God... Christ... The Bible

Johnny Sitar wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

"To the world

So you are saved. Have you ever thought that God may have spat you and I into these conversations for a reason? Maybe God sent me to piss you off enough to have it fresh on your mind when He decides to move again. He works on his children through hard times and disciplen. The devil only uses hard times to anger you and keep you down. Just be open to the concept in the next few weeks I'm going to pray my ass off for you. We can be done with these conversations."

I have a feeling his prayers will be answered.

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Santa Claus and the tooth fairy never were publicly convicted, tortured or put to death. Not a good enough argument. Why would one wish to make this story up and have it passed down through the ages? What would be the purpose of that if there wasnt some truth?

Why? Political gain. It's always pleasant to have people think the way you want them to. There is some truth in the book--can't say there isn't. The best way to live is to love your fellow man in the sense of accepting them as you do your own. Is it all true? Did I invent swiss cheese? Why, yes. I did!

Something gets passed down through the ages because it is useful. Humans select what they like and what they psychologically need. The Bible has had a multitude of uses, from uniting a particular downtrodden tribe to uniting very disparate people who feel downtrodden but would prefer to think of themselves as chosen. It has also been used to give groups a moral blank check to do what they wanted, as they could interpret that what they wanted was in fact God's will and not their own. It has been useful in guiding political decisions. The further back in time you go, it was also useful in guiding scientific thought. It is and was very useful in supplanting reality. Something lasts through the ages not because it THE TRUTH but because it is the bomb, the Useful Bomb. Why have shoes been passed down through the ages? They are not the truth, but is true that they shelter your feet all while giving the wearer a je ne sais quois. The Bible shelters our deepest hopes...spiritual, political and psychological. It gives believers a certain je ne said quoi that sets them apart from nonbelievers. Useful. Very useful.

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Why is it so unbelievable?

what an easy question. cause a shitload of what is written in the bible by men is illogical.


im thinking jesus never walked on water but just got a whole lot of people drunk on that wine he made from water and simply walked on a sandbar. and they simply thought he was walking on water.

Gern Blansten wrote:

[
I enjoy reading these threads, but try to stay out of the debate as nothing is ever settled and no one ever has their opinion altered.

Anyway, I'm ringing in here cause I don't believe that Cornnifer's point makes any sense. From reading about Ardipithicus Ramidus, it seems to me that "she" would fit in perfectly with that evolution progression.

She would simply be the first bipedal hominid in the line after some type of early ape. She actually bridges the gap perfectly, cause she was bipedal on the ground and quadrupedal while climbing through the trees.

Seems to strengthen the argument of evolution.

yeah cornifer needs to show us some RECENT evidence that scientists are pulling their hair out because I am saying he's full of poopy.....it strengthens the evidence[/quote]

"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings."

"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about," said Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio, who analyzed Ardi's bones below the neck. "It changes everything."


The above are cut and paste directly from the National Geographic article posted by someone earlier. (an article i had already read before it was posted here.)
Just as i have said here Ardi "changes everything." Previously posited "truths" are now "largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings".

You can go on with your disrespectful, full of shit, know nothing ramblings, you can go on citing hypothesis as fact (hypotheses you don't even have a clear understanding of), you can go on calling me an idiot or whatever you want. My personal opinion, based on your understanding of what i've tried to say here, and based on your understanding of the posted article, is that i have fifth grade students with better comprehension skills than you. You're just running your fucking mouth.

cornnifer wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

[
I enjoy reading these threads, but try to stay out of the debate as nothing is ever settled and no one ever has their opinion altered.

Anyway, I'm ringing in here cause I don't believe that Cornnifer's point makes any sense. From reading about Ardipithicus Ramidus, it seems to me that "she" would fit in perfectly with that evolution progression.

She would simply be the first bipedal hominid in the line after some type of early ape. She actually bridges the gap perfectly, cause she was bipedal on the ground and quadrupedal while climbing through the trees.

Seems to strengthen the argument of evolution.

yeah cornifer needs to show us some RECENT evidence that scientists are pulling their hair out because I am saying he's full of poopy.....it strengthens the evidence

"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings."

"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about," said Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio, who analyzed Ardi's bones below the neck. "It changes everything."


The above are cut and paste directly from the National Geographic article posted by someone earlier. (an article i had already read before it was posted here.)
Just as i have said here Ardi "changes everything." Previously posited "truths" are now "largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings".

You can go on with your disrespectful, full of shit, know nothing ramblings, you can go on citing hypothesis as fact (hypotheses you don't even have a clear understanding of), you can go on calling me an idiot or whatever you want. My personal opinion, based on your understanding of what i've tried to say here, and based on your understanding of the posted article, is that i have fifth grade students with better comprehension skills than you. You're just running your fucking mouth.[/quote]

easy does it, corny. I sure hope you don't speak to your students like that when they disagree with you. :roll:

yes, it changes everything. by everything, from my understanding, they mean the idea that there was a missing link, as the article states above, which was a notion that was POPULAR since Darwin's time, it was not posited as fact. It was merely thought of based on the knowledge or lack thereof that we had at the time.

Ardi is that missing link, they just didn't expect it to be that type of missing link.

cornnifer wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Wilds wrote:

[

yeah cornifer needs to show us some RECENT evidence that scientists are pulling their hair out because I am saying he's full of poopy..

Let's see..., recent. Hmmm. How about the findings, which were reported on roughly one week ago, of tetrapod (four legged vertebrate) footprints that predate the long insisted upon by Darwinian theorists date for land creatures by, get this, 18 million years!! What is the significance of this? It is a complete paradigm breaker. It completely destroys long insisted upon dates. It completely shakes up the Darwinian model. It causes more metaphorical hair pulling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... ods-walked

Check the date. Its relatively "recent".

so recent science has proven previous science incorrect and corrected it. is that what youre saying???

catefrances wrote:

so recent science has proven previous science incorrect and corrected it. is that what youre saying???

OT, but Cate, I absolutely love your avatar. I'm sure you know this, but you can actually buy those to put on your car. I so want to order one. My in-laws would go ballistic if they saw it!

CJMST3K wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

"To the world

So you are saved. Have you ever thought that God may have spat you and I into these conversations for a reason? Maybe God sent me to piss you off enough to have it fresh on your mind when He decides to move again. He works on his children through hard times and disciplen. The devil only uses hard times to anger you and keep you down. Just be open to the concept in the next few weeks I'm going to pray my ass off for you. We can be done with these conversations."

I have a feeling his prayers will be answered.

one way or another eh?

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Wilds wrote:

Evolution, like all science, is constantly being updated and new discoveries are being made. What was written 150 years ago, or 5 days ago, has the ability to change as new information is discovered.

It doesn't make the entire concept obsolete.


That is the point of discovery and Science, it continues to grow and new questions and answers arrive.

I don't think anyone ever said that the what is accepted today is the end of it all.

this is the main point I find ultimately hypocritical about theists. they try to put emphasis on new scientific discoveries, like that somehow points to a flaw in the basis of science as a whole, when, like you said, that is actually the point of science, to know that we do not know it all. Religion is the exact opposite: "We know it all, and what we don't, we trust in god".

If I told a theist that I just "trusted" the knowledge of some supreme scientist without him telling us his actual reasons for any findings/theorems/hypotheses, you'd all call us nuts.

Hypocritical? How? What have i said thats hypocritical? By pointing out very recent scientific discoveries that DO show flaws in previously posited Darwinist "facts"? Previously held theories are now shown to be inaccurate and must be reworked. That means there was a "flaw" in the previously suggested "truth". The newest discoveries are the ones that must be emphasized! Especially when they suggest a "fly in the ointment" of previous hypotheses based on old discoveries. On one hand, you go on about how science is constantly being updated by new discoveries, and on the other hand you call ME a hypocrite for pointing out new discoveries! Where i come from we call that "speaking out of both sides of your face."
Furthermore, you insist it is the point of science to say that "we don't know it all", which is true, but then insist upon scientific "truths" that are in constant flux. Fact is fact. In order to earn that title a "fact" must have surpassed the need for reassessment. Once again, both sides of your face are getting a workout. At least i have never posited that my theistic wordlview is absolute "fact."
That being said, do you know what I find laugh out loud funny? You claim its hysterical that theists are just that, theists, while you hesitantly admit science doesn't know everything but someday "we'll find it". How do you know? "Gee, there are glaring gaps in my ever changing, ever reassessed "factual" model, there are all kinds of things missing, but SOMEDAY we'll find 'em. I just know it."
Science is a wonderful tool for understanding our universe and improving the human condition. i've never suggested otherwise. But how is my faith, my theistic worldview any different from your faith, it is a faith, in what has been heretofore, a tail chase? But, you're right. I'M a hypocrite.
Whatever.
Hypocrite.

Gern Blansten wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Let's see..., recent. Hmmm. How about the findings, which were reported on roughly one week ago, of tetrapod (four legged vertebrate) footprints that predate the long insisted upon by Darwinian theorists date for land creatures by, get this, 18 million years!! What is the significance of this? It is a complete paradigm breaker. It completely destroys long insisted upon dates. It completely shakes up the Darwinian model. It causes more metaphorical hair pulling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... ods-walked

Check the date. Its relatively "recent".

ok this is completely different than the claims you were making about AR but Johnny said it best....science is constantly being updated as new information is discovered

18 million years is nothing compared to the age of the earth

and I hope to christ you aren't a teacher....

not true. The earth is roughly 6000 years old and Adam walked with dinosaurs