<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> HAHA You think God cannot lie? He's only limited by truth? Let me ask you this. If God promise unconditional love for all his children, why does he require you and everyone to follow his rules in order to be with him in Heaven? Unconditional means without condition. However that's not true. He set a condition that is to get his love is for you not to sin, or else, face eternal damnation in hell. In other words, God LIED to you. And if you still thinks he loves u even if he sends you to hell. HAHAH what a misguided idea of love that is. Again if you want to know whether God lied or not, just ask your mom. God promised her a beautiful child, and she bore your ugly ass. HAHAHHAA Damn, I'm too good. The Great Juggernaut has spoken!!!! [/b][/quote] You sir, are an idiot. I once thought you were atomicdogg, I now think that you are Mr Blue....he shares the same sort of mentally depraved humour. In any event you are someone's alias (created for this topic only) and not to be taken seriously. Show me ONE scripture, smart guy, where God said that he promised ALL PEOPLE (his children or not) unconditional love. Just ONE...that's all I'm asking for. Until then....shut up and crawl back into your hole. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> HAHA You think God cannot lie? He's only limited by truth? Let me ask you this. If God promise unconditional love for all his children, why does he require you and everyone to follow his rules in order to be with him in Heaven? Unconditional means without condition. However that's not true. He set a condition that is to get his love is for you not to sin, or else, face eternal damnation in hell. In other words, God LIED to you. And if you still thinks he loves u even if he sends you to hell. HAHAH what a misguided idea of love that is. Again if you want to know whether God lied or not, just ask your mom. God promised her a beautiful child, and she bore your ugly ass. HAHAHHAA Damn, I'm too good. The Great Juggernaut has spoken!!!! [/b][/quote] You sir, are an idiot. I once thought you were atomicdogg, I now think that you are Mr Blue....he shares the same sort of mentally depraved humour. In any event you are someone's alias (created for this topic only) and not to be taken seriously. Show me ONE scripture, smart guy, where God said that he promised ALL PEOPLE (his children or not) unconditional love. Just ONE...that's all I'm asking for. Until then....shut up and crawl back into your hole. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] Resort to name calling now? HAHAHA If you can't handle the debate, don't start it. I am not a christian so I don't own a bible. If you want to know the verses, just go to some christain site and ask him. Then come back and eat some crow. Btw, you ignored convenietly one of my post in response to your "God is not the author of CONFUSION" Please respond to that and see if you have any comback, besides childish name calling. HAHAHA Damn, this is getting easier by the minute. The Great Juggernaut has spoken!!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> One question... Did man and Dinosaur live together? If so, why didn't cave writings have them in their images. Did dinosaurs live 8000 years ago and were they the original lifeform? SLY, WILL YOU AVOID THIS? This is not an athiest speking. I believe without doubt but your theory is comical. [/b][/quote] I don't avoid anything :huh: (and I AM going to Adress Atmoicdogg's reference when I have time). I believe that Dinosaurs existed before man, there may have been an overlap, but really my impression from reading the Bible as well as science is that they existed before man, was destroyed by God (through a meteor impact or whatever), and then man was created. Based on certain things that I read in the Bible I actually believe that Dinosaurs may have been intelligent...like a civilization...but THAT is for another discussion. Which of my theories do you find comical? Creation as opposed to Evolution, Bible as opposed to no Bible, Young Earth as opposed to Old Earth? Which ever one...please give me a detailed analysis to the contrary. Otherwise shut up! :teh angry: J/K The Sly One has Spoken!![/b][/quote] Detailed??? Like your answer. Au contraire. When did they live? How long was that period? Where's YOUR proof when you put out these answers. As for comical, yes. Speaking of God is terrific. When it becomes as if you hear no other answers that contradict your own...you become the site cult leader. A zealot. Even those who believe, are wrong (such as myself and others). You have tons of answers, yet as people who believe in science also, no proof. I'm nt saying your 'arguments' are not intelligent. But they are also myopic. You're as blinded as the scientist you argue your points against. Even here, you act as you think your a prophet. THE SLY ONE HAS SPOKEN :YeahRight: Where, from behind the burning bush? You can keep this going but unless you speak to, rather than PREACH AT, you will not convince anyone. Actually you'll keep up the stereotype of obtuse, narrow-minded religious fanatics. You will never have all the answers (though you seem to have them all :YeahRight: ...GOD???) as will the non believers. God will speak to all of us. It's only up to us if we listen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> address the link i posted you coward [/b][/quote] Sly is quickly losing ground. He is ignoring our posts. The jesusfreak is swimming in deep waters. HAHA
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I KOed you the last time..... [/b][/quote] Only thing you KO'ed was your credibility homey.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> HAHA You think God cannot lie? He's only limited by truth? Let me ask you this. If God promise unconditional love for all his children, why does he require you and everyone to follow his rules in order to be with him in Heaven? Unconditional means without condition. However that's not true. He set a condition that is to get his love is for you not to sin, or else, face eternal damnation in hell. In other words, God LIED to you. And if you still thinks he loves u even if he sends you to hell. HAHAH what a misguided idea of love that is. Again if you want to know whether God lied or not, just ask your mom. God promised her a beautiful child, and she bore your ugly ass. HAHAHHAA Damn, I'm too good. The Great Juggernaut has spoken!!!! [/b][/quote] You sir, are an idiot. I once thought you were atomicdogg, I now think that you are Mr Blue....he shares the same sort of mentally depraved humour. In any event you are someone's alias (created for this topic only) and not to be taken seriously. Show me ONE scripture, smart guy, where God said that he promised ALL PEOPLE (his children or not) unconditional love. Just ONE...that's all I'm asking for. Until then....shut up and crawl back into your hole. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] God has changed his mind at least according to Bible. First he promised to love people. Then they did not do what he hoped for so he decided "what the fuck, let's waste them all" and drowned everybody but Noak and his family. Afterwards he regretted and promised again to love everybody. Hopefully the man doesn't lose his mind again This sounds peculiar btw. I mean shouldn't God have known what was going to happen when he created people for the first time? Did he screw up so he wasted them all and started over? Was he pissed because people were so bad so he wanted to get a revenge, does God know what forgiveness means? Did he know all the time that he would eventually kill them all? If so, is God a sadist?
I'd like Sly to read atomicdoggs link and REPLY TO WHAT SLICE N DICE JUST POSTED. I'm not picking on you, but there are important points you need to address.
Sly, why would I need to create an alias to tell you off. I've always been one of the most outspoken people here. I lost interest in this thread the moment it had started. It's like you have NO MEMORY of what happened last time. This is a replay of those events. You're getting made to look like a fool and a zealot once again. Ignoring what you can't answer and repeating the same old lines. You should appear on this thread with a little parrot on you shoulder screaming "EVOLUTION IS ILLOGICAL!" I already know your response to me is to tell me that I haven't countered anything you've said. I never even tried to. Mainly because I don't give a fuck. I not only disagree with everything you say but I also see you as longwinded and boring. I read about five lines from each post and lose interest. I have my own beliefs about religion and they are firm beliefs. I don't need to get into a discussion with people who think we can talk to snakes and part rivers and have angels watching over us. I just don't see any advantage in it for me at all. PS- Did you give your god my message I left for him?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> As illogical as a virgin giving birth? [/b][/quote] That is NOT illogical. If we believe in a creator, which is the only conclusion to the existence of the universe, then this creator could EASILY create an egg and a sperm, cause fertilization and thusly an embryo inside a virgins womb. EASILY. I don't see what's so illogical about it. it's no more illogical than life being created in the first place where there was no life before. You see...THIS is a prime example of the hypocrisy of athiests. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] Didn't we just figure out how to do that ourselves ??? When we were united ... "Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all ..... why now there is nothing that they do that is unatainable to them." Gen 11:6 Just in this last generation have we truly begun to work together in science between all nations and nationalities without language barriers and thus are on the verge of creating life ourselves. We are now able to make a virgin concieve through in vitro fertilization ....... is it so hard to believe a much more advanced being could do this 2004 years ago ?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I'd like Sly to read atomicdoggs link and REPLY TO WHAT SLICE N DICE JUST POSTED. I'm not picking on you, but there are important points you need to address. [/b][/quote] Will do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> As illogical as a virgin giving birth? [/b][/quote] That is NOT illogical. If we believe in a creator, which is the only conclusion to the existence of the universe, then this creator could EASILY create an egg and a sperm, cause fertilization and thusly an embryo inside a virgins womb. EASILY. I don't see what's so illogical about it. it's no more illogical than life being created in the first place where there was no life before. You see...THIS is a prime example of the hypocrisy of athiests. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] Didn't we just figure out how to do that ourselves ??? When we were united ... "Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all ..... why now there is nothing that they do that is unatainable to them." Gen 11:6 Just in this last generation have we truly begun to work together in science between all nations and nationalities without language barriers and thus are on the verge of creating life ourselves. We are now able to make a virgin concieve through in vitro fertilization ....... is it so hard to believe a much more advanced being could do this 2004 years ago ? [/b][/quote] exactly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I consider islam the most important religion because it confirms that god of the bible and of the old testament and god wrote the quran and sent muhammad as his LAST messenger. Since Muhammad was his LAST Messenger i think islam is the more signifigant then christianity and christians shuld read and cherish the quran because we have the same god. I think islam clears alot of awnsers about religion and it clears some inaccuracies about the bible. For example muhammad said that people had changed the bible and reinterpreted it for thier own cruel reasons. Muhammad also cleared the fact that Jesus is NOT god's son. He was a prophet but god has no children. Jews also do not believe Jesus was god's son. Therfore I think you guys should go out and read the quran and you are all welcomed to convert with open arms. [/b][/quote] The Quran is invalid because it was written in the 6th century AD and claimed that God is a custodian of his word: nothing written previously was lost or corrupted and that the quran tself is no more important than any previous revelation and those (muslims) who claim that it is will go to hell for "shirk". The quran talks about "the people of the book" (Christians) and implies heavily that "the book" (Torah, Ingil (bible)) wasn't corrupted at that time. The quran PRAISES the book and the people of the book, in fact. However historically the Bible is the same today (in the Greek and hebrew) than it was at that time. Muhammad came AFTER the council of nicea (386) yet the quran says that the "book" was as valid a revelation as the book. So the quran has problems since it conflicts with "the book". If the book is wrong then the quran lied about the fact that God is a guardian of all his revelations and if the book is right...the quran is wrong. Either way the quran is in big trouble. So some things to consider and with that I'm.... ntome: [/b][/quote] All of what you said is false. Read up on Islam before you write stuff like that.
Also as far as the conflict of religion and science. The Quran says that life originated in water, and supports evolution through many of its passages.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> First off, I need to correct you, I'm not an atheist, I believe in a higher force of some sort, just not as depicted in organised religions. If you're going to accept virgins giving birth before the invention of artifitial insemination, five thousand people being fed by a couple of loaves of bread, men being risen from the dead as LOGICAL. Then I can't see how you can deny evolution when there is more REASONING behind it. For example, a chimpanzee's DNA is 98% identical to our own, is that mere coincidence? They share certain characteristics with us too, and bonobo chimps are able to interpret and communicate with humans through computers and symbol boards. Even in other species of animal evolution has occured, they found the remains of a "super-crocodile" which fed on LARGE dinosaurs and was 5 times bigger than a normal crocodile, they became extinct along with the extinction of dinosaurs, but crocodiles are still around today, only smaller, could it be they evolved that way over time to accomodate smaller prey? You say the earth is only THOUSANDS of years old, but as was mentioned before (I think), the moon has suffered MANY meteor impacts throughout its history, over millions of years, the gulf of Mexico IS a meteor impact, and is said to be the one which killed the dinosaurs, and it's CLEARLY more than a few thousand years old. You need to define your version of logic, because you're taking conventional logic and dismissing it, while trying to make the illogical logical. [/b][/quote] I'm assuming that this is one of the posts that cdogg, a man that is firmly a self professed athiest and has IGNORED all of my points to the contrary, wants me to address. Herein lies the MAIN contradiction in this post. YOU claim that you believe in a higher power (FIRST sentence) then you imply that "virgins giving birth before the invention of artifitial insemination, five thousand people being fed by a couple of loaves of bread, men being risen from the dead..." are Illogical. Excuse me for a second....if you believe in a higher power, presumably the one who created all things in the first place and who is FAR MORE powerful than humans...WHY would then above be difficult for you to comprehend? :wacko: There is no reasoning behind evolution, per se. In the beginning the concept was created to try to explain the existence of mankind (and other things) without the existence of a creator. It was reasoned then that if men suddenly started...just like that....there would HAVE to be a creator. So to GET AROUND THIS...the concept of men having gggggrrraaadually evolved from primitive single celled organisms was initiated. NOW... these examples: "For example, a chimpanzee's DNA is 98% identical to our own, is that mere coincidence? They share certain characteristics with us too, and bonobo chimps are able to interpret and communicate with humans through computers and symbol boards. Even in other species of animal evolution has occured, they found the remains of a "super-crocodile" which fed on LARGE dinosaurs and was 5 times bigger than a normal crocodile, they became extinct along with the extinction of dinosaurs, but crocodiles are still around today, only smaller, could it be they evolved that way over time to accomodate smaller prey?" These are NO EVIDENCE of evolution...IF evolution wasn't the premise. Think about it. If the concept of evolution wasn't first created and the ASSUMPTION thereof....there are many other explanations for the above. I have gone over this already in this very topic so I am not going to repeat it again (unless you can't find it). So WHAT if Chimps are close to men in DNA? So God created an animal that was similar to a man in many ways!! So WHAT if there was a superduper croc? It went out of existence many years ago the way chettahs and Tigers look like they are going eventually. NO EVIDENCE of evolution, my friend UNLESS evolution is the first premise and the ASSUMPION thereof. I've dealt with you last paragraph before....but I deal with it again, if I must...*sigh* in another post. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly, this guy shits all over you - the ill mannered barbarian called adogg http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html [/b][/quote] [I'm reading this now]
Wow....this may take sometime. :shaneUD12Oscar: In any event I have read this stuff before, and with everything else, there are assumptions and blind faith somewhere in their. There is also contrary opinions. I could post MNAY liks with lots of scientifc evidence that supports a YOUNG EARTH, but the "old earthers" present would simply dismiss them. So where do we go from here? :wacko: The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> If the universe has always been here that would mean we can regress backwards to infinity (because we had to traverse all the previous time to get to the present) but we know this is impossible just like it's impossible to start counting and count to infinity. [/b][/quote] black it sounds like you're stating one of zeno's fallacious paradoxes. First, your analogy doesn't hold. you make analogy between: (1) the infinitely existing universe. (2) a person starting to count, and counting to infinity. the disanalogy is that (2) has a start, but (1) doesn't. Second, even if your analogy did hold, why can't a person start counting and count to infinity? all they have to do is start couting, and never stop counting. of course there'll never be a point when the counter actually gets to infinity, like "one million trillion, one million trillion and one, ... infinity!", but that doesn't establish anything, 'cos infinity isn't like numbers
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Also as far as the conflict of religion and science. The Quran says that life originated in water, and supports evolution through many of its passages. [/b][/quote] The quran has some good scientific information but it has many contradictions and many things that are FAR from scientific as well.
Dear Atheists, Please don't take Sly as representative of all religious people. Plenty of religious people won't bother attempting a scientific defence of their beliefs, and believe instead that scientific claims and religious claims are irrelevant to each other. They say that, whatever the origins of the universe and mankind, whether the origins were conscious or non-conscious, humans still largely require spiritual meaning in their lives. Science is absolutely great, but possessing scientific knowledge isn't usually enough to bring you ultimate satisfaction in your life. We need some sort of ethics at least, some sort of beliefs without scientific basis. One minister I spoke to told me simple as this: if religious teachings weren't important, then why are they so beneficial to one's life? He had had lots of depression in his life, but then he became religious (not in Sly's sense, with the talk of 'young Earth', and actually believing in a virgin birth), and once he became religious he became happy. The moral and spiritual teachings of religion gave his life greater happiness than he'd ever had before. He didn't bother with the bits of the Bible which seem to contradict scientific evidence. (Of course it could equally be any religion, not just Chrisitanity.) If Moses (the real Moses, not the fictitious miracle-worker of myth) or Mohammed were alive today, after seeing all the scientific evidence that scientists have discovered today, I bet they'd both agree with scientists about the origins of the universe and mankind. Yet I'm sure these scientific claims wouldn't cause them to drop their religions. They'd carry on trying to follow God's spiritual and moral guidelines. Religion isn't contradicted by scientists' scientific claims. It's only scientific claims motivated by religion (like Sly's) which are contradicted by scientists' scientific claims. The substance of religion is the ethical side. It's no surprise that the writers of religious texts had untrue beliefs about cosmology and anthropology - they were writing centuries ago. But just because their cosmological/anthropological assumptions have been refuted, this bears no importance on how we regard their moral teachings. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Yours sincerely, Rooster
rooster, the theories of the fallible scientists are your religion. That much is clear from your hypocritical post. The Sly One has Spoken!!
the scientific theories of scientists aren't my religion. i take absolutely no moral sustenance from them - it's impossible to take moral sustenance from them, because science makes no moral claims. i am religious, i read the bible, i go to church. i get my religion from religion. please please please try to tell me where my post is hypocritical.
Some people here seem to confuse natural selection and random mutation with "evolution." Although these two premises are important to the Theory of Evolution as advanced by Darwin, they do not on their own "prove" evolution. Therefore, a very big croc that died thousand of years ago and which happens to be a relative of today's crocodiles, does not "prove" evolution. It only "proves" random mutation, and natural selection and that's it.
Sly, whatever the truth is about cosmology and human origin, it doesn't tell us how to live. To decide how to live we have to make the decisions ourselves.
Rooster and others, I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, contrary to popular opinion. In fact I believe that spirituality in many senses is a HIGHER form of science. The God that I believe in is the ULTIMATE scientist. I love astromomy (ask me ANYTHING about the universe), biology, chemistry. In fact I'm highly qualified in science and enjoy the human pursuit of science. I believe that science leads to understanding God and I wouldn't be surprised to find out one day soon, that ALL scientists will unanimously come to the conclusion that THERE MUST BE A GOD. I just believe that there are certain aspects of modern science (eg quantum physics and evolution) that are CREATED in the attempt to try to disprove a creator and are actually built upon the wrong premise...thusly not truly scientific. Science is good, and true science doesn't conflict with the Bible. For example....the Bible says "let every seed bring forth after its kind". In SCIENCE we see that apple seeds produce apples, mangos produce mangos...fishes produce fishes, chimps produce chimps and humans produce...HUMANS!! This SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is empirical (unlike Evolutionary THEORY) and is backed up by the Bible and SUGGESTS CREATION. No evidence that humans were generated by something that wasn't human, no testable evidence...no evidence of any kind...JUST ASSUMPION. That's not REAL science. Just ONE example of many! The Sly one has Spoken!!
Oh, and I know this thread is about God, not Evolution, but I just wanted to add my two cents in this matter because I see a lot of enthusiastic people "challenging" Sly wih all kinds of questions but some of them do not seem to be too well versed on the very notions they use to defy the concept of the existence of God.
The jury has been out for centuries and is still out on who the biggest illiusionist and con person is between the believer and scientist. Both in their dogmatic, deluded world foolishly and pompously think they own the truth and justification to postulate on the genesis and end of life. Unbridled balderdash, amusing though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> If the universe has always been here that would mean we can regress backwards to infinity (because we had to traverse all the previous time to get to the present) but we know this is impossible just like it's impossible to start counting and count to infinity. [/b][/quote] black it sounds like you're stating one of zeno's fallacious paradoxes. First, your analogy doesn't hold. you make analogy between: (1) the infinitely existing universe. (2) a person starting to count, and counting to infinity. the disanalogy is that (2) has a start, but (1) doesn't. Second, even if your analogy did hold, why can't a person start counting and count to infinity? all they have to do is start couting, and never stop counting. of course there'll never be a point when the counter actually gets to infinity, like "one million trillion, one million trillion and one, ... infinity!", but that doesn't establish anything, 'cos infinity isn't like numbers [/b][/quote] Rooster, that was the point. It doesn't hold, using something we understand (numbers, sequences of events, whatever) it was shown that since we have a starting point (which is all we need to count or traverse something) we haven't counted to infinity (the universe hasn't always existed). The only other alternative is that it started sometime in the past. I guess in short I'm saying that if you claim that the universe has always existed you're saying the second because we have a starting point in the present but yes you're correct in that this doesn't hold, we're left with the conclusion that the universe began to exist at some point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Wow....this may take sometime. :shaneUD12Oscar: In any event I have read this stuff before, and with everything else, there are assumptions and blind faith somewhere in their. There is also contrary opinions. I could post MNAY liks with lots of scientifc evidence that supports a YOUNG EARTH, but the "old earthers" present would simply dismiss them. So where do we go from here? :wacko: The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] no shit, its long, you expect him to explain it in 3 sentences like you do? he easily could have said, "these arent fallible, trust me i know" much like you do assumptions and blind faith?? you MUST be referring to your own opinions, because you def aren't talking about anything the guy said in that paper please, id love to see some SCIENTIFIC information that supports a young earth, id absolutely love to see what scientist/zealot came up with that shit the guy who wrote that article (PhD in physics, minor in geo) is a believer i think, so hes def no atheist, hes just trying to educate christian fools like yourself (not his words, mine )
