All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic   Page 8 of 14
 [ 262 posts ] 
Go to page: « Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next »  Page:
Author Message

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 14th, 2011, 11:46 pm 
Village Legend
Village Legend
User avatar

Joined: May 28th, 2003, 9:41 pm
Posts: 2,865
Location: Arkansas
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Did you not ever watch Manmade DNA? I was waiting on this show for about a month and a half:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/syntheti ... -life.html

__________________
The wrath of God is unleashed in the hands of man.
This is their plans; to infect the lands,
to force everyone to meet their demands.


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 15th, 2011, 4:53 am 
*crinkles eyes*
Village Legend
Village Legend

Joined: October 20th, 2003, 1:08 am
Posts: 18,258
Location: UK
Gender: Male
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2005)
Zizi - that claim is interesting, do you have a link to follow up on it?

Tahu 1000 wrote:
As far as the interracial thing goes, I quote from the defense argument of Loving v Virginia: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." This was as recent as half a century ago. I also know that the Bible condones the act of slavery and wanton genocide in multiple places, but, as society has moved beyond such things, they are glossed over by modern-day teachings.

Do you have a Bible source which explicitly forbids interracial marriage? I did a bit of searching but couldn't find anything, although marriages between people of different religions is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 15th, 2011, 9:22 am 
Village Legend
Village Legend
User avatar

Joined: November 28th, 2005, 8:30 am
Posts: 2,049
Location: Where I should be.
Gender: Female
Status: Offline
Helgason, A, Pálsson, S, Guðbjartsson, D, Kristjánsson, þ & Stefánsson, K 2008, 'An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples', Science, vol. 319, no. 5864, pp. 813-816.

p.s. 2000th post 8)

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner :D
Image Image Since Jan 17, 2008
Image

The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 15th, 2011, 3:13 pm 
Hai
Champion of Saradomin
Champion of Saradomin
User avatar

Joined: December 28th, 2003, 4:57 pm
Posts: 11,371
Location: New York
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Zizi wrote:
Helgason, A, Pálsson, S, Guðbjartsson, D, Kristjánsson, þ & Stefánsson, K 2008, 'An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples', Science, vol. 319, no. 5864, pp. 813-816.

p.s. 2000th post 8)


Scanned pics or it didn't publish.

:-s bartoron :-s

__________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 19th, 2011, 2:45 am 
Burning my Dread.
Village Staff
Village Staff
User avatar

Joined: July 25th, 2004, 12:46 pm
Posts: 11,464
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2009)
Tweedy wrote:
Zizi - that claim is interesting, do you have a link to follow up on it?

Zizi wrote:
Helgason, A, Pálsson, S, Guðbjartsson, D, Kristjánsson, þ & Stefánsson, K 2008, 'An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples', Science, vol. 319, no. 5864, pp. 813-816.

p.s. 2000th post 8)


Forgive me for intruding with an entirely noncontributory post, but...

Image

...pretty much sums up how I feel Zizi feels about replying to Tweedy.
Also, congrats on 2,000!

__________________
ImageImage
Goten is dead!


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 20th, 2011, 1:41 am 
*crinkles eyes*
Village Legend
Village Legend

Joined: October 20th, 2003, 1:08 am
Posts: 18,258
Location: UK
Gender: Male
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2005)
Hmmm? Are you trying to pronounce the author's names?

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 20th, 2011, 11:33 am 
Village Elder
Village Elder

Joined: November 26th, 2003, 5:50 pm
Posts: 2,865
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2006)
Friend of Hiker
Blackmage... that Fuzzy Bunny.


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 25th, 2011, 1:53 pm 
Knight
Knight

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 8:34 am
Posts: 207
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
regardless of other findings, the fact remains that DNA cannot be created in man made experiments or in nature. yet we have DNA. Loving v Virginia: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." This was as recent as half a century ago. I also know that the Bible condones the act of slavery and wanton genocide in multiple places, but, as society has moved beyond such things, they are glossed over by modern-day teachings. (the red highlight was posted by Tahu1000)

The bible infact does not condone slavery nor does it condone wanton genocide. I can summarize any example you bring up with the fact that: While God is not a God of revenge, he condones sticking up for what is right and moral. These people would not turn to him, and they were oppressing his people. He had his people stick up for themselves. And God does not condone slavery lol. On a seperate but related note; my responses are always delayed because I don't get on rv much. I'm quite busy irl.

__________________
Wolff wrote:
n00b 4 m1nin wrote:
I know a jewish guy, everyone teases him about playing the game Dradel, because they think it's Jewish Beyblades.


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day
Jeroen wrote:
Pff, I see your rooster and I raise you a parrot


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 25th, 2011, 8:35 pm 
Champion of Saradomin
Champion of Saradomin
User avatar

Joined: November 3rd, 2005, 4:05 pm
Posts: 6,286
Location: Somewhere in cyberspace
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Wolff wrote:
The bible infact does not condone slavery nor does it condone wanton genocide. I can summarize any example you bring up with the fact that: While God is not a God of revenge, he condones sticking up for what is right and moral. These people would not turn to him, and they were oppressing his people. He had his people stick up for themselves.

The Bible wrote:
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plauge among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Kill every single male child and every grown woman, then take the female children as slaves? That doesn't quite seem to be the "right and moral" thing to do. There's a difference between sticking up for oneself and committing atrocities such as genocide. Now, I must admit that I do not know much about the context of this passage, only that Moses had just lead the Israelis to victory against another tribe/nation. I do not know why they were at war with this opposing tribe/nation, but I cannot think of any reason that would make genocide moral. I could probably find multiple instances of similar events in the Bible, not to mention some very intolerant views; one that relates to current issues would be the Bible's assertion that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and a sin. To be fair, the Bible was written thousands of years ago; practices and prejudices that we find detestable today were commonplace back then. However, to defend those in modern times is downright wrong.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member
Hidden: 
1243 Skill Total - 198 Quest Points - 83 Combat - 64 Attack - 62 Strength - 68 Defense - 56 Prayer
77 Fishing - 60 Mining - 60 Woodcutting - 58 Cooking - 55 Firemaking -51 Crafting - 51 Agility - 50 Thieving

Image


Top
 Profile YIM 
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: January 26th, 2011, 3:36 am 
It's tough, but I play.
Board & Chat Moderator
Board & Chat Moderator
User avatar

Joined: August 18th, 2003, 5:47 pm
Posts: 7,995
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2010)
Tahu 1000 wrote:
The Bible wrote:
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plauge among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


I love biblical passages that involve women. I REALLY do.

They rank right up there with God sending the bear to slaughter a bunch of children for calling his prophet bald. Churches should stop skipping over that stuff. Less people would fall asleep in the pews.

__________________
ImageIt's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 7th, 2011, 2:00 pm 
Knight
Knight

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 8:34 am
Posts: 207
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Tahu 1000 wrote:
Wolff wrote:
The bible infact does not condone slavery nor does it condone wanton genocide. I can summarize any example you bring up with the fact that: While God is not a God of revenge, he condones sticking up for what is right and moral. These people would not turn to him, and they were oppressing his people. He had his people stick up for themselves.

The Bible wrote:
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plauge among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Kill every single male child and every grown woman, then take the female children as slaves? That doesn't quite seem to be the "right and moral" thing to do. There's a difference between sticking up for oneself and committing atrocities such as genocide. Now, I must admit that I do not know much about the context of this passage, only that Moses had just lead the Israelis to victory against another tribe/nation. I do not know why they were at war with this opposing tribe/nation, but I cannot think of any reason that would make genocide moral. I could probably find multiple instances of similar events in the Bible, not to mention some very intolerant views; one that relates to current issues would be the Bible's assertion that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and a sin. To be fair, the Bible was written thousands of years ago; practices and prejudices that we find detestable today were commonplace back then. However, to defend those in modern times is downright wrong.


Lets get this straight before i get rage flamed....I DO NOT hate homosexuals! By the same token I do believe it is wrong and that is infact a sin to be homosexual, as it is just another temptation by the devil to stray. Idc how cliche that sounds, because it is the truth. No one is born all bad or good, and no one is born homosexual. You choose to listen to that "little voice of temptation" to give in to whatever tempation is being presented to you. Aside from that, the context is God's chosen people were at odds with everyone in the middle east. They had just won a major battle, and they had gone into the cities of the people (Midians) they just fought. In the cities the israelite men were tempted into premaritial sex with countless women and men. God had forbidden this, and when all of the men committed this, he ordered everyone tainted by it to be killed. It wasn't like he walked into a nursery and started killing babies. The children he talked about killing were the older boys and girls that had defiled themselves against the lord. This was wrong because God rescued the chosen people from slavery, saved them from their oppressors even though they doubted him, cursed him, and worshipped false gods. He killed them because of the sins they committed with them being his chosen people. Don't get me wrong christianity is 100% based around love and forgiveness, and god has since promised never to eradicate the world like he did in the great flood. Before you say "well if i curse god aloud why doens't he kill me?" he has changed from that and gives everyone equal oppurtunity to believe in him or believe in something else.


Recently I did some reading, and watched a documentary about evolution. I found it funny how the base theories of evolution really aren't supported by science. The theory of disuse has been disproven. (If I never walk around or use my legs, they won't fall off, and it has no effect on the legs of my children.) The theory of acquired traits has been disproven. (If I workout and get ripped, and my wife works out and get ripped, our child won't come out of the womb with a six pack.) And all of the intermediate stages of evolution have come up to be nothing more than hopeful guesses. There are over 300,000,000 fossil records in the world. And not one intermediate stage has been shown. The documentary I watched interviewed 15 of the worlds leading professors in biology and evolution. And EVERY one of them; when asked about proof of intermediate stages, came up with the answer "Well we presumed that fossil records would give us some proof of evolution, but we haven't been able to find any evidence yet....." or some variation of that. There are fossil remains of bats and of mice. But not fossils of mice starting to grow wings. There are remains of hippos, bears, and whales. But no bears with flippers, or hippos with blow holes. Why can't evolution give me anymore evidence that that? And about that so called "missing link whale" that the Michigan University Prof found....it was funny how at the exhibit the picture is drawn of an crocidile like creature with flippers and a fluke, but at the exhibit they had no bones for the tale or for the flippers. And on a later date they actually found feet for the croc, not flippers. The tale turned out not to be a fluke either. lol...

__________________
Wolff wrote:
n00b 4 m1nin wrote:
I know a jewish guy, everyone teases him about playing the game Dradel, because they think it's Jewish Beyblades.


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day
Jeroen wrote:
Pff, I see your rooster and I raise you a parrot


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 8th, 2011, 3:01 am 
It's tough, but I play.
Board & Chat Moderator
Board & Chat Moderator
User avatar

Joined: August 18th, 2003, 5:47 pm
Posts: 7,995
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2010)
I think you need to watch something about evolution by a group that actually supports evolution. It's nice that you looked into it, but you clearly only looked at one side. What you watched clearly didn't know what they were talking about to boot. They were just the typical "I'm not seeing unicorns and/or sprouting wings so evolution can't exist" people.

No, working out won't make your offspring stronger. Giving yourself a physical change won't change your genes. Evolution works by the passing of genes. This is why humans formed the thumbs that we have. Our predecessors that had thumbs that were more opposable than the others of their species had an easier time surviving and the genes of that species that had the weaker thumbs were being weeded out.

You're viewing evolution as some sort of X-men fanfic. In reality it's much smaller than that and has been witnessed by scientists numerous times. I recall scientists once tested a pesticide and would reuse the same insects that didn't die previously. Those insects that were more resistant to the pesticide reproduced while the dead ones... couldn't. Thus the next generation of insects had stronger resistance to the pesticide. Eventually as it continued they had ended up with a batch of insects that was extremely resilient. I never heard what they did with them, though.

That's all evolution is. Weaker traits being weened out while more beneficial traits become more prominent. This is why your rats aren't growing wings. Just because wings might help a rat doesn't mean it's going to magically start growing them. They'd have to start out with small almost non-existant wings and with no benefit from having two odd nubs on their back they would survive just as long as the other rats and reproduce at the same rate (which increases the chance of the new trait being drowned out and lost forever). The closest they would get is webbed legs like the flying squirrels.

As for God not killing people because he changed after he flooded the world:

As I recall the story of Moses comes after the story of Noah's Ark. In case you forgot, God had all of the slaves he rescued killed for not worshipping him afterwords. That sounds about as changed to me as a wife beater going to anger management and saying he was a better person only to beat his wife again a week later.

__________________
ImageIt's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 8th, 2011, 1:20 pm 
Knight
Knight

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 8:34 am
Posts: 207
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Leanan Sidhe wrote:
I think you need to watch something about evolution by a group that actually supports evolution. It's nice that you looked into it, but you clearly only looked at one side. What you watched clearly didn't know what they were talking about to boot. They were just the typical "I'm not seeing unicorns and/or sprouting wings so evolution can't exist" people.

No, working out won't make your offspring stronger. Giving yourself a physical change won't change your genes. Evolution works by the passing of genes. This is why humans formed the thumbs that we have. Our predecessors that had thumbs that were more opposable than the others of their species had an easier time surviving and the genes of that species that had the weaker thumbs were being weeded out.

You're viewing evolution as some sort of X-men fanfic. In reality it's much smaller than that and has been witnessed by scientists numerous times. I recall scientists once tested a pesticide and would reuse the same insects that didn't die previously. Those insects that were more resistant to the pesticide reproduced while the dead ones... couldn't. Thus the next generation of insects had stronger resistance to the pesticide. Eventually as it continued they had ended up with a batch of insects that was extremely resilient. I never heard what they did with them, though.

That's all evolution is. Weaker traits being weened out while more beneficial traits become more prominent. This is why your rats aren't growing wings. Just because wings might help a rat doesn't mean it's going to magically start growing them. They'd have to start out with small almost non-existant wings and with no benefit from having two odd nubs on their back they would survive just as long as the other rats and reproduce at the same rate (which increases the chance of the new trait being drowned out and lost forever). The closest they would get is webbed legs like the flying squirrels.

As for God not killing people because he changed after he flooded the world:

As I recall the story of Moses comes after the story of Noah's Ark. In case you forgot, God had all of the slaves he rescued killed for not worshipping him afterwords. That sounds about as changed to me as a wife beater going to anger management and saying he was a better person only to beat his wife again a week later.


God in fact did not have all the slaves killed. He took them into the desert for 40 years then lead them into the promised land where Joshua took over and became the famed general. He lead them until everyone (bar 2 people) of the first generation of slaves had died. And yes you're right, I muffed up when i said that has since changed because of the flood. The flood did come first, but the message of love remains the same. God doesn't kill people anymore for not believing, or for cursing him/worshipping false gods etc. Get the story straight though, they weren't just killed for not worshipping god, they were committing acts of adultery, paganism, and defiling the 10 commandments he had given them. Which to you may sound harsh and ridiculous, but if the entire red sea was just parted for you, stopped in its tracks so that you could get away from the pharoh. The pharoh's men were killed trying to catch you. He had done all of those things for you, brought you out of slavery, promised to give you a vibrant land full of everything you'll ever want/need. And you go behind his back and worship false gods and spit on his name. You had witnessed first hand all of miracles. It is pretty hard to believe they were audacious enough to do that, but that is why there were punished. The documentary i watched was done by a man, that set out to prove the theory of evolution correct. In the documentary, it specifically said there was no way to send the information from a physical change, to the genes to be passed on. The fact that there were bugs with a natural resistence to pesticides is pretty irrelevant I would say. When smallpox had its run with the indians, some indians were immune correct? The immune indians survived, and had children that were less likely to get smallpox. They weren't a different type of indian, they were just less likely to get smallpox. That is like saying redheaded people are different than people with brown hair. Aside from this the fact remains that there still are no intermediate stages of animals in evolution. I view the evolution theory of today as the spontaneous creation theory of the 17th century. An idea that will die with time and information.

__________________
Wolff wrote:
n00b 4 m1nin wrote:
I know a jewish guy, everyone teases him about playing the game Dradel, because they think it's Jewish Beyblades.


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day
Jeroen wrote:
Pff, I see your rooster and I raise you a parrot


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 8th, 2011, 5:27 pm 
Champion of Saradomin
Champion of Saradomin
User avatar

Joined: November 3rd, 2005, 4:05 pm
Posts: 6,286
Location: Somewhere in cyberspace
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Wolff wrote:
Lets get this straight before i get rage flamed....I DO NOT hate homosexuals! By the same token I do believe it is wrong and that is infact a sin to be homosexual, as it is just another temptation by the devil to stray.

So, basically, while you don't hate homosexual people, you actively deny that their chosen lifestyle (which, I should add, does not harm you in any way, shape, or form) and call it a sin. What if I told you your belief in God was a sin under my belief system? Would you like to have people accuse you of sinning just for doing what you think and feel is right?

Now, back to your continuous, unmerited, and uninformed attacks on evolution:
First, here's a nice intermediate fossil from an unbiased source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... found.html
A simple Google search will turn up many more, but, as follows from Sturgeon's Law, most of the hits are from biased sources, so watch what you click.
Now, onto one of your major points:
Wolff wrote:
The fact that there were bugs with a natural resistence to pesticides is pretty irrelevant I would say. When smallpox had its run with the indians, some indians were immune correct? The immune indians survived, and had children that were less likely to get smallpox. They weren't a different type of indian, they were just less likely to get smallpox.

The children with the immunities were, very slightly, genetically different from those without that immunity. Those differences were too small to make a difference, but if a community of organisms is continually subject to environmental stress, differences can accumulate over time and one species can evolve into another. If the community gets split and the new communities get subject to different stresses than each other, then they'll evolve into different species over time. Now, the keyword is time. I'm not talking one, two, or ten generations; I'm talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. The human mind cannot truly understand time on that scale.
As for your view on evolution, Christianity is already dying over time from information. Religion used to be what people used to explain natural phenomenon, but now science can prove how things work (and, before you start going after this statement, I'm referring to things like earthquakes, rain, etc...you cannot dispute that science can explain these). Science is getting ever closer to unraveling the very fabric of the universe and studying the individual threads.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member
Hidden: 
1243 Skill Total - 198 Quest Points - 83 Combat - 64 Attack - 62 Strength - 68 Defense - 56 Prayer
77 Fishing - 60 Mining - 60 Woodcutting - 58 Cooking - 55 Firemaking -51 Crafting - 51 Agility - 50 Thieving

Image


Top
 Profile YIM 
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 9th, 2011, 6:58 am 
Knight
Knight

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 8:34 am
Posts: 207
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Tahu 1000 wrote:
Wolff wrote:
Lets get this straight before i get rage flamed....I DO NOT hate homosexuals! By the same token I do believe it is wrong and that is infact a sin to be homosexual, as it is just another temptation by the devil to stray.

So, basically, while you don't hate homosexual people, you actively deny that their chosen lifestyle (which, I should add, does not harm you in any way, shape, or form) and call it a sin. What if I told you your belief in God was a sin under my belief system? Would you like to have people accuse you of sinning just for doing what you think and feel is right?

Now, back to your continuous, unmerited, and uninformed attacks on evolution:
First, here's a nice intermediate fossil from an unbiased source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... found.html
A simple Google search will turn up many more, but, as follows from Sturgeon's Law, most of the hits are from biased sources, so watch what you click.
Now, onto one of your major points:
Wolff wrote:
The fact that there were bugs with a natural resistence to pesticides is pretty irrelevant I would say. When smallpox had its run with the indians, some indians were immune correct? The immune indians survived, and had children that were less likely to get smallpox. They weren't a different type of indian, they were just less likely to get smallpox.

The children with the immunities were, very slightly, genetically different from those without that immunity. Those differences were too small to make a difference, but if a community of organisms is continually subject to environmental stress, differences can accumulate over time and one species can evolve into another. If the community gets split and the new communities get subject to different stresses than each other, then they'll evolve into different species over time. Now, the keyword is time. I'm not talking one, two, or ten generations; I'm talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. The human mind cannot truly understand time on that scale.
As for your view on evolution, Christianity is already dying over time from information. Religion used to be what people used to explain natural phenomenon, but now science can prove how things work (and, before you start going after this statement, I'm referring to things like earthquakes, rain, etc...you cannot dispute that science can explain these). Science is getting ever closer to unraveling the very fabric of the universe and studying the individual threads.


LOL OH MY....they found a lemur congratulations. Scientists are assuming we are direct descendants of that. Sounds like the Indohyus case all over again. Religion isn't intended to be a means of explaining natural phenomenon. But I guess you're going to assume things like that, because well evolution is truly all based on assumptions and guesses. Christianity has been around for a few thousand years. Evolution began with Darwin in the late 1800s. Your point on how science can explain things is really irrelevant being that it doesn't contradict any of my points. You are accusing my opinions of being wrong. You are saying I am wrong for believing christianity, well I am saying you are wrong for participating in an actively homosexual lifestyle. It does affect me in many ways mind you. Gay rights activist affect the laws of my state and country. Their lobbyists affect bills and change the way I live my life. We have to change rules for guys and girls only sports to allow homosexuals to participate in them. I'm not saying my life is drastically more horrid from it, but it does affect me. Oh and I'm tired of you discrediting anything I post as being biased. You post from the smithsonian and from national geographic....two of the most biased sources for evolution. Aside from that the missing link really doesn't show anything. It does NOTHING to link man with ape, and is assumed that we are from the same species. Its just another fossil.

Irrelevant: It is funny when you type in national geographic on the google bar, one of the suggestions is about it being biased lol...so i'm not alone in saying it is.

__________________
Wolff wrote:
n00b 4 m1nin wrote:
I know a jewish guy, everyone teases him about playing the game Dradel, because they think it's Jewish Beyblades.


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day
Jeroen wrote:
Pff, I see your rooster and I raise you a parrot


Last edited by Wolff on February 9th, 2011, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 9th, 2011, 7:55 am 
*crinkles eyes*
Village Legend
Village Legend

Joined: October 20th, 2003, 1:08 am
Posts: 18,258
Location: UK
Gender: Male
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2005)
This is something of a trainwreck, but oh well.

Wolff wrote:
We have to change rules for guys and girls only sports to allow homosexuals to participate in them. I'm not saying my life is drastically more horrid from it, but it does affect me.

Law of averages says that some of the people you have been playing sport with over the years are homosexual. Or is this one of those "there are no gays in Iran" kind of thing?

Wolff wrote:
Religion isn't intended to be a means of explaining natural phenomenon.

It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Zeus and thunderbolts and so on.

Pyro wrote:
You're viewing evolution as some sort of X-men fanfic. In reality it's much smaller than that and has been witnessed by scientists numerous times. I recall scientists once tested a pesticide and would reuse the same insects that didn't die previously. Those insects that were more resistant to the pesticide reproduced while the dead ones... couldn't. Thus the next generation of insects had stronger resistance to the pesticide. Eventually as it continued they had ended up with a batch of insects that was extremely resilient. I never heard what they did with them, though.

That's what some health experts are worried about with infectious diseases. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6001782037

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 9th, 2011, 12:50 pm 
Knight
Knight

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 8:34 am
Posts: 207
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Tweedy wrote:
This is something of a trainwreck, but oh well.

Wolff wrote:
We have to change rules for guys and girls only sports to allow homosexuals to participate in them. I'm not saying my life is drastically more horrid from it, but it does affect me.

Law of averages says that some of the people you have been playing sport with over the years are homosexual. Or is this one of those "there are no gays in Iran" kind of thing?

I'm sure some of my teammates have been homosexual, that fact of the matter is at my school we have to cater to the minorities. I don't like the fact that we over compensate for their differences as I think we should all be treated fairly but oh well. In some classes you can't even have an intelligent conversation about homosexuality or sexuality as a whole. There are students and their parents at my school that will call in/report you and raise hell until you are in ISS for a week or are suspended, just for talking about it. I think that is ludicrious seeing how there are students who are openly homosexual and we have fine, interesting, and intelligent conversations on why they chose to live that lifestyle. It really bugs me when some of the other homosexual students throw a tantrum for even bringing it up, it is like they want special priviledges for being that way. I know you cannot judge the whole by one person but oversimplifying it and saying some else's sexuality has no bearing whatsoever on my life is false. But the main point to Tahu was that yes I DO believe it is wrong, and I have and will continue to tell that to anyone that asks. And yes you can believe that without having any animosity towards people of that nature.

Wolff wrote:
Religion isn't intended to be a means of explaining natural phenomenon.

It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Zeus and thunderbolts and so on.

Christianity is not meant for this. Surely you can apply it, but the point of the bible is not to answer why the sky is blue.

__________________
Wolff wrote:
n00b 4 m1nin wrote:
I know a jewish guy, everyone teases him about playing the game Dradel, because they think it's Jewish Beyblades.


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day
Jeroen wrote:
Pff, I see your rooster and I raise you a parrot


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 9th, 2011, 2:32 pm 
Champion of Saradomin
Champion of Saradomin
User avatar

Joined: November 3rd, 2005, 4:05 pm
Posts: 6,286
Location: Somewhere in cyberspace
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Ok, Wolff, since we're shooting back and forth over multiple topics in one round of posts, it would be useful if you learned about something called paragraphs, instead of forcing people to dig through your blocks of text.
Now, on to some of your points:
Quote:
well I am saying you are wrong for participating in an actively homosexual lifestyle. It does affect me in many ways mind you. Gay rights activist affect the laws of my state and country. Their lobbyists affect bills and change the way I live my life. We have to change rules for guys and girls only sports to allow homosexuals to participate in them. I'm not saying my life is drastically more horrid from it, but it does affect me.

Ok, I'm going to cut straight to the point and say bullcrap. You are not affected by any of the laws the guarantee that people cannot face discrimination because of sexual orientation any more than you're affected by the laws that prevent discrimination due to race or gender.

I'm not going to continue this discussion of missing link fossils and such until you show evidence of reading and comprehending information from an unbiased source on the topic. That lemur fossil was just one example out of many, which disproved your point about there being no transitional fossils. If you want to find evidence for or against a particular transition, specify that one and research it.

I'm not finding much on a bias from National Geographic, and what I can find seems to be claims of bias in their stories on the Middle East. As for the Smithsonian Institute, it's a government-funded educational nonprofit organization. For the purposes of this debate, no one here is qualified to dispute anything said by the Smithsonian.

Now, for quite a while you've been asserting a Demanding of Negative Proof fallacy; you've spent quite a lot of time and effort trying (and, so far, not really succeeding, in my opinion) to poke holes in evolution, abiogenesis, and the like, but you've yet to really provide much in the way of proof for your side of the argument. I'd like to see something from your end, with a few qualifiers:
1. It should be adequately documented and researched. Many eyewitness accounts, and full-motion video if available. Try and keep it modern; anything from the Bible is too old to be really confirmable. Also, it should be supported by one or more unbiased sources (if it's a .org or .com, look again).
2. It needs to show proof supporting the existence of God. Just because scientists (either at the time or now) can't explain it doesn't mean they never will.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member
Hidden: 
1243 Skill Total - 198 Quest Points - 83 Combat - 64 Attack - 62 Strength - 68 Defense - 56 Prayer
77 Fishing - 60 Mining - 60 Woodcutting - 58 Cooking - 55 Firemaking -51 Crafting - 51 Agility - 50 Thieving

Image


Top
 Profile YIM 
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 11th, 2011, 1:31 pm 
Knight
Knight

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 8:34 am
Posts: 207
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Status: Offline
Tahu 1000 wrote:
Ok, Wolff, since we're shooting back and forth over multiple topics in one round of posts, it would be useful if you learned about something called paragraphs, instead of forcing people to dig through your blocks of text.
Now, on to some of your points:
Quote:
well I am saying you are wrong for participating in an actively homosexual lifestyle. It does affect me in many ways mind you. Gay rights activist affect the laws of my state and country. Their lobbyists affect bills and change the way I live my life. We have to change rules for guys and girls only sports to allow homosexuals to participate in them. I'm not saying my life is drastically more horrid from it, but it does affect me.

Ok, I'm going to cut straight to the point and say bullcrap. You are not affected by any of the laws the guarantee that people cannot face discrimination because of sexual orientation any more than you're affected by the laws that prevent discrimination due to race or gender.

I'm not going to continue this discussion of missing link fossils and such until you show evidence of reading and comprehending information from an unbiased source on the topic. That lemur fossil was just one example out of many, which disproved your point about there being no transitional fossils. If you want to find evidence for or against a particular transition, specify that one and research it.

I'm not finding much on a bias from National Geographic, and what I can find seems to be claims of bias in their stories on the Middle East. As for the Smithsonian Institute, it's a government-funded educational nonprofit organization. For the purposes of this debate, no one here is qualified to dispute anything said by the Smithsonian.

Now, for quite a while you've been asserting a Demanding of Negative Proof fallacy; you've spent quite a lot of time and effort trying (and, so far, not really succeeding, in my opinion) to poke holes in evolution, abiogenesis, and the like, but you've yet to really provide much in the way of proof for your side of the argument. I'd like to see something from your end, with a few qualifiers:
1. It should be adequately documented and researched. Many eyewitness accounts, and full-motion video if available. Try and keep it modern; anything from the Bible is too old to be really confirmable. Also, it should be supported by one or more unbiased sources (if it's a .org or .com, look again).
2. It needs to show proof supporting the existence of God. Just because scientists (either at the time or now) can't explain it doesn't mean they never will.


Ok I'll clean this up for you a bit, with color/number coding.

#1 For the qualifying rules should definately be revamped. Apparently anything past 2000 years old is too old to be verified? Ok so we can't verify evolution either then because it supposedly occurs slowly over millions of years. Evidence is apparently automatically biased if the site is a .com or .org. National Geographic must be biased then, because indeed it ends with a .com.

For your 2nd rule, you need to take some of your own medicine. So apparently if I don't have an answer to something, I can just say well we will find proof with time. Awesome...

Blue: Gay rights laws affect the politics of people accross America. Gay rights groups affect many bills, and bring up a constitutionality question with many long standing laws and policies. It is unfair and quite idiotic of you to assume that in no way do these laws, or bills affect me. It affects my state (Indiana) as we typically vote Republican (although in 2008 we voted Democratic). You are seen as a "gay-loving baby killer" if you are a Democrat. So it definately affects the way we do politics and who gets into office.

Green: The lemur fossil like many fossils that have been supposed at the missing link, has a unique characteristic. It has special opposable thumbs a more human like, so scientists assume things. They assume she (Ida) is a direct descendant of humans. It could in no way shape or form be another lemur, or perhaps a new lemur, it has to be more than that. It is most definately a direct descendant of man. 'She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line,' he said. But he, like the other researchers, is still not certain. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1DgCm6heJ

He had an impression, so without any further research people will take it as a fact. Another thing I must point out is that, while most lemurs have forward facing eyes, she uniquely had opposable thumbs. Ida was then classified as she is a new species. She was named Darwinius masillae, to mark the bicentenary of Charles Darwin's birth. Ok so what you found is a new species of lemur. This isn't a regular lemur that evolved into opposable thumbs. Researchers found a COMPLETELY NEW species of lemur. This isn't some half human half lemur spectacle. Everything else about this lemur (That she is the missing link) is all spectulation. For example:

In the Guardian piece, based on an interview for Atlantic Productions, Sir David finished: 'Ida is a link between the apes, monkeys and us with the rest of the mammals and ultimately the whole animal kingdom. I think Darwin would have been thrilled.'

But others are more cautious.

Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the use of the term 'missing link' was misleading.

And Dr Chris Beard, of America's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said: 'I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.'

Scientists are very misleading in the information they display, and the information they withhold.

In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[4][5] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".

I have to go to class now, and I will update this when I get back. Happy reading for now.

__________________
Wolff wrote:
n00b 4 m1nin wrote:
I know a jewish guy, everyone teases him about playing the game Dradel, because they think it's Jewish Beyblades.


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day
Jeroen wrote:
Pff, I see your rooster and I raise you a parrot


Top
 Profile
 

 Post subject: Re: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answe
PostPosted: February 12th, 2011, 5:31 am 
It's tough, but I play.
Board & Chat Moderator
Board & Chat Moderator
User avatar

Joined: August 18th, 2003, 5:47 pm
Posts: 7,995
Status: Offline

Donor: Guardian (2010)
I keep reading "scientists assume" in all of your posts.

Scientists are at least performing research.

Last I checked Christians assume the bible is true but have no way of proving it. As you've stated yourself the only reason you believe it is because you want to believe it. On that note I don't think you can really knock on scientists for not being able to prove that this or that was a prelude to humans.

This is going back and forth so I'll just bring in this small little note. If there's no evolution of species through natural selection and/or breeding then how do you explain the species that have appeared throughout the last few hundred years that humanity has indeed observed the creation of. Such as the liger, a new species that came from two different species breeding together. We've also seen new breeds of dogs and cats come to be through the breeding process as well. According to you this can't happen because evolution is just a myth.

__________________
ImageIt's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!


Top
 Profile
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 14
 [ 262 posts ] 
Go to page: « Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next »  Page:

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
The Village and this web site are © 2002-2012

ThePub 2.0 - Designed by Goten & Jackstick. Coded by Glodenox & Henner.
With many thanks to the Website Team!