Who was your daddy? Evolution or Creationism.

[NickelTitanium]

ditto on both

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: A Scream

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: A Scream

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: A Scream
lol busy day. just got done with teverything and now it's sleepy time lol. anyway, I'll have to delay giving you an answer for now Garth. Here's something that I can say real quickly though.

You cannot beliieve in Evolution and believe saved as a Christian because it undermines the the belief.

Romans 8:2 - For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For evolution to be true there had to be sins before the Fall of mankind. This cannot be true because Jesus came into the world to to save us from our sin and death. Why save us from death if it is natually occuring? Thus he is not saving us from anything at all, making his death obsolete. Somewhere in Romans (I'm pretty sure) it says, "For the wages of sin are death." If he is saving us from sin, he is saving us from death, but if death is just "part of perfect life" than again, he is not saving us from anything.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the measurement of an isotoype (can't spell today) the measument of a half life?

The measurement of what aspect of an isotope?

That being said, the bible is a book. Ultra-religious see at as more, and non-ultra or non-religious see it as exactly that. There is no reconcilliation between those two.

So if you accept the bible as literal fact, then you cant believe in evolution.

If you accept what you and others have either experienced firsthand or recorded to a degree of accuracy that one can reproduce the experience or logic themselves, then it is quite easy.

Personally, I trust my senses and rationality before a 4000 year old book.

What is used in the isotope that enables scientist to "date" something.

Besides the fact that the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong anywhere. I wouuld rather believe in the 4000-2000 year old books that conprise the Bible, because facts that are conprised in it. The fact completely different people wrote it (under God's influence) and in no place anywhere does it contradict itself.

Oh, and with the exception of a few of the books of the Bible, they were eyewitness accounts.

Exactly.. Bible thumpers have the best argument when you "prove them wrong" :roll:
Such as one time I mentioned that in the bible, it says the world is a huge dome with canopy(roof), that opens up when god is angry, and he pours down water(hence rain)

This bible thumper replied.. were you there?!? How do you know it wasn't like that when they written it?

Uhh, because I'm not a retard? :roll:

Uhhhh... I've haven't read the Bible all the way through... but I don't even know what your talking about... huge dome with canopy... lol, if you can find where please do.

lol... how about this...

Evolutionists say that there was cosmic goo that the first organisms came from...

This the Evolutionist replied.. were you there!/! How do you know it wasn't like that billions of years ago!

Uhh, because I'm not a retard :roll:

Haven't read the Bible all the way through? LOL! It is mentioned in the 6th sentence in the Bible.

Genesis 1:6 - And God said, Let there be a firmament in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters

Firmament in the Bible refers to an arch or dome covering the earth. Please read on...

Genesis 1:15 - And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.

As you can see here the author (some crack head), explained the stars to be little points of light that God create in the dome. At that time, people were not aware how MASSIVE those "little lights" were, or what the hell they really were, so they pretty much explained it as God hanging little lights in the dome. God is not sounding like a very smart guy so far, but please read on...

Genesis 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
The "hole" that is being described is the explanation for rain. It is believed that the dome separated the waters above (water above the dome), and the dome would open up and the water would fall.

So obviously you haven't read jack squat from the Bible. The only thing that you look like you have done is get spoon fed crap from the Bible every Sunday.

Uhhh, so if you believe that, you definitely ARE retarded.

It's funny how Atheists know more about the Bible than Christians. Hmmm...

 

[scottish144]

Haven't read the Bible all the way through? LOL! It is mentioned in the 6th sentence in the Bible.

Genesis 1:6 - And God said, Let there be a firmament in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters

Firmament in the Bible refers to an arch or dome covering the earth. Please read on...

Genesis 1:15 - And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.

As you can see here the author (some crack head), explained the stars to be little points of light that God create in the dome. At that time, people were not aware how MASSIVE those "little lights" were, or what the hell they really were, so they pretty much explained it as God hanging little lights in the dome. God is not sounding like a very smart guy so far, but please read on...

Genesis 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
The "hole" that is being described is the explanation for rain. It is believed that the dome separated the waters above (water above the dome), and the dome would open up and the water would fall.

So obviously you haven't read jack squat from the Bible. The only thing that you look like you have done is get spoon fed crap from the Bible every Sunday.

Uhhh, so if you believe that, you definitely ARE retarded.

It's funny how Atheists know more about the Bible than Christians. Hmmm...

No offense, but atheism is, in my opinion, stupid. Not believeing in god is fine, but denouncing his possible existance is stupid. I am a solid skeptic when it comes to any religious matter. I will believe it when science proves it. If science proves that God existed, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Ogun, or Thor, or Zeus, or Horus, or some paegan animal spirit, then I will accept the findings as truth IF I CONSIDER THEM VALID. Until then, I do not DENOUNCE any religion, as there is always a slight chance that one of them is right (slim though it may be). I must consider all possibilities, though I don't believe in a specific one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: scottish144

No offense, but atheism is, in my opinion, stupid. Not believeing in god is fine, but denouncing his possible existance is stupid.

But that's not what atheism is. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in God. The extraneous "denoucing his possible existence" is superfluous.

I am a solid skeptic when it comes to any religious matter. I will believe it when science proves it. If science proves that God existed, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Ogun, or Thor, or Zeus, or Horus, or some paegan animal spirit, then I will accept the findings as truth IF I CONSIDER THEM VALID.

You do realize that such proof is impossible, don't you?

Until then, I do not DENOUNCE any religion, as there is always a slight chance that one of them is right (slim though it may be). I must consider all possibilities, though I don't believe in a specific one.

If you do not affirmatively believe that a God exists, then you are not a theist, and therefore you are an atheist. Atheism and theism form a perfect dichotomy -- you are either a theist, or you are not. One who is not a theist is an atheist.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: scottish144

No offense, but atheism is, in my opinion, stupid. Not believeing in god is fine, but denouncing his possible existance is stupid.

But that's not what atheism is. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in God. The extraneous "denoucing his possible existence" is superfluous.

I am a solid skeptic when it comes to any religious matter. I will believe it when science proves it. If science proves that God existed, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Ogun, or Thor, or Zeus, or Horus, or some paegan animal spirit, then I will accept the findings as truth IF I CONSIDER THEM VALID.

You do realize that such proof is impossible, don't you?

Until then, I do not DENOUNCE any religion, as there is always a slight chance that one of them is right (slim though it may be). I must consider all possibilities, though I don't believe in a specific one.

If you do not affirmatively believe that a God exists, then you are not a theist, and therefore you are an atheist. Atheism and theism form a perfect dichotomy -- you are either a theist, or you are not. One who is not a theist is an atheist.

Then youve never heard of the agnostic, who isnt sure, and would rather stick to not being sure than feigning belief in one or the other?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Then youve never heard of the agnostic, who isnt sure, and would rather stick to not being sure than feigning belief in one or the other?

1.) Atheism isn't a belief. I don't "believe in" no-God. I simply do not believe *IN* God. Saying "I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "I believe not-X." Simple atheism, my atheism, is properly characterized by the former, where X stands for "God exists."

2.) Agnosticism isn't a "third option" like some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism. The gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is orthogonal to the theist/atheist dichotomy. That is to say, there are gnostic theists, agnostic atheists, and even agnostic theists.

Look, it's very simple: anyone that is not a theist is an atheist. That's what "atheist" means -- "not a theist," or more literally, "without theism." If you're not sure whether or not a god exists, but you've not been sufficiently convinced to warrant belief in God, you are an agnostic atheist.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: BD2003

Then youve never heard of the agnostic, who isnt sure, and would rather stick to not being sure than feigning belief in one or the other?

1.) Atheism isn't a belief. I don't "believe in" no-God. I simply do not believe *IN* God. Saying "I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "I believe not-X." Simple atheism, my atheism, is properly characterized by the former, where X stands for "God exists."

2.) Agnosticism isn't a "third option" like some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism. The gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is orthogonal to the theist/atheist dichotomy. That is to say, there are gnostic theists, agnostic atheists, and even agnostic theists.

Look, it's very simple: anyone that is not a theist is an atheist. That's what "atheist" means -- "not a theist," or more literally, "without theism." If you're not sure whether or not a god exists, but you've not been sufficiently convinced to warrant belief in God, you are an agnostic atheist.

If ever anyone ever thought too hard about a single thing, this would be it. While I'm too tired to sift through your logical analysis to check whether or not its sound, even if it is, its just semantic nonsense. Regardless of what the technical definition may be, to the common world:

Atheist - One who does not believe in god
Agnostic - One who is not sure whether or not there is a god
Theist - One who does believe in god

Youve totally got to be a philosophy major though.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: BD2003

Then youve never heard of the agnostic, who isnt sure, and would rather stick to not being sure than feigning belief in one or the other?

1.) Atheism isn't a belief. I don't "believe in" no-God. I simply do not believe *IN* God. Saying "I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "I believe not-X." Simple atheism, my atheism, is properly characterized by the former, where X stands for "God exists."

2.) Agnosticism isn't a "third option" like some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism. The gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is orthogonal to the theist/atheist dichotomy. That is to say, there are gnostic theists, agnostic atheists, and even agnostic theists.

Look, it's very simple: anyone that is not a theist is an atheist. That's what "atheist" means -- "not a theist," or more literally, "without theism." If you're not sure whether or not a god exists, but you've not been sufficiently convinced to warrant belief in God, you are an agnostic atheist.

If ever anyone ever thought too hard about a single thing, this would be it. While I'm too tired to sift through your logical analysis to check whether or not its sound, even if it is, its just semantic nonsense. Regardless of what the technical definition may be, to the common world:

Atheist - One who does not believe in god
Agnostic - One who is not sure whether or not there is a god
Theist - One who does believe in god

Youve totally got to be a philosophy major though.

I understand what you mean, but Garth is right here. You can't 'kind of' belive in god. Therefor you can't be a agnostic in the sence that is commonly used.

Look at it like this. To an Christian you must accept Christ to go to Heaven. An Agnostic does not accept Christ, there for he is no diffrent then an Atheist. If an Atheist asks you if you belive in god, you would tell him no, because you are still unsure. You don't believe in god. Therefore to the Atheist you are an Atheist.
The Agnostic lable is just another way of saying that you can't prove the negitive.

What agnostic normaly ends up meaning is 'I am an atheist, but don't want to associate myself with that lable'

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN


I understand what you mean, but Garth is right here. You can't 'kind of' belive in god. Therefor you can't be a agnostic in the sence that is commonly used.

Look at it like this. To an Christian you must accept Christ to go to Heaven. An Agnostic does not accept Christ, there for he is no diffrent then an Atheist. If an Atheist asks you if you belive in god, you would tell him no, because you are still unsure. You don't believe in god. Therefore to the Atheist you are an Atheist.
The Agnostic lable is just another way of saying that you can't prove the negitive.

What agnostic normaly ends up meaning is 'I am an atheist, but don't want to associate myself with that lable'

During my teenage years, I considered myself Agnostic. When people asked why, I said, "I feel there is some higher power out there but I don't know what it is and I don't know if I believe in God."

Most of the Atheists I've known were more of the attitude, "There is absolutely no way a God exists and you're an idiot if you think there is one."

That's quite a difference in my opinion.

 

[JiveMiguel]

Evolution