PDA

View Full Version : Non-religious number growing?



pspstatus
04-14-2012, 05:02 PM
Ran across this article on Yahoo and thought I'd share.

For some reason the author seems to lump atheists and agnostics together. They're obviously quite different but I guess he put the two groups together because they both don't believe in organized religion.

http://news.yahoo.com/rise-atheism-america-110700315.html

steelers#1fan
04-14-2012, 05:21 PM
These aren't my words, but they are my beliefs. Another words known as Pascals Wager.

I would rather believe in God and Jesus Christ, and after death find out I was wrong, than to not believe in God, and make Jesus Christ Lord of my life, and after death, find out I was wrong!

Simply put: if there is a Heaven, and there is a Hell, and after death you will go to one of those forever, and everything the Bible and those “Christian Fanatics” said was true… finding out after I’m dead is too late to make a change.
I would rather be a Follower of Jesus Christ and be wrong, than to not be, and lose my soul in a Hell that I didn’t believe existed.

shrewsbury
04-14-2012, 06:09 PM
[QUOTE]I would rather be a Follower of Jesus Christ and be wrong, than to not be, and lose my soul in a Hell that I didn’t believe existed.[QUOTE]

but it don't work that way!!!

it's not a religion of convenience, it's not a back up plan.

i would think most christians realize how bad we are and know are chances are slim to get to heaven, we might burn in hell, but we still believe.

this is shown by the thoughts, acts, and writings of paul. it's not about making to heaven, it's about doing right while your here (very jewish like)

pspstatus
04-14-2012, 06:40 PM
If what drives you to believe in Jesus or God or whatever is the possibility of punishment after death, isn't that just kind of self serving?

habsheaven
04-14-2012, 06:55 PM
These aren't my words, but they are my beliefs. Another words known as Pascals Wager.

I would rather believe in God and Jesus Christ, and after death find out I was wrong, than to not believe in God, and make Jesus Christ Lord of my life, and after death, find out I was wrong!

Simply put: if there is a Heaven, and there is a Hell, and after death you will go to one of those forever, and everything the Bible and those “Christian Fanatics” said was true… finding out after I’m dead is too late to make a change.
I would rather be a Follower of Jesus Christ and be wrong, than to not be, and lose my soul in a Hell that I didn’t believe existed.

Luckily for you, you are never going to know that you are wrong. :D:

*censored*
04-14-2012, 10:25 PM
Pascal's Wager is a load of crap.

Fallacy One: It assumes that there is only one god which can be believed in, the Christian one. This is not true, since there are a plethora of gods that have been believed throughout the millennia. This would have to be applied to each and every one of those gods to be true, and this would clearly be impossible, due to the clashing natures of many of the said gods. Better jump on the Allah bandwagon while you're at it. And Vishnu. And Zeus. And the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwoki, who promises a pig and as many coconuts as you can carry.

Fallacy Two: It assumes that simply wagering on [the Christian] God will buy one entrance into Heaven. While this may be so, the Wager does not instill a belief, it instills an appearance of a belief. Since the god in question is presumed to be all-knowing, he would be able to tell a false from a true belief. Therefore, the belief from the Wager would not qualify should belief be the requirement for entrance into Heaven. Ain't no fooling Yahweh.

Fallacy Three: It creates a moral dilemma. You, by using this, are sending the most dedicated humanitarians, who just happen to not be Christian, to Hell, while you set a place in Heaven for those mass-murders who happen to be Christian. Since [the Christian] God is supposed to be a loving god, how then could he entertain the embodiment of hatred, yet turn away the embodiment of love? Do you believe Gandhi is burning in Hell as we speak? He wasn't Christian.

Fallacy Four: It ignores too many alternate possibilities - some of which are addressed by existing religions, and some which are not. Some examples: A God could reward on criteria which seem meaningless to us - hair colour, taste in clothes, music etc. or a God might not be concerned with humans at all - the universe could be here for hydrogen for all we know. Or God may even reward those who don't believe. I bet if God exists, he loves non-believers. Makes him think he did good with that whole "free will" thing.

Fallacy Five: It assumes any person is overly fearful of death to be worried about it being a conclusion to their life.

Fallacy Six: It assumes that a belief in God is all that is needed, when many Christians would disagree and would suggest that there are "guidelines" that you should live by (and that God requires you to live by if your belief is sincere). If these guidelines require a change on your part (for example: No sex before marriage, no smoking, denying you are a homosexual, not marrying a non-Christian, etc.), then it could be argued that you have lost something if the Christian God turns out to not exist. Granted, that's protestantism in a nutshell: justification by faith alone. At least the Catholics believe in justification by faith shown via works.

(Mostly) taken from http://arc-t.org/arc-tiquities/debates-pascal.html

habsheaven
04-14-2012, 11:06 PM
Or God may even reward those who don't believe. I bet if God exists, he loves non-believers. Makes him think he did good with that whole "free will" thing.

I'm betting on this little twist to set me up divinely when I croak.

duwal
04-16-2012, 01:19 AM
These aren't my words, but they are my beliefs. Another words known as Pascals Wager.

I would rather believe in God and Jesus Christ, and after death find out I was wrong, than to not believe in God, and make Jesus Christ Lord of my life, and after death, find out I was wrong!

Simply put: if there is a Heaven, and there is a Hell, and after death you will go to one of those forever, and everything the Bible and those “Christian Fanatics” said was true… finding out after I’m dead is too late to make a change.
I would rather be a Follower of Jesus Christ and be wrong, than to not be, and lose my soul in a Hell that I didn’t believe existed.


sound more like a dictator than a god. The fact that even with leading a life with a lot of meaning and goodness, that going about your life treating others well and with kindness, you will still be blocked from going to heaven just for the simple fact that you don't follow or listen or believe in him is absolute crap and sounds more like the tyrant that people say the devil is

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 09:40 AM
I was watching a richard dawkins doccumentary a few years ago and he bought up a point to the christians. What if when you die christanity turns out to be false and the greek god zues was the correct way to go? What if Zues then dams you to hell for following a false religion?

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 10:17 AM
I've never really understood Pascal's Wager as a justification to believing in a religion or anything for that matter. It almost seems degrading to that religion you are following, at least from my perspective. It seems to discount it. I also find it to be a rather easy answer as to why one would believe and one could come up with many different things to believe in based off of this theory. One could use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in anything really and I use the term "justify" very loosely as it really justifies nothing whatsoever.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 02:00 PM
Bottom line, I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. I'm also pretty confident that in walking the path less taken I'll have a spot in Heaven. I hope the folks on the board that haven't given their hearts to Christ also find that kind of comfort that I have in knowing that the God in Heaven is the only God. Why are people so intent on disproving that God exists than proving that he does!?

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 02:04 PM
Some people make a religion out of proving that God does not exist. Other people make it a religion into trying to prove that every religion except their own is false. None of that really matters. Bottom line is do what you feel in your heart is right by God and let him deal with everything else.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 02:16 PM
This is true....:):


Some people make a religion out of proving that God does not exist. Other people make it a religion into trying to prove that every religion except their own is false. None of that really matters. Bottom line is do what you feel in your heart is right by God and let him deal with everything else.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 02:20 PM
Bottom line, I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. I'm also pretty confident that in walking the path less taken I'll have a spot in Heaven. I hope the folks on the board that haven't given their hearts to Christ also find that kind of comfort that I have in knowing that the God in Heaven is the only God. Why are people so intent on disproving that God exists than proving that he does!?

Some people are perfectly comfortable without religion. I actually find it curious that more religious people don't experience more of the religions out there before deciding which one is for them or which one they believe to be "true". Typically religion is chosen simply by what you grow up in.

As far as intent on disproving that God exists or not... It's usually brought on by people using scripture from a religion to legislate to a society where not all of it's citizens believe the same things religiously. It's more of a defense to that then worrying about someone else's personal belief structure. I don't get the belief of religion, but have no problems with people believing in a religion. I just don't think it should govern a countries people as a whole.

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 02:53 PM
Some people are perfectly comfortable without religion. I actually find it curious that more religious people don't experience more of the religions out there before deciding which one is for them or which one they believe to be "true". Typically religion is chosen simply by what you grow up in.

As far as intent on disproving that God exists or not... It's usually brought on by people using scripture from a religion to legislate to a society where not all of it's citizens believe the same things religiously. It's more of a defense to that then worrying about someone else's personal belief structure. I don't get the belief of religion, but have no problems with people believing in a religion. I just don't think it should govern a countries people as a whole.

as most on here know, i am a youth minister. I had lunch last week with a guy who nearly all youth ministers in the country know and no one else would (he heads up a national youth ministers organization). One of the things we talked about was gay marriage.
Now, you won't find me rallying against gay marriage or condemning those who are homosexual. However, I also cannot vote against my moral beliefs so I will always vote against gay marriage. I guess my question is this. If I vote against gay marriage does that qualify as trying to control people based on my religious beliefs? I am actually curious. I understand the anger directed at those who hold rallies, and scream hatred at the tops of their lungs. But do non-religious people expect christians to vote for gay marriage?

on a second note, i think that used to be the case, but non-christians seem to have taken a much more offensive tract instead of merely defensive the last decade or so. Now, maybe it is cause and effect and the explanation is that the offensive path is in response to christians but I now constantly find myself defending christianity in a conversation that was started by the opponent of christianity and not by christians. just what I see.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 03:03 PM
I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.


Some people are perfectly comfortable without religion. I actually find it curious that more religious people don't experience more of the religions out there before deciding which one is for them or which one they believe to be "true". Typically religion is chosen simply by what you grow up in.

As far as intent on disproving that God exists or not... It's usually brought on by people using scripture from a religion to legislate to a society where not all of it's citizens believe the same things religiously. It's more of a defense to that then worrying about someone else's personal belief structure. I don't get the belief of religion, but have no problems with people believing in a religion. I just don't think it should govern a countries people as a whole.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 03:11 PM
I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.


Power corrupts regardless of religion. I judge a man/woman by his actions not because of his religion. That being said I prefer a diverse group of politicians who work for the betterment of society and can stand of their own when they have to make tought decisions and does not hide behind their religion.

habsheaven
04-16-2012, 03:16 PM
I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.

You govern it by a sense of what is RIGHT and WRONG. An individual (or society) does not need a religion to tell them what is right and what is wrong. We know it in our hearts and minds.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 03:28 PM
as most on here know, i am a youth minister. I had lunch last week with a guy who nearly all youth ministers in the country know and no one else would (he heads up a national youth ministers organization). One of the things we talked about was gay marriage.
Now, you won't find me rallying against gay marriage or condemning those who are homosexual. However, I also cannot vote against my moral beliefs so I will always vote against gay marriage. I guess my question is this. If I vote against gay marriage does that qualify as trying to control people based on my religious beliefs? I am actually curious. I understand the anger directed at those who hold rallies, and scream hatred at the tops of their lungs. But do non-religious people expect christians to vote for gay marriage?

on a second note, i think that used to be the case, but non-christians seem to have taken a much more offensive tract instead of merely defensive the last decade or so. Now, maybe it is cause and effect and the explanation is that the offensive path is in response to christians but I now constantly find myself defending christianity in a conversation that was started by the opponent of christianity and not by christians. just what I see.

I do see how one's religious beliefs make up their views on many things, but there is also a difference between not being okay with something due to religious beliefs and not allowing others to have the same rights in the eyes of a government when they have the right to not follow the same beliefs. Allowing gay marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone that isn't gay or doesn't approve of it because of their religious affiliation. I guess for me that is the major thing that is so confusing. Allowing the state to recognize gay marriage isn't forcing a religion to recognize it. They'd have the right to choose. Different religions have many different rules that people have to follow to have a marriage recognized by the religious institution. There are also many different rules for divorces, second marriages, and annulments. None of those rules have any bering on any marriage being recognized by the state. Also, if I go to the justice of the peace and get married that wouldn't be recognized by many churches, if any. That fact doesn't mean that those marriages should also be banned. I guess I don't see the difference. Straight marriage exists and is fine when done outside of the church so why wouldn't gay marriage be the same way? I know that marriage has a root in religious text, from what I've heard, but it has also been adopted by the state to have meaning outside of the religious umbrella.

As far as your direct question, I guess I would classify a vote against gay marriage as controlling people based on a religious belief. I feel that someone can be against something and still be able to let another group practice under their beliefs, especially when it doesn't infringe on another's right.


for the discussion about religion and attacking in general... I think it happens on both sides. I try to respect the beliefs of everyone but will admit that at times I become very annoyed when I hear people using religion as the template for how everyone should live. If someone wants to live a certain way, I have no issue with that, but I will also defend the right of anyone to choose not to live under that template. That said, I'd defend and have defended the rights of religious people being able to live by their individual beliefs.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 03:35 PM
I personally think if one is against a particular activity such as gay marriage one can abstain from voting on it but as far as someone using their religious views to vote to restrict peoples rights I have a problem with that.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 03:36 PM
I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.

By shear numbers, I'd assume most of those people who are corrupt in Washington believe in a christian god. I feel that being a decent human being can be achieved outside of religion all together. I'm an atheist and feel that I am a fairly moral person. I do things that some religions wouldn't consider moral, but so does everyone.

I personally don't think religion is all that successful in policing people and keeping them from corruption. I do believe that was and still is religion's original intend for the most part. I guess it does to some degree, but from history religion doesn't seem too successful in keeping people from falling to temptation.

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 03:37 PM
I do see how one's religious beliefs make up their views on many things, but there is also a difference between not being okay with something due to religious beliefs and not allowing others to have the same rights in the eyes of a government when they have the right to not follow the same beliefs. Allowing gay marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone that isn't gay or doesn't approve of it because of their religious affiliation. I guess for me that is the major thing that is so confusing. Allowing the state to recognize gay marriage isn't forcing a religion to recognize it. They'd have the right to choose. Different religions have many different rules that people have to follow to have a marriage recognized by the religious institution. There are also many different rules for divorces, second marriages, and annulments. None of those rules have any bering on any marriage being recognized by the state. Also, if I go to the justice of the peace and get married that wouldn't be recognized by many churches, if any. That fact doesn't mean that those marriages should also be banned. I guess I don't see the difference. Straight marriage exists and is fine when done outside of the church so why wouldn't gay marriage be the same way? I know that marriage has a root in religious text, from what I've heard, but it has also been adopted by the state to have meaning outside of the religious umbrella.

As far as your direct question, I guess I would classify a vote against gay marriage as controlling people based on a religious belief. I feel that someone can be against something and still be able to let another group practice under their beliefs, especially when it doesn't infringe on another's right.


for the discussion about religion and attacking in general... I think it happens on both sides. I try to respect the beliefs of everyone but will admit that at times I become very annoyed when I hear people using religion as the template for how everyone should live. If someone wants to live a certain way, I have no issue with that, but I will also defend the right of anyone to choose not to live under that template. That said, I'd defend and have defended the rights of religious people being able to live by their individual beliefs.

i understand your stance. i guess the bolded part is where i get hung up. asking me to vote in favor of gay marriage is effecting my religion and asking me to go against my religion. like I said, i understand your stance, but that is where i get stuck.
i have actually said before, i would stand aside for civil unions so that couples can receive the same insurance benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. But, the word marriage has become the sticking point and the overwhelming majority of gay marriage supporters don't want gay civil unions, they want gay marriage. it may seem small, but it isn't.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 03:46 PM
i understand your stance. i guess the bolded part is where i get hung up. asking me to vote in favor of gay marriage is effecting my religion and asking me to go against my religion. like I said, i understand your stance, but that is where i get stuck.
i have actually said before, i would stand aside for civil unions so that couples can receive the same insurance benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. But, the word marriage has become the sticking point and the overwhelming majority of gay marriage supporters don't want gay civil unions, they want gay marriage. it may seem small, but it isn't.


I understand and respect christians objections to gay marriages but it's just a word. Atheists, muslims, jews, satanists, etc get married and christians are against them as well but I never heard of any christian protesting their wedding. It's just a word. Nothing more nothing less.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 03:47 PM
So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?


You govern it by a sense of what is RIGHT and WRONG. An individual (or society) does not need a religion to tell them what is right and what is wrong. We know it in our hearts and minds.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 03:50 PM
So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?


If I can answer I don't vote on race, religion, hair color, or any other trivial matter. I don't believe that habs does either but habs feel free to chime in.

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 03:55 PM
If I can answer I don't vote on race, religion, hair color, or any other trivial matter. I don't believe that habs does either but habs feel free to chime in.

Lol

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 04:12 PM
i understand your stance. i guess the bolded part is where i get hung up. asking me to vote in favor of gay marriage is effecting my religion and asking me to go against my religion. like I said, i understand your stance, but that is where i get stuck.
i have actually said before, i would stand aside for civil unions so that couples can receive the same insurance benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. But, the word marriage has become the sticking point and the overwhelming majority of gay marriage supporters don't want gay civil unions, they want gay marriage. it may seem small, but it isn't.

I totally get that road block.

So for you the big hang up is with the term marriage, right? For me I don't really think of the religious side of the term being the primary definition even though it originated there from what is said. I don't feel that a proper solution to the gay marriage issue would be to have homosexuals have civil unions and straights continue to have marriages, but like to hear that your hang up is with the term rather than act, if I read your post correctly.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 04:17 PM
So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?

I'd say vote by a person's action. Just because a person says they are christian doesn't mean they are moral or no corrupt. I wouldn't base a vote by what a person said is his religion. It's easy to claim a religion and not act on it. Besides, christianity is all over the board as far as what rules to follow so how do you know anything about a person just by what religion they claim. There are plenty of complete snakes in politics who have claimed to be men of a faith.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 04:23 PM
Lol

are you saying that he votes by skin color as a major contributing factor? If he does and we're assuming he votes for people who have the same skin color as he does, he probably doesn't vote all that much. :)

habsheaven
04-16-2012, 04:23 PM
So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?

I read your questions and I have no idea where you are coming from.

You elect the people you think will perform the job best and run the country accordingly. It has nothing to do with religion.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 04:25 PM
vegg,answer this honestly; did you vote for Obama because he was black? If not, what made you vote for him?


If I can answer I don't vote on race, religion, hair color, or any other trivial matter. I don't believe that habs does either but habs feel free to chime in.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 04:33 PM
vegg,answer this honestly; did you vote for Obama because he was black? If not, what made you vote for him?


To be honest race played a small factor but it was not the deciding factor. I was sick of the republican war machine not to mention their wreckless spending and felt it was time for change. And remember if it were all about race I would be the biggest herman cain cheerleader since he would have been the first republican nominee. Unless of course you don't consider cain black either.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 04:34 PM
This could be true. Could be false prophets in sheeps clothing. Could be mostly Athiests. We'll trully never know.


By shear numbers, I'd assume most of those people who are corrupt in Washington believe in a christian god. I feel that being a decent human being can be achieved outside of religion all together. I'm an atheist and feel that I am a fairly moral person. I do things that some religions wouldn't consider moral, but so does everyone.

I personally don't think religion is all that successful in policing people and keeping them from corruption. I do believe that was and still is religion's original intend for the most part. I guess it does to some degree, but from history religion doesn't seem too successful in keeping people from falling to temptation.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 04:40 PM
This could be true. Could be false prophets in sheeps clothing. Could be mostly Athiests. We'll trully never know.

do you honestly think that the majority of federal politicians are atheists? I get your point that you never can tell, but that's pretty hilarious to even suggest that they could be mostly atheists.

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 04:43 PM
To be honest race played a small factor but it was not the deciding factor. I was sick of the republican war machine not to mention their wreckless spending and felt it was time for change. And remember if it were all about race I would be the biggest herman cain cheerleader since he would have been the first republican nominee. Unless of course you don't consider cain black either.

lol...the republicans and their reckless spending? i appreciate that. haven't laughed that hard in weeks. you seem to be the first one to support every penny obama has spent.

and no, you wouldn't vote for cain because you don't think he is black

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 04:50 PM
lol...the republicans and their reckless spending? i appreciate that. haven't laughed that hard in weeks. you seem to be the first one to support every penny obama has spent.

and no, you wouldn't vote for cain because you don't think he is black


Two usless wars, from a party that prides themselves in cutting gov't waste. Yeah that would count as reckless spending by the republicans.

pspstatus
04-16-2012, 04:50 PM
This could be true. Could be false prophets in sheeps clothing. Could be mostly Athiests. We'll trully never know.

Why is it so hard to believe Christians could be corrupt? Look back through history and you will find that religious institutions have been responsible for tremendous corruption.

habsheaven
04-16-2012, 04:56 PM
The problem is most "christians" take religion about as seriously as non-believers do.

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 05:00 PM
The problem is most "christians" take religion about as seriously as non-believers do.

ding ding ding...we have a winner!!!

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 05:01 PM
I never said they couldn't be.
Why is it so hard to believe Christians could be corrupt? Look back through history and you will find that religious institutions have been responsible for tremendous corruption.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 05:01 PM
The problem is most "christians" take religion about as seriously as non-believers do.


Post of the day. :party0053:

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 05:02 PM
Two usless wars, from a party that prides themselves in cutting gov't waste. Yeah that would count as reckless spending by the republicans.

i didn't say it wasn't. but you seem to only be against republican reckless spending and yet fully in support of democratic reckless spending. just curious as to the hypocrisy. and it should probably be 1 reckless war. the war in afghanistan is viewed by very few as a reckless war.

steelers#1fan
04-16-2012, 05:08 PM
Why would it be so hard to believe? You say you believe that most corruptness comes from the God believing Christians. Who's right who's wrong? Until you can prove otherwise, I guess we'll never know.

do you honestly think that the majority of federal politicians are atheists? I get your point that you never can tell, but that's pretty hilarious to even suggest that they could be mostly atheists.

mrveggieman
04-16-2012, 05:08 PM
i didn't say it wasn't. but you seem to only be against republican reckless spending and yet fully in support of democratic reckless spending. just curious as to the hypocrisy. and it should probably be 1 reckless war. the war in afghanistan is viewed by very few as a reckless war.


At first I was in support of the afgan war then I educated myself and found out it was just more propaganda and hot air but I will save that for another discussion that you are more than welcome to start. I am also in favor of less gov't spending in certian areas (military for example) but I know most republicans would sell out their own mother before they would cut wasteful military spending.

Star_Cards
04-16-2012, 05:29 PM
Why would it be so hard to believe? You say you believe that most corruptness comes from the God believing Christians. Who's right who's wrong? Until you can prove otherwise, I guess we'll never know.

seriously? it's common knowledge that the majority of people in the U.S. have some sort of christian belief in god. I did a quick search and found wikipedia saying that about 9% of americans could be said to not believe in god, with a smaller percentage defining themselves as atheists (not sure the difference). Sure, that's not polling every person, but not even close to being able to claim that the majority of politicians are atheists rather than ones with some sort of christian belief. You're kidding yourself to even speculate that most politicians could potentially be atheists.


also found this about U.S. religion breakdowns...

78.4% are christian based
12.1% unaffiliated
4.7% Non christian religions
2.4% agnostic
1.6 atheist
.8 refused to answer or didn't know.

Now, I have no clue if these are spot on stats, but there simply aren;t that many atheists in this country.

prezby97
04-16-2012, 05:59 PM
Two usless wars, from a party that prides themselves in cutting gov't waste. Yeah that would count as reckless spending by the republicans.

And Ron Paul is the answer! :party0053:

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 06:08 PM
seriously? it's common knowledge that the majority of people in the U.S. have some sort of christian belief in god. I did a quick search and found wikipedia saying that about 9% of americans could be said to not believe in god, with a smaller percentage defining themselves as atheists (not sure the difference). Sure, that's not polling every person, but not even close to being able to claim that the majority of politicians are atheists rather than ones with some sort of christian belief. You're kidding yourself to even speculate that most politicians could potentially be atheists.


also found this about U.S. religion breakdowns...

78.4% are christian based
12.1% unaffiliated
4.7% Non christian religions
2.4% agnostic
1.6 atheist
.8 refused to answer or didn't know.

Now, I have no clue if these are spot on stats, but there simply aren;t that many atheists in this country.

while i actually agree with most of what you are saying, i think the fact that most people find it politically expedient to to claim some level of faith probably skews the numbers. when you see polls that ask whether people attend religious services at least 3 times a year the number drops to between 55-60% (if I am remembering correctly.)

MadMan1978
04-16-2012, 09:10 PM
after wading through these comments...I find that most would view me worst or below a pagan...I will take My Taoism and walk away...

I do find it funny when people call them self a good christian and such/ then when it comes time to truly help you fellow man it is all well and good ...well until it has to be paid for...

ensbergcollector
04-16-2012, 09:32 PM
after wading through these comments...I find that most would view me worst or below a pagan...I will take My Taoism and walk away...

I do find it funny when people call them self a good christian and such/ then when it comes time to truly help you fellow man it is all well and good ...well until it has to be paid for...

what do you mean by your last statement?

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 01:52 AM
taosim and christianity have a lot in common

it's not the religions fault, but what we do with it and how we use it.

what society could exist or thrive without the basics ideas of;

don't steal
don't kill
don't blame others or lie about them
don't take from others or be jealous or lust after what they have
don't cheat on your spouse or cheat with someone else's spouse

without these basic morals, society sucks

MadMan1978
04-17-2012, 06:27 AM
what do you mean by your last statement?
I think it is quite clear Tom. Most of the Republicans are fine with Social programs as long as you dont have to pay for it.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 08:55 AM
taosim and christianity have a lot in common

it's not the religions fault, but what we do with it and how we use it.

what society could exist or thrive without the basics ideas of;

don't steal
don't kill
don't blame others or lie about them
don't take from others or be jealous or lust after what they have
don't cheat on your spouse or cheat with someone else's spouse

without these basic morals, society sucks

True, but you do not need a "religion" to create these morals/rules.

*censored*
04-17-2012, 09:08 AM
True, but you do not need a "religion" to create these morals/rules.

And we have a winner again.

Those morals/ethics have been a part of humanity pretty much since the start. What we view as ethical or moral largely comes from the Tigris and Euphrates civilizations from 5000 years ago.

We are not a theocracy. Religion shouldn't be anyone's deciding factor on who to vote for.

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 10:27 AM
Religion shouldn't be anyone's deciding factor on who to vote for.

i agree with this


True, but you do not need a "religion" to create these morals/rules.

maybe not, but where can we find any facts to support this? you could say i am an atheist and i have these morals, but you were raised in a society that has many religious influences.

every culture that has some what thrived had or has a religion of some sort.

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 10:43 AM
while i actually agree with most of what you are saying, i think the fact that most people find it politically expedient to to claim some level of faith probably skews the numbers. when you see polls that ask whether people attend religious services at least 3 times a year the number drops to between 55-60% (if I am remembering correctly.)

I'm fine with adjusting those numbers when talking about people who attend services. Although does attending services make you more of a believer than not attending services? That aside, even at 55%-60% there are a VAST amount more christians than atheists. There's a huge difference from 55% and 10%. Plus when you add in all of the other religions it's simple math to deduce that more politicians would be religious as opposed to atheist which makes Steelers post of all the corrupt politicians "could" be atheists and that we really don;t know. I guess it's true that we really don't know a persons religion, but the large share of americans have a belief in god and over half actually go to church to some degree on a regular bases even if it's just three times a year.

ensbergcollector
04-17-2012, 10:47 AM
I think it is quite clear Tom. Most of the Republicans are fine with Social programs as long as you dont have to pay for it.

i think you wrote that wrong. most republicans are fine with social programs as long as you aren't taxed to pay for them. government run social programs are a joke. you are forcing people to be benevolent and you are teaching people that they don't have to work because someone else will care for them.

christians routinely give to social programs by their own choice. and not just for tax write offs. the medium sized church i attend handed out over 50k in local benevolence last year just helping people with bills and food. there was plenty more for national emergencies and other 1 time donations.

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 10:51 AM
taosim and christianity have a lot in common

it's not the religions fault, but what we do with it and how we use it.

what society could exist or thrive without the basics ideas of;

don't steal
don't kill
don't blame others or lie about them
don't take from others or be jealous or lust after what they have
don't cheat on your spouse or cheat with someone else's spouse

without these basic morals, society sucks

while these basic morals have a place in religion they also have a place outside of religion. Not killing, not stealing, and not cheating go far beyond religious teachings. Most people seem to think that atheists don't have morals or at least what religious people define as morals and that isn't the case. I'm an atheist and would bet that I'm a way more positive member of society than a large number of people who are religious. Being atheist or religious has little bering on whether or not a person is moral or not.

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 10:55 AM
Most people seem to think that atheists don't have morals or at least what religious people define as morals and that isn't the case. I'm an atheist and would bet that I'm a way more positive member of society than a large number of people who are religious. Being atheist or religious has little bering on whether or not a person is moral or not.

i would disagree, being atheist doesn't make you anything but not religious, who thinks all these things about atheist???

and you have been raised in a society based on religion, so though you may not believe in a god, you and your morals have been influenced by this.

mrveggieman
04-17-2012, 11:00 AM
i would disagree, being atheist doesn't make you anything but not religious, who thinks all these things about atheist???

and you have been raised in a society based on religion, so though you may not believe in a god, you and your morals have been influenced by this.


I used to think that but now I disagree. I was listening to Richard Dawkins and someone asked him that why does he have morals if he is an atheist. He said it is because he does not want to live in a society where people murder, rape and kill without regards so that is why he lives a moral life. For him it has nothing to do with religion. Also religion says that homosexuality is immoral but besides the religious aspects of it there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. (This is coming from someone who belives homosexuality is immoral per God)

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 11:01 AM
i would disagree, being atheist doesn't make you anything but not religious, who thinks all these things about atheist???

and you have been raised in a society based on religion, so though you may not believe in a god, you and your morals have been influenced by this.

lots of people do. trust me.

also, you said that we needed religion to tell us not to steal and not to cheat and not to kill so one could assume that you think it's possible that a person that grew up in a place where there wasn't religion (directly or indirectly) that he would not have these morals.


I understand that religion has an influence but to say that we need religion to have rules of being decent to one another is something I disagree with completely.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 11:04 AM
i agree with this



maybe not, but where can we find any facts to support this? you could say i am an atheist and i have these morals, but you were raised in a society that has many religious influences.

every culture that has some what thrived had or has a religion of some sort.

You can look to the animal kingdom to find many societies that survive and flourish without religion.

duane1969
04-17-2012, 11:16 AM
I used to think that but now I disagree. I was listening to Richard Dawkins and someone asked him that why does he have morals if he is an atheist. He said it is because he does not want to live in a society where people murder, rape and kill without regards so that is why he lives a moral life. For him it has nothing to do with religion. Also religion says that homosexuality is immoral but besides the religious aspects of it there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. (This is coming from someone who belives homosexuality is immoral per God)

If we are going to use the argument that morals are a basic element of existence as a claim that morals are natural occurring and not religiously imparted, then we must use the same concept of basic elements of existence to argue that homosexuality is not normal since the normal, natural purpose of sex is procreation and homosexuals can not procreate.

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 11:24 AM
If we are going to use the argument that morals are a basic element of existence as a claim that morals are natural occurring and not religiously imparted, then we must use the same concept of basic elements of existence to argue that homosexuality is not normal since the normal, natural purpose of sex is procreation and homosexuals can not procreate.

I don't agree with that. While some animals have similar morals to what religions teach, there are some that don't. While the main purpose of sex is to procreate there are also many other purposes to have sex... even in the animal world.

duane1969
04-17-2012, 11:30 AM
I don't agree with that. While some animals have similar morals to what religions teach, there are some that don't. While the main purpose of sex is to procreate there are also many other purposes to have sex... even in the animal world.

Other than humans, what animals have sex for reasons other than procreation? What are those reasons?

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 11:35 AM
Other than humans, what animals have sex for reasons other than procreation? What are those reasons?

Several species have sex for: socialization, dominance, recreation.

duane1969
04-17-2012, 11:41 AM
Several species have sex for: socialization, dominance, recreation.

They are?...

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Other than humans, what animals have sex for reasons other than procreation? What are those reasons?

you don't think animals have sex for pleasure? If procreation was their only goal in having sex and it wasn't done for pleasure on some level, why would animals be known to masturbate?

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 12:13 PM
You can look to the animal kingdom to find many societies that survive and flourish without religion.

animals? when they can create a society amongst themselves that equals humans, then we can compare.

there is a reason we are dominant

if we use animals as a comparison, we will also need to use all others forms of life on earth, and plants don't have many morals, animals eat other animals on a daily basis, we don't eat other humans (or at least i hope you don't)

i understand that many would like to remove religion, but religion has been with us since recorded history, the earliest forms of writings refer to religion

mrveggieman
04-17-2012, 12:24 PM
animals? when they can create a society amongst themselves that equals humans, then we can compare.

there is a reason we are dominant

if we use animals as a comparison, we will also need to use all others forms of life on earth, and plants don't have many morals, animals eat other animals on a daily basis, we don't eat other humans (or at least i hope you don't)

i understand that many would like to remove religion, but religion has been with us since recorded history, the earliest forms of writings refer to religion


Most of us don't eat other humans but we do harm/kill/eat animals that God has put her for us to watch over. How is that moral to harm/kill something that is weaker than you if it is not in self defense?

ensbergcollector
04-17-2012, 12:26 PM
Most of us don't eat other humans but we do harm/kill/eat animals that God has put her for us to watch over. How is that moral to harm/kill something that is weaker than you if it is not in self defense?

dude, you can't use the God put here for us to watch over when the same God told us to eat them

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 12:28 PM
They are?...

Bonobos for one.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 12:32 PM
animals? when they can create a society amongst themselves that equals humans, then we can compare.

there is a reason we are dominant

if we use animals as a comparison, we will also need to use all others forms of life on earth, and plants don't have many morals, animals eat other animals on a daily basis, we don't eat other humans (or at least i hope you don't)

i understand that many would like to remove religion, but religion has been with us since recorded history, the earliest forms of writings refer to religion

I hate to burst your bubble but man has been around long before "recorded" history and even longer before we acquired the ability to write.

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 01:03 PM
Did the animals tell u that

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 01:43 PM
Did the animals tell u that

No. Some non-descript higher entity spoke to me a couple years ago. Told me everything I needed to know. Don't you believe me?

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 02:02 PM
had to pull your strings with my last comment!!! hopefully no offense taken, just poken at you!

do you not find it strange that the first thing humans write about is religion? in the saphire diamonds of egypt a man cries out to his god for help, or the sumaratins speaking of their creation and gods?

or we could just go the ancient alien route, just as likely as evolution of humans or creation of humans by a higher power

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 02:10 PM
animals? when they can create a society amongst themselves that equals humans, then we can compare.

there is a reason we are dominant

if we use animals as a comparison, we will also need to use all others forms of life on earth, and plants don't have many morals, animals eat other animals on a daily basis, we don't eat other humans (or at least i hope you don't)

i understand that many would like to remove religion, but religion has been with us since recorded history, the earliest forms of writings refer to religion

well, I don't think we are comparing animals completely to human societies. It's just a piece of evidence that animals can act morally in certain instances. Would I put animals on the same level as humans... no, but I don't think that discounts the statement completely. I don't think they have to be as dominant as humans to be able to look at their actions. We're also not saying that all animals are moral under our rules of morality. Obviously many aren't, but that's not to say that some aren't to some degree.

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 02:16 PM
had to pull your strings with my last comment!!! hopefully no offense taken, just poken at you!

do you not find it strange that the first thing humans write about is religion? in the saphire diamonds of egypt a man cries out to his god for help, or the sumaratins speaking of their creation and gods?

or we could just go the ancient alien route, just as likely as evolution of humans or creation of humans by a higher power

I don't find it strange. It's hard to imagine the massive confusion that early humans felt in trying to figure out so many things. Even after humans developed the skills to write there had to have been so much that simply wasn't understandable. Think about the things that we've just learned over the past 100 years. It's not surprising that early humans would have "gods" to help them justify why certain things happen before they knew why they actually did happen.... stuff like rain, fire, natural disasters, disease, and so on.

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 02:18 PM
had to pull your strings with my last comment!!! hopefully no offense taken, just poken at you!

do you not find it strange that the first thing humans write about is religion? in the saphire diamonds of egypt a man cries out to his god for help, or the sumaratins speaking of their creation and gods?

or we could just go the ancient alien route, just as likely as evolution of humans or creation of humans by a higher power

from what I've read there's way less proof of aliens than there is of plants and animals showing signs of evolution.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 02:18 PM
had to pull your strings with my last comment!!! hopefully no offense taken, just poken at you!

do you not find it strange that the first thing humans write about is religion? in the saphire diamonds of egypt a man cries out to his god for help, or the sumaratins speaking of their creation and gods?

or we could just go the ancient alien route, just as likely as evolution of humans or creation of humans by a higher power

No offense taken.

I do not find it odd at all. The possibility of a God is a natural assumption in all societies. Every human, at some point, has to question where they came from. Our brains are evolved enough to know that the simple answer of "you came from your parents" won't suffice. So societies "make up" stories of Creation to satisfy that "need to know". Native Americans, Mayans, Incas, etc, etc, etc all have their own Creation myths.

ALL the theories ARE just as likely as the next.

Once these God stories are established, it is then that societies try to link them to behaviours (Morals) that will allow that society to exist. To suggest that the morals came after the religion is just not right.

boba
04-17-2012, 02:30 PM
from what I've read there's way less proof of aliens than there is of plants and animals showing signs of evolution.

And a lot more proof of an intelligent designer then macro evolution.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 02:43 PM
And a lot more proof of an intelligent designer then macro evolution.

Care to provide some of this "proof"?

boba
04-17-2012, 02:45 PM
Care to provide some of this "proof"?

Maybe we should start another thread if we want to get into this, as it really doesn't have much to do with this thread.

Star_Cards
04-17-2012, 02:59 PM
And a lot more proof of an intelligent designer then macro evolution.

what proof of a designer is out there?

Rockman
04-17-2012, 03:33 PM
animals? when they can create a society amongst themselves that equals humans, then we can compare.

there is a reason we are dominant

if we use animals as a comparison, we will also need to use all others forms of life on earth, and plants don't have many morals, animals eat other animals on a daily basis, we don't eat other humans (or at least i hope you don't)

i understand that many would like to remove religion, but religion has been with us since recorded history, the earliest forms of writings refer to religion

Or guys chilling in caves hungry for Steak.

shrewsbury
04-17-2012, 04:13 PM
Or guys chilling in caves hungry for Steak.

not sure where that came from, drawing and writing are quite different. you have to establish a language before you can write it.

i prefer not to put myself on the same level with animals or plants, i can care for myself, defend myself, and won't pee on you!!!! and better yet, i can post on this website on my own free will with my own thoughts, lets see any other living thing do that.

evolution is a great theory but has some major flaws, but at least some don't see it as crazy as believing in a god, and i can see why.

what proof of design? look around, listen to the people running dna and genomes, but then again you can find as many, if not more, who support evolution.

boba
04-17-2012, 05:34 PM
what proof of a designer is out there?


Care to provide some of this "proof"?


There are many things in the creation that couldn't have evolved like they are. Here are some examples of animals and insects without going into detail (if you want to go into detail we can start a thread about this topic).

anglerfish
woodpecker (birds in general, for that matter)
giraffe
dolphins and whales
duckbill platypus

Thats just a tiny portion of the animals on earth that couldn't have evolved the way they are now.

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution then in an intelligent designer. The odds of something evolving to have life is just ridiculous, not to mention imposable. Then the odds that 2 things evolved at the same time so that they could reproduce? Come on.

pspstatus
04-17-2012, 06:45 PM
There are many things in the creation that couldn't have evolved like they are. Here are some examples of animals and insects without going into detail (if you want to go into detail we can start a thread about this topic).

anglerfish
woodpecker (birds in general, for that matter)
giraffe
dolphins and whales
duckbill platypus

Thats just a tiny portion of the animals on earth that couldn't have evolved the way they are now.

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution then in an intelligent designer. The odds of something evolving to have life is just ridiculous, not to mention imposable. Then the odds that 2 things evolved at the same time so that they could reproduce? Come on.


If you wouldn't mind I would be interested in details related to how those animals couldn't have evolved. I started the thread so I say you can put it here if you like or feel free to start a new thread. Either way I'm interested.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 07:15 PM
There are many things in the creation that couldn't have evolved like they are. Here are some examples of animals and insects without going into detail (if you want to go into detail we can start a thread about this topic).

anglerfish
woodpecker (birds in general, for that matter)
giraffe
dolphins and whales
duckbill platypus

Thats just a tiny portion of the animals on earth that couldn't have evolved the way they are now.

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution then in an intelligent designer. The odds of something evolving to have life is just ridiculous, not to mention imposable. Then the odds that 2 things evolved at the same time so that they could reproduce? Come on.

I have already read this young man's arguments. Both you and him do not grasp how evolution works. Your last sentence makes it clear. That's to be expected when you believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.

For you to think that life evolving from matter is impossible and then claim that an "Intelligent Designer" can just create ANYTHING with no thought to who created the "Intelligent Designer" is bizarre to say the least.

Next you will be saying that we evolved from monkeys and arguing that the monkeys are still here. lol

boba
04-17-2012, 07:46 PM
I have already read this young man's arguments. Both you and him do not grasp how evolution works. Your last sentence makes it clear. That's to be expected when you believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.

For you to think that life evolving from matter is impossible and then claim that an "Intelligent Designer" can just create ANYTHING with no thought to who created the "Intelligent Designer" is bizarre to say the least.

Next you will be saying that we evolved from monkeys and arguing that the monkeys are still here. lol

For one, I'm confused about the first sentence. Are you talking to me?

Actually, I do know how evolution works and believe in it. Just not macro evolution, as there is nothing conclusive that has ever proved there has been this kind of evolution. There is no conclusive evidence that the earth is older then thousands of years.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 07:53 PM
For one, I'm confused about the first sentence. Are you talking to me?

Actually, I do know how evolution works and believe in it. Just not macro evolution, as there is nothing conclusive that has ever proved there has been this kind of evolution. There is no conclusive evidence that the earth is older then thousands of years.

No, I am talking about the author of the article that he pulled this list of animals from. As for the age of the planet; there is conclusive evidence as to the general age of the Earth. If you have never seen it, I suggest you investigate how Carbon 14 Dating and K-Ar dating works. Try watching the videos on Khan Academy.

Also. If you believe in evolution and know how it works; that in itself should be conclusive evidence in your mind as to the age of the Earth. Evolution doesn't happen over a few thousand years!

boba
04-17-2012, 07:59 PM
No, I am talking about the author of the article that he pulled this list of animals from.

Again, when you say he, are you talking about me? Haha, these animals are pretty common - well known arguments against evolution, what article are you talking are you talking about?

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 08:06 PM
Again, when you say he, are you talking about me? Haha, these animals are pretty common - well known arguments against evolution, what article are you talking are you talking about?

I am talking about this author and this argument.

http://www.cfnews.org/Denk-ID.htm

boba
04-17-2012, 08:16 PM
I am talking about this author and this argument.

http://www.cfnews.org/Denk-ID.htm

Ok, so your response to him would be that he doesn't understand evolution?

TyrantsASupremeBeing
04-17-2012, 08:19 PM
Howdy, this is my take, all the Beings that early man misunderstood & thought were gods were ALIENS who used more than an average 5% of the brain & religion is something to try to make people act right & get some of your $$$$$
god, allah & others were ALIENS & jesus was an ALIEN/HUMAN hybrid
We will find out who they were on 12/21/12...

IF there is A god, where did it come from & dont say it was always there either, it had to come from something or somewhere

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 08:22 PM
Ok, so your response to him would be that he doesn't understand evolution?

Yes.

boba
04-17-2012, 08:24 PM
Yes.

Can you enlighten all of us your superior knowledge of evolution? You must understand it more then any evolutionist I've read.

As I have never heard conclusive evidence that supports evolution.

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 08:28 PM
Can you enlighten all of us your view of evolution? You must understand it more then any evolutionist I've read.

As I have never heard conclusive evidence that supports evolution.

Who said anything about conclusive evidence of evolution? I didn't.

boba
04-17-2012, 08:30 PM
Who said anything about conclusive evidence of evolution? I didn't.


:smash: Whats wrong with his arguments?

habsheaven
04-17-2012, 09:00 PM
:smash: Whats wrong with his arguments?

His arguments show that he has no real concept of how evolution works.

For example the two bolded sections of the text below. He makes all of his arguments by trying to go backwards in evolution. Evolution speaks of organisms developing new adaptations to survive better in their changing environments. He cannot imply that yesterday the light didn't work as well so the fish would have starved. That's absurd. He also implies that because they are adapted to live so deep in the ocean that they always must have. Again, that tells me he has no idea how evolution works. These fish would have slowly moved deeper into the ocean over millions of years. They didn't just sink one day.

The anglerfish’s light poses a problem for evolution. Evolutionists might attempt to state that it evolved gradually over long periods of time. Since the anglerfish relies so heavily on its fishing system for food, however, an underdeveloped or non-functioning light would probably lead to the fish’s starvation. The light itself is extremely complex. Involving the compound Luciferin and the enzyme Luciferase, it is remarkable in that it produces no heat[13]. Tireless research has been spent on these two substances (Luc-iferase was found to contain more than 1000 proteins!), but still no one knows for certain how the light is made[14].
Another interesting part of the anglerfish is its body structure. It is specially built to withstand the immense pressures it encounters in the depths of the ocean. The anglerfish lives where the pressure is around 2000 pounds per square inch, but it suffers no damage; it was designed to live in this environment. This prevents a regular fish from evolving into an anglerfish; if it somehow sank into the depths to begin its evolution, it would be crushed! In short, the anglerfish could not have evolved from another animal; it was an anglerfish from the start.

Star_Cards
04-18-2012, 10:17 AM
not sure where that came from, drawing and writing are quite different. you have to establish a language before you can write it.

i prefer not to put myself on the same level with animals or plants, i can care for myself, defend myself, and won't pee on you!!!! and better yet, i can post on this website on my own free will with my own thoughts, lets see any other living thing do that.

evolution is a great theory but has some major flaws, but at least some don't see it as crazy as believing in a god, and i can see why.

what proof of design? look around, listen to the people running dna and genomes, but then again you can find as many, if not more, who support evolution.

for all of the unexplained "flaws" (as you call them) of evolution, there are way more examples of evolution in the world than there is of a creator that just created something out of thin air or by him simply thinking about what he wanted to create. I understand that there are a lot of unknowns but that's the beauty of science. Things are continually learned and theories and thoughts are adapted based off of those findings. Religious folk don't really look at creationism as just another theory. Granted there are few if any hard facts that creationism is the way we all got here, but it is a theory none the less.

Star_Cards
04-18-2012, 10:27 AM
There are many things in the creation that couldn't have evolved like they are. Here are some examples of animals and insects without going into detail (if you want to go into detail we can start a thread about this topic).

anglerfish
woodpecker (birds in general, for that matter)
giraffe
dolphins and whales
duckbill platypus

Thats just a tiny portion of the animals on earth that couldn't have evolved the way they are now.

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution then in an intelligent designer. The odds of something evolving to have life is just ridiculous, not to mention imposable. Then the odds that 2 things evolved at the same time so that they could reproduce? Come on.

yes. It takes COMPLETE faith to believe in intelligent design. I like that you list some animals that we can't figure out how they could have evolved so you just say it's "ridiculous". Things evolve and we have proof of that. Yes these recorded instances are micro and not macro, but I'll take that evidence over a single creator in the heavens. To me, saying that intelligent design is why we are all here is a cop out. Just because we don't have everything figured out doesn't mean it had to have just magically appeared, placed by some creator.

habsheaven
04-18-2012, 10:48 AM
And don't forget, you cannot avoid this question: Who created the Creator? Even if your religion teaches you that God created everything. Your religion fails to explain where God came from.

mrveggieman
04-18-2012, 11:05 AM
And don't forget, you cannot avoid this question: Who created the Creator? Even if your religion teaches you that God created everything. Your religion fails to explain where God came from.


I don't think that any religion explains where God came from. I guess that one is the ultimate test of faith.

Insane Irish
04-18-2012, 12:07 PM
I would rather believe in God and Jesus Christ, and after death find out I was wrong, than to not believe in God, and make Jesus Christ Lord of my life, and after death, find out I was wrong!

Simply put: if there is a Heaven, and there is a Hell, and after death you will go to one of those forever, and everything the Bible and those “Christian Fanatics” said was true… finding out after I’m dead is too late to make a change.
I would rather be a Follower of Jesus Christ and be wrong, than to not be, and lose my soul in a Hell that I didn’t believe existed.


Thats just sad..... I feel some what sorry for people like this.

shrewsbury
04-18-2012, 12:12 PM
someone thinks the earth is only thousands of years old? yikes!

evolution is obvious, but it explains how things evolved, not began.

the best idea for the start of life is lightening striking mud (primortial ooze) and then all things came from here. seems a bit shaky.

we have Lucy who was the proof of where we evolved from, but wait, now we have another one.

we also would have to negate the hobbits of flores, but i find it hard to negate actual evidence, even if it throws a monkey wrench (or hobbit wrench) into the accepted theories

who created the creator? what created the big bang? who or what created the singularity? then we have to deal with cause and effect?

Star_Cards
04-18-2012, 12:27 PM
someone thinks the earth is only thousands of years old? yikes!

evolution is obvious, but it explains how things evolved, not began.

the best idea for the start of life is lightening striking mud (primortial ooze) and then all things came from here. seems a bit shaky.

we have Lucy who was the proof of where we evolved from, but wait, now we have another one.

we also would have to negate the hobbits of flores, but i find it hard to negate actual evidence, even if it throws a monkey wrench (or hobbit wrench) into the accepted theories

who created the creator? what created the big bang? who or what created the singularity? then we have to deal with cause and effect?

true, even if humans evolved and didn't come from the garden of eden or placed around by god there still is the question of where did the initial cells come from. I for one don't think we will ever know that. I just tend to think intelligent design is way less plausible than scientific theories such as evolution. I also have zero problem with thinking that all of this that we know in the world happened due to environmental conditions that made thinks grow into what they are today.

shrewsbury
04-18-2012, 12:37 PM
. I for one don't think we will ever know that. I just tend to think intelligent design is way less plausible than scientific theories such as evolution.

i agree we will never find the beginning it is impossible.

i can see how one would think evolution is more plausible than design, but i do not

boba
04-18-2012, 01:12 PM
His arguments show that he has no real concept of how evolution works.

For example the two bolded sections of the text below. He makes all of his arguments by trying to go backwards in evolution. Evolution speaks of organisms developing new adaptations to survive better in their changing environments. He cannot imply that yesterday the light didn't work as well so the fish would have starved. That's absurd. He also implies that because they are adapted to live so deep in the ocean that they always must have. Again, that tells me he has no idea how evolution works. These fish would have slowly moved deeper into the ocean over millions of years. They didn't just sink one day.

The anglerfish’s light poses a problem for evolution. Evolutionists might attempt to state that it evolved gradually over long periods of time. Since the anglerfish relies so heavily on its fishing system for food, however, an underdeveloped or non-functioning light would probably lead to the fish’s starvation. The light itself is extremely complex. Involving the compound Luciferin and the enzyme Luciferase, it is remarkable in that it produces no heat[13]. Tireless research has been spent on these two substances (Luc-iferase was found to contain more than 1000 proteins!), but still no one knows for certain how the light is made[14].
Another interesting part of the anglerfish is its body structure. It is specially built to withstand the immense pressures it encounters in the depths of the ocean. The anglerfish lives where the pressure is around 2000 pounds per square inch, but it suffers no damage; it was designed to live in this environment. This prevents a regular fish from evolving into an anglerfish; if it somehow sank into the depths to begin its evolution, it would be crushed! In short, the anglerfish could not have evolved from another animal; it was an anglerfish from the start.



I can see what your saying about the bolded parts, but the main point about anglerfish is that the males fuse with the females bloodstream instead of eating.

boba
04-18-2012, 01:19 PM
true, even if humans evolved and didn't come from the garden of eden or placed around by god there still is the question of where did the initial cells come from. I for one don't think we will ever know that. I just tend to think intelligent design is way less plausible than scientific theories such as evolution. I also have zero problem with thinking that all of this that we know in the world happened due to environmental conditions that made thinks grow into what they are today.

The problem is that evolution is not even really a scientific theory, as it does not follow the steps necessary.

boba
04-18-2012, 01:28 PM
someone thinks the earth is only thousands of years old? yikes!

evolution is obvious, but it explains how things evolved, not began.

the best idea for the start of life is lightening striking mud (primortial ooze) and then all things came from here. seems a bit shaky.

we have Lucy who was the proof of where we evolved from, but wait, now we have another one.

we also would have to negate the hobbits of flores, but i find it hard to negate actual evidence, even if it throws a monkey wrench (or hobbit wrench) into the accepted theories

who created the creator? what created the big bang? who or what created the singularity? then we have to deal with cause and effect?

Whats your proof that the earth is older then thousands of years?

shrewsbury
04-18-2012, 02:37 PM
are you serious???

how about radioactive half life?

or even better, fossil evidence

boba
04-18-2012, 03:27 PM
are you serious???

how about radioactive half life?

or even better, fossil evidence


I'm not going to go into the fossil record as most know the arguments.

Have you ever studied radioactive dating? If you have you know it has been proved unreliable and is based on assumptions. Lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe that are known to be about 50 years old dated up to 3.5 million years old. Here is an article that puts it better then I could.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/radiometric-dating

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/assumptions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/patterns

I hope you take the time to read these.

shrewsbury
04-18-2012, 03:40 PM
anyone knows that heat and/or fire will cause dating to be wrong.

so dating lava would be kind of silly?

no offense, but if that is your link for answers, you and i may only agree that jesus is the only way to god and heaven

boba
04-18-2012, 04:11 PM
anyone knows that heat and/or fire will cause dating to be wrong.

so dating lava would be kind of silly?

no offense, but if that is your link for answers, you and i may only agree that jesus is the only way to god and heaven

Oh my goodness, you haven't studied radiometric dating have you? The only rocks they can use are igneous and metamorphic, both of which are formed by heat or fire. How can you believe the bolded part and radiometric dating?

BGT Masters
04-18-2012, 04:19 PM
Everyone know we lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Remember the Flintstones? Hello!!!

Star_Cards
04-18-2012, 04:25 PM
The problem is that evolution is not even really a scientific theory, as it does not follow the steps necessary.

how is it not a theory?

Star_Cards
04-18-2012, 04:26 PM
Whats your proof that the earth is older then thousands of years?

this is a joke right?

habsheaven
04-18-2012, 04:26 PM
Everyone know we lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Remember the Flintstones? Hello!!!

Everyone knows that dinosaur fossils are fake.

Star_Cards
04-18-2012, 04:29 PM
Everyone know we lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Remember the Flintstones? Hello!!!

I'd love a brontosauras burger right about now!!!

boba
04-18-2012, 04:34 PM
this is a joke right?

Prove it to me. Just acting like I'm stupid doesn't make your position right.

boba
04-18-2012, 04:45 PM
how is it not a theory?

It does not have the requirement of falsifiability that a scientific theory needs.

habsheaven
04-18-2012, 05:50 PM
It does not have the requirement of falsifiability that a scientific theory needs.

That is an opinion, not a fact. You are attempting to equate the science of evolution with the notion of Creationism by measuring the falsifiability of each. That argument has been rebuked a thousand times over.

boba
04-18-2012, 06:24 PM
That is an opinion, not a fact. You are attempting to equate the science of evolution with the notion of Creationism by measuring the falsifiability of each. That argument has been rebuked a thousand times over.

Your correct about that, I'm sorry. what I should have said is that evolution is not a operational theory, but a historical theory.

shrewsbury
04-18-2012, 08:19 PM
so do you believe the earth dates to about 6000bc?

do you believe the age of the earth based on the rabbi who traced back the lineage written in the torah?

this is not a challenge or a put down, really just curious

i would love to know how old the earth is according to what you know

boba
04-19-2012, 01:02 AM
so do you believe the earth dates to about 6000bc?

do you believe the age of the earth based on the rabbi who traced back the lineage written in the torah?

this is not a challenge or a put down, really just curious

i would love to know how old the earth is according to what you know

Yes, I believe it is about 6,000 years old. I get that age by adding the dates from Adam to Abraham, then Abraham to today.

Don't worry about it man! I never take anything on the Internet personally.

If you don't mind, I would like to know your response about radioactive dating.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 01:23 AM
I'd love a brontosauras burger right about now!!!

I seriously am shocked people still really think the world started 4000 BC. A few other shockers, the world isn't flat and not only is it NOT the center of our universe, the sun isn't either. GASP!!!!! :confused0068:

boba
04-19-2012, 01:27 AM
I seriously am shocked people still really think the world started 4000 BC. A few other shockers, the world isn't flat and not only is it NOT the center of our universe, the sun isn't either. GASP!!!!! :confused0068:

I'm surprised so many people believe that the world is billions of years old without investigating apposing arguments.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 01:43 AM
Several hundred million years or billions of years, its just nit picking to me. Believing in something as little as 6000 total years of existence just seems silly. I'd really enjoy hearing your arguments for dinosaurs existence, ice ages, continental shifts (Pangea), all in 6000 years.

boba
04-19-2012, 02:01 AM
Several hundred million years or billions of years, its just nit picking to me. Believing in something as little as 6000 total years of existence just seems silly. I'd really enjoy hearing your arguments for dinosaurs existence, ice ages, continental shifts (Pangea), all in 6000 years.

I enjoy hearing your arguments for how the earth just ended up at the exact location and distance from the sun for life to evolve. In fact the basic assumptions of how life began with the exact right gases in the air + many, many more elements that it would need to work all coming together at once to create life is laughable and unscientific. We can't even create the life that would be needed for evolution in science labs with all the correct elements.


Btw, all of the things you listed are very easily explained and fit with the Bible.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 02:07 AM
So if they are so easily explained lets hear it.

boba
04-19-2012, 02:07 AM
So if they are so easily explained lets hear it.

Headed for bed in a few, but what would you like for me to start with?

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 02:18 AM
Id really like to hear about Pangea first. Then the explanation for dinosaurs existing with people merely a few thousands years ago.

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 09:37 AM
I enjoy hearing your arguments for how the earth just ended up at the exact location and distance from the sun for life to evolve. In fact the basic assumptions of how life began with the exact right gases in the air + many, many more elements that it would need to work all coming together at once to create life is laughable and unscientific. We can't even create the life that would be needed for evolution in science labs with all the correct elements.

Btw, all of the things you listed are very easily explained and fit with the Bible.

You have the cart before the horse. I am surprised that you, of all people, do not recognize the problem with this statement.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 09:37 AM
i am not an expert on radioactive dating and disagree with quite a bit of it, but for many reason i think the earth is older.

some reasons, not all but some, would be,

the hindu book verdas

the chinchorro of south america

the mi'kmaq of north america

the 9000 year old skulls found in galilee

the hobbits of flores

neanderthal, cromagnum, and other human like species

and many other things

Star_Cards
04-19-2012, 09:41 AM
Prove it to me. Just acting like I'm stupid doesn't make your position right.

well there are remains of many things that they date back well past 2000 years ago. I guess your next post would be to say that I need to prove that these scientific processes are valid. I'm not a scientist so I personally can't do that, but I trust that artifacts and fossils are well older than 2000 years.

I'm not acting like you are stupid. I just don't get how a person can think that the world started just 2000 years ago.

Star_Cards
04-19-2012, 09:45 AM
It does not have the requirement of falsifiability that a scientific theory needs.

so you see more validity in creationism that has no root in science than you do in evolution? To me creationism follow right behind faith. Creationism is completely faith based with zero fact or even partial fact. To me it's just something that people talk about to help validate their religious beliefs. I'll take actual studies, thought about theories, and such over blind faith everyday of the week.

Star_Cards
04-19-2012, 09:47 AM
I'm surprised so many people believe that the world is billions of years old without investigating apposing arguments.

It's not that people don't look at opposing arguments. That's actually what science does rather often. It's pretty much the basic structure of it. However, I do not find a religious text to be anything close to opposing arguments. That's obviously where we see differently.

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 09:50 AM
Keep in mind, in order for people to believe the Earth began 6,000 years ago, they also have to believe that the ages of these early generations spanned 900 years.

It confuses the heck out of me how there was once a time that people began dying at "normal" ages while other people were still walking around at ages of 300, 400, 650, 775?

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 11:21 AM
It confuses the heck out of me how there was once a time that people began dying at "normal" ages while other people were still walking around at ages of 300, 400, 650, 775?

someone could argue that god's chosen people lived longer, but then we get to how did the people come about that god didn't create. one bit of proof others existed on earth along side god's people is the fact cain left to the land of nod and "knew a wife", where did she come from?

Star_Cards
04-19-2012, 11:54 AM
someone could argue that god's chosen people lived longer, but then we get to how did the people come about that god didn't create. one bit of proof others existed on earth along side god's people is the fact cain left to the land of nod and "knew a wife", where did she come from?

using the content of the bible really doesn't mean much to me when trying to explain the age of the world and it's origins.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 11:57 AM
well if you are not christian, jewish, or muslim, i could see why

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 12:15 PM
someone could argue that god's chosen people lived longer, but then we get to how did the people come about that god didn't create. one bit of proof others existed on earth along side god's people is the fact cain left to the land of nod and "knew a wife", where did she come from?

Obviously God created other people and forgot to tell Adam. He was pretty busy back then.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 12:57 PM
Keep in mind, in order for people to believe the Earth began 6,000 years ago, they also have to believe that the ages of these early generations spanned 900 years.

It confuses the heck out of me how there was once a time that people began dying at "normal" ages while other people were still walking around at ages of 300, 400, 650, 775?

If memory serves correct they already had a very good idea about how this was. They misinterpreted the age in the texts and basically added a zero to them. So when they say Noah lived to be 950 it was actually 95 which back then was miraculous in its own right.

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 01:15 PM
If memory serves correct they already had a very good idea about how this was. They misinterpreted the age in the texts and basically added a zero to them. So when they say Noah lived to be 950 it was actually 95 which back then was miraculous in its own right.

That would be all well and good; however, many others claim that the length of a year was different or, the first people were more pure or, the Flood changed the vitamin content of the food or, people started consuming "unclean" food ... The "explanations" go on and on.

If it was a misinterpretation, don't you think they should start addressing it? That also would make the Earth even younger too.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 01:37 PM
It wouldn't make the earth younger because I am not dumb enough to actually believe its only 6000 years old in the first place. Obviously people have addressed it or else I wouldn't have heard about it. It is possible, perhaps, but coming from people who believe things like the earth being so young, not believing in evolution, and believing that people and dinosaurs lived together at the same time just doesn't help the claim hold up.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 02:25 PM
now now veggie,

earth 6000 years old, yea i can't even argue for that, so lets skip this

evolution, i don't believe that humans evolved from mud, but i do believe in many aspects of evolution and so do others that believe god created us

dinosaurs and man, i would logically say i agree, but i have seen a few things that made me wonder about it, i do believe we have been around much longer than most say, but maybe not that long

believe in all came from nothing or all came from god, doesn't seem much different

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 03:17 PM
Maybe to God a day is a billion years? To god wouldn't time sort of be meaningless anyways? The bible, for me, would make a heck of a lot more sense to view the 7 days of creation more of stages than actual days as we see them. A new day = a new era.

Star_Cards
04-19-2012, 03:22 PM
using the bible to prove or disprove our origins or how old the earth is makes my head spin.

mrveggieman
04-19-2012, 04:06 PM
maybe to god a day is a billion years? To god wouldn't time sort of be meaningless anyways? The bible, for me, would make a heck of a lot more sense to view the 7 days of creation more of stages than actual days as we see them. A new day = a new era.


+1

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 04:08 PM
Maybe to God a day is a billion years?

yes sir, maybe it is, then again, maybe not

i am a firm believer in god and jesus, but not mans idea of what he is, and it is man that wrote the bible.

god did not write it, just influenced it

pspstatus
04-19-2012, 04:11 PM
using the bible to prove or disprove our origins or how old the earth is makes my head spin.


When I think about the age of the Earth I consider how water erodes the land. It's a slow (to us) process but given enough time a river can cut through rocks. I think of the Colorado River and how long it must have taken to carve its path through the Grand Canyon and there's no way I can believe the Earth is anywhere close to only 6000 yrs old.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 04:18 PM
yes sir, maybe it is, then again, maybe not

i am a firm believer in god and jesus, but not mans idea of what he is, and it is man that wrote the bible.

god did not write it, just influenced it

As am I. I don't need a book to tell me how to live life, its pretty much embedded in my DNA nor do I do good things for the rewards of going to heaven. If heaven doesn't exist and I knew that I'd do them anyways.

Star_Cards
04-19-2012, 04:22 PM
When I think about the age of the Earth I consider how water erodes the land. It's a slow (to us) process but given enough time a river can cut through rocks. I think of the Colorado River and how long it must have taken to carve its path through the Grand Canyon and there's no way I can believe the Earth is anywhere close to only 6000 yrs old.

I agree.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 04:24 PM
When I think about the age of the Earth I consider how water erodes the land. It's a slow (to us) process but given enough time a river can cut through rocks. I think of the Colorado River and how long it must have taken to carve its path through the Grand Canyon and there's no way I can believe the Earth is anywhere close to only 6000 yrs old.

Logic has no place in this discussion. Quit trolling. :winking0071:

boba
04-19-2012, 05:18 PM
Id really like to hear about Pangea first. Then the explanation for dinosaurs existing with people merely a few thousands years ago.


What exactly about Pangea? I need to know your question before I answer.

On the dinosaurs, is your argument why do we not find them and humans in the same fossil layers?

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 05:28 PM
I'd like to know how you can explain how continental drift split pangea up in less than 5000 years for one. As far as dinosaurs not just the same fossil layer, but evidence of them existing at all within the last 6000 years.

boba
04-19-2012, 05:54 PM
I'd like to know how you can explain how continental drift split pangea up in less than 5000 years for one. As far as dinosaurs not just the same fossil layer, but evidence of them existing at all within the last 6000 years.

Here's another article for you to read, skimmed through it and looks to hold most of my views on pangea. I would list my views but I'm on my phone right know and won't be home till tonight(I've got school, sports, and work today). I should have time tonight to explain my views and arguments about dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/a-catastrophic-breakup#fnMark_1_5_1

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 06:00 PM
I don't need a book to tell me how to live life, its pretty much embedded in my DNA nor do I do good things for the rewards of going to heaven.

i am not a christian to avoid hell or benefit from heaven, in fact i am unsure i will get into heaven, but jesus just makes sense to me, and i have not found anything to say otherwise, and yes i am very open to other things

if people are christians to just enter heaven, they may have some bad news in the end

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 06:31 PM
Here's another article for you to read, skimmed through it and looks to hold most of my views on pangea. I would list my views but I'm on my phone right know and won't be home till tonight(I've got school, sports, and work today). I should have time tonight to explain my views and arguments about dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/a-catastrophic-breakup#fnMark_1_5_1

Interesting article, and its a convenient way to explain things out of the bible. However believing that only 4,000 years ago continents shifted thousands of miles from each other, which would have caused tsunami's the world has never seen I just cannot by into. Nothing would have survived something like this. Yet there are trees older than this, the pyramids were around before this yet they still stand. Not to mention all of the holes that could be punched into Noah's arc since I know thats going to be brought up.

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 06:55 PM
Maybe to God a day is a billion years? To god wouldn't time sort of be meaningless anyways? The bible, for me, would make a heck of a lot more sense to view the 7 days of creation more of stages than actual days as we see them. A new day = a new era.

So when God rested on the 7th day are we to assume we get a billion years off when we pass 6 Billion?

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 07:07 PM
Maybe the 7th stage means just that, its his last stage and he;s all done with what he had to do. Again my comparison was a new day= new era or stages, why does a day have to be used in a literal sense. Personally believing in stages rather than literal 24 hour days makes a whole lot of more sense. A day can be a billion years or a million, a day in the sense of how I think it was meant doesn't all have to be the same time length. If you look at them as stages it just makes more sense.

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 07:28 PM
Here's another article for you to read, skimmed through it and looks to hold most of my views on pangea. I would list my views but I'm on my phone right know and won't be home till tonight(I've got school, sports, and work today). I should have time tonight to explain my views and arguments about dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/a-catastrophic-breakup#fnMark_1_5_1

You might want to read this about the author of your article.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 07:31 PM
Maybe the 7th stage means just that, its his last stage and he;s all done with what he had to do. Again my comparison was a new day= new era or stages, why does a day have to be used in a literal sense. Personally believing in stages rather than literal 24 hour days makes a whole lot of more sense. A day can be a billion years or a million, a day in the sense of how I think it was meant doesn't all have to be the same time length. If you look at them as stages it just makes more sense.

Your train of thought does make more sense, unfortunately most hard-core christians contend that a day is a day.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 08:34 PM
if dayz arent days then not only might it explain earth to be older but also long life spans hardcore christians also think god put the bible together

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 10:28 PM
ok, lets say the whole 6000 year thing is the truth.

then the flood would have been around 2300-2400 BC.

in 1000 bc there was a population (obviously not perfect, but from all the stats put together you get) 18,000,000

so in 1000 years or so 25,000,000 million people were born, that's 25,000 a year, and these are light numbers, realisticly they are much higher.

how did noah, his 3 sons, have 25,000 babies a year for 10-15 years? (babies old enough to have babies)

even if we go with the breakdown of the hebrew translation of gen chapter 7 verse 15 there would have had to be 24,996 couples of the flesh.

so the ark would have contained 25,000 couples and all the animals, and of course supplies for everyone for forty days (no mana mentioned)

which at roughly 500 feet by 100 feet times 3 we have 150,000 square feet,

even with minimal supplies there is not enough room for that many people, no way possible

i actually believe in noah and the flood, but i believe in coincided with the end of the ice age (which is something else you will have to explain, like the great lakes?)
so if we go back to 12000 bc, we can cut those numbers down quite a bit

still debatable, but slightly more likely

habsheaven
04-19-2012, 10:47 PM
I think a lot of the events in the Bible have a grain of truth to them. Just as all the stories found in ancient cultures do. Problem is they get embellished and propogated to an ignorant audience and legends are born. It is almost comical how modern intelligent humans attempt to justify the claims.

boba
04-19-2012, 11:02 PM
Interesting article, and its a convenient way to explain things out of the bible. However believing that only 4,000 years ago continents shifted thousands of miles from each other, which would have caused tsunami's the world has never seen I just cannot by into. Nothing would have survived something like this. Yet there are trees older than this, the pyramids were around before this yet they still stand. Not to mention all of the holes that could be punched into Noah's arc since I know thats going to be brought up.

Nothing close to the oceans would have survived the tsunamis.

I am interested in what trees and pyramids you are talking about though. Can you tell me what they are as this would prove this theory wrong.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 11:15 PM
Nothing close to the oceans would have survived the tsunamis.

I am interested in what trees and pyramids you are talking about though. Can you tell me what they are as this would prove this theory wrong.

Are you serious? Everything on the planet would have been wiped out. We're not talking about a volcano eruption blowing part of a mountain, we're talking about entire continents shifting. The great pyramids, stone henge, tree of methuselah.

boba
04-19-2012, 11:39 PM
Are you serious? Everything on the planet would have been wiped out. We're not talking about a volcano eruption blowing part of a mountain, we're talking about entire continents shifting. The great pyramids, stone henge, tree of methuselah.


Ok, I have studied all of these. None of these three things are conclusively older then the flood would have been.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 11:44 PM
It is almost comical how modern intelligent humans attempt to justify the claims.

so the fact of that our ancestors (in evolution) becoming bipedal has multiple hypothesis, that none can be proved.

we base many assumptions on a few bone fragments, and these assumptions are constantly being challenge by new finds

the constant discoveries showing the geographical areas mentioned in the bible existed, kings and cultures that existed, military strategies that are used today, i don't find us, members of an ignorant audience, all that ignorant

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 11:44 PM
They cut down a tree 50 years ago that was almost 5000 years old. I guess that doesn't count? I have a feeling someone could have cold hard facts and smack you across the face with them, and you'd still deny them.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 11:45 PM
None of these three things are conclusively older then the flood would have been.

what about the population factor? please explain

boba
04-19-2012, 11:49 PM
They cut down a tree 50 years ago that was almost 5000 years old. I guess that doesn't count? I have a feeling someone could have cold hard facts and smack you across the face with them, and you'd still deny them.


I could refute the 3 things you posted, to tell you the truth I'm getting sick of arguing on line about things that I know I will never be able to sway the opposition about. Your never going to believe in a young earth right? Why waste my time right?

Some people enjoy online debates, but I'm not one of them.

shrewsbury
04-19-2012, 11:55 PM
personally i am just looking for answers, maybe you have some that will sway me, sway me a little, or won't at all.

BGT Masters
04-19-2012, 11:56 PM
I'd be more than welcome to believe in a young earth if there weren't tons of things disproving it. Unlike some religious believers I am not so closed minded and I don't ignore plain facts just because they might conflict with the bible, or what people think the bible says.

boba
04-19-2012, 11:58 PM
personally i am just looking for answers, maybe you have some that will sway me, sway me a little, or won't at all.


Haha, I know you guys have made me think. I'm just tired right now and don't feel like writing long answers, I guess maybe because I'm an a bad mood and its been a long day haha.

boba
04-19-2012, 11:59 PM
I'd be more than welcome to believe in a young earth if there weren't tons of things disproving it. Unlike some religious believers I am not so closed minded and I don't ignore plain facts just because they might conflict with evolution, or what people think evolution says.

This is how I feel.

shrewsbury
04-20-2012, 12:22 AM
Unlike some religious believers I am not so closed minded and I don't ignore plain facts just because they might conflict with the bible, or what people think the bible says.

great post!

i just wonder how many religious believers are closed minded? it seems that out of the few here that post, more are open than closed.

most just avoid these conversations because an explanation is quite hard and often requires faith rather than hard evidence.

i believe it's a mixture, man wrote the bible, man picked what was in the bible, man transcribed the bible, man translated the bible, and men interpret the bible, you can't go by the bible alone.

shrewsbury
04-23-2012, 11:45 AM
sorry, too funny not to post!

pspstatus
04-23-2012, 09:13 PM
sorry, too funny not to post!


Bingo!!!!