BoobzTwo BoobzTwo

What does the word 'religion' mean to you?

What does the word 'religion' mean to you?

Opinion of a non believer

Actual History is chockfull of the rise and fall of religions for millennia … many Ages. And they all have the following in common. Whenever they became week enough to lose control of the majority of the sheeple, they are replaced with a new Messiah and a new message just as the Christians have done with the ‘old Jewish’ religion when that too lost its strangle hold on the world of Man due to its barbarism as perceived by man in a new Age. Anyone who lives in a future time views almost everything from previous times to be barbaric (except for those that thrive in barbarism) and in this Christianity is no exception. It is my belief that the purpose of religion has always been nothing but a methodology to control the masses. The Bible (OT and NT) are replete with plagiarisms from the actual real world of the past. The NT is in itself a plagiarism from much of the OT. The stories of the Bible are impossible in the real world in which we all exist. I agree that many names and places were real, but this is just another plagiarism from the actual history of man. If you can place your hand on a Bible and swear that the Earth is what ~12,000 years old, then you are a fool. If you deny the evidence of science and technology, then you are doubly a fool. If you deny the evidence of early man or prehistoric man and can find no logic or truth in evolution you are a damned fool. And if you are so foolish as to allow the leadership of some rascals who lived thousands of years ago during the ‘glorious’ days when all this stuff was concocted … to control virtually every aspect of your life today, you are doomed. But all you have to do is ‘have faith’ and ignore your own perceptions of reality … and all will be yours, just bring your pocket book and come often … because we have castles and churches and armies to build to prove they are right, yea right. The all-powerful all-knowing one God would never vanquish the devil (certainly within reason for the all-powerful mindful of His sheep) because He would be destroying Himself … as there can be no light without the dark? What better ploy could man devise than to make the light and the dark impervious to the perceptions of man, the sheeple? The complete history of the universe and that insignificant little planet Earth with its complete compliment of well ‘everything’ … all described between the covers of a book written thousands of years ago by smart (-ass) people with nothing benign in mind whatsoever who championed a flat Earth for a thousand years for naught than to promote the new religion of the Age of Pisces … the two fish. It took man and a simple invention called a telescope to start the downward spiral of Religion (Christianity this time) and it cannot be stopped.

63,748 views 180 replies
Reply #76 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 72
Last time I checked, it is Secular and Atheistic Humanism that is driving politics, education, the media, publishing, etc. and attempting to force its world view on the rest of us. It's doing a pretty good job driving out all semblances of Christianity, it's tenets and morals from the public landscape.
Not accurate Lula, sorry. This IS the world view of the country or else there would be legal president to allow faith based arguments in say a court of law. Are you sure you are ready to force changes in society legally ... well god told me to ... all charges dropped because of ... faith? Christianity just isn't the only religion to consider but you have no desire at all to be fair. You feel that Christianity and only Christianity be exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us. We have freedom of religion in this country and as such, NONE should become privileged and most assuredly not just one. You are not offering any alternative besides complete capitulation to the RCC and I cannot even comprehend what that would do besides destroy America. You can badmouth secularists and atheists all you want, but the people at the top all claim to be Christians and the fault is ours because WE elect the people who engineer our way into our predicaments and the majority of Americans ARE Christians. The US Constitution is going down the drain and you are concerned with what George Washington advised about thanksgiving or what the idiots in California are doing to Christmas, get a life. The only thing protecting religion is the secular constitution ... and you are worried about nativity scenes being on public display. It takes two to have a war and the more you try and force your agenda on people who plainly don't want it, the bigger your self imposed war will become. We made the laws of the land as we went and modified them as societal dictates demand (remember prohibition). And hopefully we will figure out a way to continue to accomplish this, considering current events. If we do not control our own destiny as a people, then we will be ruled over as worse than slaves because slaves were at least considered necessary. If there was a national church which seems to be what you desire (RCC of course) then I guess things would be different ... but they aren't. So who is trying to make things different than they are and have been for quite some time. Evolution is already taught in schools because it is all we have to teach. It isn't that Christians didn't try, but they were dismissed in court as just presenting religious dogma and not science, but you would change that if you could anyway because you have faith. They say faith can move mountains but I have never known that to be true.

Reply #77 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 73
Well, those who believe in Special Creation agree that Darwin's Evolutionism (change beyond kind) cannot occur, but I've found they tend to be all over the place on the question of the age of the Universe or in this case the earth.
Not interested in what '... those who believe in special creation' have to say, I am only interested in YOUR opinion as I am not going to battle your church. Same for the age of the universe. You know exactly what I think so why are you hesitant to tell me what you yourself actually think. Lula you don't 'deduce' anything in science as a first step, you study first and become an expert then you formulate a hypothesis to support your 'understanding'. This is a time consuming process that can take decades and even lifetimes to accomplish and nothing can be accepted scientifically until the resulting theory is scrutinized in minute detail by their peers all of whom would dearly love to prove it wrong somehow. They deduce gaps simply because there is nothing to fill them with, yet, but there has never been a deduced scientific theory, ever.

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 73
Yet, while both Darwinian and Stellar Evolution has long been presented in the public arena as "fact" as "beyond credible doubt", what gripes me is that unchallenged acceptance of such Stellar Evolution "facts" has enabled some aspects of revisionist theology to appear credible to many in the Church. That's why there is a movement amongst Catholics to petition the Church to dogmatically declare a Creation doctrine. See, if the Church declares it, then we will know for sure what is the truth.
Ok I'll bite, what do you plan on using to disprove 'stellar evolution' as you put it, with a petition? If the RCC were to be so foolish as to do this, it would mark their immediate downfall instead of a slow demise ... but you would be happy anyway. Beyond a creditable doubt certainly ... I consider errors by factors in the millions to be totally un-credible. I could cut the time I would need for evolution to 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/100th or even 1/100,000th and at each consession I make you will present the exact same arguement you make here. I consider myself flexable and am willing to 'play the game', but untill I cut my timeline down to 6,000 years you will conceed nothing whatsoever and probably not even then. Who is trying to be realistic, is willing to offer concessions and wiggle room, is willing to actually discuss this mundane scientific stuff that you feel is so unimportant? And who is 100% inflexible on every point, in any discussion, in any venue be it religious (not just Christian) or not? Who has found some inexplicable way of telling the good science from the bad science (you know those things that are just nonsensical fictions made up of stuff that just doesn't work etc.)? I will leave you with this question: Why should I as an atheist accept your word now when nobody besides clergy has ever had anything at all to do with what is in the bible"? 'We' were not solicited before the bible was written and 'we' were not allowed to participate in the deception at any point in history? So now after all these centuries I am (we are) expected to capitulate to something that 'we' were never privy to ... not so much as one vote for or against your religious dogma, from then to the present. Why should I even find this atractive being just as voiceless as ever after all, it is all said and done with now as far as you are concerned?

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 73
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Bible itself St. John 21:25, tells us "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, Would not be able to contain the books that should be written."
It is your book and your theology and your bag of worms. But just applying a little common sense here (were I one of the writers) a good question would be why weren't they included in god's book about god? Surely you don't blame the atheist for this omission, surely? Seemingly they were deemed unimportant enough by the church probably because they made him look too human for their liking. If they were written indeed, then that would make them just as special as the rest ... because they were written down by someone, go figure. The bible was written in the 4th century (50 copies) as you well know so what is this nonsense about 15 centuries. Nothing was in wide spread print until the printing press but this has nothing to do with when the bible was written. Most common people throughout this time period were to busy just trying to survive and were illiterate because there wasn't much for them to read or time or resources to learn.

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

The age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years (4.339± 0.035 ×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty of 0.11 billion years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating (not guessing) backwards in time. Ditto? What discussion of time do you suggest we peruse here? I can take some wiggle room here, but to be off by factors in the millions is not a liberty I or any sane person would take. You on the other hand are off by a factor of 2,291,666.7 here and that is just ludicrous.

Reply #78 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 74
Reply #74lulapilgrim
I am only explaining and justifying why and what I believe to be as true as possible with todays knowledge and technology. I do not understand what you expect from me because I don't expect anything from you besides a reasonable conversation. Overall I know what you believe as well as why and how difficult it is to even consider 'alternatives' (been there), but that doesn't change reality. You could just as easily pick up a book on astrophysics (evolutionary theory [god forbid] or any other scientific work), be unable to understand it (most wouldn't) and say it too cannot be true because you don't understand it but more importantly because you don't want to understand it. You can read just as well as I can, you just choose not to read what I do, preferring someone else's prepared hit list as opposed to doing your own research ... from a 'how it does work' book, the only place you can actually find the real argument being made.

I have no intention of changing your opinion on anything (that is your job) just as it was for me when the time was right. When I say you cannot even prove the theological existance of Jesus without the bible, I mean we go back to it's creation to do so because taking only it out now with 2,000 years of appeasements derived from it on the books, would be meaningless as you well know. But without it then, there could not be a Jesus precisely as represented in it today. This is unrealistic I know but it is the best I can do for now. At some point, things would have had to be written down, but who is to say what may have seemed more or less important or completely different then, had it been written at a later date?

As far as I am concerned, you have pushed the 'god did it' stuff way to much for someone who claims to understand nature in it's entirety but doesn't believe in the science that actually explains it in excruciating detail both large and small. You guys don't vote on acceptable scripture and us guys don't vote on what branches of science are acceptable. Only creationists and their appeasers seem to be able to make this distinction and they do it just for our benefit go figure, because they know what real science is all about (mystically speaking of course)??? I am forced to try and work within your confines because there is nothing to be found in science that even remotely resembles Genesis or most other things in the bible.

Reply #79 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 64
As to contradictions one need look no further than Genesis in which god is portrayed with contradictions that paint him as incompetent being unable to repeat his own story. There could not have been two different creations so what was the purpose of including two versions? This problem exists because whoever made these decisions was forced to include both the Jewish version of creation and the Christian one.

Jythier is correct. Genesis 1 and 2 have no contradictions.

 

I suppose if one reads them through the eyes of skepticism, one will surely find the contradictions he expects to find. 

Actually, the narratives on the creation of man in Gen. 2 supplement that in Gen. 1. Gen. 1 relates the creation of man in order of time, whereas Gen. 2 relates them in order of significance. 

Both give an authentic account, but not a scientific account.  

 

Reply #80 Top

 

LULA POSTS: Last time I checked, it is Secular and Atheistic Humanism that is driving politics, education, the media, publishing, etc. and attempting to force its world view on the rest of us. It's doing a pretty good job driving out all semblances of Christianity, it's tenets and morals from the public landscape.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 76
Not accurate Lula, sorry.

 

Alas! Yes it's accurate. Secular and Atheistic Humanism is the civil (state) religion that dominates the culture. It holds that human rights come from the state, not Almighty God. Obama said it and who told him he was wrong?

Europe is already there having adopted anti-Christian, anti-family and anti-children lifestyles and laws and we are fast following.

Reply #81 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 79
Both give an authentic account, but not a scientific account.
I only have a problem with the word 'authentic' … authentic to whom, surely not to me.  Your authenticity starts with hundreds if not thousands of years of error free folk lore. Then they became the error free traditions for who knows how many centuries. Then they actually became intelligent enough to learn how to write so they did and without a single error too (geese) right? The only authenticity you have is an un-authored book with stuff in it that you plagiarize every time you speak through them and not as yourself. You can question NOTHING because your church told you that you couldn’t.

Take whatever scientific venture you like and I can produce a pedigree from the inception of an idea to the formulation and testing of hypothesis and the painstaking time consuming research and provide a chronological list of major accomplishments and contributors throughout development to the formalization of the theory.  Names, places, dates and whatever you want. That is what I consider authentic and many of our best minds are still here to actually talk to. There is plenty of stuff in the sciences that are even now highly debated but as far as the PhD-less are concerned there is no controversy period. Evolution is a FACT and your time scale is but a dot on mine and you are just wrong, period. Leave your bible in church, pick up a real encyclopedia and then debate me on facts instead of your superstitions.

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 80
Reply #80lulapilgrim
Please don't tell me you care about what BO has to say about anything now and how is his reelection the fault of atheists for goodness sake. You just have to find someone else to blame because you consider your dogma perfect in all respects but you can try to at least be realistic. Just as you have your 'Answers in Genesis' and we have our 'Problems with Genesis' so we can bandy that nonsense back and forth and accomplish nothing as usual or you could just admit you were wrong and we could continue on to something more important than trying to make a flat earth work somehow.

If you actually believe there are NO contradictions in say the first 6 books of the bible then you are just fooling yourself and nobody else and nothing could be gained from further discussion on the subject. You do this of course with everything you say and that is just screwed up. If you want to teach Sunday school then I guess it is ok, but nobody can debate anything if one side gets to make all the rules and then proclaims that their every word is divine and unquestionably true, neither concept in which I agree with on both sides. This is the starting point of all your arguments and I for one am not going to allow you to put me on the defensive with this tactic anymore. I have not told you one lie and yet because of your dogma you have accused me of fabricating and lying about everything just because you don't even want to try to understand it. 

You act like you have never heard of any arguments against scripture yet you use the very same excuses that have been used for thousands of years so stop grandstanding. I for one would appreciate it if you ditch most of your code words like 'atheistic humanism' and other such qualifiers particularly if you are talking to me (as opposed to at me). I don't call you anything (intentionally) besides a Christian or a Catholic so get rid of the 'group' talk and start being real and talking to me, not about me by placing me in one of the GROUPINGS of your choice. I am no more responsible for any another atheist than you are for any other Christian. I have one vote just like you so that makes us equally complicit in who gets elected (~1/100,000,000 each).

So my question is this "What in the world do you want to talk to me for?" because you are not looking for any answers or insight and you dismiss everything I say out of hand with 'it just doesn't work' or ‘it is all based on lies’  etc. We cannot realistically talk about anything as long as you persist that the bible is the inerrant word of your god. My guess is that everyone gets 'things' wrong from time to time except for you that is [most try to fix it if they can (like reading a different book)]. You don't ever miss a trick or get anything wrong and that seems pretty darn ‘inhuman' to me.

Reply #82 Top

Lula I just don’t know where to start because you make this impossibly difficult. You are completely unresponsive to ANYTHING man has to offer to these questions (besides those of your brethren), so why aren’t you living in a monastery where you can be protected from any other opinion?  That is all you really oppose you know, the opinions of other people (other religions, other bibles) not their gods. By necessity it must be the very same god, only the religions (man’s involvement) are different, go figure. You are no more qualified to disavow someone else’s god than you are to try and justify yours for the exact same reasons. You have no proof and whatever it is that makes you think some proof is going to come in the future is just beyond me? You shouldn’t continue to act like a dinosaur refusing to believe what is readily available to all for the simple cost of spending some time reading something else … objectively. I like to think that you, given enough time would be able understand the difference between faith and reality but you are not showing any signs of this yet. There is no conspiracy to destroy Christianity except in your mind where your reality exists. There are just quite a few billion people who do not agree with you and all that comes with capitulation because they would just like to go their own way. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that people are different around the world and not at all subject to the views of you or your church or any other church? Why do people laugh at creationists? Chart from   http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_7daycreation.html#Chronology

The table below highlights some of the more important astronomical and paleontological events pertinent to our discussion.

Event

Years ago

Big Bang

13,750 million

Birth of the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon

4,600 million

Emergence of Life (Pre-cellular Life)

3,800 million

Inorganic Release of Trace Amount of Oxygen

3,700 million

Origin of Photo-synthetic Bacteria

3,200 million

Advent of Oxygen-rich Atmosphere

2,000 million

Development of Sexual Reproduction

1,100 million

Spread of Jawless Fishes

505 million

First Amphibians

408 million

First Reptiles

360 million

First Dinosaurs and Mammal-like Reptiles; Origin of Mammals

248 million

First Birds

213 million

Australopithecus

4 million

Homo Habilis

2.2 million

Homo Erectus

1.5 million

Homo Sapiens

200 thousand

Modern Humans

35 thousand

Creation

6 thousand

Creation of Day and Night

      "Day" 1

Creation of Heaven

      "Day" 2

Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants

      "Day" 3

Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars

      "Day" 4

Creation of Fishes and Birds [Beginning of Sexual Reproduction]

      "Day" 5

Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, Man)

      "Day" 6

God rested - No Further Emergence of Life Forms on Earth

      "Day" 7

Untold new species discovered around the world

35 thousand to present

Reply #83 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 54
Reply #51lulapilgrimI would call your attention to the 390 year time span where the world was made devoid of life and then repopulated (fauna and flora) from one point in the world all with four couples and some pairs of animals. If each couple had a baby a year, that would provide a world population of 1568 people assuming no deaths at all. Of course there are those that may have more than one child at a time but that is mitigated by the fact that the human body could not live beyond a certain number of birthings (certainly well under 390 of them). People just do not multiply like rabbits. As you will note here Lula, none of this has anything to do with science … only your bible. I know these numbers are wrong, but the point is well made. You cannot just say we got from one point in history to another just 390 years in the future … without providing a reasonable explanation for getting there. My question here would be why didn’t god repopulate the earth again by speaking it so? Maybe he can only make things from nothing but cannot make nothing of something real. But you are left to try and explain how this could occur naturally (and without evolution of some kind) because it seems god didn’t tell anyone. Go forth and multiply just doesn’t cut it. Didn’t god say he wouldn’t destroy the world again, but that is what you are waiting for, right?

Sorry to have taken so long in replying. We had mucho problems downloading my files and I'm just now back in biz.

Re: the highlighted. The simple answer to your question because God created man and woman to populate the earth, and they did which is a fascinating thing to ponder. God created living matter...He impressed complex information onto cells which can reproduce and pass on that information to the next generation via secondary causes. Rather than continually intervene thereafter, God chose to employ secondary causes through which life forms would propagate each new generation. The laws of nature govern the way that matter performs and autonomy was granted to life forms so that they could effectively act as partners with God in the creation of offspring.

 

In Genesis 9, verse 1 God blessed Noe and his sons and said "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." And that they did.   Verse 18-19, "And the sons of Noe who came out of the Ark were Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and Cham is the father of Chanaan. 19These three are the sons of Noe: and from these all mankind spread over the whole earth."

I'll get to the numbers next post.

Right now, dinner is calling.

 

Reply #84 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 83
I'll get to the numbers next post.
You don't need to produce any numbers for my benefit for sure. I have my own numbers all of which you ignore completely and in their entirety. No need for me to have to return the favor by you supplying me with magical numbers. Everything you stated is conjecture coming right out of your book; you know the one I do not believe is true at all … you need to think about that!

PS – I have a few numbers of my own in post # 82 just to make the background of our discussion clear.

Reply #85 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 84
PS – I have a few numbers of my own in post # 82 just to make the background of our discussion clear.

I see that and I'll get to that in a bit, but first things first..I'd like to follow through on the points I introduced earlier. 

Genesis 5 gives the genealogy of Adam to Noe and that helps with the basis of the timeline. Given the dates of the antediluvian patriarch's births and various events, the Church Fathers are in general agreement as to the date of the Noe and the Great Flood. Julius Africanus (260AD) records 5536 for the date of the creation of Adam and explains that from Adam to Noe and the Flood was 2262 years. Clement of Alexandria specified the length of time from Adam to Noe was 2148 years and 4 days.  

Now, from Noe we get to Abraham and beyond Abraham we have a precise chronology of human history.  

  

 

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 83
In Genesis 9, verse 1 God blessed Noe and his sons and said "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." And that they did. Verse 18-19, "And the sons of Noe who came out of the Ark were Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and Cham is the father of Chanaan. 19These three are the sons of Noe: and from these all mankind spread over the whole earth."

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 54
I would call your attention to the 390 year time span where the world was made devoid of life and then repopulated (fauna and flora) from one point in the world all with four couples and some pairs of animals. If each couple had a baby a year, that would provide a world population of 1568 people assuming no deaths at all. Of course there are those that may have more than one child at a time but that is mitigated by the fact that the human body could not live beyond a certain number of birthings (certainly well under 390 of them). People just do not multiply like rabbits. As you will note here Lula, none of this has anything to do with science … only your bible. I know these numbers are wrong, but the point is well made. You cannot just say we got from one point in history to another just 390 years in the future … without providing a reasonable explanation for getting there. My question here would be why didn’t god repopulate the earth again by speaking it so? Maybe he can only make things from nothing but cannot make nothing of something real. But you are left to try and explain how this could occur naturally (and without evolution of some kind)

There is a reasonable explanation why the world was repopulated from Noe's 3 sons....Sem (aka Shem), Cham,(aka Ham) and Japheth  and Science figures in.

 

 

Genesis 10 is sometimes called the table of nations, for it describes the generations of Japheth, Cham and Shem after the Flood. They formed nations with 3 distinct lineages. St.Augustine taught that there were 72 such nations...26 from Shem, 31 from Cham, (Ham), and 15 from Japheth.

 

Abram (which God changed to Abraham) was a descendent of Shem through Eber 10:21 and Peleg 10:25; 11:16. Eber was the 4th in line of Shem and the father of Peleg who was the great, great grandfather of Abram and in 10:21 is given special mention. St. Augustine taught that's why  the people of Israel call themselves Hebrews after Eber and the original Hebrew language was their exclusive property.   

Archeological and paleontgology discoveries indicate that the cradle of civilization stems for what is known as modern day Turkey which is where postdiluvian people got started as according to Genesis 8:4, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 11:2 says they descended from the mountains and migrated to the plains of Shinar.

So all was dispersed from there. Japheth's descendents went north and westward to Europe and Russia. Some headed southeast to Iran and India. Josephus, the Jewish historian lists the nations they founded.

 

 

Genesis 10:6-20 lists the nations descended from Cham (Ham).  "And Cham's (Ham's) sons: Chus (Cush-the ancient Ethiopians), and Mesram (Mizraim-the ancient Egyptian people) and Phuth (Put-the ancient Libyan people) and Chanaan (the ancient Phoenicians) "

Josephus confirm this and say that 150 years after the Flood, Cham's (Ham) generations built cities (Babylon where the Tower of Babel, Nineva, Assyria, etc.) and using the natural resources established civilizations...then Sumer, now Iraq. Those who were dispersed far from Mesopotamia where natural resources were scarce adopted barbarous ways of living. In breeding in small tribes produced distinct racial and tribal features.  The so-called Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are not true historical periods, but rather evolutionists inventions who believe that mankind gradually gained skills with these natural resources. Not true. Actual archaeological evidence indicates bronze and iron were used in Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations,  and the stone implements were used by those who didn't have access to those metals.

  

 

 

It was in Peleg's time that the population of the earth was scattered (10:32) in consequence of the building of the Tower of Babel which we read about in the next chapter followed by the genealogy of Shem.  In 11:26 are the generations of Terah who fathered Abram. So there is nothing astonishing when we consider that 11 generations had elapsed since the Flood and that at that time it was estimated that every marriage had an average of 8 to 10 children, which meant something like over 12 million couples...as Keil and Delitzsch put it in their "Commentary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, "the eleventh generation would contain 146,484, 375 pairs, or 292,968,750 individuals.

Reply #86 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 84
PS – I have a few numbers of my own in post # 82 just to make the background of our discussion clear.

As far as the Stellar and Darwin Evolution list and all those millions of years, the onus of proof is upon the evolutionists to prove their case. I'm saying that none of it is provable or even likely as the crucial mechanism to accommodate Evolution...change beyond kind..is missing.     

"emergence of life" 3,800 million years ago?????  And this is presented in the public arena as "fact"....oh my!

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 82
Australopithecus    4 million




Homo Habilis-----2.2 million




Homo Erectus----1.5 million




Homo Sapiens---200 thousand


Nope. This chart tries to show the illusion of Evolution and no sale. Man and other primates didn't evolve from a common progenitor.

 

 Australopithecus    4 million ......

 I know Evolutionists think human evolved from the same ancestor as apes and monkeys about 4 million years ago. They went crazy from finding different size skull fossils and imagined it to be the  "missing links".  

This is a name given to bones found in Africa that was supposed to be human from the neck down and ape from the head up!  After examining them, evolutionists announced they came from the oldest human ancestor but in truth Australopitecus was just large chimpanzee. In addition, modern human were living at the same time. They made what they found to fit whatever end result they wanted. Just like a short while ago when blood cells were found in the dinosaur proving it wasn't millions of years old or else they wouldn't be there.

Homo Habilis is another ape that Leakey found and decided it belonged to the human family and therefore named them "homo" and dated them 2.2 to 1.8 million years ago.

Nonetheless, they put out the lie that Australopithescus evolved into Homo Erectus even though there is no support whatsoever in genetics or the fossil record.

All of the so called  Homo Erectus fossils found show them to be fully human and found within the time span of modern living humans, homo sapiens.  

Homo Erectus would be just like first Neanderthal found in 1857 at a limestone mine. A medical doctor found he suffered  with arthritis and rickets.  Homo Erectus skeletons were found with the same problems. They lived in caves and had rickets, Vitamin D deficiency and syphilis which caused the strange physical appearance.

BTw, the name Homo Sapiens is Latin  for "the wise one."

 

 

Reply #87 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 85
There is a reasonable explanation why the world was repopulated from Noe's 3 sons....Sem (aka Shem), Cham,(aka Ham) and Japheth and Science figures in.
Lula I don't care why I care how. There is no doubt that you can 'make' the bible work for you because I did and still could if I were prone to lie. But you cannot make it work for me because it is all physically impossible and ridiculously simple minded for people who knew everything direct from their god who could not know less. If all you can do is scripturally excuse the bible (no explanation of how in the real world) by using other parts of the same book, well there is a conflict of interest with that and it is called dogmatism or blind faith. Not a problem for the churches and their sheeple but completely meaningless to everyone else ... I am one of the 'everyone else’. This means that no matter how many times you recite your scripture, it is not going to be more meaningful to me than it is now because the universe is not 6,000 years old period and this one fact makes genesis a religious fantasy and the rest of the bible useless because it is predicated on this lie. Until you can prove it is that young in some meaningful worldly way (not under the absolute auspices of your clergy) you are just blowing theological smoke. Genesis doesn’t require the bible to work but the bible sure requires it if it is to have any Christian meaning or purpose.

If you want to play with statistics I am game, but just as with the rest of the bible, I will not allow you to just throw numbers out as if they are meaningful especially without the math to back them up. Those were just real people living real lives in the ‘there and then (RIGHT) just as we do today as we always have … because it is our only reality. So it had to work then just as it does now (all created in its present form) and by following the evidence and the rules we have come to understand about our real world we have an overwhelming and compelling argument to make. The difference is that I have worldwide facts, figures and support available and you have a first century book that comes to us without one lick of support besides “… and it was so”. Modern population statistics are accompanied by data that explains how the statistics have been compiled and adjusted to compensate for any collection issues. You provide a few numbers without any explanation and probably under perfect rabbit breading conditions.

If you are going to discuss the timeframe of genesis, then I would have to discuss some of the Cultures that existed on the real earth when your ‘first two’ humans were being poofed from dirt. Like the Badari culture on the Nile (c. 4400–4000 BC), Comb Ceramic culture (also endured the 6th, 4th), Maykop culture, Yangshao culture, Merimde culture on the Nile (c. 4570–4250 BC), Predynastic Egypt, and Proto-Austronesian culture is based on the south coast of China. They combine extensive maritime technology, fishing hooks, nets and gardening. (c. 5000 BC), Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture, Lengyel culture in eastern Europe, Ubaid culture, Cycladic culture—a distinctive Neolithic culture amalgamating Anatolian and mainland Greek elements arose in the western Aegean before 4000 BC, Vinča culture (also endured the 6th, 4th, and 3rd millennia) and Yumuktepe and Gözlükule cultures in south Anatolia. But we aren’t going to go there are we? How am I supposed to even discuss genesis with you???

Reply #88 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 77
they tend to be all over the place on the question of the age of the Universe or in this case the earth.Not interested in what '... those who believe in special creation' have to say, I am only interested in YOUR opinion as I am not going to battle your church. Same for the age of the universe. You know exactly what I think so why are you hesitant to tell me what you yourself actually think.

I've never hesitated to tell you what I think. I am Catholic ...I think with the Church, it's teachings on Christian Faith, tenets, principles, ideals, and morals. I think with the Church Fathers and Doctors. Of course  Science is great when it's true (not pseudo) and hasn't morphed into a philosophical worldview which is exactly what Stellar and Darwin Evolution are. They both contradict Scripture so I know from the getgo that when they do that, they are incorrect. I carry thinking with the Church in my understanding of politics and the economy. I simply learn what the politican's position is on life issues and know immediately whether or not to vote for him. But that's me and I've never hesitated to make my Catholic thinking clear. 

 

I know the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are political documents, not religious ones even though they give factual statements about religion to the point of being some of their most crucial expressions.  The same is true of Scripture with regard to science...even though Scripture isn't a science book, it does touch on matters of science and when it does ears should pick up, because Scripture gives info about the world that men cannot obtain in any other way, simply because man wasn't there when God created the world.

 

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 77
Same for the age of the universe. ......Lula you don't 'deduce' anything in science as a first step, you study first and become an expert then you formulate a hypothesis to support your 'understanding'. This is a time consuming process that can take decades and even lifetimes to accomplish and nothing can be accepted scientifically until the resulting theory is scrutinized in minute detail by their peers all of whom would dearly love to prove it wrong somehow.

No one has a problem with formulating a hypothesis and keeping it at that until sufficient evidence is provided to move on to the next level.....but there has not been found actual true evidence to move Stellar and Darwin Evolution beyond a hypothesis/theory. Now if change beyond kind were actually occurring, that would be one thing, but change beyond kind has never occurred, isn't occurring, and won't ever occur, naturally that is.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 81
Take whatever scientific venture you like and I can produce a pedigree from the inception of an idea to the formulation and testing of hypothesis and the painstaking time consuming research and provide a chronological list of major accomplishments and contributors throughout development to the formalization of the theory. Names, places, dates and whatever you want. That is what I consider authentic and many of our best minds are still here to actually talk to. There is plenty of stuff in the sciences that are even now highly debated but as far as the PhD-less are concerned there is no controversy period. Evolution is a FACT and your time scale is but a dot on mine and you are just wrong, period. Leave your bible in church, pick up a real encyclopedia and then debate me on facts instead of your superstitions.

 

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 77
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).

 

Can you can see from this statement that the evolutionist community has conveniently gone far beyond the hypothesis level, far beyond the theory level  to stating the age of the earth as scientific fact? 

 

The most Evolutionists can claim would be.....the age of the Earth may be 4.54 +- billions years. But they don't and won't because evolution absolutely needs, nay, it requires very, very long time periods if it were to happen, (which it didn't).

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 77
This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

The way evolutionists date things is like a dog chasing its tail.

I offer the work of two scientists. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences who around 1988  proved beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell's theory of the geologic column (i.e. that layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false. Geological Society of France, 1993, and Julien Lan and Guy Berthault, "Experiments of Stratification of heterogeneous sand mistures, " CEN Technical Journal 8 (1):3750, 1994; Guy Berthault, "Experiments on laminations of sediments," CEN Technical Journal 3:2529, 1988.

 

And another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the Earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half life of 3 minutes, could not exist.

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 81
but nobody can debate anything if one side gets to make all the rules and then proclaims that their every word is divine and unquestionably true, neither concept in which I agree with on both sides.

The Church, Sacred Scripture  and Religion doesn't get to make all the rules when discussing Scientific matters and the Science community doesn't get to make all the rules when discussing matters of faith and morals. However, we do see that sometimes they overlap.  

So, then why is the Evolutionist community so disdainful of anything that or anyone who attempts to use information gleaned from Genesis?

 

Darwin and Stellar Evolution is pseudo science become a dangerous worldview.

Reply #89 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 87
If you are going to discuss the timeframe of genesis, then I would have to discuss some of the Cultures that existed on the real earth when your ‘first two’ humans were being poofed from dirt. Like the Badari culture on the Nile (c. 4400–4000 BC), Comb Ceramic culture (also endured the 6th, 4th), Maykop culture, Yangshao culture, Merimde culture on the Nile (c. 4570–4250 BC), Predynastic Egypt, and Proto-Austronesian culture is based on the south coast of China. They combine extensive maritime technology, fishing hooks, nets and gardening. (c. 5000 BC), Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture, Lengyel culture in eastern Europe, Ubaid culture, Cycladic culture—a distinctive Neolithic culture amalgamating Anatolian and mainland Greek elements arose in the western Aegean before 4000 BC, Vinča culture (also endured the 6th, 4th, and 3rd millennia) and Yumuktepe and Gözlükule cultures in south Anatolia. But we aren’t going to go there are we? How am I supposed to even discuss genesis with you???

You are discussing Genesis with me. Every one of these cultures came from the descendents of the sons of Noe.

 

 

Reply #90 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 89
You are discussing Genesis with me. Every one of these cultures came from the descendants of the sons of Noe.
Don't be so silly. Since you won’t tell me then I will ASSUME you believe the world to be <6,000 years old and that makes the creation of your first two people in the 4th century bc. As I stated, these cultures existed before your creation myth Day 1 so pardon me if I don't think you are being anything but insincere when your answer is "Every one of these cultures came from the descendants of the sons of Noe" . I tried to tell you the two are not compatible because your whole mystical world is just the blink of an eye in mine, geologically.

Reply #91 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 88
Reply #88 lulapilgrim
Do you (somehow) feel yourself proficient with the ‘scientific process’ to such degree (cross-disciplines mind you) that YOU can pick and choose what science are to be believe or not? Just out of curiosity, which of the sciences do you think are good … bet you cannot name one? What Catholic literature can you produce that says which sciences are good or bad … ANY at all … and if you cannot …? Or are you telling me that anything that YOU think disagrees with the bible must be false and therefore YOU don’t have to prove anything … as always? As I said before I am not going to play with the RCC (your job) and you are not going to get away hiding behind your RCC-C which has nothing to do with what was written in the bible. What prey tell do the Constitution and DOI espouse that is so religiously profound or as you said “…to the point of being some of their most crucial expressions.”? Inquiring minds want to know? At least you agree that the bible is not science but any book with the audacity to claim to make the world from nothing and populate it with both flora and fauna is infringing on reality not the other way around. Reality such as it is, is the only one we have so any variances from the reality are the exceptions to that reality. If you insist on bringing magic into everything we discuss, well there won’t be much for me to participate in will there. We could discuss cool things like ice core samples that range back to some 400,000 years ago (no magic required). We could discuss how a stand of trees can be 80,000 years old or a Pine called Prometheus which was measured by ring count at 4,862 years old when it was felled in 1964 (no science required). How about the immortal jellyfish, it is known to be the longest living creature which could live on forever (because of evolution) without dying of old age (but can be killed). But your only goal is to make the earth less than 6,000 years old and that takes all the fun out of it for me. Evolutionary theory doesn’t and cannot be applied to genesis so we will have to discuss them separately. Besides as you said man wasn’t there when the world was created (something else we can agree on) so how do you know then (your favorite attack on evolution) sooo right back at you? You are clueless as to what a scientific theory means because I have explained it several times … so what is it supposed to grow into then, evolutionary Law? Simply stated we are discovering new species still today but they had to come from somewhere didn’t they, unless you think they are just poofing into existence now.  It is evolutionary  theory because we don’t have it all worked out yet (so many gaps and variables to consider) and we never will, that is just the beauty of science, they don’t give up … they just keep on looking for more or for something else. And disregarding the lineages of a few people written in a first century book, how do you scientifically calculate the age of the earth then? What are they supposed to teach in school considering that both Creationism and its modern clone ID are proved to be nothing but religious dogma and they are not allowed to be taught in public schools? If so ordered, I am sure they would find some way to include it in the curriculum, but until that time you don’t have a leg to stand on with this excuse. Evolutionists (what silly circles you create) don’t make up names; there is no Department of Evolution. Names are made by the paleontologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, geneticists, physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists etc. who discovered(s) them.  The first large scale fauna catalog, Aristotle's History of Animals was published around 343 BC so even evolutionary principles had been in play for 2,000 years before we received Darwin’s ‘gift from the devil’ but the church wasn’t having any of that competitive nonsense then or now.

“The way evolutionists date things is like a dog chasing its tail. I offer the work of two scientists. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences who around 1988 proved beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell's theory of the geologic column (i.e. that layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false. Geological Society of France, 1993, and Julien Lan and Guy Berthault, "Experiments of Stratification of heterogeneous sand mistures, " CEN Technical Journal 8 (1):3750, 1994; Guy Berthault, "Experiments on laminations of sediments," CEN Technical Journal 3:2529, 1988”.

Not my field of likes so I will have to research these claims and get back to you. I hope that isn’t going to be a waste of time again though.

Reply #92 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 86
As far as the Stellar and Darwin Evolution list and all those millions of years, the onus of proof is upon the evolutionists to prove their case.
First off there is no obligation on my part to prove anything to anyone because that is not my job. This is the real world in which real things happen for reasons we understand and magic is being used as a distraction against progress. I am not trying to become a Catholic or a Christian god forbid and the reasons are quite simple. The bible is a magical rendition of man’s own barbaric first century worldview and demands senseless cruelty, unquestionable subjugation, abject slavery, that nothing may be questioned, no education allowed and no personal moral responsibility permitted. Lula I have several complete multi-volume encyclopedias that support science and evolution of the species and you have a first century opinion. What prey tell could ever be presented to you as proof if these volumes are insufficient because as you say … they are all works of fiction made from lies and guesses and are not supported with any empirical evidence or proof because the scientists don’t know what real science is (geese) and all of this nonsense for the sole purpose of destroying Christianity? One of us needs a reality check.

The chart is only a chart and it just shows key points of interest and emphasizes the time scales involved and that mucho time that is required. The only ones looking for some 'missing links' are the same people who cannot conceptualize evolutionary theory ... else they wouldn't be looking for them either because all the poofing in this discussion comes from you not me. Anyway evolution predicts nothing of the sort but it is another something Creationists try to make sound credible. Australopithecus Afarensis  (Lucy for example -3,200,000 ya) comes with stunning details but why would you want to go back four million years knowing that the further back we go the less records we have. Normally if one is interested in puzzling out the past they start with the most current data and thus the most accurate data and work backwards. I would suggest we start here with modern man if you really want to discuss this: Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo. All the other Homo’s have gone extinct because they were left behind by evolution. That is why we still have the Great apes and people today and why they are only slightly different. We originated in Africa around 4 mya, reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 ya, began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 ya and became modern humanity around 35.000 ya, almost 30,000 years before your world was created. Everything considered ‘ape like’ back then lived in caves or trees or it didn’t live long enough to pass on its genes. The Homo-line was in charge of nothing in nature until they learned enough to control their immediate environment … until they became human. If you want to discuss Adam and Eve (genesis) then you need to explain how pedigree collapse resulting from the gene pool of one was avoided. In the case of Noah, they had three fertile couples with one male line which doesn’t offer any appreciable relief from continued pedigree collapse considering that the previous population was at its peak gene pool (and moral) collapse and disliked by your creator so much that he destroyed all the rest so he could play god and do it all over again and who would have guessed it would turn out the same. Seems like your god should have known how it turns out BOTH times, hummm.

 

Reply #93 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 88
I offer the work of two scientists. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences who around 1988 proved beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell's theory of the geologic column (i.e. that layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false. Geological Society of France, 1993, and Julien Lan and Guy Berthault, "Experiments of Stratification of heterogeneous sand mistures, " CEN Technical Journal 8 (1):3750, 1994; Guy Berthault, "Experiments on laminations of sediments," CEN Technical Journal 3:2529, 1988.
French young Earth creationist Guy Berthault claims to have discovered sedimentation properties that dispute several stratigraphic and relative dating principles used by modern field geologists through numerous laboratory studies. Berthault's knowledge of the sedimentology literature and stratigraphic field methods are decades or even centuries out of date (just as with Wells). Because of his lack of knowledge (honesty), Berthault's experiments often involved "reinventing the wheel". When compared with Berthault, YEC Steve Austin (1994, chapter 2 only) has a better understanding of these fundamental principles. And now knowing that Julien Y. Lan is also a YEC and close friend of YEC Guy Berthault; so what would you expect them to say when they profess up front that GOD is the ultimate authority on everything, give this nonsense a brake please. Besides as usual, you are after Darwin and now his friends like Charles Lyell who was born in 1791 for goodness sake. Berthault's "Stratigraphy" was simply his rediscovering what geologists already knew and have moved beyond. This is not an appealing subject for me, are you sure you want to go here?

I should have known better …

Reply #94 Top

 

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 88
The way evolutionists date things is like a dog chasing its tail.
I offer the work of two scientists. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences who around 1988 proved beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell's theory of the geologic column (i.e. that layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 93
Berthault's "Stratigraphy" was simply his rediscovering what geologists already knew and have moved beyond. This is not an appealing subject for me, are you sure you want to go here?

 

Exactly. The scientists pushing Darwin Evolution  knew/know that their "Geologic Column" also called "Geologic History of the Earth" has been proven false beyond a shadow of doubt. But here's the sorrowful kicker...instead of doing the right thing and rejecting Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the evolutionists continue to show the geologic column and claim their dates of millions of years as scientific fact in every science textbook out there, as well as in documentaries, video and public broadcasts.

The "Geologic Column" with its "Era", "Period" "Epoch" dates in the millions of years are proven false.  

The actual laying down of the fossil strata proves evolutionary science that is made to bend to Darwin Evolution is all false...that's why I call it pseudo science.

Back in 1800s of Darwin and Lyell's day, Geology and Paleontology held great expectations hoping to find actual evidence of Darwin's theory of Evolution. But now after over 120 years of the most extensive exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is complete because fossils do not reveal any evidence of a gradual and continual evolution of life from a common ancestor.

Instead of lying and masquerading Darwin's Theory as scientific fact, they should be shouting from the rooftops, Darwin Evolution has not occurred, is not occurring, and will never occur.

 

 

Reply #95 Top

Lula don’t you ever just want to discuss something, it would be nice? The only reason you are compelled to look at everything as an attack on Christianity is because everything you cannot reconcile into your mystical world you self-define it as an attack to the very last person and word. This is just all screwed up and reason is all you need to see it. First of all the world exists and always has as far as mankind is concerned and that makes everything we find in it REAL. We have real science that deals with real evidence because we are not privy to magic so it never enters the equations.  Simply, science only deals with reality for the sole purpose of becoming more knowledgeable about ‘nature’. No arguments are ever made against magic because it is not involved in this process. Magic cannot be measured, monitored, detected or quantified therefore it is magic or it is not. If anything is responsible for this conundrum it is your idol whose absolute privacy from exposure from ALL its would-be-subjects could only be self-arranged as it planted the evidence for an aged universe. You have your book which ignores everything in reality excusing ALL science as inconsequential (without any proof for that choice) besides an archaic (non-scientific) book that doesn’t do anything besides defend itself … just like every book written ... told you so. Surely you can grasp the concept that everything was not included in your bible. But pray tell what possible incentive could there have been to include ANYTHING remotely controversial (in their 1st century minds anyway) after hundreds of years of weeding through it? Nevertheless we ‘free thinkers’ have science (and quite a few Christians do too) who educate themselves in the actual workings of our universe; not devote their lives to the destruction of the very concept. We are quite inquisitive and constructive by nature and are amassing an actual REAL history based on science and math and needless to say without any magic. As far as I am concerned, until such time as you folk can prove something magical, you are the world’s would-be-usurpers and would force your mysticism on everyone else destroying their gods (or none) and their free will in the process. We are aggressing nothing here nor are we trying to destroy pipe dreams … just moving forward working under the limitations we must comply with. Lula it doesn’t matter how strongly you feel about your religion, you cannot force it on others without a sword and you are being ultra-naïve just to think you can without one lick of proof. Your complete world is controlled by your clergy and you are forbidden to question or challenge ANY OF IT. I am under no such constraints and am free to discover life as I choose and I for one will never capitulate to any person or organization that would force me to see life through a barbaric 1st century worldview. Just my opinions so don’t get your panties in a knot. The problem with Christianity (as a story) is that most Christians are so unlike their chosen idol in most respects besides the idol worship parts anyway. If you choose to live your life as if you were born in sin so grave that you must make penance (TO THE CHURCH oh in the name of GOD who doesn’t need it) for the rest of your ever so real life even considering you had nothing to do with anything, that is your choice. I am as free and as compassionate as I can be and I am not burdened by anything besides reality (more than enough of a problem). If you take the magic out of the bible you have no theology (just a more pointless book). That means that it is just the magic you covet so you can pretend to defy reality. Theology is just the support system conjured up to try and justify said magic as best they could back in the day. We however are NOT back in the day and nobody should pretend otherwise or want it to be so. You are not going to have your mystical world and science (which is pointless without evolutionary theory) but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for you because you have already decided that they are just disdainful and blasphemous enterprises.  But I cannot even visualize a world without science let alone desire to live under those conditions … again.

PS - If you think that was an insult you had better never set foot in a bar; live with it because I don't care how you choose to interpret it. OK, if that is just so terrible I will, but when have you ever showed ANY compassion, concern or thoughtfulness concerning anything (everything) I say or believe but that is to be expected from YEC's. I don’t actually want to discuss geological stratification, and who in their right mind would (but I will if I have to) of free choice?

Reply #96 Top

Lulapilgrim, I can bring up just as many questionable things as you but won’t because it doesn’t work anymore and serves no purpose. This process has been compiled for us by people who have already had these tiresome age-old arguments for a few hundred years now, and more. I just don’t value your opinion of the sciences or of the natural world because I don’t think you have the educations or the inclination to make any constructive observations because you do not believe in reality or in humanity. The best you can do and all you have shown you are capable of is presenting arguments made by other YEC’s whose specific goal is nothing short of your own and for the exact same reasons … magic … imagine that. You can have your hand full of YEC’s who profess ‘honesty’ and I will gladly take my hand full of thousands of real scientists who think otherwise. I am not here to battle magic, who could because there are no rules, no way to contest it, no way to verify it, nobody ‘else’ can use it and no way to distinguish it from random chance without some actual participation by your idol which remains idle (hahaha, sorry) to this day, who I might add has been forthcoming for nigh unto 2,000 years now. God may be argued if you convince yourself that you need one. But you cannot make a case for a human named Jesus being made into some kind of a god because it is a contradiction of terms. I have been as patient as I know how to be but obviously you don’t take this as seriously as I do. I don’t have time to waste while you continuously look for another apologist to garner your ‘opinions’. I do not need to reference my material to speak my mind only to go into detail, something you don’t have. After a lifelong commitment and continuous memorization of the bible you should be smart enough to do the same, but you just cannot or you refuse to. To me it seems that you need to reassure yourself because this stuff doesn’t impress me and you know it. I don’t expect you to respond anymore because I don’t think you are up to the task and you can make no other argument than “god did it, somehow” and I am not buying that either. All you are interested in is evangelizing and I am not available or interested. If YOU have something to say that doesn’t come from someone else then it will be a novelty and appreciated. You could try your feelings for a change (it would be refreshing), but you do not seem to have much confidence in yourself or you would present your case differently for sure. I am sorry if this post closes our ‘discussion’ but I am tired of treading water for you. If you can prove ANYTHING then do so, or else call me when you can because I am tired of all this continuous and contemptuous nonsense and associated hocus pocus. Have a good life and I hope you find whatever you think you deserve. Oops, cannot close this post ... it was from a past persona, oh well.

Reply #97 Top

I wish you had the magic of paragraph breaks.

Reply #98 Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 97
Reply #97 Jythier
Informative as usual I see. Don't like to use paragraphs with Lula because she makes a habit of quoting all the little paragraphs she thinks she has an answer for because there is a word or two flagged for incineration in it and the hell with the rest of paragraph. This way she at least has to find her own sections to comment on and hopefully cut down on all the silly quotes she plasters in her posts. Not interested in discussing much with you though until you do something about that religious chip on your shoulder and start treating women as the individuals they are … but then male Chauvinism is the theme in the bible too isn’t it, hummm. 

PS - bingo.

Reply #99 Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 98
Quoting Jythier, reply 97Reply #97 JythierInformative as usual I see. Don't like to use paragraphs with Lula because she makes a habit of quoting all the little paragraphs she thinks she has an answer for because there is a word or two flagged for incineration in it and the hell with the rest of paragraph. This way she at least has to find her own sections to comment on and hopefully cut down on all the silly quotes she plasters in her posts. Not interested in discussing much with you though until you do something about that religious chip on your shoulder and start treating women as the individuals they are … but then male Chauvinism is the theme in the bible too isn’t it, hummm. 

 

You're a woman?

Reply #100 Top

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 95
First of all the world exists and always has as far as mankind is concerned and that makes everything we find in it REAL.

Agree.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 96
I just don’t value your opinion of the sciences or of the natural world because I don’t think you have the educations or the inclination to make any constructive observations because you do not believe in reality or in humanity.

Of course I believe in reality and humanity. Where evolutionists go wrong is thinking and purporting Darwin Evolution is reality when in reality it hasn't gone beyond hypothesis/ theory.

And I have a very high opinion of Science. When one really thinks about it we are finding that Science, sound Science that is, supports the Special Creation premise  of explaining the reality of the world around us.   I'm talking about such things as the existence of coded information in cells and order in design and laws of nature. It is fair to say that modern Science of Genetics has brought to light insoluble problems for the possiblility of Darwin Evolution, change beyond kind.

Ape is one kind ....humans are a completely different kind. There never was evolution of apekind  to mankind. We now know from the science of Genetics that their respective DNA prevented such 'evolution'.