It's times like these I wish I had a "HA HA! I'M USING RELIGION!" picture.
It's times like these I wish I had a "HA HA! I'M USING RELIGION!" picture.
:monster2: One, AH! AH! Two, AH AH! Three, AH AH!
You didn't get it. I was saying you're full of it. Of course, you can't go find evidence to back up your outrageous claims, so I guess it'll end there.Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Oooh, err... the BIBLE? The topic of what I said? It's in there. If you want to find it, read the bible. I don't remember exact chapters and verses...Where's this, then?
Funny, when did you realize this? It must have been after I was constantly insulted in EotW and banned when I lashed back.
I love this thread, it aint serious just basic with a few serious stuff thrown in.
*bah*
the christian religion seems full of subliminal encouragement to violence by what I've read and heard.
LET THE HAMMER FALL
YOU TELL HIM SASQUATCH!!You didn't get it. I was saying you're full of it. Of course, you can't go find evidence to back up your outrageous claims, so I guess it'll end there.
We are only violent against those who are morally bankrupt, such as abortion doctors, and muslims.the christian religion seems full of subliminal encouragement to violence by what I've read and heard.
[q=Lady Whiteadder]Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more catholics![/q]
Later
[q=Lady Whiteadder]What was that?[/q]
[q=LordBlackadder]What was what?[/q]
[q=Lady Whiteadder]That noise.[/q]
[q=Lord Blackadder]Noise? Did you hear a noise, Percy?[/q]
[q=Lord Percy]No...[/q]
[q=Lord Blackadder]Good.[/q]
[q=Lord Percy]...apart from that colossal drunken roar.[/q]
[q=Lord Blackadder]Oh, <i>that</i> noise - it's the Catholics next door, I'm afraid. I'll just go and burn them. Back in a minute.[/q]
The point... is that nearly every religion has as history of being nasty to every other religion, usually by setting fire to them. But just because they were nasty in the past, doesn't mean they have to be nasty today. There are plenty of good people in every faith.
[q=Lord Percy][/q][q=Lord Percy][/q]
1. Actually, much evidence supporting creationism comes from theological and philosophical sources, not scientific ones.1. What? Yes, there is plenty of evidence supporting both sides. They just don't teach you much of anything that goes against Evolutionism.1. No.
2. Me either.
3. It's been changed tons of times, and there's tons of different "versions", not to mention it's not even in it's native language anymore, which is cause of being changed drastically.
4. No, Science is based of facts through solid evidence. Religion/creationism is based off blind faith and fear of non exsistence, among other things (no offense, but I'm just using the same bluntness as you're using against Science and Evolution).
I don't believe in either though, so I don't care who kills who.
2. They weren't.
3. Creationism has never changed. There are different interpretations and languages of the Bible, yes, but they are incredible accurate to the original texts. And, again, Creationism has never changed.
4. You talk like "science" and "religion/Creationism" are mutually exclusive -- they are not. Nowhere near. Too bad all too many people are too ignorant to realize that. Whereas most people believe Creation only because it's part of believing the Bible, many people, as myself, have actually studied it, and know why we believe it.
2. They were. The hebrews were a nomadic, semitic people of the near-east, who settled into cities several millenia BC. Just like the Babylonians, Sumerians and Assyrians (though these people weren't semitic). When the creation story was first told, they were nomadic tribesmen, who hered sheep across the wilderness.
3.Whether on not it has changed means nothing. In fact, it's that very rigid attitude which makes creationism unsucessful. Creationists almost always fail to compromise- they beleive in what's in the bible, and refuse all other theories. While the theory of evolution has been repeatedly updated and addapted for new evidence.
4. You misunderstand. I meant that religion ahd very little inpact on science these days, as the idea of an all powerful sentient God is becoming increasingly difficult to explain.
1. Again, no. If you honestly believe that there is, good for you.
3. Yes it has, and again, if it comforts you to tell yourself so, good for you.
4. And everyone else in this thread including you isn't? Is that not your whole central theme in all the posts you've made? I studied the bible and evolution for years (the bible FAR longer), and that's why I don't believe it (or disbelieve it). Same with Evolution.
I like Kung-Fu.
1) Evolution is just speculation of sciencey-people. We can't confirm that all the evidence to support it is true because we don't have a book written in the past that says it is.
2) Creationism is true. We don't have to have evidence to support that it's true because we have the Bible.
I always believed evolution was creation. I don't eat a wad of Play Doh and spit out a chicken; I make a ball, then a wad, then add a beak and a... thing... and then some other stuff.
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.
The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?
When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided?
Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
My point exactly! It's so freakin' infallible!
Yes.How did this sortve crap make it to GC? Do you all have Eoeo bans or something?
What's laughable is how true it is.This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
The thread starter made the thread in GC, and it's EoFF's policy not to move threads from GC to EoEO or vice versa unless the thread creator specifically requests it
The Vedas are far older than the Bible, actually.
I like Kung-Fu.
1) Sciencey people? Darwin was 'sciency people'? You should show them more respect.
Darwin was a fantastic scientist, and a downight genius.
The Bible is, basically, the folk-tales of stone age hunter-gatheres, dressed up a bit. It made sense 6,000 years ago (actually, the Hebrew creation story is one of the most sensible), but this is now. It's just plain outdated.
2) The Bible is a book. Just a book. Just as 'Origin of the Species' was just a book. Evolutionists admit that, because they've seen it it's made of paper and what-not. You may believ it to be the word of God, I accept that, but personal belief has little or no scientific merit. You need facts. Cold, hard, definite facts.
So, Traitorfish, how's that sarcasm radar coming along? Still in the repair shop? That's too bad. I hear repairs on those can be costly.
If you really wanted, this *could* be interepreted as a metaphor for the way that environment can affect physical characteristics. It used to be a common belief that the location and emotions present during conception and pregnancy influence appearance; this was the "scientific theory" for quite some time, in the distant past. Now, of course, we know about the role of genetics, but it's also true that environmental factors influence development.
Posting Permissions
