 says that John "saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth"...again, that must mean the Earth is flat...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
A great flood lasting "forty days and forty nights", drowning everything on Earth.

How is that wrong? Other than the fact that you said it killed everything....im sure you know how the animals and Noahs family survived on the arc.

A bat is a bird.

I suppose you are talking about where the bible calls a bat a fowl.

I have seen this mistake made on the site numerous times, and I have explained it. You are lost in the translation of our times. You are thinking of what we have classified as mamals and as fowls. You are trying to controdict the bible with current man made science.

Pi is exactly three. (1 Kings 7:23) A mustard seed is the smallest seed. (Mark 4:31)

Sense I'm not a good math person and the verse does not say that pi is three, I will run it by a geometry/preacher at school. What seed is smaller than the mustard seed that was there during the time of Marks writing?



Also, Ezekiel does indeed say the Earth is flat (with four corners) in Ezekiel 7:2

That says the four corners of the land...refering to Isreal.

...also, Jesus apparently saw "all the kingdoms of the world" from atop a mountain...obviously impossible unless the Earth is flat...(Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5)...[/B]

Not if it is Jesus.



also, Revelation 7:1 says that John "saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth"...again, that must mean the Earth is flat...

No it doesnt, that must mean you are are taking a verse very very literally, and tryint to make it into yet another non controdiction.

If the world is a sphere...could John not have seen an angel at the top, and the bottom, and the sides???

How is that wrong? Other than the fact that you said it killed everything....im sure you know how the animals and Noahs family survived on the arc.
The Earth can't flood. Sorry, not enough water on the planet.

I have seen this mistake made on the site numerous times, and I have explained it. You are lost in the translation of our times. You are thinking of what we have classified as mamals and as fowls. You are trying to controdict the bible with current man made science.
They're wrong in modern translations! They knew that by the middle of the second millenia, and it was still translated like that! Ever think that that is what the word means?

Not if it is Jesus.
LOL

No it doesnt, that must mean you are are taking a verse very very literally, and tryint to make it into yet another non controdiction.
Wait, so the bible is open for interpretation now? When did that happen?
And quite it does: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
I see no room for interpretation there.

If the world is a sphere...could John not have seen an angel at the top, and the bottom, and the sides???
A sphere has a top? A sphere has a bottom, it has sides? WOAH! When did this happen?!

Originally posted by Blibblob
The Earth can't flood. Sorry, not enough water on the planet.

Ever think that maybe God took the water away just as he had put it there?

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]
They're wrong in modern translations! They knew that by the middle of the second millenia, and it was still translated like that! Ever think that that is what the word means?

I was referring to what we consider the characterists and traits that make something a mamal or a fowl.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]LOL

Not sure what you found funny...but glad you enjoyed.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]Wait, so the bible is open for interpretation now? When did that happen?
And quite it does: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
I see no room for interpretation there.

As you read in the next statement.....it doesnt mean the world was or is flat.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]A sphere has a top? A sphere has a bottom, it has sides? WOAH! When did this happen?!

This was a man writing about what he was seeing regarding the end of the world. Is it so far beyond your comprehension to consider that perhaps an angel was to the north, south, east and west....in other words, the four corners?

Ever think that maybe God took the water away just as he had put it there?
Knew you were going to say that, so yeah, I had thought about that, but sorry, not going to buy that unless you can show me how the earth had more water before the supposed flood time.

I was referring to what we consider the characterists and traits that make something a mamal or a fowl.
Then it would still be scientifically innacurate.

Not sure what you found funny...but glad you enjoyed.
Your horrendous cop out.

As you read in the next statement.....it doesnt mean the world was or is flat.
Yes it does.

This was a man writing about what he was seeing regarding the end of the world. Is it so far beyond your comprehension to consider that perhaps an angel was to the north, south, east and west....in other words, the four corners?
North, south, east and west would not be corners. Those would just be points on the sphere, exactly opposite each other, but still not corners. A sphere has no corners, take geometry...

Originally posted by Blibblob
Knew you were going to say that, so yeah, I had thought about that, but sorry, not going to buy that unless you can show me how the earth had more water before the supposed flood time.

The Earth did not need to have more water before the flood time. The water came by Rain....it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, non stop. This rain filled the Earth....what I was saying is, God could have just as easily made the water disappear as he had put it there.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Then it would still be scientifically innacurate.

Only by todays standards of Science. Gods definition of a fowl and mamal may not be the same as our scientific ones.

Originally posted by Blibblob

Your horrendous cop out.

I'm not sure what you think I was copping out of...but Ok. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Blibblob

Yes it does.

No It Doesnt. :D

Originally posted by Blibblob

North, south, east and west would not be corners. Those would just be points on the sphere, exactly opposite each other, but still not corners. A sphere has no corners, take geometry...

You are so not even trying to get this.

This was a man, 2 thousand years ago, writing about what HE was seeing, regarding the end of the world.

Do you think he payed little attention to the geometry of spheres and cubes...or do you think he was more worried about the angels and what they were doing?

Im sure if you were witnessing the end of the world and were writing it, you wouldnt be like, now lets see....are they standing on a cube or a sphere...I hope I get my math right. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

This was a man, 2 thousand years ago, writing about what HE was seeing, regarding the end of the world.

Exactly what I've been saying all along. That's why the bible can't be taken literally.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Exactly what I've been saying all along. That's why the bible can't be taken literally.

No Lionel, one thing makes it very acceptable.

God was telling him, as John points out on a few occasions, what to write and what not to write. John was writing what God shown him and told him he could write.