Evolution or Creationism

[West Stankonia]

CLEARLY TYPING NORMALLY IS FOR GODLESS HEATHENS

lol...is that all you got?

[Coccygia]

CLEARLY TYPING NORMALLY IS FOR GODLESS HEATHENS

lol...is that all you got?

I NOTICE YOU RESPONDED TO HIM AND NOT ME.

[West Stankonia]

I READ AND SPEAK HEBREW AT A UNIVERSITY LEVEL. IN "THE" BEGINNING IS WRONG. THE IS "HA" IN HEBREW. "B'" MEANS IN. B'RAYSHEET = IN A BEGINNING.

Actually if you want to nitpick Hebrew has no indefinite article so it should be "In beginning". More to the point is that this is an even more vapid notion than the idea that the "days" mentioned in ch. 1 could equal millions of years.

WHY DO YOU THINK THERES MORE THAN ONE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS.

Because there are 2 accounts, one in ch.1 and the other in ch. 2, probably originally written by different authors as they use different terms for "God" (JHVH and Elohim).

THE COSMOGONY OF MOSES HAS MORE IN COOMON WITH TAOIST DOCTRINE THAN CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION.

Wut?? Moses is a Taoist?? Lucy, you wanna 'splain?

And please turn off your caps lock. Posting in CAPITALS (ESPECIALLY BRIGHT RED ONES), LIKE YELLING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS, DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY MORE PERSUASIVE, IF ANYTHING IT MAKES YOU EVEN LESS SO. You might also improve on your spelling and punctuation. It wouldn't hurt, and there's an automatic spell checker for the posts.

On Hebrew: exactly. if it was "the" beginning it would read b' HAraysheet. And you are right about the days. Do you think I'm a seven day creationist? Im not. I agree that day(yom in Hebrew) can mean a "period" or "era".

On the 2 accounts: Of course there are two. I said that. if you are going to charge others with adhering to facts then usage of the word probably is not valid. Elohim and YHWH are two different things.

On Moses: Never said he was a Taoist.

On cap locks and my punctuation/spelling: i'm not trieng two persuede n-e-one. (lol) IM TYPING WHAT I OPINE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HERE IN THE MANNER THAT I CHOOSE. THE PROBLEM OF THESE DAMN FORUMS IS PEOPLE CONFUSE THEIR OPINIONS AND SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF FACTS AS ACTUAL FACTS THEMSELVES.

[Sociobiology]

there's a little thing called evidence, do you have any?

name one
NO OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR THE HUGE TRANSITIONS SUGGESTED. EVERY TIME I'VE SEEN THE EVOLUTIONIST REBUTTAL THAT THERE ARE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IT ALWAYS REQUIRES CONJECTURE TO "FILL IN THE BLANKS".

congratulations here is one that does not.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_03

SPIRITUAL PEOPLE BASE THEIR FAITH ON DATA WHICH THEY INTERPRET TOWARDS A CERTAIN END THEY ARE PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE. EVIDENCE IS A TRICKY WORD AND A HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT. E.G. I HAVE A PILE OF CRUMBS IN MY COOKIE JAR. COOKIES WERE THERE YESTERDAY. ALL I KNOW FOR A FACT IS THE COOKIES ARE GONE. THE PILE OF CRUMBS COULD BE EVIDENCE OF RATS OR A HUMAN COOKIE THIEF. TO UTILIZE THE EVIDENCE OF MISSING COOKIES I HAVE TO ASSUME ONE OR THE OTHER. UNLESS I WITNESSED IT FIRSTHAND OR CAUGHT THE CULPRIT WITH THE SMOKING GUN ALL I HAVE IS EDUCATED GUESSES WHICH ARE STILL IN FACT- GUESSES!

actually assuming either is wrong, you look for evidence then interpret it not the other way around

I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils, does carbon dating or has the resources to test every piece of so-called empirical data that passes their way.

first one professionally, second one occasionally (now a days you outsource dating to specialized labs because the equipment is very expensive.)

[/quote]
ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE DIRECTING THE WRONG ARGUMENT AT ME. I DONT DO CHURCH. IM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I DONT HAVE A RELIGION. NOW TO ADDRESS YOUR IDIOCY DIRECTLY...THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THOSE PARISHIONERS AND SCIENTISTS IS THAT THEY ARE MEN. FALLIBLE MEN WHO YOU DONT KNOW AND ALL HAVE AMBITIONS AND ALLEGIANCES BEYOND THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR CHOSEN FIELDS. YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY WHO DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO FALSIFY DATA. THE POWER OF WESTERN CULTURE IS DEPENDENT ON WESTERN SCIENCE AND RELIGION FOR ITS EXISTENCE. THE RELATIVE RESULTS SHOW US THAT THESE DISCIPLINES HAVE MAJOR FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS.

accept other scientists are constantly checking the "word" or each scientist, that's what reproducible results are. scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong that's what makes science accurate in the long run. scientists do occasionally falsify data and its found out by other scientist usually very quickly, because their is a powerful incentive to prove another scientist wrong. In paleontology you cannot even publish on a fossil if it is not publicly accessible. Just to ensure other scientists can try to prove you wrong.

lenty wars and human rights violation in the name of religion ( but not done directly or in tune with the Most High)- but shit like the ozone, industrial pollution, nuclear warfare etc is squarely on the shoulders of science.

yes because we all know it was scientists who gave the order to the bomb on japan, oh no wait is was the military which is neither religious nor scientific.
scientists can't do anything right after all I mean polio is still one of the leading causes of death, oh no wait, no one has died of polio in forty years because we cured it.

and as for the ocean vs the moon, to quote a horrible movie "space is easy there is nothing there." while the deep ocean subjects a craft to 91 TIMES the force a space craft is subjected to.

[The Alma Mater]

Your sarcasm has the right idea. It sounds stupid but you just can't prove it wrong.

Oh excellent.

I'm starting the Church of the Fonz. Who wants to come with me? Fonzie was a real person I tell you what.

Only if you teach us how to get free drinks from every machine, oh great prophet.
And let us be wary of the shark, who must not be jumped.

[Sociobiology]

I can offer evidence against 99% of the gods I have ever been presented with, the rest are unfalsifiable. I have to this date only been presented with the gods of 6 different religions, don't blame us if you guys never come up with new arguments.

Meh. I could give you some interesting stuff to debate, but TBQH watching Christians get kicked around is more fun

so you're too lazy, yet expect people to believe your right, interesting

[Sociobiology]

Snip

How could it be mistranslated that many times? Unless your talking about it was copied wrong as it was handed down? The NIV Bible is translated directly from the Hebrew text and it also says the "The". I to see where the mistranslation comes in.

try playing the game of Chinese whispers or telephone, expecting a few errors in a long hand written text copied by hand is to be expected with each copy.

[Sociobiology]

I seriously doubt anyone on this board digs up fossils,

{Hands up} I do so professionally. Mostly in Wyoming, but also in Colorado and Montana. my latest dig was Supersaurus vivianae, a dig I have been working on for years.

[Myrth]

You can't compare trusting a general scientific consensus of hundreds of thousands/millions of scientists across the world and throughout history with trusting the word of a dusty, thousand+ year old text. I'm not a geneticist with a detailed understanding of the mechanics of inheritance, but I am an intelligent individual who can look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection and see how it makes sense. Neither can I claim to be an expert on the bible, however I do know bullshit when I smell it.

LOL. Exactly my point of how stupid both sides are. You're hitting me with the same old arguments reserved for creationists when I have stated clearly that I am not one. Evidence does not equal fact. Evidence is subject to interpretation. You weren't around billions of years ago much less thousands of years ago so you have to take someones word for it. The fact remains, neither religion or science has the answers. You're not a biblical scholar nor are you a geneticist (by your admission) so your views are just opinions based on the information made available to you and what your predispositions allows you to believe is truth in the midst of all that information. But I'm over your head. You're arguing science vs spirituality and I'm arguing about the epistemology of the dichotomy from an unbiased standpoint.

You're just plain wrong. You can jump up and down and proclaim that your viewpoint is superior because you claim to be taking an unbiased viewpoint, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers. If it did it would, well, stop. You're right that evidence is subject to interpretation. Attempting to draw a conclusion based on observed evidence is what science is all about.
Religion is the polar opposite. Religion is taking a predefined conclusion and believing in it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You really don't seem to understand what you're talking about at all.

[Abdju]

Meh. I could give you some interesting stuff to debate, but TBQH watching Christians get kicked around is more fun

so you're too lazy, yet expect people to believe your right, interesting

I don't expect you to believe I'm right, it really doesn't bother me either way. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and don't feel the need to involve others with them. If you want to, that's fine, just say so. If not, that's fine too. As I said, I'm happy enough just to bring along some popcorn and watch modern day Lions and Christians

[Coccygia]

Actually if you want to nitpick Hebrew has no indefinite article so it should be "In beginning". More to the point is that this is an even more vapid notion than the idea that the "days" mentioned in ch. 1 could equal millions of years.Because there are 2 accounts, one in ch.1 and the other in ch. 2, probably originally written by different authors as they use different terms for "God" (JHVH and Elohim).
Wut?? Moses is a Taoist?? Lucy, you wanna 'splain?

And please turn off your caps lock. Posting in CAPITALS (ESPECIALLY BRIGHT RED ONES), LIKE YELLING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS, DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY MORE PERSUASIVE, IF ANYTHING IT MAKES YOU EVEN LESS SO. You might also improve on your spelling and punctuation. It wouldn't hurt, and there's an automatic spell checker for the posts.

On Hebrew: exactly. if it was "the" beginning it would read b' HAraysheet. And you are right about the days. Do you think I'm a seven day creationist? Im not. I agree that day(yom in Hebrew) can mean a "period" or "era".

I'm afraid I don't agree that yom means anything other than day, at least not in ch. 1 of Genesis. Um...you know what "vapid" means, right?

On the 2 accounts: Of course there are two. I said that. if you are going to charge others with adhering to facts then usage of the word probably is not valid.

Elohim and YHWH are two different things.

He is?

On Moses: Never said he was a Taoist.

OK, he's not a Taoist, now can you explain what you meant?

On cap locks and my punctuation/spelling: i'm not trieng two persuede n-e-one. (lol)

Well...that's fortunate for you, I guess...

IM TYPING WHAT I OPINE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HERE IN THE MANNER THAT I CHOOSE. THE PROBLEM OF THESE DAMN FORUMS IS PEOPLE CONFUSE THEIR OPINIONS AND SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF FACTS AS ACTUAL FACTS THEMSELVES.

Well, I must say you have managed to confuse me.

[Leepaidamba]

Elohim and YHWH are two different things.

He is?

Elohim is apparently a plural, so either it's a poetical plural, or they are different.

[Sociobiology]

so you're too lazy, yet expect people to believe your right, interesting

I don't expect you to believe I'm right, it really doesn't bother me either way. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and don't feel the need to involve others with them. If you want to, that's fine, just say so. If not, that's fine too. As I said, I'm happy enough just to bring along some popcorn and watch modern day Lions and Christians

I'm sorry the "I could but I won't" is a sign of someone unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, a stance I find very destructive to modern society and peoples, so you'll excuse me if I treat you as as baiting at best or as an intellectual coward at worst. especially since you volunteered the statement on a discussion board.

[Beldonia]

I don't expect you to believe I'm right, it really doesn't bother me either way. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and don't feel the need to involve others with them. If you want to, that's fine, just say so. If not, that's fine too. As I said, I'm happy enough just to bring along some popcorn and watch modern day Lions and Christians

I'm sorry the "I could but I won't" is a sign of someone unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, a stance I find very destructive to modern society and peoples, so you'll excuse me if I treat you as as baiting at best or as an intellectual coward at worst. especially since you volunteered the statement on a discussion board.

Gosh darn it! Stances on things like that are not destructive to society! Things like "I'm gonna kill lots of people" are! But not laziness! Truly, if he is too lazy to care, his opinion doesn't matter.

[Ceannairceach]

I'm sorry the "I could but I won't" is a sign of someone unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, a stance I find very destructive to modern society and peoples, so you'll excuse me if I treat you as as baiting at best or as an intellectual coward at worst. especially since you volunteered the statement on a discussion board.

Gosh darn it! Stances on things like that are not destructive to society! Things like "I'm gonna kill lots of people" are! But not laziness! Truly, if he is too lazy to care, his opinion doesn't matter.

Inactivity is death, I believe Mussolini said...

[Beldonia]

Gosh darn it! Stances on things like that are not destructive to society! Things like "I'm gonna kill lots of people" are! But not laziness! Truly, if he is too lazy to care, his opinion doesn't matter.

Inactivity is death, I believe Mussolini said...

I disagree.

[Innsmothe]

Inactivity is death, I believe Mussolini said...

I disagree.

A lazy worker will be a detriment to a company and cause it to lose profit and fail.

Laziness is death.

[Beldonia]

I disagree.

A lazy worker will be a detriment to a company and cause it to lose profit and fail.

Laziness is death.

A lazy worker gets fired.
Lazy people shouldn't matter, and it is seen to that they don't at companies.

[Sociobiology]

I'm sorry the "I could but I won't" is a sign of someone unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, a stance I find very destructive to modern society and peoples, so you'll excuse me if I treat you as as baiting at best or as an intellectual coward at worst. especially since you volunteered the statement on a discussion board.

Gosh darn it! Stances on things like that are not destructive to society! Things like "I'm gonna kill lots of people" are! But not laziness! Truly, if he is too lazy to care, his opinion doesn't matter.

being unwilling yo challenge your own beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices is destructive to society, if you insulate yourself from opposition and instead surround your self with enablers you can make even extreme and destructive viewpoints seem reasonable.
extremists are often known for such cowardice, If you have never heard someone argue for the sanctity of life genocide may seem perfectly reasonable.

[Beldonia]

Gosh darn it! Stances on things like that are not destructive to society! Things like "I'm gonna kill lots of people" are! But not laziness! Truly, if he is too lazy to care, his opinion doesn't matter.

being unwilling yo challenge your own beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices is destructive to society, if you insulate yourself from opposition and instead surround your self with enablers you can make even extreme and destructive viewpoints seem reasonable.
extremists are often known for such cowardice, If you have never heard someone argue for the sanctity of life genocide may seem perfectly reasonable.

One person who's unwilling matters not.

[Ceannairceach]

being unwilling yo challenge your own beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices is destructive to society, if you insulate yourself from opposition and instead surround your self with enablers you can make even extreme and destructive viewpoints seem reasonable.
extremists are often known for such cowardice, If you have never heard someone argue for the sanctity of life genocide may seem perfectly reasonable.

One person who's unwilling matters not.

That doesn't exactly refute anything in his post...

Inactivity is death, I believe Mussolini said...

I disagree.

Ah, so literally being inactive for your entire life would not kill you? Or perhaps, not getting a job and money won't lead to starvation? I find your beliefs odd...

[Sociobiology]

being unwilling yo challenge your own beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices is destructive to society, if you insulate yourself from opposition and instead surround your self with enablers you can make even extreme and destructive viewpoints seem reasonable.
extremists are often known for such cowardice, If you have never heard someone argue for the sanctity of life genocide may seem perfectly reasonable.

One person who's unwilling matters not.

one is all it takes to kill a president or become a suicide bomber or serial killer.

[Beldonia]

One person who's unwilling matters not.

one is all it takes to kill a president or become a suicide bomber or serial killer.

True. But it hardly ever happens in America.
And don't give me the crap about "what about other nations?" OI'm comin' right out, I only care about America, Canada and England.

[Sociobiology]

one is all it takes to kill a president or become a suicide bomber or serial killer.

True. But it hardly ever happens in America.
And don't give me the crap about "what about other nations?" OI'm comin' right out, I only care about America, Canada and England.

really hardly ever?
america has a higher rate of serial killers than any other nation, and I can name two successful (in terms of actually shooting said president) attempts on various presidents in the last ten presidents. intellectual isolation is the one thing they all share in common.

[Ceannairceach]

one is all it takes to kill a president or become a suicide bomber or serial killer.

True. But it hardly ever happens in America.
And don't give me the crap about "what about other nations?" OI'm comin' right out, I only care about America, Canada and England.

England once attacked America. So did Canada, if memory serves.

And you realize that all it would take is a crazy Russian fool to take power and blow us all to oblivion and back, yes? Or, more recently, one insane revolutionary to jack gas prices up to eleven. Literally.