₦airaland Forum

TayoD:
Gnostism is not Christianity, and none of the Gnostic books was ever believed nor claimed to be divinely inspired. By the way, the book of colossians written by Apostle Paul was directed mainly at the fallacy of gnostism.

Do any of the cannonical gospels claim to be divinely inspired?

all your claims about mary magdalene, and recently, Judas goes beyond the scriptures and are not consistent with the Old Testament prophecies. And for your information, anyone present during Jesus crucifixion couldn't have been a disciple. If your gnostic friends were present as you seem to suggest, it only shows that they were never Christ disciples 'because it is written: "I will strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will scatter". Peter desertion of Christ is consistent with that.

Leaving aside any arguments about prophecies and their fufillment, this verse disagrees with your premise, John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

syrup:
@KAG,
My interest is more in issues than in positions. You're free to defend anything other than issues, and I'm not obliged to be scholarly about that.

I thought I was discussing both, with more emphasis on issues, I guess not. In any case, I'm still curious as to the ultimate question you felt/feel can't be answered by the ToE.

xkape:
@SYRUP
please i would like u to review my posts on this topic and see if they really are as stupid and confusing as KAG and co would like me to believe. KAG especially seems to have a one -liner for every challenge. one-liners in the vanim of "no it isnt" and "why why why" and such incomprehensible , i don't know
nferyn at least tries to give the semblance of a rebuttal

What challenges have I responded to with no it isn't, etc? I only tend to give a reply of "no it isn't", to assertations on science with no backing evidence, silly claims and things of that nature, which deserve nothing more. It also amply shows shows how easy it is to make an "argument" with no evidence or reason given.

Examples of when "no it isn't", or a variant, sufficed : "The whole Idea of "THE BIG BANG THEORY" or Evolution theory is just rediculous.";

"Evolutionists tend to cover up their inplausible arguments with time. Millions and millions of years give organisms enough time to evolve into whatever they want they say!!!!Thats pure balderdash!";

"Evolutionist claim God first created apes or apes appeared on earth and started changing into humans and everything just popped up from nowhere."

"and I know where you are coming from and exactly where you are going."

So now u admit the origin of life must have been brought to earth by something

"99% percent of scientists in Galileos time belived the earth was flat."

"Why, why, amd why?", was me asking for a reason for your line of reasoning, you still haven't answered.

Oh, and i don't recall an "I don't know", but it's important to remember that there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I don't know".

they still will not face the issue of evolution going against every thing we know in more established fields such as mathematics (simple probabilistic theory) , thermodynamics (with respect to entropy and the kinetic theory), the theory of uncertainty, molecular biology (wrt to the kinetics of protein formation and gene replecation), computer programming, everything!!.

Not only would that be startling news to all the major Universities (especailly as many of their departments correspond with each other frequently), it would also be news to all knowledgable scientists. Maybe you can tell us how evolution goes against mathematics, thermodynamics (I'll be most interested in seeing your argument for this), and all the other stuff.

Evolution marches on in the face of all common sense ( and even some uncommon)

Evolution marches on, because it hasn't been falsified.

kimba:
@KAGSo your I-would-have-believed-in-Jesus-but-unfortunately-I-didnt is because of bread?

Huh?

hhmmm so right, you don't need God to turn stone into bread for you, but you wont mind that he turn stones into bread for others, right? and after that you could become a fan-of-Jesus.

It's not too much to ask. If YHVH could do it for the Isralites (think bread rainfall, as opposed to stony bread), then what's stopping her now?

Unfortunately, JESUS DOESNT NEED FANS?

Good to know, I won't "clap for Jesus" next time.

No he hasn't, really, really, he hasn't.
Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
[-Delo McKown]

This is the best part of your post. God wouldn't have held you responsible if you had no opportunity to read, to hear the gospel of Christ, but now that you have read it and heard it all:

A worthy endorsement for shhoting missionaries before they get the chance to spread the "good news"?

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
(snip)

A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire."
- Sherman Milliken

syrup:
So, what's your point - that we're debating between theism and atheism?

Conversion/Deconversion stories serve absolutely no purpose, and are a fallacy, not only in a debate between theism and atheism, but especially in a debate between science and religion.

nferyn was of the view that science is ultimately superior to other fields of enquiry (which is not the case),

I suppose it's all about perspectives and opinions.

and my reference to Anthony Flew is that Philosophy is as legitimate a field of enquiry as much as what is called science. In other words, Philosophy is a science; thus, it was scientific enquiries even within Philosophy that led Prof. Flew to change his worldview, because the ultimate question as to origin and existence still remains unsatisfactorily answered by the theory of evolution. That Dan Baker became an atheist does not read my point here at all, unless you're further confirming my suspicion that people sometimes fail to look at issues and veer off instead at defending a position.

I have no doubt philosophy is a legitimate field of enquiry, but I don't see our it can be called science. See above for why I mentioned Barker; also what is the ultimate question that can't be answered by the ToE?

First, the word has been modified so that it has a connotation in modern times different from earlier times.

Just a quick point, the etymology and past use of a word can be, and is, often disregarded, especially if the modern definition of the word differs significantly from it's past meaning. I'm just saying.
[quote][/quote]

Just a few problems with the Omni- God concept and true believers (TM), if you ask me. Good stuff though.

syrup:
It is almost like what many atheists do today: they come off trying to redefine atheism and claiming that only theists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deity/God. That really isn't balanced because the people making that sort of claim just don't know the reality of what they're talking about.

The problem with the definition is more of a language and semantics problem, than anything else (at least that's the impression i've gotten lately).

I'm not trying to pick you apart, but when you earlier stated that "Maybe why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things", I wondered if you were kidding - please take a look at reality and be very aware of what is currently happening: modern science is having to deal with this very question more than ever in the past. And that is the propelling force behind many enquiries - scientific, philosophic, religious, political, cultural, . . . and even plain fiction.

Maybe it isn't important in the grand scheme of things, maybe it's more important to acknowledge we are here, and just try to appreciate that fact, and enjoy what time we have. Meh! *shrugs*

It seems to me that you trailed off discussing the Theory of Evolution and meandered into atheistic evolutionism. It does not appear that your concern was more about ToE, but rather the discrediting of other legitimate fields of study which you virulently classed off as "arrogance. . . non-sense, a mockery of science."

I don't think creationism falls under a legitimate field of study, and ID - although a little better - still suffers from too much politics, and almost no science.

Please be informed that science is no Cinderella all by herself - you don't have a monopoly on science in order to pride yourself as one defending science. Philosophy is as legitimate a discipline as what is called science, and so is creationism.

What's scientific about creationism? I also disagree about philosophy being science; there was time when it could have been considered science, but the definition of science has come a long way since its incepption.

Anthony Flew may have been a philosopher, and it was scientific enquiries that led him to change his previously held worldview from atheistic evolutionism to deism.

Dan Barker may have been a minister, and it was theological enquiries (amongst other things) that led him to change from his previously held worldview from christianity, to atheism. *shrugs*

Evolution remains simply as a theory,

And a theory is held in the highest esteem in science.

and is yet to provide a satisfying answer to the basic questions of origin and existence.

Origin of life, universe? No. Origin of species, yes it has.

simmy:
@ nferyn and others like him

Most evolutionists assume this superior intellectual attitude when regarding creationists because they assume creationism is based strictly on belief or faith, but it isn't.

It is.

Evolutionists argue that changes occur over a period of time in a population and that the dramatic changes we notice is brought about by time, time on a grand scale, millions and billions of years, but they get carried away by the grandness of their own theory (yes, i'll be the 1st to admit that only a genius could have thought out evolution).

Athena perhaps .

First of all, evolution is a THEORY (or a school of thought). Scientists insist that NO theory can be proven right but has to be proven wrong. Pray tell me then how the theory of evolution differs from the the theory of intelligent design in that respect.

First of all, theory is highly regarded in science, as it relies on facts and evidence. Second, ID is not a theory. Third, the ToE differs from ID, because the theory of evolution, like other scientific theories, can be falsified. Finally, "proof is for maths and alcohol".

I see no way in which evoluiton ties facts together! All evolutionsits observe is a certain gradation in complexity of organisms and they hastily jump into conclusion that these organisms somehow transform into each other over time!!

Really, you don't see how the ToE ties facts together? Also, no there's more to the ToE than observing change in allele frequencies.

I challenge ANY scientist the world over to show JUST 1 organism in the process of evolution.
They probably will shake their head and say it happens so slowly u can't see it

I'm sure you won't accept a, "every organism is technically in the process of evolution (sic)" kind of response, so here's one https://i3.tinypic.com/wlwq9w.jpg.

To that I issue a challenge to ANY scientist the world over to show complete fossil records that capture accurately one organism evolving into another. (To that they mummble somehting about incomplete fossil records)
Whatt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Can't do that, but we know why. Your question is, in my opinion, a red-herring; you've ignored the many fossils we do have and asking for something that would be impossible.

And you dare accuse creationists of basing their opinions on non-facts

Yes.

When certain individuals posess certain characteristcs that somehow give them an advantage over others what we get is A VARIANT of the SAME SPECIES!! not a new specie! I wonder why evoluitonists can't get that. Nature even has a way of dealing with interbreeding between two different species which tells any one who cares to listen that nature is intent on keeping species seperate
I agree that all species are related but claiming they have a common ancestor is like claiming that because two ladies are blond means thaty they must be sisters. I think there is a leap in logic!

Pray tell, how are they then related?

Anyone well versed in genetics will realise that variation produced by genetic reshuffling can NEVER lead to such dramatic differences that exist between a monkey and a frog!

I'm sure many well versed in genetics would disagree with you though. However, would mutations and selection do?

Evolutionists tend to hide under the cloak of time to hide the outlandishness of their claims but they fail to realise that even if a gazillion years where offered to evolution, the chances of life evolving in the direction it has would be so close to impossible that , (duh!)

Care to tell us why?

Pray explain to me how patterns of behaviour like instinct evolved (please don't qoute some jargon penned down by some halfwit , such complex behaviour is simply unexplainable by evolution. Take for example the migratory instincts of common birds!!)
Mutation?? maybe, but it is inplausible and I was taught in school to always look for the more plausible answer.

Without looking it up, I'm sure the answeres lie in the evolution of the brain (or something like it). the unseen, unevidenced designer (*wink* *wink*) is IMO, no more than a God of the gaps argument.

"Hey you, explain how lightning works", said the Hellenist. "Erm, huh, ", replied the common pleb. "See it's more plausible to believe Zeus done it".

The genetic system of more advanced species has a way of correcting mistakes (such as might arise from mutation) during reproduction, making the possibility of error as small as possible. This proof reading also allows mistakes to be made occasionally in order to promote variation, but saying mutation accounts for evolution is the effect of an overworked and overactive and anti creationist mind!

I disagree with the way you've worded that, but semantics aside, there are still many mutations that occur in every reproduction. That's why it's often said, you have several mutations your parents didn't.

The theory of intelligent design is based on a very simple premise
The planet earth is SOOO perfectly positioned to support life that to assume that it wasnt placed their by someone or something on purpose is simply not logical (one reason why some people arew not so easily carried away by that argument is ignorance.
I recommend such a person conduct a simple research on the conditions necessary for ANY intelligent life and how the earth goes out of its way to meet such conditions).

So, ID is based solely on "this hole was made specially for me, said the puddle" (to paraphrase Douglas Adams (?)) Here's a question for you, what do you think the odds of life forming on a suitable planet , are? Bear in mind that there are a number uncountable galaxies in the Universe, and each probably has at least one solar system with planets orbiting it.

Lif as we know it is SOOOOOO (raised to the power of a gazillion trillion trillion) unbelievably complex that no amount of time will be sufficient to account for a slow change from simple to complex (no wonder evolutionists insist that evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, I wonder!!!

Can you present something to backup that ssertation? And yes evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, although I fail to see what that has to do with what you asserted.

anyone who knows anything about biology would realise that nature is extremely efficient, no amazingly efficient, an increase in complexity is ALWAYS DEFINITELY for a purpose). Everywhere you turn in the universe ruthless purpose is observed and yet evoluitonists draw a blind eye to all this and explain life away like a kindergatten kid armed with the knowledge of simple arithmetics trying to solve a problem in calculus!!!
An d they are so damn smug about it!!! accusing other people of being unreasonable
HUMMMMMMMMPHGH!

And that's your evidence for ID? Okay.

simmy:
Mos people misunderstand the bible, misinterprete and then turn around and accuse the bible of being incorrect, the bible NEVER claimed the human race was 6000yrs old, it only suggests that CIVILISED MAN is 6000yrs old which most anthropologists agree with

It does if you are a strict literalist. Also, what do you mean by "civilised man"? Because by all accounts, civilised man, as i understand it, is far older than 6000 years.

jagunlabi:
A question for all;

If intelligent life forms are to be discovered in another solar system or in another distant galaxy or planet,will that effect a change in this debate?To which side of the diviede will the scale be tipped?To the creationist posse,or to the evolutionist camp?

It would probably do more for the theories of abiogeneis, than the creationists dogma.

Reverend:
@ Kag

I was truly impressed with the quality of your writing in this thread and your sensible reasoning and salient points.

5/5 Good work and I agree 100% with your view on this subject!

Thanks.

nferyn:
And I'm not getting a pat on the back? That's all I'm here for, after all

I think it's a given that we all love your posts, so even though the words aren't said, we do appreciate it.

Lol, the hilarious words of the atheist prophet . I love Carlin! I remember listening to that skit a few years ago, and finding it both funny and true to some extent; still find it funny.

kimba:
@KAG
maybe you didnt understand me, its not about a thinking pattern or whatever,

It's all about the thinking pattern .

what im saying is like this: you found something you consider true, genuine and you'll want to share it with your friends, so how would you put it to them, like this, i won a scholarship, this is what im enjoying by the scholarship, this is the way if you want to win the scholarship, or if someone were to ask you, i want to become an aethist, tell me what youve been/you are enjoying, which will further encourage me to take the important step you have taken,
the reason why majority of Christians will want others to come join Christ's party is that we have something we are enjoying, that is meaningful to us and we want to share it, plain and simple.

Really? I thought it was because christians were bidden to "go share the gospel". In any case, I think the problem lies in understanding atheism. Atheism , like theism, is a position and not really a philosophical ideal; although your philosophical outlook on life can certainly be based on, or incorporate atheism. The thing is I've formed a tentative philosophical outlook on life; and the question is, would I want to try to deconvert people from their beliefs, and turn them into clones of myself?

The answer is no. From my perspective, we are all different and we all react to different ideaologies differently. So there's no need to do any converting. Another question would be, would I want to see more atheists in the world? To some extent, especially if it would help them become more empathic, and care more for the now - rather than the afterlife.

How would I go about doing that? I really have no idea, I've had no reason to try to converting anybody, besides the life of many atheists is ample enough to show that atheism can be a right way to go.

now if i win a million dollars, i should have something to show for it, as proof that ive won a million dollars and that im happier than i was before.

I already said i am happier now as an atheist, that in itself is more than enough.

another thing: after death, what next?

Cremation -if body can be found, and my wishes are followed - six feet under if my relatives wish it.

xkape:
KAG and nferyn

by the nature of your posts i am either very confused of confusing! Either way, i think i will throw in the towel here because the "i don't know what you're implying ' answer is , exasperating. but let me point out a few contradictions

It's probably a mixture of both.

Really?

Evolution is not random.

KAG thanx for the link, here are some selected quotes from the article on the BBC website

Mankind has evolved over millions and millions of years from single-celled, water-bound organisms, to primitive primates, and then to apes. Venturing out of the forests, early man started to walk on two feet and exposed the scalp to the harsh rays of the Sun.

so walking on four feet somhow protects one's scalp from the sun? (note here the picture of evolution drawn here, single celled --- >early man)

I would reckon there's less chance of over exposure to the sun. So if the hypothesis is right, when a full head of hair occured, it became a selceted trait.

Our prehistoric ancestors were very attracted to someone with thick hair as a potential mate. The likelihood is that the person with the thick hair had the genes for thick hair as well, and therefore passed this natural Sun protection to his or her offspring, thereby increasing their chances of a long life in which to procreate.

this is an example of the all-powerful natural selection process. there is nothing here to suggest any beneficial trait was enhanced that lay outside the hardcoded combination of genes already inherent in the animal ( in other words non-mutative within-species traits). anybody who knows a little about genetics will agree that genes have meticulous mechanisms to ensure no errors creep into the genetic code. so there is a very big jump in logic between that primordial amoeba and nferyn

But mutations still, and will always happen. Infact you have mutations your parents didn't have, that's one of the things necesaary for evolution, mutations.

If, however, the person displaying a thick head of hair did not have the genes for thick hair, this is not to say that he or she is less of an attractive offer. Hair is made of protein, predominantly one called keratin. Rich sources of protein include meat and eggs. If a person had thick hair, it meant they had a protein rich diet, and the only people with a protein rich diet were the best hunter-gatherers. They also had the best overall health since their diet was good. They made brilliant mates since it would mean that the offspring would be well fed.

is this science or somebody's overactive imagination. by this thinking bald individuals should have been weeded out long ago. and african hair that in not as groomable as europian hair should also have been weeded out. dark skinned individuals should also have an advantage over light

Why, why, and why?

this is the kind of reasoning the whole ToE is based on. Judge for yourself

no it isn't.

TV01:
Morning KAG,

I quite agree with "interpretations" possibly being wrong. But if the Bible itself is wrong, that effectively nullifies it and all it's claims. As a matter of integrity, if one come to the conclusion that the Bible is untrue, why not simply place your faith elsewhere?

That is simply not true. There are bits in the Bible that are wrong, but that does not nullify the message within it, nor does it render Jesus' sacrifice. I have to say though, that the all or nothing attitude in regards to the Bible is nothing short of perplexing, that and what can only be viewed as a form of Biblatory.

No, I am not, or perhaps I am but don't know it, or maybe I will be! I'm not a scientist or expert in any field and I don't feel the need to become one. Faith and the Bible are essentially simple things. That's not to say I despise or shun intellectual or scientific discussions, especially where the Bible is concerned, and whilst I try to keep abreast of things, I'm more about living my faith than proving it.

You believe there's a possibility the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth?

I'm a Christian. A Bible believing Christian. A fundamentalist if you like. I believe in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and immutability of the Bible as Gods word. Could there be errors in translation ? maybe, but I don't see that as affecting the essence of the Bible, or the Bible as being God's revelation.

There could be errors in translation, and there could be errors in the original texts, but the Bible is not infallible, nor is it inerrant. The Bible is arguably a collection of works written by men inspired by God.

Lets abandon the "mythical/allegorical" thing is a bit of a mute point.

No it really isn't, I'm of the opinion that it's the best explanation for christians. A literal reading of the Genesis accounts contradict most of science (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, archeology, etc). So either God has decieved us, the bible is wrong, or it's not literal and it's an allegorical tale with a message.

I can't speak for others, but I live my faith by what I know from reading, researching or what has been revealed. Some of my positions are literally by default. So for example I used to tithe as I was taught. I now understand it is not a Christian notion, so I stopped. I hope this speaks to the "geocentrist" question as well.

So you pick and choose what you're going to interprete as literal?

The Bible records Moses as the inspired author of the Torah. To deny that is to deny Biblical Christianity. To a Christian, "believing God" is righteousness. A half truth is a lie.

Where does the Bible say Moses wrote the Torah? Surely, you are not suggesting that realising that Moses couldn't have authored all of the Torah, suddenly means giving up the gift of salvation?

Quote:
By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

Creation & ToE are mutually exclusive.
Believe God or don't believe God.

[/quote]No they are not mutually exclusive. Many christians believe God used evolution as his means of creation, so they DO believe in God.

[quote]Romans 3:4 - Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

God bless

What you don't seem to understand is, that it would make God a liar too. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, overwhelming evidence for an old Earth, and overwhelming evidence for an older Universe. Except it was God's intention to deceive mankind, or the word of God which was penned by man is not an history and science book.

kimba:
who is getting hurt, those homosexuals are getting hurt,
the younger generation who hardly know their left from right are getting hurt!!!

How? In what way?

kimba:
@KAG

thank you for your replies, but
for your answer to the first question:
If I would credit your personal well being with happiness and well-roundedness, I would also credit the enrichment of your present life with happiness and joy.

*You didnt mention anything about how Aethism has helped you to overcome the past and to have a hope for the future*

I said something about fears and phobias. i can't think of how atheism would help me overcome the future, except from the fact that it would give me the sense of urgency to do the best I can, and to be more charitable to others etc.

For my second question:as you wouldn't be able to give me a compelling reason for your faith, let me give you another example:

I wouldn't call it a faith, and your question suggested what I would do/say to make someone become an atheist, I wouldn't.

example: suppose, that you found a very rare treasure, one of great value/price, suppose you found it either by chance, or for which you have earnestly searched for all your life, and finally you found it, don't you think you would be able to give concrete answers to these questions:
- what you found? how it looks like?
- where/when you found it?
- how you found it?
- what it means to you?
-what you can achieve with it, and
- how your life has changed after finding this rare treasure.

Definitely, you would be able to answer all those questions, should you find such a rare treasure.

*****Now, if someone comes to you with some claim that he has found a great treasure, and he describes it using the best of qualitative-adjectives, and you ask such a one the questions above, and he is not able to give you an answer, in all honesty, don't you think you would doubt his claim of a great treasure-find?

If someone were to come to you seeking for what you have gotten "Aethism" and you arent able to show him the 1,2,3, shoudn't he conclude that you are just doing make-believe?

I have given some of the things I fell I amy have gained from becoming an atheist, however your question was "what would you say is your most propelling reason, citing an example from your own personal life and experience/s, to be a reason, and a compelling reason, why you would be so passionate to explain, expantiate and try to convince, and that if you could, to win a single person to become an Aethist." My reply was and still is sufficient, I wouldn't try to make anyone an atheist.

Atheism is not like many (all?) of the theistic religions, where you feel compelled to try to get everybody to think alike. I suppose it's all relative.

kimba:
O BOy KAG, uve gone ffffaaarrrr o.

Thursday child maybe?

I was asking if you were gay or not, because it will definitely influence your defense of the lifestyle.

No it wouldn't.

And i think it has. I really don't care if you were gay/not, i just meant to get you thinking of the reality of how you were born, a man.

Good to know.

See, you have no basis to, neither are you in a position to rightfully defend the Christian faith if you are not a Christian, because your defense of the Christian Faith would entail that you rightfully divide the word of truth with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and since you are not ready to accept the truth, you cannot rightfully divide it neither do you have regard for God or His Spirit.

Pish posh. I can partake in christian apologetics, because I happen to know enough about christianity, and happen to hold some of the christian ideals in high regard.

The talk is not whether it has been around for ages., or whether its in every culture, the talk is whether it is right or wrong. Poison has been around since food was available, but its not good for eating, neither are you blameless if you give it to an unsuspecting person as edible food. get it

No, the talk is that it has been around for ages, because it was a response to your ridiculous suggestion that homosexuality was a recent phenomena caused by things like TV, porn, parents working late etc.

How can I be ignorant about science and logic? Tell me the science and logic behind homosexuality. Explain the details from biology 101 - how it came about, and then tell me whether that science is really science or insanity. I mentioned porn, TV etc, and even many more, becoz these are the source of negative influence in our society today. And i made reference to human copying animals since you were taking a supposed fact that homosexuality among animals was a license for human homosexuality.

This, "so now, humans are looking at animals and becoming like them?, O Damn, thats Evolution right there, going back to the beginning!!! Grin Grin Grin, is this Forward or backward evolution? please expantiate Grin Grin", suggests that you are both ignorant about science and logic, especially as you failed to get the point, and I see you missed the point again.

The point I was trying to convey (once again) was, if homosexuality results from porn, TV, parents working late, then how do you explain homosexuality in other animals?

I haven't made any refernce to humans copying animals, nor have I said homosexuality amongst anaimals is licence for homosexuality in humans.

Trying to make you see the light on this issue that "God makes no man gay", that its a moral decadence in the society, and that homosexuality is an evil we have to purge, has nothing to do with God giving anyone a brain. Yes, God has given all of us brains, to think, help ourselves, make sane-decisions(with emphasis on SANE), and unfortunately many don't use it appropriately, thats why some can wake up and say they have become homosexuals, and yes, there'll be people to defend them. get it

I guess I'll ask again, "Sick and sadistic? Pray tell, who is getting hurt/ maimed in a (loving) relationship between two consenting adults?"

kimba:
@KAG
really now, that explains many things!!!

Really? I thought it was pretty obvious, I guess I'll have to sacrifice some more virgins, before the EAC get word of this.

now, let me ask: hope you don't mind.
1) How has your Aethist belief helped you as a person? i mean how/what has it contributed to your total well being? your view of the past? an enrichment of the present? and a hope for the future?

I don't mind. In all honesty, I don't know if it's down to atheism, but I'm a far more content person, more charitable. I've faced several fears and phobias I had, become, what I would like to think, a more rounded person.

It's not all beds and roses though, as I still battle with things like depression, but despite problems, there's an inner core of happiness within me, happiness that can never be touched nor harmed, happiness that I can only describe as "beautiful joy". there's also a feeling of being, and appreciation for a shortish life. Sorry for the ramble, but that's the first time I've ever written about my conversion to atheism (I've pruned some of it, and cut short the ramble).

2) what would you say is your most propelling reason, citing an example from your own personal life and experience/s, to be a reason, and a compelling reason, why you would be so passionate to explain, expantiate and try to convince, and that if you could, to win a single person to become an Aethist.

I wouldn't.

Nice, thanks for that.

kimba:
@KAG
what exactly do you believe in? please tell me.

As in suoernatural entity/being? None. I'm an atheist.

kimba:
@KAGI can see you are very much disillusioned, Your own god is a She? man pickin get plenty problem o, its not easy,

I'm disillusioned because I use She as a descriptor for God? Okay, non-sequitor duly noted.

Lemme ask you some ?s
1) In all truthfulness, are you gay. Just be very honest. If you are not a gay, ill have a problem with you, because, you're promoting something you aint practicing.

In all honesty, I fail to see what my sexual orientation has to do with anything. I may or may not do athletics, but I can still defend athletics; I am not a christian, but I have and can defend christianity, even though I don't practise it. I hope you get the point, my sexual orientation has no bearing on the discussion in this forum

2) If you're gay, then just go on, get a life.

Wouldn't I already have a life if I was gay? A gay life at that . by the way, you didn't answer my question, "Sick and sadistic? Pray tell, who is getting hurt/ maimed in a (loving) relationship between two consenting adults?"

You didnt get the picture I was trying to draw, its like this: In our present day, we are too comfortable, thats why we get to think and become crazy things, like becoming gay, and trying to defend such insanity with the Bible.
like i said above: In our present day, we are too comfortable, thats why we get to think and become crazy things, like becoming gay, and trying to defend such insanity with the Bible.

And you didn't get the point, homosexuality is not a recent thing, infact it has existed probably long before the dawn of man, and if you look through history, you would realise that there have been homosexuals in all cultures.

Yes, i can see the exact picture you are looking at,,,,,,,,,,,,,remember the you evolved from an Ape thing

so now, humans are looking at animals and becoming like them?, O Damn, thats Evolution right there, going back to the beginning!!! , is this Forward or backward evolution? please expantiate

and who should be taking what into consideration? Humans should be taking the Animalistic way of life into consideration, and bring on the ""values learnt from animals" into the human way of life?

O Boy, you have gone really ffffffffffffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Sigh*, Not only are you ignorant whne it comes to science, it seems you are also ignorant about logic. The point was, if things like porn and tv are to blame for homosexuality, then how do you account for homosexuality in animals, and how do you explain homosexuality long befre porn, tv, etc? Not, "humans are copying animals (which they aren't), that's evolution, blah, blah, blah"

Like I said in a previous thread, if you are an example of a God given brain, then it seems I had a lucky escape.

kimba:
@RebaIf Larger_20 doesnt ask such a question, then it'll be either jagunlabi, Reverend or KAG.
But its true, and its good.

I wouldn't ask that kind of question. To me, it seems a tad redundant (and highly illogical) asking what the sex a non-physical entity, who alledgedly transcends time and space, has no observable charcateristics,etc , would be. Besides, it should come as no surprise that the God of a male dominated society would be called he, and given andromorphic qualities.

They know the word of God, its only that they love running helter-skelter, too bad!!!

Helter-skelter?

Have we observed little children? ask him/her where Heaven is? the Child points up. Thats to show that God deposits a knowledge of Himself inside every man. The rest is up to you to use or throw away Gods initial gift of Himself.

What? God resides in sthe sky/space? I wonder where a child would point if I told her what Folkvang was, and then at a later date, asked her where Folkvang was. That should be ample proof that Freya deposits her knowledge of herself deep inside all of us .

xkape:
invectives again darkman tut tut tut

let me pull some more stuff out of my arse

KAG and nefyryn
so complexity is one of the many products of evolution right? it is only neccessary in a strawman?

Huh?

so if these variations in traits were truly random they would all apear equaly. for instance if we could trace a line from a rodent to a monkey to a hominid we should also trace a similar line backward from more complex to less complex ( i know u said complexity is not neccesary but we have observed "evolutionary" changes in complexity so let us use that for now) . i know u will also counter by saying that there is no selective pressure to force such a backward change just like u asked why a virus would want to become something else.

now the dilemma is if we map evolutionary change to time the major observation that sticks out is changes in complexity. lateral changes that do not necessarily imply increased complexity are more or less insignificant compared to the time frame. example trobolytes (unchanged for eons) amber-fossilised mosquitoes (and i am not refering to juraisic park), crocodiles, the common dog and many others have remained basically unchanged through various evolutionary cycles. do we then assume that nature is indeed cognate and is in cahoots with animals to push them towards complexity and circumstances never arise for the revese or at least the diverse to happen?

even the variation in the beaks of the famous galapagos finches are not more significant a survival adaptation than the difference between the nose of a european and an african (or is one more evolved than the other? )

I have no idea what you are trying to say/ask, but quick points, Evolution is not random; monkeys didn't evolve from rodents, and hominids did not evolve from monkeys (monkey in the colloquilal usage of the word, which is what I assume you meant); if there's no pressure or need for organisms who are "fit" for their environmental to niches to change, then they won't. common dogs haven't speciated, most likely due to the influence of man (I'm assuming you mean domesticated dogs).

so u can't eat your cake and have it by saying
1. complexity is not necessary for evolution
2. variation is random but selective pressures ensure only the necessary changes occur
when what we observe is an increase in complexity over time (or would anyone argue that a progression from amoeba to fish to frog to rodent to ape to man has no underlying thread of increase in the complexity of the biological process of the species?) and this random pressure-controlled mechanism has not shown any significant move in other directions?

That should be, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to complexity, variation isn't random, and selection helps to weed out the bad mutations in the population, while promoting benficial/neutral ones.

Also no-one has offered any explanation for the statified and discreete nature of the fossil evidence. Saying the evidence is small is a cop out because even if it is small it should at least be representative. yet what we see are familly trees of direct lineages to what we see today the number of extinct varities we see do not make up statistically for the possibilities a truely random scheme would give us. even then the extinct species almost always have close re[b]latives around today (dinosaurs may be an exception though). so where are all the failed experiments that were deselected?

Evolution isn't random, there are a very good amount of fossils, the fossil records does give us a very good idea of the evolution of several species in existence (mind though that there are several evidences independent of the fossil record, which show common descent), and dinosaurs relatives are birds. Infact some would argue that birds are dinosaurs.

KAG[/b] ok, so i made a historical error, chew me out on that but don't ignore the argument

What was the argument? That the fact 99% of biologists accept evolution based on evidence and facts, shows evolution could be untrue, or something like that?

i would also want to know what selective pressure led to curly african hair and straith caucasian hair , cold? (this is a genuine question, not part of the argument)

This could help: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A732791.

TV01:
Hi All,

One other thing, regardless of what "Christians", or scientists say, the Word of God holds true

Isaiah 40:22 - It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The God of the Bible never said the earth He created was flat!

May that same God lift up His countenance upon you!

Circle = 2d = flat, Spherical = 3d = Earth.

I find it bemusing that people treat the Bible like some kind of a science book, but when scientists try using science to rebutt things in the Bible there's often an outcry of, "signs it's the end of days", and "stop persecuting me" (referring to some other christains I've encountered, not you personally)

TV01:
Hi KAG,

I refer to your quote earlier today;1

And yesterday.

I am by no means a scientist, and although I am familiar with the arguments of both sides, I am happy to let those who have actually studied the subjects lead the discourse on this, hence my silence.

However, the Bible and Christianity, I do study.

The lame attempts by some to reconcile (or even align) both positions, is (to my mind at least) pure evidence of unbelief (or perhaps shame at being thought backwards for having "blind faith", unlike evolutionists right?).

I wouldn't call them lame attempts, nor would I call it unbelief. It is infact what has gone on for centuries, when christians realise that the world operates in a way that contradicts their biblical interpretation, they either conclude the Bible was wrong, or their interpretation was wrong.

Yes, there are various ways to interprete the Bible. allegorical, prophetic and revalational. But a literal interpretation is always the first basis (and in some case the only one). But two things;

Are you perchance a geocentrist?

1. The different meanings will always harmonise.
2. There is no such thing as a "mythical" interpretation. That in other words is calling it a fairytale. Unbelief!

Mythical doesn't necessarily mean fairytale, think of it as allegorical, a story passed through time to convey a deep meaning, that is all things were created by God.

You see, there have always been those who claim to be God's people, whilst disbelieving his word. In the Lords day there where the Sadducee's, who denied certain doctrine. And during the early church, there were others most notably the "gnostic".

And there are those who claim to be God's people, yet are not, even though they believe every word of the Bible. By the way, I've yet to meet any christian who in some ways does not disregard some doctrines in the Bible.

Today we have those who deny the literal creation narrative, the virgin birth, the sinless life, death and resurrection of our Lord. They claim the Torah has multiple authors, and in various other ways claim the Bible is not true to itself or even the Word of God.

The Torah does have multiple authors, and realising that the creation narrative in Genesis isn't literal, doesn't mean denial of the virgin birth etc.

And no, I haven't said that "evolution = atheism",
what I am saying is that "evolution =\= Christianity"

People are free to claim belief in both the ToE and the bible and to call themselves Christians. But a true understanding of, and belief in the Bible precludes you believing both.

[/quote]There I was thinking that the gift of salvation, and christianity was reliant on accepting Jesus' redemptive sacrifice, I guess now i know it depends on if you take the Genesis account as a literal, historical account. It's even worse if you have to accept the world is about 6000 years old, to be a christian.

By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

[quote]It guess it means you are neither "fish nor fowl", but again, we are still awaiting evolutionists to provide the fossil evidence for such a creature right? [q .

God "The God of all flesh & the Father of Spirits" bless you

Why?

xkape:
KAG
anytime someone says something that opposes u and u don't have an aswer to u say the person doesnt know what he is saying. thats cool.

Nope. You clearly had no idea what you were talking about, as it was widely acknowledged in Galileo's time, that the Earth was spherical.

about galileo, maybe i meant before that, columbus.

Maybe you did, but you would still have been wrong see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth.

besides at the time the earth was supposed to be the center of the universe(an equally erroneous suppositon) so because 99% of biologists support evolution now doesnt really mean anything if it is untrue. human beigns have an infinite capacity for mass deception. why do u think religion is such a big issue

The main difference being, those who thought the Earth was geocentric held that belief without any scientific evidence, and based their belief strictly on Biblical premises, while Galileo, like biologists, based his findings on scientific evidence. So, because biologists, and the vast majority of the scientific community accept evolution based on evidence, I think it's safe to say evolution occurs. Alternatively, it could simply be an elaborate world wide conspiracy engineered by th EAC, but who can tell this things *shrugs*

fossillation is rare right yet it so conveniently documents a long direct line from the fruit to the root of a big tree without any sign of the many boughs and branches and shoots that exists on that tree. so u can conveniently brush away this argument by "u don't know what you're talkin about" and "fossil evidence is rare"

I have no idea what you were trying to say with the tree thing, but fossilaisation is rare in the grand scheme of things, I don't think even creationists like Ham deny that.

Evolution 100yrs, Abiogenesis 40yrs!!! oh golly what a big non-hair-splitting difference. Give me a break

You asked, I supplied *shrugs*

So now u admit the origin of life must have been brought to earth by something

and for your information i am not a creationist (in the sense that u are thinking)

No.

xkape:
has the aids virus evolved into a more COMPLEX life form? Let me explain complex. has it developed the capacity to manufacture its own nucleic material or its own biochemical pathway for manufacturing food? has it developed any sexual characteristics?

Using your criteria, no tyhe AIDS virus hasn't become "complex", but why should it? I get the impression taht you think evolution is like a cognitive force that is in cahoots with organisms who are intentionally picking and choosing what traits they want. That's not what evolution is. There's no reason for viruses to evolve any of the traits you think they should, in much the same way a monkey doesn't have to spout wings. Also, a mutation in a/the population would have to occur and be selected for the virus to evolve those traits.

Something I wrote, that I feel is still pertinent, "it's nonsensical to suggest that modern virii would follow the evolution path that lead to humans, there's absolutely no reason for that to happen."

the "evolution u have mentioned is change strictly confined to the limits of what we know to be a retrovirus, it hasnt elevated itself even to the level of another type of virus like say a mimivirus. how is an ape 1000 times more complex than a virus please calculate the number of base pairs of material in a virus, the number in an ape, make a simple permutation of traits there from and see that 1000 is an overconservative estimate. and i used this means of measurment because the argument following was based on a simple mathematical calcullation relating random combinations of nuclear material to time.
which seems to be lost on u

So your new criteria for complexity is the number of base pairs of "material" (what material?)?

anybody else thinks my calculation is illogical
another little tidbit- frozen samples of flue found in victims of the 1918 pandemic in greenland were found not to have differentiated significantly from those found today. significant beign measured on assumed differentiation of viruses in the pleistocene. any explanations

Source?

Fluffy:
Hello Remember me, I'm Fluffy, the one who started all this may I say something?

Yes, please do, it's your thread, we are merely participants in your thread.

TV01:
Hi Fluffy,

I think this thing has gotten bigger than just you now. I'm greatly enjoying the discourse. I suggest you do the same. Unless of course you have something pertinent that will elevate this
discussion.

Simmy, Xkape,

May the good Lord strengthen your arms.

May God "The Uncreated Creator" richly bless you.

I know you haven't said anything of the sort, but I feel I should point out agai, that evolution =\= atheism, and far more christiians than atheists accept the ToE. That is all.

xkape:
99% percent of scientists in Galileos time belived the earth was flat.

No they didn't! What in God's name are you going on about?

operative words, large enough, long enough always streches of the imagination reason and mathematical reasoning. where are the fossils of the de-selected specimens a scheme of random mutations would generate a plethora, a continuum of traits. fossil records show a quantisized speciation over time. one form leads to another in alogical progression of traits, where are the fossils of those mutations too outlandish to survive. many of the "ancestors of animals today" exist up till know in almost unchanged condition. if natural selection gives rise to better organisms, why are some of the rejects still around. where is the evidence of the destruction of the greater majority of the rejects. nferyn, wake up and smell the angels

Once again, what in God's name are you babbling on about? I agree with Nferyn, you have no idea what you are talking about (a trait often observed in creationists, I bet you are a creationist).

Here's a question in regards to time, no one observed Everest being formed, does that mean it was dropped from the sky by space bandits, or was it formed over a long time?

The fossil record: Fossilisation is rare in the grand scheme of things, so it would be disingineous, nay foolish, to ask for fossils of every single speciation, and mutation. However, we do have many fossils, that actually show/give us an idea of the evolution path of maost of the existing species/families etc.

xkape:
nferyn
i have always considered u one of the more intelligent people on this forum but this is weak
that is all u can come up with. splitting hairs on evolution not beign abiogenesis.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things though.

so u see it is vain to draw conclusion on the origin or development of life in only 300 years and yet u have been touting how evolution has been scientifically proven with observations withing the same 300 years!!
how old exactly is evolution as a scientific field

Just a little over a century. Abiogenesis on the other hand is not even up to half a century, IIRC.

To clarify, evolution suggests that living organisms evoled from simple to more complex over time. are u sayin that the foundation was somehow imported to earth and afterwards evolved please educate me

Close, but not quite. /the theory of evolution suggests that living organisms evolved over time. No simple and complex. Now, the important aspect of the ToE is, all it needs is life and an unperfect replicator, how the life appeared is immaterial when discussing the ToE. It could have been started by aliens, the Tetragrammaton, Zeus, Brahma, the IPU, anything.

xkape:
@KAG

all u can throw is invective?

Yes, I was the one calling about 99% of all biologists fools, *rolls eyes*

fine explain to me how the lesser genetic complexitym of a virus would not act as a compressed time study the evolution that would occur in say early hominids given the difference in orders of magnitude of the permutations of genes that would be involed in the mutation of a single trait.

The evolution of virii are used in the study of evolution (e.g. infectons and resistance of virii like the AIDS virus), but it's nonsensical to suggest that modern virii would follow the evolution path that lead to humans, ther's absolutely no reason for that to happen.

translation - if a virus is 1000 times less complex than an ape, a change based on genetic combinations in an ape that took 100,000 year in an ape would take 100,1000/ 1000! years in a virus if we assume simple permutations of genes. even if we assumed environmental and sexual bias as pushed by evolutionists, the effect will still be bottom heavy in favour of the virus, shortening the time evem futher. Hence studying mutation in a virus for a 10 years will be more than equivalent to studying mutation in a hominid for a hundred thousand. but of course i don't know any biology so all this is bollox.also known as math

What makes a virus 1000 times less complex than an ape? What's your criteria for complexity? By the way, what you've proposed makes absolutely no sense, at least to me, as virii are as evolved as apes.

simmy:
@kag
Atheism has a lot to do with evolution.

No it doesn't, and the many theists that accept evolution would disagree with you.

the theory initself was an attempt by leading intellectuals o fthose times to find something to refute the bible's story of creation with.

No it wasn't, hell Darwin was a christian when he formulated and published the Origin.

I hope you're familiar circumstances surrounding the publishing of darwin's book. The book was named origin of species wasn't it? I'm glad u agree it does nothng of the sort. All darwin succeded in doing was to notice that all organisms are graded in levels of complexity and that has been known for thousands of years.

Woah, someone hasn't read the origin of species, can't say I'm surprised.

Pray tell me what predictions evolutins make and how isit testable? Please do not refer to all the fossils that have been unearthed by scientists.

What do you have against fossils? Anyway some predictions, the ToE stated that humans and other apes share a common ancestor, the fossil records gave some evidence of that, the obvious prediction with the advent of genetics was then, evidence of common ancestry would also be found genetically. Prediction fufilled, not only are we extremely similar to Apes genetically, endogeneous retroviral insertions further "proved" that we share a common ancestor. Another prediction was the evolution of naked mole rats.

These same scientists keep quiet when they unearth fossils which totally differ from their expectations.

Like what?

And please because most people believe something (or have been browbeated into believing something) does not make it true.

True, and that's why creationism isn't true.

Evolution is simply a theory (or a hypothesis, it does not matter) drawn up by people who do not fully appreciate or refuse to appreciate the complexities involved in life.

No, Evolution is a scientific theory, and everybody appreciates and acknowledges the "complexity" of life, but that life didn't and doesn't evolve.

I fail to see how even a simple unicellular organism could have evolved from some amno acids.
Saying just because a couple of amino acids can be fused together in the lab or( even viruses) is evolution is like saying reciting a,b.c-z is poetry. Its a leap in logic and until scientists can prove exactly how this leap into complexity took place,then I'm at a loss as to what scienceis really about.

Erm, abiogenesis =\= evolution.

Most people fail to realise that the planet earth in itself had to be prefectly located for evoluiton to take place. it moves at just the right speed and wobbles in exactly the right way. It's mass is even perfectly balanced by jupiter to stop it from spriralling towards the sun (or away) and facts like these does not even remotely suggest a design which in turn suggests a designer which in turn suggests intelligence which "might" suggets a personality? PLEASE!!

no, it suggests that you've strayed away from science, into the world of argument from incredulity, and philosophy. The simple answer to your argument is, if not the Earth, then some other planet. By the way, any evidence for the Earth's mass being perfectly balanced by Jupiter?

These facts are not even the tip of the iceberg! The codes that contain the info. that makes u would fill all the volumes that exist in the world and way more. your body has "evolved ' a way of checking itself for accuracy (proofreading) and even purposely allows for mutation when it deems fit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't mean to be rude but honestly you have to be crazy to even remotely consider evolution or just very ignorant

What a load of fecal matter. "The body allows mutation when it deems fit"? Please, tell that to those with leaukemia (sp?), and other diseases caused by mutations, tell that to the many who were born with disadvantageous mutations.

Ps: I'm not tryng to sound like a Mr. know-all but if you knew eeven half of how complex life really is you would realise that creation is infinitely more likely a possibility than evoluiton

You are not sounding anything like a Mr. know it all, I know how complex life is, and I realise evolution is more likely than creation, especially that described in the Genesis account.

sergio:
this is quit ridiculous, u are saying that if God existed, he would be a female, this is a grivious sin, i think u should pray to what ever u worship for forgiveness

Nope, I was saying if God existed, SHE would be female. How is saying that a grieveous sin?