...these cretins are at it again...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070213/ts_nm/usa_kansas_dc_2
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Oh for f**k's sake...
The Roman Catholic Church has the stance that Genesis is
ALLEGORY. Can these people not just pop a stick of butter in their asses and move on their next abomination?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The do not recognise that authority. Many southern baptist (and other extreme so called "Christian" churches as well) feel that the vatican is under an evil influence and therefore ignore any messages coming from there.
They live in their own little word, which wouldn't matter if they weren't hurting children in the process.
PAX
^^^^Bingo.
At least the good news is that most of those people will likely go to hell.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
flying spaghetti monster FTW!!!
All hail the dark lord Satan...I mean, praise Jesus...wait, still not right...Buddha, no that's too early...hmm....I'll go with Satan for $300. Seriously, it's only theories and nothing hard proof. Let the kids decide what they believe in before they either turn hardcore extremist Christian or hardcore extremist psychotic.
*****************************************************
*
* Student of the University of Oklahoma. Go Sooners!
*
*****************************************************
Baptists are the new Catholics?
Jeez..
I understand people wanting to believe the bible as the final word, but I really have problems with them expecting faith-based learning to become the standard.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Hahahaha wrote:The do not recognise that authority. Many southern baptist (and other extreme so called "Christian" churches as well) feel that the vatican is under an evil influence and therefore ignore any messages coming from there.
They live in their own little word, which wouldn't matter if they weren't hurting children in the process.
PAX
I grew up going to a Southern Baptist church and school and I am a Christian. I am not some type of extremist nor is anyone that I know that went to either the church or school. I do not believe the Vatican is under evil influence...I understand their views and how their church operates. Its not for me and either is the Baptish church anymore.
Some people like my aunt and other families in the church do hurt their children. They home school their children for the fear that they will be guided into evil by their peers if they go to public school. So on top of their children not being taught unbiased material, they have no social skills and an unrealistic view of how the world operates. My cousins are 18, 15, and 13...the oldest one is not allowed to drive, has not gotten a job yet, and has no clue on what he wants to do in life. My 8 year old sister can read and write better than the 15 and 13 year olds. They are very ill prepared for living an adult life in the near future and I truely feel sorry for them.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I understand people wanting to believe the bible as the final word, but I really have problems with them expecting faith-based learning to become the standard.
I agree. I know how I personally feel with God and my own beliefs BUT I am not ignorant to other religions and thoroughly enjoy learning of others. The second private school I attended was non-denominational...while our curriculum was faith-based, our religion class taught Christianity, Hindu, Buddist, Islam, Mormon, and Judism. Then in high school (which was a public school), the same was taught in our world history course and then again in college when I took Death Education (we were taught the religious beliefs and traditions regarding death and the afterlife. So while a person may have their own beliefs, as I do, it does not benefit them to ignore the world around them.
I seriously think that the religious people that scream the loudest are the ones that believe the least. There's an everpresent paranoia and fear in their speeches about "evil influences". If you don't believe your faith is capable of surviving the influence of the outside world, then you don't believe in your faith. To me a true believer is one who has no fear of anything or anyone. If you honestly think you're right, then you don't need to be constantly reminded of this fact. You just KNOW. It's the people that desperately want to believe who need to be surrounded by people who always agree with everything they say and think.
The fact is that the bible isn't right about everything. Some people don't like it, but it's an easily provable fact. Just read the Gospels and take careful note of certain details about Jesus. Where did Mary and Joseph go after he was born? What were his last words? Different writers give different answers. So if the Gospels get a couple of details wrong, then the text isn't infallable no matter what anyone believes. It was written by men, and no matter how divinely inspired it was it's subject to the failings of men.
But in any case, this doesn't worry me. I think people should be able to be as backwards as they want. Whatever makes one man weaker, makes me all the more strong.
Knoxfire wrote:I seriously think that the religious people that scream the loudest are the ones that believe the least. There's an everpresent paranoia and fear in their speeches about "evil influences". If you don't believe your faith is capable of surviving the influence of the outside world, then you don't believe in your faith. To me a true believer is one who has no fear of anything or anyone. If you honestly think you're right, then you don't need to be constantly reminded of this fact. You just KNOW. It's the people that desperately want to believe who need to be surrounded by people who always agree with everything they say and think.
The fact is that the bible isn't right about everything. Some people don't like it, but it's an easily provable fact. Just read the Gospels and take careful note of certain details about Jesus. Where did Mary and Joseph go after he was born? What were his last words? Different writers give different answers. So if the Gospels get a couple of details wrong, then the text isn't infallable no matter what anyone believes. It was written by men, and no matter how divinely inspired it was it's subject to the failings of men.
But in any case, this doesn't worry me. I think people should be able to be as backwards as they want. Whatever makes one man weaker, makes me all the more strong.
I agree about being a true believer. I have my beliefs, I don't push them on other people, I don't feel the need to go to church to apease others, and I don't feel that I should ever have to defend myself. I believe in what I want because I can and because I have faith in my personal relationship with God.
As for saying the Bible isn't right about everything, thats a matter of personal opinion. The Bible is something that is up for interpretation from anyone, you get from it what you want or need. There is no one right or wrong way of looking at it.
I look at the Bible as a good place to begin, but it's not the end of the journey. Reading it requires faith, but it also requires your brain... God gave you both, and you should probably use one as much as the other.
Jeremy: have a look at the bible too for this: Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fled to Galilee when Jesus was given over by Judas, the other apostles fled Jerusalem. They wrote about the trial, crucufixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ...
Golgotha/Calvary near Jerusalem is a LONG way from Galilee... I'm sure they had a telescope...
On top of that, Crucifixion was a very public death, and a prolonged death, and when they broke the legs of the criminal, they'd eventually suffocate, and have their bones picked clean and then the bones dumped into a potter's field or mass grave... if Pilate wanted to let the Jews kill Jesus, they'd have done it quickly in order to avoid the defilement of having a body hanging after dark. Jesus was crucified because he was a danger to Jews (they were in Judea, don't forget), and Rome. Romans wouldn't have cared, and Jews wouldn't have allowed his body to be buried... it was already defiled.
Plus, it undoes most of Christianity's lure: there would be no way for Jesus to arise from the dead, er go no resurrection and ascension to heaven.
If you look at the greater issue, it would require that people accept the 4 gospel recountings of the events (which were written 50-70, and about 90 years after the fact) as hearsay or taken from oral tradition. Let's totally forget that there's also the Council of Nicea...
It's part of the reason I'm finding non-canonical and gnostic texts more illuminating: they're not tainted by the stain of politics from 1700 years ago.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
James Larsen wrote: Let the kids decide what they believe in before they either turn hardcore extremist Christian or hardcore extremist psychotic.
Exatly, instead of the idiots that either say evolution is 100% true or the idiots that say it is 100% false why not teach children that there is two theories to creation. But no, the second you do that the evolution theorists will pop thier heads out of there asses just to say that creation theory is completely false, then it will swing the other way and evolution will be in the forfront like it was 10 years ago and the creation theorist will pull thier heads out of thier asses and say that it is false.
Come on guys, this isnt even a debate between 99% of people. I believe in God. I dont follow one particual relgion for the fact that every baptist or catholic or whateve believes in somthing different whether its somthing minisucle or not. But according to the baptist or catholic or any christion religion if you dont follow precisely you are going to hell. Which would put all people but Jesus Christ and Mary his mother in hell. And if your any other christian religion that doesnt belive in Jesus or Mary, I feel pitty on you, then you dont have anyone in heave, if you believe in Jesus at least you have one person in heaven.
If your catholic, or at least go to a catholic church like me, you picked the right one because at least you know they have 2 people in heaven, that makes us twice as likely as any other religion to believe in the same thing as the two people who we know made it to heaven, Jesus and Mary.
But no I dont believe in the Catholic faith, or any other faith for that matter. I believe in God, and religion, and mainly the fact that no matter what you call youself, you different than any religion you associate yourself with.
But if you going to pick one, at least pick the one that God's son gave to us, which is the catholic faith. If there is one christian religion that could be proven true then ther is no doubt that it would be the first Son of God given religion.
And no I am not trying to start some bull@!#$ religion arguement. If your religious and believe in an organized church to the T, then you @!#$ wrong wrong wrong wrong. The lady sitting next to you at your mass, gathering, anal-banging, whaterver you want to call it, believes in some little thing different that you. So either you or her is close to the truth, now multiply that be every person on the earth and the fact that christian churches say that believing somthing other than what they teach means going to hell.
Well enough ranting on somthing that should have been a super short post.
Evolution is both 100% incorrect and 100% correct. Creation theory is 100% incorrect and 100% correct. But neither of them got the the 50% which is right to teach in schools. Yeah evolution is somewhat correct, or at least natural selection is correct. But so is creation, its undeniable that everything comes from somthing, how can the universe appear out of blank space... blank space....................... actaully if there was no God ther would be nothing such as blank space, because nothing could be blank space if there was nothing to create blank space. But there also cant be evolution without.... you guessed it, a God who created a world with natural selection. Which really leads to evolution with blank space..... Now that comment takes a little bit of thinking and analyzing to comprehend but it really means that without blank space that some form of superficial being created, we wouldnt have evolution to argue.
I dont believe in one over the other, rather that they are one in eachother.
Some people are just retarded enough to believe that the universe came out of noting, or that ourter space came from complete nothingness, and created us. Yeah, retarded thinking at its finest. Put a 1 ft by 1 ft box in front of you and remove every single bit of residual element that humans know, or that anything can possible know. Now try to make somthing in the nothingness. Its impossible. Proving that there is some kind of superior being and definatly proven creation a part of creation theory.
But WTF is wrong with religios people admitting that God created evolution along with natural seletion? What if every woman had an attration to retarded men and no one else. This is seriously not an insult to retarded people, but eventually you would be destroying you whole existance by women selecting only mentally retarded men. That right there is natural seletion and evolution. What if women were as unmoral 10,000 years ago and slept with anyone that has a dick like they do now? Would we really be in the same position? highly doubtful. In the same token. Would we really even have the chance to get where we are without somthing creating outer space with nothing?
RRC: The difference with the Theory of Evolution and Creation Theory is this:
- Evolution does not exclude God
- Creationism does exclude Evolution.
Plus, you can prove the inverse of Evolution (or Devolution) because there are organisms that are evolving into more primitive forms... You can't prove the inverse of creationism wrong because there is that dang negative
I'll say this: there are a whole lot less scientific groups that are devoted to discrediting Creationism, because it's a theory that is ultimately unworkable, and will break before it adapts. Science doesn't in and of itself discount or discredit God... it deals with what is provable, and what is not. God gave everyone a brain and an intellect.. maybe the creationst ilk would do him the courtesy of using it instead of following a religious doctrine that in unchanged in 6 millenia.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Rollinredcavi wrote:If your catholic, or at least go to a catholic church like me, you picked the right one because at least you know they have 2 people in heaven, that makes us twice as likely as any other religion to believe in the same thing as the two people who we know made it to heaven, Jesus and Mary.
Picked the right one? Thats a bit presumpuous dont you think? There is definite fault with that religion. Catholics even have their own Bible with added chapters...ever wonder why the rest of the Christian faith doesn't have those? Maybe because there is a hidden political agenda?
I find definite fault with a religion to regards a human, such as Mary, to be prayed to. Mary means nothing to me besides that she gave birth to Jesus...nothing more, nothing less. With that said I refuse to pray to her when two of the 10 commandments specifically says "Thou shalt not covet any other gods before Me" and "Thou shalt not have any other graven images above Me".
Another issue I have is the whole confession thing, that should be something that is personal between a person and God. No one else should be involved. And having children do it when they may not understand the intention is beyond rediculous. A child should be taught to act favorable and to acknowledge when they are wrong and to repent then. They should not be forced to go to a priest to do so.
And How can Jesus go to Heaven when His spirit is one with the Father?
Rollinredcavi wrote:But if you going to pick one, at least pick the one that God's son gave to us, which is the catholic faith. If there is one christian religion that could be proven true then ther is no doubt that it would be the first Son of God given religion.
The Bible has no mentioning of Jesus giving the world Catholic faith...He does however include "His people" to be those of Jewish faith. In Revelations, He said He will come back and save the Jewish people, not the Catholics.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, February 16, 2007 7:01 AM
I like to make Intelligent Design believers get really mad by telling them I totally agree with their view that aliens created man.
Nothing makes someone madder than when you wholeheartedly agree with them in a way they don't like. Because stubborn people always believe that their ideas and beliefs (and by extension their own self) are so perfect and logical and sensible that anyone who is sane and good and intelligent MUST come to their conclusions in the exact way that they have and when that doesn't happen that just makes em climb walls hehehe.
All kidding aside, GAM nails it on the head. Creationism refutes scientific concepts that, like it or not, are provable. I mean just take your average ordinary DOG.
No one's going to tell me that THIS THING once lived in the wild:
How about this?
But that's "Breeding" you say. Well... what's breeding except man made evolution? That's all. Works with dogs, works with horses, works with
people. That's why Eskimos can work barechested in -20 temperatures and we can't. Creationist pounce on the fact that you can't find fossils of creatures in mid-evolution. Well, duhhh... ever see a half-pomeranian/half-wolf? Doesn't work that way. Tiny gradual changes over extremely long periods of time.
And if you don't believe the dog is descended from the wolf. Lemme show you this:
A fox:
.
A Russian tame fox:
Fifty years of screwing around with Fox breeding. Coupling only the most gentle and human friendly foxes together produced the Russian tame fox. Their ears droop. They're not fox colored. And... they bark. The dog is descendant from the Wolf. Case freakin' closed.
So if we can enact changes like that on animals ourselves. What can nature and environment do?
Why couldn't God have created evolution. And why is it that hard core evolution theorists get upset why someone says "yeah, evolution is true, God created it"? Because of one simple fact that is pretty much proven.
The only thing we know is that we dont know.
That's already been dealt with:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
RRC: The difference with the Theory of Evolution and Creation Theory is this:
- Evolution does not exclude God
- Creationism does exclude Evolution.
Those that have an even half-way science oriented mind realize that we'll probably never know about God or anything approaching that idea in our lifetimes. Bringing it up clouds the issue with the unprovable. It's making something that is based on observations and testing theories into a pseudo-science.
Keep your beliefs to yourself... the Flying Spaghetti Monster may just crush you with a noodley appendage for that.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:That's already been dealt with:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
RRC: The difference with the Theory of Evolution and Creation Theory is this:
- Evolution does not exclude God
- Creationism does exclude Evolution.
Those that have an even half-way science oriented mind realize that we'll probably never know about God or anything approaching that idea in our lifetimes. Bringing it up clouds the issue with the unprovable. It's making something that is based on observations and testing theories into a pseudo-science.
Keep your beliefs to yourself... the Flying Spaghetti Monster may just crush you with a noodley appendage for that.
Same with evolution, or the scientist idea of how things were created. They cant prove how it started. They can prove that some animals evolved. They can prove (actually they havnt PROVED anything yet) that the universe started by somthing such as a big bang. But they cant prove where the atoms that make up these planteds and solar systems came from. Did they just randomly appear without the work of some higher power. Whats outside of space? Is there nothing, because if there is nothing then you cant say where the universe is located, causing a problem for scientists, because they have to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not dissagreeing with you GAM just well actually proving that scientist really know nothing more about the big picture here than the normal person does, whether it be a religious person or an athiest. Scientist have no idea how atoms were created in the first place. Did the whole of outer space just pop out of knowhere one day for not explained reason. In a space which had absolutely nothing in it to possible even create outer space? Scientists dont like that idea, which they know almost had to happen, because of the fact that it shows more possiblity for a higher being than it would show actually science involved.
As much as some people want to dissagree with this, no one knows, no one, even the scientists. They can prove that some evolution it true, and they can prove that the planets were created somehow. But none have ever scratched the surface on how everything in general was created and how it is contained in a seemingly endless environment (which by the ways some factions of science say that there is not possible way to have an endless outer space, but they dont want to show the public that, as religious groups would feed off of it).
Most of the time (at least from what I've been exposed to) science moves slowly, almost at a glacial pace. The idea is to not go too far into the unknown, because it'll end up that things become unprovable.
We can postulate that he big bang happened because large clouds of Hydrogen and another volatile gas or oxidizer collided, and after the first really good static charge exchange they ignited and out popped enough cosmic dust to create everything... But how those clouds came about to be: who can say... Scientists are just like anyone else, they have ideas and beliefs, but what they live and die by is what they can prove through testing and observation.
Science doesn't purport to know all... it can't... otherwise why bother? Faith does purport to know all, but the problem is that some people of faith don't want science to tell them something that's different than what's in their religious teachings (whether it stem from book or oral tradition). Faith isn't a bad thing, but when you start seeing the cracks, you notice that it may not be such a gilt tower after all.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Actually the whole problem I have with big bang theory is that it's flawed. Quantum Physics teach us that nothing can be created and nothing destroyed. So technically speaking everything is just in a constant state of transformation. You're not "born" you're transformed from your mother's nourishment, blood, ovary and your dad's sperm into a human being. Then after you die you're transformed into compost and food for the worms. It's always a cycle.
Big Bang is a touchy subject with scientists. Not because they're religion, that's got nothing to do with it, but because a lot think that there was something before the time of the bang. That whatever the bang did, it wasn't creation. Nothing that we know about the universe supports that matter can appear out of nowhere. Just like the opposite is true. If a house burns down it doesn't dissapear. It turns into smoke and ash but the same space that it once occupied in the universe hasn't changed. It's just been spread out over a couple of hundred miles as the wind blew away the smoke and ash.
As mortal creatures who experience the passage of time and have a very definite beginning and end it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that the universe has no size and that nothing in it was created or can be destroyed, but some sciency types think that and I believe them.
^^^^^Bingo.
I've been putting out the argument for a long time that it's fully plausible that there IS no beggining--everything is a changestate. The only frame of reference you have is an arbitrary point in time (or higher dimensions, if we really want to get out there in theory) that is selected to act as a marker to compar and contrast everything to.
After all, to you, your life is cration, the beginning, but from a less centralized view, It's not. Your parents where here before you. Same way that life doesn't begin at conception or birth--it began (on this planet) somewhere in the neighborhood of a few billion years ago. You, while not the complete sum of your parents, are an amalgamation of specific traits about them. Both the sperm and ova were alive, and as such, you aren't NEW life...we only hold that frame of reference as a beggining point.
Taking that to a larger context, and the fact that matter/energy can't appear from nowhere, puts the theory out that all that is, was and will be--just not in the same state as it was the last time you checked
. Assuming that the big bang was merely a changestate, then all of the form, and formlessness, came from that changestate into this paradigm. If you distill it down to a theory I have, it can go into a cyclic effect. If you take the Moment of the big bang, you have two instances of infinity: an infinitely dense universe and an infinitessimally small universe. Since then, the universe has been growing larger, but less dense. Then, knowing that energy and matter are really one in the same (form), it will continue to grow more massive and less dense until all energy is converted to matter. Then passivity, like gravity, takes over and overrules inertia. At the point in which gravity slows down, and stops this expansion, the universe, in theory will be infinitely large and infinitessimally sparse, at which point, gravity fully takes over and everything falls in on each other.
It could also be surmised that at the point of the big bang, there was comparetively infinite energy and infinitessimal matter, and at the greatest expansion, and infinite amount of matter comparatively and and infinitessimal amount of energy. We can pull the same on form and formlessness.
That being said, we can theortically surmise that the universe was spawned from a paradigm before it, and will spawn a paradim after it. and this sawning and destruction cycle could be infinite itself within the higher dimensions, on up to...infinity.
What does all that mean? It means that you can surmise that everything didn't "come" from anywhere--it's always been here (again, not in the same form as we left it). As such, you can say we weren't necessarily created.
However, i disseminate everything down to this: You have two abosolutes you can believe in--God or some other deity, or infinity. Choose your Poison.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
If there was a big bang, it would stand to reason that there would be a big crunch... and from there another big bang which would have a big crunch in procession..
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^bingo. And the argument follows that either somewhere back in the mists of time that cycle had to begin, and sometime forward in the mists of time it will end; or that the cycle itself is ever-repeating and it a giant "loop" (or rather, sicne we ARE talking about time, a hyper-hypersphere).
We can't prove either without a shadow of a doubt--it's all based off of faith. Choose whichever model fits your agenda as needed.
Cuando Omni Flunkus Morotati
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Knoxfire wrote:Actually the whole problem I have with big bang theory is that it's flawed. Quantum Physics teach us that nothing can be created and nothing destroyed. So technically speaking everything is just in a constant state of transformation. You're not "born" you're transformed from your mother's nourishment, blood, ovary and your dad's sperm into a human being. Then after you die you're transformed into compost and food for the worms. It's always a cycle.
Big Bang is a touchy subject with scientists. Not because they're religion, that's got nothing to do with it, but because a lot think that there was something before the time of the bang. That whatever the bang did, it wasn't creation. Nothing that we know about the universe supports that matter can appear out of nowhere. Just like the opposite is true. If a house burns down it doesn't dissapear. It turns into smoke and ash but the same space that it once occupied in the universe hasn't changed. It's just been spread out over a couple of hundred miles as the wind blew away the smoke and ash.
As mortal creatures who experience the passage of time and have a very definite beginning and end it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that the universe has no size and that nothing in it was created or can be destroyed, but some sciency types think that and I believe them.
In which somthing must have created it in the begining. Somthing cant appear out of noting. Go back to the bigining of time.... oh wait, if time had to start somwhere, which we all know it did, then somthing must have created it. and the elements in it.
Unfortunatly for science, religion actually has a better and more plausible explanation for how time started and the origional elements were created. And the thing religion states it to be is somthing unprovalble, but it is an explanation non-the-less.
The main problem with scientists explantions about creation is that they cant find the actual base form of thier thoughts. They know how elements can link together to create somthing, and how energy is transformed in living cells to make them grow. But they cant even fathom, nor touch the surface about how these elements came to be. How was the first single atom in the whole of time created?
If anyone on here thinks they have an answer for that they are speaking on thier own beliefs not actual physics or science. Religion has a better standing than science on the issue of actual creation, not the creation of the universe or our tiny planet, but rather the creation of the first atom or proton or neutron. somthing had to create it. And unfortunatly for science, just like everyone on here, we know that somthing has to take place to create somthing... So how does the begining of time before anything was here actually start. Time cant go on forever, because then somthing had to create time.
Everyone can believe what they want, but no one can say that religion or science for that matter is wrong. Right now religion actually has the advantage because it has some explanation for the begingin of time, science does not. debate that if you really think you @!#$ doesnt stink. You would just be making yourself a fool to dissagree with it. I am not at all saying religion is 100% right, but it is at this time in human brain power 100% more right than science as to the creation of somthing out of nothing.
