<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience... [/b][/quote] That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote] sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote] That's a simplistic way to look at it... IMO it's ok to take the bible literally (but I'm a bible believing Christian) you just have to take it literally in the language it was written in. Most of the inaccuracies & misunderstandings come from the translation to other languages. [/b][/quote] simplistic?? muthafucka ill kill you!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience... [/b][/quote] That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote] sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote] That's a simplistic way to look at it... IMO it's ok to take the bible literally (but I'm a bible believing Christian) you just have to take it literally in the language it was written in. Most of the inaccuracies & misunderstandings come from the translation to other languages. [/b][/quote] simplistic?? muthafucka ill kill you!! [/b][/quote] :shaneUD12Oscar: ntome:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote] This is the problem. If science suddenly said that the Earth is actually only thousands of years old (which is possible since scientists change their minds all the time) YOU would suddenly start interpreting the Bible differently. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote] I am no more a fanatic than your are. I have a belief and I have communicated it with you and you disagree. Difference is that I have sound logic and arguments based on actual research and facts...you just disagree because you want to. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> which is possible since scientists change their minds all the time [/b][/quote] again we disagree, sure almost anything's possible but it's as improbable as some of the scenarios you described earlier in response to rooster's comments... but in a sense you're correct in that if a proven scientific FACT (the evolution of man is not a proven fact by the way) surfaces that has no conflict with the bible (which is true) why would I disregard the scientific fact? In that sense I believe CORRECT science (facts) & the bible will always agree, sly you more than anyone should see why. here is the difference between the scientific method (not necessarily "science") & young earth creation "science": the scientific method doesn't start with an assumption, it just attempts to find out what is young earth creation "science" starts with the assumption that the earth MUST be very young because (we think) the bible says so... therefore we must show using science why this is so... the former is a much more honest approach to finding out the truth
Whether God exists or not, a literal interpretation of the Bible is about as simple-minded as it gets. And if God does exist, it's certainly nothing like what's described in the bible. Believe that.
In a debate at Oxford one time, Thomas Huxley is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge. Huxley believed that life was created by chance, just as Darwin had suggested and, life being a chance ocurrance Divine intervention had nothing to do with it. Of course, not all atheists use this argument, and not everybody who supports Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an atheist, but this interpretation accurately represents the darwininan proposition that with enough time and enough solar systems, after much trial and error, eventually we will all land here. It could be described as an inevitable fate of nature. In some ways, it is a deterministic approach to explaining life. Trying to imagine the beginning of all things that surround us has been a task that has ocuppied man since the dawn of time. There has never been a philosopher who has not tried to broach the subject in one way or another. But the belief that matter is eternal, and that life is inevitable, has always struck me as rather implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any sort of intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have some kind of a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism. The theist position has its challenges, too. For those who advance the idea of a just God, creator of the whole universe, and Answer to all our prayers, they also have to deal with many observable, uncomfortable facts. Life is often unfair, random, brutal, and painful. How could a God of Mercy create such a world of injustice and miseries? But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism, either. For instance, let's look at the existence of design and intelligence in all the things that are relative to life. The belief that Stravinsky's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare, or President Bush. (Shut up.) No matter how you look at it, the finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets known and unknown to man would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone the Sermon of the Mountain, or a Shakespearean play. But if you want proof, let's look at the experiment just reported by an English University in which it is clearly proved that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant for the case, no matter how hard these monkeys type. Psalm 23, or let alone, The Bible, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing to begin with, that's why. According to a news report from a few years back, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Then, the scientists waited to see what happened. If they had asked Joebazooka, I would have told them what would happen. But they didn't ask me. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and masturbate. Sometimes they also dangled from the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and shat on it. Thank you. To the amazement of the atheists at hand, the monkyes didn't write Hamlet. But of course, the instructors hastened to note that the study was not really scientific, considering the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, and the fact that the damned animals were constantly unplugging the computer so, if Hamlet had been written by one of the simians while the computer was unplugged, unfortunately it could conceivably have been lost to the ages. Of course, if they had asked me, I would have told them. Some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of the theistic view that "enough monkeys for enough time" argument ain't hold a candle to "God made it happen, and he happens to be American." As we all know, there are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in the Divine. Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator of everything created is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer. However, many people come to doubt the existence of a Divine Creator simply because so many powerful, influential intellectuals are atheists. It is also necessary to admit that God fearing people are usually viewed with barely held contempt by intellectuals who have the tendency to regard Jeovah or Allah on the same level as Santa. But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, who best explained the atheism which is easily found amongst many scientists. In his book "G-d and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. "How could this be?" wondered Mr. Jastrow. Well, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it because the Big Bang implied abeginning to the universe. And a beginning implies a Creator. And a Creator is not something many scientists are willing to believe in. From Jastrow's perspective then, many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs and especially to the non-existence of God. Their position is of a psychological or emotional nature not intellectual one, and that's why many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, enough time, and enough typewriters, one of them will eventually type out a Don Quixote and another one will be able to read it. But from my miserable, ignorant station in life, it seems to me that neither math nor science argues that all the crap that surrounds us came about randomly, by pure accident, and without Divine intervention. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief; it couldn't possibly be anything else. And it is a belief that perhaps we would better lay to rest beneath a large pile of monkey shit and pee as soon as the next random chance allows us to do so.
"Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and masturbate. Sometimes they also dangled from the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and shat on it. " OH MY GOD...FIGHTWORLD HAS BEEN USED IN AN EPERIMENT BY PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY!!! :shaneUD12Oscar: -M
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> again we disagree, sure almost anything's possible but it's as improbable as some of the scenarios you described earlier in response to rooster's comments... but in a sense you're correct in that if a proven scientific FACT (the evolution of man is not a proven fact by the way) surfaces that has no conflict with the bible (which is true) why would I disregard the scientific fact? In that sense I believe CORRECT science (facts) & the bible will always agree, sly you more than anyone should see why. here is the difference between the scientific method (not necessarily "science") & young earth creation "science": the scientific method doesn't start with an assumption, it just attempts to find out what is young earth creation "science" starts with the assumption that the earth MUST be very young because (we think) the bible says so... therefore we must show using science why this is so... the former is a much more honest approach to finding out the truth [/b][/quote] Actually Black it is the other way around. The scientists that try to use information to prove evolution and subsequently OLD EARTH are the ones that start with the assumption. Everything that is testable leads to creation as opposed to Evolution and young earth as opposed to Old Earth. I can assure you that my approach is honest because I was once an OLD Earth/evolution adventist. I started to see the obvious problems and the assumptions. I am one who wants to find the truth at all costs. I would not believe the Bible just because I'm supposed to. I've rejected many beliefs that I had when I was young and in teh search of the truth came to my present beliefs. I do not belive in "young earth" because the Bible suggests it. Furthermore I agree with you that the Bible can be argued to suggest an OLD earth. However, I believe it because it makes sense...simple and plain. I fear that your approach is the dishonest one. I fear that you simply want to MAKE the Bible resemble what the widely acceptable viewpoint is....so that you do not seem old fashioned or a "fanatic". Remember error is error even if 99% believe it and truth is truth even if one person believes it. I also believe that CORRECT scientific fact will ALWAYS agree with the Bible...my point of contention is that you are taking THEORIES and calling them facts. They are FAR from facts my friend. Keep an open mind. The Sly One has Spoken!!
Joe basooka I didn't read your entire post (too long for me) but it seemed rather interesting so I shall read it at a later date. In the meantime I did notice the "monkey/typewriter" thing and wanted to discuss this with everyone. Philosophically, if you take an infinite amount of Monkeys, Typewriters and time...eventually they will be able to type up the entire works of Shakespeare. The amount of time this will take, considering the amounts of cominations and permutaions is likely to be a number far bigger than anyone of us has ever conceived...but it would happen eventually in an eternity. As complex as the works of shakepeare is....life itself (even the most primitive type) is FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT! For life, with it's intelligent systems, digestive system, reproductive system, nervous system...etc to have begun...from where there was NO LIFE BEFORE....let's forget for a moment that it is impossible (which it is) and let's pretend that it could have happened by itself given enough time... ...do you realize how much time it would take for random events to eventually produce a life form that could eat, function have all of the processes required for survival and reproduction and live long enough to reproduce itself????? Think about it? It would take a number far bigger than any we have presently talked about. Forget 4 Billions years. That would be a second compared to how long it would take. For random processes to turn non living matter into an organic entity would take waaaaay beyong any number that we can conceive. Then add to that the INCREDIBLY slow process of evolution to arrive where we are today and you will realize that the 4 BILLIONS years that scientists are currently suggesting is not even long enough. :shaneUD12Oscar: You see, BLACK and others, these super intelligent scientists really didn't think this one through hard enough. They should have started with at least a thousand trillion years. That's probably what they'll try next..... :YeahRight: The Sly One has Spoken!!
sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I do not belive in "young earth" because the Bible suggests it. Furthermore I agree with you that the Bible can be argued to suggest an OLD earth. However, I believe it because it makes sense...simple and plain. [/b][/quote] I think this could go on forever, if this is really your stance I respect that... however I reserve the right to start this discussion up again when I get bored enough at work
Does God exist or not? here is the answer....WHO GIVES A FUCK!!!!? if he does cool..if he doesn't?? well you just spend your entire life afraid of going 2 hell....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> In a debate at Oxford one time, Thomas Huxley is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge. Huxley believed that life was created by chance, just as Darwin had suggested and, life being a chance ocurrance Divine intervention had nothing to do with it. Of course, not all atheists use this argument, and not everybody who supports Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an atheist, but this interpretation accurately represents the darwininan proposition that with enough time and enough solar systems, after much trial and error, eventually we will all land here. It could be described as an inevitable fate of nature. In some ways, it is a deterministic approach to explaining life. Trying to imagine the beginning of all things that surround us has been a task that has ocuppied man since the dawn of time. There has never been a philosopher who has not tried to broach the subject in one way or another. But the belief that matter is eternal, and that life is inevitable, has always struck me as rather implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any sort of intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have some kind of a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism. The theist position has its challenges, too. For those who advance the idea of a just God, creator of the whole universe, and Answer to all our prayers, they also have to deal with many observable, uncomfortable facts. Life is often unfair, random, brutal, and painful. How could a God of Mercy create such a world of injustice and miseries? But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism, either. For instance, let's look at the existence of design and intelligence in all the things that are relative to life. The belief that Stravinsky's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare, or President Bush. (Shut up.) No matter how you look at it, the finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets known and unknown to man would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone the Sermon of the Mountain, or a Shakespearean play. But if you want proof, let's look at the experiment just reported by an English University in which it is clearly proved that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant for the case, no matter how hard these monkeys type. Psalm 23, or let alone, The Bible, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing to begin with, that's why. According to a news report from a few years back, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Then, the scientists waited to see what happened. If they had asked Joebazooka, I would have told them what would happen. But they didn't ask me. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and masturbate. Sometimes they also dangled from the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and shat on it. Thank you. To the amazement of the atheists at hand, the monkyes didn't write Hamlet. But of course, the instructors hastened to note that the study was not really scientific, considering the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, and the fact that the damned animals were constantly unplugging the computer so, if Hamlet had been written by one of the simians while the computer was unplugged, unfortunately it could conceivably have been lost to the ages. Of course, if they had asked me, I would have told them. Some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of the theistic view that "enough monkeys for enough time" argument ain't hold a candle to "God made it happen, and he happens to be American." As we all know, there are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in the Divine. Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator of everything created is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer. However, many people come to doubt the existence of a Divine Creator simply because so many powerful, influential intellectuals are atheists. It is also necessary to admit that God fearing people are usually viewed with barely held contempt by intellectuals who have the tendency to regard Jeovah or Allah on the same level as Santa. But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, who best explained the atheism which is easily found amongst many scientists. In his book "G-d and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. "How could this be?" wondered Mr. Jastrow. Well, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it because the Big Bang implied abeginning to the universe. And a beginning implies a Creator. And a Creator is not something many scientists are willing to believe in. From Jastrow's perspective then, many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs and especially to the non-existence of God. Their position is of a psychological or emotional nature not intellectual one, and that's why many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, enough time, and enough typewriters, one of them will eventually type out a Don Quixote and another one will be able to read it. But from my miserable, ignorant station in life, it seems to me that neither math nor science argues that all the crap that surrounds us came about randomly, by pure accident, and without Divine intervention. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief; it couldn't possibly be anything else. And it is a belief that perhaps we would better lay to rest beneath a large pile of monkey shit and pee as soon as the next random chance allows us to do so. [/b][/quote] Good post!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think this could go on forever, if this is really your stance I respect that... however I reserve the right to start this discussion up again when I get bored enough at work [/b][/quote] Black you have to realistically consider the implications of a billion year old Earth. Considering what is happening to the Earth in our lifetime and in history and the time frames thereof (I wont give examples....just want you to think) what type of condition do you think the Earth would be in today if it were Billions of years old? What about the sun? What about the moon? Think about such things. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate [/b][/quote] I choose to ignore you....because of your vulgar manners! The Sly One has Spoken!!
Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate [/b][/quote] I choose to ignore you....because of your vulgar manners! The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] Ooh, dodgeball! Can I play?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years. [/b][/quote] Nope. That's where we disagree. Scientists would never think the Earth was that old unless they were working from an assumption. There is nothing about the planet that suggests that it is that old. Population, recorded human history, erosion of the continents....NOTHING. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years. [/b][/quote] Nope. That's where we disagree. Scientists would never think the Earth was that old unless they were working from an assumption. There is nothing about the planet that suggests that it is that old. Population, erosion of the continents....NOTHING. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] :shaneUD12Oscar: :shaneUD12Oscar: Oh...my...god. :( :( :( :( :( :( Nope. nothing at all...no continental drift, no ICE AGES THAT CREATED MASSIVE VALLEYS AND FJORDS AND...AND...*explodes* We are currently experiencing technical difficulties...please stand by
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I think this could go on forever, if this is really your stance I respect that... however I reserve the right to start this discussion up again when I get bored enough at work [/b][/quote] Black you have to realistically consider the implications of a billion year old Earth. Considering what is happening to the Earth in our lifetime and in history and the time frames thereof (I wont give examples....just want you to think) what type of condition do you think the Earth would be in today if it were Billions of years old? What about the sun? What about the moon? Think about such things. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] Uhm, about what they are? Just take a look at the moon and all the craters from asteroids crashing into it... how many asteroids have crashed into the moon in recorded human history? Because it has no atmosphere we can see what it looked like a loooong time ago... the same isn't true for earth, because of it's atmosphere (winds, soil erosion, rain etc) it wouldn't look the same b/c it repairs itself so to speak.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me make one last interjection, scientists are not sitting around conspiring against creation & trying to prove evolution. If there was no bible, just work with me on this, the age of the earth would still be determined to be much older than thousands of years. [/b][/quote] Nope. That's where we disagree. Scientists would never think the Earth was that old unless they were working from an assumption. There is nothing about the planet that suggests that it is that old. Population, erosion of the continents....NOTHING. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] :shaneUD12Oscar: :shaneUD12Oscar: Oh...my...god. :( :( :( :( :( :( Nope. nothing at all...no continental drift, no ICE AGES THAT CREATED MASSIVE VALLEYS AND FJORDS AND...AND...*explodes* We are currently experiencing technical difficulties...please stand by [/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :shaneUD12Oscar: :shaneUD12Oscar: Oh...my...god. :( :( :( :( :( :( Nope. nothing at all...no continental drift, no ICE AGES THAT CREATED MASSIVE VALLEYS AND FJORDS AND...AND...*explodes* We are currently experiencing technical difficulties...please stand by [/b][/quote] None of those things suggests Billions of years Marcy. Funny post btw.... The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> sly conveniently ignores the post where i posted a link to a guy that totally trashes his "young earth" ideal and how he thinks dating methods are inaccurate [/b][/quote] I choose to ignore you....because of your vulgar manners! The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] no no, dont get it twisted you choose to ignore the article because the guy absolutely tears your "argument" the fuck up
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is [/b][/quote] Believe.........don't ask questions, don't seek answers, just BELIEVE!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> i would like to hear more about how God just exists, didnt come from anywhere, just is [/b][/quote] Believe.........don't ask questions, don't seek answers, just BELIEVE!! [/b][/quote] wow, i never thought about it like that evolution is wack vote God '04
