It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dodo the bird that killed Yahweh/ Jesus god?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
What is the greater purpose? Okay once a Dodo dies the flies feed off it and the other creatures feed off the flies and the soil from dead organic life provides sustinance. Even Dung has a purpose and we see places around the world where there is little life in dessert environments.

About the penguins, I am sure there are animals in the artic sea waiting to eat them like those pointless fish. I would not be suprised if there is enough genetic variation in all birds that holds all the genes somewhere of the Dodo.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 





I'm not the one who started the thread. So WHO'S doing the "preaching" here? You're taking your anger out on the wrong people. Got that school issue straightened out yet?


The thread topic ended with a question mark you may note, no preaching done here, if you're not one of the xtians that would insist my children should comply with your beliefs, why not just say so.

I've no problem with people believing yahewhjesus creationism just so long as they don't try and make me believe it, it's that simple.

As far as the school thing is concerned I will uptade as and when, so far it would appear that in the not too distant future, religious worship will only be allowed to take place in a state funded school.

Looks like some hefty sums of money will be paid out in law suits first, early days yet though.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by moocowman]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 





I would not be suprised if there is enough genetic variation in all birds that holds all the genes somewhere of the Dodo.


Which would imply animals evolving



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Maybe it was censored from the original text. There are many countless mistakes made in the translation and original context of ancient texts, the bible being one of many interesting accounts of humankinds thirst for knowledge of something greater than ourselves.

[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


in the hindu mahabharata, it explains what sounds like massive wars somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 BC. the dodo bird was indigenous to an island in the indian ocean. could be the species and the war, encountered each other and it permanently modified the species. descriptions of the war itself, sound pretty bad.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Well done. It's clear. We can declare creator God dead. The Abrahamic God hypothesis was an epic fail from the very beginning. Even if such a being had existed, Thor would have hammered the poor thing dead in a blink of an eye


[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


same guy, actually. just have to follow the etymology. well, if you look at the etymology and history of thor, just go back as far as you can and there's the Scandinavian equivalent of the Mesopotamian Enlil (who is Jehovah/Yahweh/EL, etc)

ADDENDUM:

the Scandinavian Loki is the equivalent of the Mesopotamian Enki. Same guy. check it out. (enki is called the tricky god in the sumerian-akkadian texts)



[edit on 10-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 
Ahh, Moocowman, how's it going? I see you're still pretty mad about the situation at your daughter's school that we talked about a couple of days ago. That's all right, as I said then, I don't blame you.

But dude, just to clarify, you do realize, don't you, that Christians are not uniformly mindless automatons in our beliefs? I personally have absolutely no problem or conflict of viewpoint with the major scientific precepts I was taught in school. In fact my entire Christian family are avid readers of various scientific magazines and journals. We have doctors, engineers, biologists and so forth in our family.

Some Christians choose to take the King James or other English translations of the Bible completely literally, thus denying all reasonable evidence that would conflict with these interpretations. That is vexing but that is their choice and as long as we agree on "Love one another as you love yourselves" we try to just let it be. No, I don't debate such Christians myself. Pointless. Let God reveal his truths to each person in their own good time.

Others, like myself, have come over time to understand the difficulties and errors at arriving at these translations. This in no way dilutes my faith or my enthusiasm for Christianity. It has taken me well over thirty years as well as a short stint in militant atheism to finally realize Christianity is too big to be confined or explained in one written tome. It's a process, not a document or a one-time conversion. It is a lifelong commitment God makes to US, and even if we stray he will always re-reveal himself when we are ready to seek him.

I would never seek to convert you and that's why I stuck up for your position on your other post about your daughter's school. If you want Christ you'll seek him and he'll take it from there. What I would do as a Christian is pray that people do choose to seek God. And when the APPROPRIATE opportunity arises in my life, I bear witness. That appropriate opportunity is dictated by courtesy, respect and compassion. The true Gospel, which means "Good News" by the way, stands on its own merits and need not be forced unwelcome upon anyone. Nor should it be. I do apologize that the message does get hammered at people.

Where the scriptures DO make sense is when they invite people to seek and promise that if they open their minds, humble their hearts, they will indeed find the understanding of the LIVING God (not the ancient book) that they seek.

If you're not seeking, don't worry Moo, I won't bother you. I do quite like and enjoy you the way you are. This topic is brilliant and any topic that mentions not just the dodo bird but the platypus is full of win in my opinion!



By the way, to me, the Platypus is evidence that God has a sense of humor.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carlthulhu
Here's one: Men have nipples. Arguably, humans are mammals, but men still have no mammaries. Nipples are totaly superfluous on them.

Or: Penguins. They live waaay down south, and while some do live on various rocky islands in warmer waters, how do you explain the ones on Antarctica? They are birds, that swim, and are required to travel great distances over the glacical deserts to get to their foodsource: the ocean. But they absolutely have to breed on rocky ground. No pack-ice for them, buddy.
What kind of vile god would force such cute beings into such a lousy existence and not even provide them with a better means of locomotion than short webbed feet to woddle on?!

Only a vengeful god like the good baptists down in Freehold, Iowa beleive in.
Landover Baptist Church, arguably the only truly saved christians out there!


ROFL i went to that site and i saw that they were selling Tshirts through cafepress.......

www.cafepress.com...

theres a guy who looks like bob from SLC Punk wearing a shirt that says INFIDEL.

theres others that say sinner and have the devil on it.

What kind of church is that again?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
i dont see how you can prove or disprove god by pointing out what we think of as useless animals?

anyone else think this is just a thread to cause greif?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I don't know about the Dodo, but I do know of many human groups that are about to follow in its path.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


Yep, the Dodo didn't learn to fly and We didn't learn to love.

It's a harsh illusion we inhabit here.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
OK lets go with your idea.

God messed up the Dodo.

Why would it have evolved with useless wings? Can you answer that? Same with Penguins, why not flippers? Why evolve to land, grow wings, then evolve back to the water?

Tell me this and I'll tell you why God made the Dodo that way.

Oh and if we go to the pub, you buy first round


[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Moocowman your never gonna convince these people that there is no god. in the words of Kirk Cameron, "You have to go around there intellect" and "Don't try and have a intellectual debate with the atheist" These are the types of things that they teach there followers. to blindly believe no matter the logic or evidence.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bringer
 


the real issue is the proverbial stereotype. just as many people read everything they can get their hands on, and discuss it at length with countless people, than don't. the use of stereotype is simply a way to marginalize people you disagree with. both may have read the same material and come away with totally different interpretations. you can't force people to agree with you, you can't shame them into agreeing with you, you can't even threaten them with death, poverty, unpopularity or torture, to get them to agree with you. they may lie and still believe as they will in their hearts. but they will still disagree with you.

as a result, threads like these seem pretty futile



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Yep, that pretty much sums it all up. I do hate to see Moocowman resort to stereotypes about Christians because I really like Moocowman. I think he's got it in him to still come out on top without resorting to intellectual shortcuts like stereotyping or insults. There's just something about this guy where I admire how he cuts through the crap my fellow Christians are flinging at him and his daughter.

The funny thing is I could definitely see Jesus and Moocowman having a pleasant talk at a pub. I think Moocowman has a colorful way of pointing a finger squarely on the exact foibles of modern Christians that Jesus himself would have gotten worked up about.

No, really, Jesus hated the hypocrites and holier than thou religious fussbudgets of his day. Through all of the different books of the Gospels, the only people whom Jesus really lost his temper at were the religious officials and the temple moneychangers or whatever they were called. Whatever they were called, they were there to turn a profit in the house of God and so I think Jesus would take a dim view of the moneygrubbing televangelists and megachurch megalomaniacs of modern times.

He had no problem with the common man or woman, and in fact said he came specifically for the average folks and the outcasts of the religious establishment. He hung out with thieves and prostitutes and offered understanding and friendship. He wasn't afraid to call a fool a fool and point out the idiocy inherent in the way the people were adhering strictly to the religious law without actually THINKING about what they were doing. No, far from insisting on blind allegiance, he encouraged people to use common sense and compassion.

And as far as I could see, Jesus didn't have a problem with people believing or disbelieving in him or his Father. He put his message out there and left it up to the listeners to make up their own minds. So I am pretty sure he is appalled at the coercion and blackmail and all the other heavyhanded tactics that have been employed in his name. The time will come when those people will answer for that.

At this point in my life I don't question if God exists. I believe that has been resolved for me personally to my satisfaction and it's not something I feel compelled to discuss or debate. Rather, at this point I am into questioning myself about whether or not I exist in a way that God would be happy with. And a lot of the time, it's people like Moocowman who keep me honest and keep me asking the questions I need to be asking of myself. Yep, even bringing up the dodo bird--as funny as it is, it has to keep any thinking Christian honest!

People who cut through the bull, cut through the false pride, the self-righteous zealotry and the nonsense have always been the biggest catalysts for my own spiritual growth than any clergyman armed with an agenda and a budget to balance. If you cut through all that, then you're left with focusing on whether you truly are living the precept of loving your neighbor as you love yourself. It's such a simple thing God asks of us but it is incredibly easy to eff up when you actually try to comply.

And the fact Moo thought of centering his arguments around the Dodo bird....
Like I said, full of win. Colorful personalities like his are a treasure in this world. And they just may help the rest of us make it through these strange times.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
haha good point op,

also many other land locked animals exist only on one continent -evolution has an answer, its plate tectonics and climate change causing sea level changes.plus freak rafting incidence early in evolution... what does god have?

well, he told us he killed everything in a flood then noha the drunk respawned the earth by letting them go on a mountain in the middle east. All the marsupials went and swam to oz while a new group swam to madagascar, galapagoes, dodo island and all the other areas select species groups appear.

he also killed all the dinos and painstakingly made it look as if they had existed millions of years before mamals evolve and take over, he even went to the trouble of lining them up so crazy science people would think one large central continent broke apart due to plate techtonics, which to prove he really is a prankster god he even keeps the prank alive today by moving the continents causing earthquakes which kill thousands of people.

hehe the crazy guy even made crude cave paintings in france which look like they;re 16.000 years old! haha now he made a temple, gobeki tepe seem so old it's as older than adam as adam is me! crazy guy, when he made us put the dna of all living beings into a strict order so that our dna contains faded records of everything that seems to have come before us, huge chunks of unused code seeming dating back to our time in the sea -haha he loves confusing those science guys! He even hid hippo legs in a whale so it looks like the whale evolved from hippos that started open mouth feeding then quickly evolved into the crazy creature they are today -that god hey, MUTTER!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Just cuz it says "birds of the air" doesn't discount that there are birds on the ground. Simple.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
In the movie iceage the dodo thought it could fly it jumped off a cliff to save a coconut. I have a cat with whiskers, but never seen it shave. Elephants never ask for tissue. Chihauhaus are never waiting in line at the local drug store buying q-tips. A female bob cat is never in the courthouse getting a name change. Hammerhead sharks aren't useing nails. Can you prove the dodo could not fly? Maybe it was scared of heights. Just like my dog is scared of paper plates. Animals are unique, some more than others. Because JeywhJesus God made em that way.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 





Why would it have evolved with useless wings? Can you answer that?



I didn't claim it had,

I'm asking why the Dodo changed, ie from a bird that could fly to a bird wouldn't/couldn't


The Dodo bird did change either by redesign evolution or it's own free will, I'm asking those that insist I accept redesign .

Those who would insist on buying my socks (trying to avoid stereotyping here and also be polite) also insist that the bird had no free will ok I'll go with that.

They also insist that the Dodo bird was designed by an omniscient being that created all that there is, was, and will ever be. They also claim (the ones who would buy my socks) that the creator of all that there is does not change it's mind. okeyedokey.

The dodo starts off as a bird with wings that are used primarily for flying, prior to it's annihilation it was incapable of flight as it's wings had suddenly or over a period of time, become unable to perform the function that they used to as claimed, be designed to do.

If I have to accept that the Dodo was initially designed, then I would have to accept that any change in its' design was caused by the designer.

All well and good so far

However for the designer to change something, this would imply that the initial design was flawed or the design is to be utilized for another purpose.

Those that would insist on buying my socks also insist that, the creator of all that there is cannot be in error IE have a design flaw, this then leaves - utilized for another purpose.


Utilizing for another purpose implies a saving/lack of/ or limitation.

Those that would insist on buying my socks, also claim as previously mentioned that (their) creator is the creator of all that there is/was/ever will be IE omniscient, omnipresent.


So I am asking for an explanation for the paradox of the "All that there is" somehow also "saving/being in want/ or being limited.


At the moment I can only see one possibility of resolving this paradoxical contradiction but I won't discus it right now as I run the risk of those that would insist on buying my socks, suddenly deciding to insist on buying underwear instead or as well.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join