questions for creationists?

reply to post by octotom

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
But HIV, Ebola, Influenza...how else would they have operated? How would viruses serve any other purpose?

Originally posted by octotom
That's a good question. And there are some things that we just won't know until we're on the other side of eternity.

Is that the best a 'theologian' can do when confronted with the Problem of Evil?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Also, what about carnivores?

Originally posted by octotom
What about them?

Or is this the best?

Extreme Fail.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Lions and tigers mating produce infertile offspring, that is because successful reproduction can tend to occur within a genus, but the offspring will not be fertile. It's like a mule. Mules are never fertile, but they exist

The point of my post was not to show that the offspring is the new species. So therefore to say, that the offspring is INFERTILE and therefore not a new species is a waste of breath. I never claimed it was a new species. I claimed that it's PARENTS are for the sake of pointing out that just because two animals can or can't produce offspring has no bearing on if they're the same species or not, that they may just be the same genus. Lions and tigers are a different species. Are you disagreeing with that? I never made a claim as to if the offspring was or not.

So, then you point out that I'm wrong by saying that a tiger and a lion are a different species, but the offspring is infertile. That two animals of the same genus, but different species can have offspring, but the offspring isn't a new species. Which is exactly what I just said in my post!!!

You just said I was wrong, and then to counter what I said, you repeated what I said???? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? How does one go about countering an argument with the SAME argument? Wow.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

As for your distinction on individuals with chromosomal disorders...that's not a form of speciation. The rest of your lengthy post has absolutely nothing to do with speciation as it's primarily founded in not understanding much of biology. The issue isn't defining what a species is, it's sorting out the outdated classification system as we get more genetic information

Okay so the point of my argument was there is no hard and fast rule as to what a species is. Are you saying that's not true? If so, could you please tell us what the definition is?

Instead you go on to say, the issue isn't defining what a species is, it's sorting out the outdated classification system as we get more genetic information.

Wow you did it again! How do you do it twice in one post? Not only that, you insult me by saying my argument is FOUNDED in not actually understanding much of biology, but then counter my argument WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT I just made? Does that mean you also have little understanding of biology? You're making the same argument I am.

If you actually read my posts you'll see the examples were to show, what many people think defines a species, does not in fact define what a species is. I said the reason there is no hard and fast rule for defining what a species is, is because the classification system isn't finished yet, and keeps getting changed as new information comes in. That eventually the scientists will reach a consensus and my personal opinion is that the consensus they reach will be based on genetic information once we know more about genetics, but that hasn't happened yet.

Then you again come in and tell me I'm wrong, and then you spew off the SAME THING I JUST SAID and turn it around like I said the opposite. So basically what I gather from this is, you actually agree with what I posted, but just want to argue and insult people anyway?? Um.....Okay. Suuuurrree.

EDIT: I also wanted to stress, that it's been observed that two different species can mate and produce fertile offspring. It's been observed in canines, bears, deer, cattle, birds, and especially in plants. There is even evidence to show that it's happened between humans and neanderthals. Some claim Ozzy Osbourne even has neanderthal genes! The more you know!

Also, mules aren't actually always sterile! My point was, if the offspring is fertile or not, that tells us nothing about the parents. Two animals of different species can have fertile or non-fertile offspring. Also, some species don't mate at all. They just divide. The point was if they can mate or not doesn't help us determine if two animals are a different species or not.

Sorry, madnessinmysoul. There were some other things you said, I wanted to try to answer.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


What does HIV/AIDS have to do with the human body? It's a separate living organism. Why would an all loving deity allow for the most pernicious of microorganisms to exist? What about Ebola? Dysentery? All sorts of organisms which are entirely separate from the human body live only through injuring and killing other organisms.

Ok, what is evil according to your deity? Mass rape? Genocide? Human sacrifice? Punishing rape victims? Discriminating against women? Infant genital mutilation?

Those are all horrible things commanded by the deity of the Bible.

I take it you're an atheist (I could be wrong), but you talk about the bible as if it was written by God himself. It was written by men, and therefore it is flawed. All man-made things are flawed, even the great pyramid (if only slightly).

The bible (like all other religious books) are meant as guides. A lot of the old testament is out dated and primative, such as Leviticus, where all the different reasons to stone someone is listed (example: ...if you see your son's wife, you will have exposed your son's nakedness and should be stoned; or something very similar). These were not the laws of God, but the laws of an ignorant church.

And as for, "why would an all loving deity allow..."

It surprises me that people have trouble understanding the answer to that.

Life is struggle...

Struggle is strengthening...

Strength is good.

If you think about seventy or eighty years in comparison to eternity, then the struggle of a seventy year life would be about the same as getting a shot at the doctor's.

The pain and hardships we face on this planet is absolutely no comparison to the peace that waits on the other side. I also believe in reincarnation, and still, even if one lived a thousand horrible lives, it would still be nothing to forever.

I apologize for the behavior of certain "christians" and "creationists" on these forums. However, just try to remember that there are people still using the bible for positivity. People who would have no problem with you at all. We've been letting these false witnesses speak hatred in the name of a God for too long. It's time to check these foos (intentional slang).

And another thing, don't presume to understand a Creator God's way of thinking, especially if you don't even believe in her *smiles*. I'm quite confident something that could create the universe could easily outsmart us humans...

...even scientists.

You said something like " A creationist always argues against science". That is not true. My mother-in-law bought me some book that ties creationism together with scientific theories like the big bang and evolution. Holman QuickSource Guide To Understanding Creation. It's not a very good book, but it was written by two people (Mark Whorton & Hill Roberts) who seem to disagree with " A creationist always argues against science".

Go easy on the Christies, some of them are really cool people. Most aren't, but then again, those people are all about the church, not God, nor peace, nor love. Just their church, and your suffer.

Thank you for your time.

reply to post by tinfoilman


There actually is a fairly accurate 'hard and fast' rule for sexually reproductive species. Gene flow of less than 1% between gene pools. If group A cannot reproduce with group B...they're two separate species. If they can but produce fertile offspring less than 1% of the time...they're still a new species.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

There actually is a fairly accurate 'hard and fast' rule for sexually reproductive species. Gene flow of less than 1% between gene pools. If group A cannot reproduce with group B...they're two separate species. If they can but produce fertile offspring less than 1% of the time...they're still a new species.

Those are nice made up numbers. What you don't believe me? Watch this. That's my point. You say if A does not have more than 1% gene flow with group B. That's fine you've put forth your own definition and made up any arbitrary number and tried to make it all sciency sounding and authortive, but that is NOT the definition that they are always using now.

Scientists are still classifying animals that don't meet that criteria as NEW species. They need to stop that, and properly reclassify every animal. Some of those NEW species weren't actually new species cause a few of them I read about didn't meet that criteria.

Also, your definition has logical problems. What about organisms that don't reproduce sexually? EDIT: Sorry, had to come back to finish this part. Another problem is something else that has been observed in nature. That's when group A and group B can't mate at all or have low success rates, yet both group A and group B can successfully mate with a group C. Since A can mate with C at a rate higher than 1% then group A and group C are the same species. Since group B can cross with group C at a higher rate than 1% then group B and C are the same species. Therefore group A and B are actually the same species, but they can't mate. So they're a different species.

So they're both the same species, and a different species at the same time? Or is group C a different species? If so that means your definition is wrong. Two animals can have more than 1% gene flow, and still be a different species. So again, it comes back to, WHAT is a species. The more you look, the more you'll find it doesn't mean anything. There's just different kinds animals and we call them what we want.

But in the end your definition proves I was right. How we classify animals isn't scientific. It's subjective and arbitrary and we can draw the line wherever we want. Just because you use a number like 1% doesn't mean it's not a subjective number.

How comes it wasn't 2% or 4% or 34% of the time? How come is wasn't 0.75% of the time or 0.26% of the time? So you're saying if two breeds of dogs for example only mate successfully 2% of the time, a mere 2% they're the same species? So two different animals that have a 98% failure rate in reproduction when they mate with each other is still the same species, but when it drops to 99% all of a sudden NEW SPECIES! DIFFERENT ANIMAL! LOL okay.

It's just another arbitrary number. They could have used any percentage they wanted to. It's not like 1% is some magical number that we have to use. Like I said, it's just a classification system humans made up. The rules are what they say they are and always seem to be changing. Tomorrow it'll probably be 3% so they can again say NEW SPECIES when it's really not a new species. After all, how do we know how much they're mating in the wild where we can see right? We can't expect God would have used the same number. Maybe he used .5% so you'd have fewer species than you really think you had!

It brings us back to the real issue. The Bible. Where in the Bible does it say new species can't be born? Where in the Bible does it say that animals that only produce with their genetic ancestors 1% of the time or less will never be born!

Does it say that in the Bible? NO! New species are fine for the Bible. They're still the same kind. Always have been. Like I said, the closet kind in the Bible comes is probably genus, but maybe not even that specific. The Bible doesn't touch the species level.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Argument from verbosity much?

I'm sorry, but I did make it clear that my definition is a hard and fast rule for sexually reproductive species, not for asexual species.

Secondly, the number didn't come from me. It actually came from a lower-level biology textbook which I cannot locate now and I think I had sold. I'm quite sure the 1% figure isn't just arbitrary, as numbers in biology don't tend to grade along a scale very well. In genetics there are numerical jumps rather than gradients. Of course, it isn't a readily accepted number, but it's a useful one to begin a discussion for people who aren't biologists. I know I'm not a biologist and I'm quite sure you're not a biologist and I doubt that the majority of people in O&C aren't biologists.

Anyway, here's a discussion of the concept of species. While it might not be a completely hard and fast term, it's not a useless term.

Now to get to some quotes:

It brings us back to the real issue. The Bible. Where in the Bible does it say new species can't be born?

Well, many interpret Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24, 25 as well as Genesis 6:20, 7:14 as saying that with all the "after his own kind" business. There's also a bunch of similar references in Leviticus.

Where in the Bible does it say that animals that only produce with their genetic ancestors 1% of the time or less will never be born!

Well, the Bible doesn't really touch on the concept of Genetics. I mean, it's a book that thinks that you could fit two of every species on a boat, so it's not exactly a great science book. Of course, it makes no reference to speciation and claims that life arose in a manner that is inconsistent with the evidence.

Does it say that in the Bible? NO! New species are fine for the Bible. They're still the same kind.

Except that speciation necessarily leads to further divergences with more time unless you can find some sort of mechanism that would prevent change beyond the species level.

Always have been.

Except they haven't. We can trace the lineage of many living things through various different 'kinds'. The current understanding is that fowl started out as dinosaurs. I'm quite sure a chicken and a microraptor aren't the same 'kind'.

Like I said, the closet kind in the Bible comes is probably genus, but maybe not even that specific. The Bible doesn't touch the species level.

Sure, it touches an arbitrary distinction referred to as 'kind' that creationists have yet to ever define.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Argument from verbosity much? Logical fallacy. The length of my argument has no bearing on if it's correct or not. Nice try though. Could you please stay away from logical fallacies and insults and actually debate which you don't seem to be able to do? That's twice now you've insulted me instead of reading what I said.

Like I said, we don't know exactly what kind meant. We're not making a scientific claim. No need to scientifically define it. The word kind may not be specific enough for you, but my question in my original post was why are the atheists trying to prove it wrong? It's not because we don't agree with it. We don't know what the Bible said on the issue. Therefore we can't agree with it or disagree with it. We just simply don't know how specific or general it was.

I mean, it's a book that thinks that you could fit two of every species on a boat, so it's not exactly a great science book.

This is another form of logical fallacy. Please stay away from the insults and logical fallacies. You're combining a straw man with an ad hominem attack against the Bible.

The straw man you're setting up is that the Bible never said he took one of every species on the ark. Like I said, the BIBLE DOESN'T USE THE WORD SPECIES. Where in the Bible does it say Noah took one of every SPECIES on the ark? It doesn't. If you read it all the way through you'll see It said one of every kind. Then you're attacking the Bible by knocking down your own straw man argument which isn't true implying that kind and species are the same.

We have no evidence to suggest they're the same. If kind is more generic than species is, which is possible, we don't know exactly how much, then he wouldn't of had to take one of every species. Just one of every kind. But it never said species. Stop using the straw men and actually debate. Like I said, we don't know exactly what a kind is. We can't make assumptions like that.

Another problem with your argument is I already said. I'm not a creationist as I said at the start of the thread. I don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis. It's an allegory or metaphor or something, but my point is, it never uses the word species. Regardless of if you believe in a literal reading of the Ark story or not, it doesn't change the fact that species isn't used in the Bible. It's not like if the story is false, all of a sudden species is in the Bible.

Also, the Bible says, God created the animals after its kind. It doesn't say that new kinds would never be born! It just talks about how he created them before he set them off to do their own thing. It doesn't say animals would ONLY give birth to their kind. But again, you missed my previous post. Yes we have new kinds of animals today. But show me one animal that gave birth to an animal of a different genus or a different kind?. It's never happened.

Yes new animals have evolved, but every single animal that has ever been born, its direct parents, were the same kind of animal as it was. You're not claiming that a dinosaur gave birth to a chicken are you? Sure maybe a dinosaur gave birth to an animal that was a little more "bird like" but it was still pretty much a kind of dinosaur. Just like the Bible says.

Evolution and the Bible don't differ here. Every animal gives birth to an animal of its kind.

Also we'll have to strike the 1% assertion if you can't find your source considering you also didn't address all my issues with the logical flaws in that argument and at no point did you show that it wasn't arbitrary. Regardless of if genetic flow doesn't operate on a 1% gradient or not it still operates on a gradient.

Maybe it moves by 10% or 20% at a time on the gradient instead of by 1% and maybe an actual scientist picked the 1% and not you, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an arbitrary place on the gradient to stop regardless of who stopped there. My point was, that we COULD have used a number different than 1% if we wanted to, and nothing in your argument disproves that.

Also, nowhere in my posts did I say the species argument was WRONG or wish to discredit the theory or say it doesn't work. Just like if I organize my bookshelf in alphabetical order. It's just a system that we decided to use. Maybe there's even logical reasons for deciding to use it, like it makes it easier to find the books!

Maybe there's a logical reason for using 1% as a place to separate the species. Maybe it makes it easier to find the species! But it doesn't change the fact that it's still an arbitrary subjective system we made up. Sure it works, but that doesn't change the real fact, the real heart of the issue, that it's most likely a different system than what is used in the Bible and therefore doesn't prove the Bible wrong. It never said we couldn't organize our bookshelf in alphabetical order and it also never said we weren't allowed to classify the animals by species or color or by whatever we want.

But in the end you haven't shown how us deciding to classify them by species instead of some other way, proves that the Bible was wrong? So what if there are new species?

reply to post by applesthateatpeople

The Bible was written by men, and therefore it is flawed. All man-made things are flawed.

You are saying that parts of the Bible are not true. If all Christians accepted this, their quarrel with modern science would never have arisen.

However, it begs the question of which parts of the Bible are false.

It is modern scholarship (not just science, but also, for example, historical scholarship) that tells us what parts of the Bible are in error. If we accept these claims, we also accept, implicitly, that when it comes to telling fact from fiction, science and scholarship are a higher authority than the Bible.

Understandably, many Christians reject this position.

However, madness's questions about carnivorous predators and deadly microorganisms, and about the various Old Testament injunctions to punish, rape, pillage and slaughter in the name of the Lord, are not primarily questioning the factual authority of the Bible (which any educated person must regard as nonexistent), but its moral authority.

If the Bible was written by humans, whence comes this moral authority?

Facts can be grasped, but morality is slippery. We cannot appeal to science or scholarship to tell us what is right or wrong; they can only tell us what is true or false. Philosophy, as three thousand years of futile argument have shown, is helpless. In the end, our recourse must be to that unreliable (and metaphorical) organ, the human conscience.

A Bible not fully endorsed by God is worse than useless in this regard. You say

the bible (like all other religious books) are meant as guides.

but if these books were written by men, is it not a case of the blind leading the blind? Granted, some men are generally agreed to have greater moral wisdom than others. Could this be said about the authors (the many authors) of the Bible? What evidence shows it? They are men long dead, of whom we know nothing except their writings. It is only from their writings that we may judge their wisdom, their moral authority.

So let us examine their writings (the books of the Bible) and see what we find. This is what we find:

Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle. And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.

Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died...

Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent! He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish. She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples. At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.

So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD... Judges 4:17-22, Judges 5:24-31

Such is the quality of moral instruction offered in the Bible. A man in flight from his enemies seeks refuge in the tent of a friend; the friend's wife takes him in, makes him feel safe and secure enough to fall asleep, then brains him with a tent-peg. How does the author of Judges judge this violation of the Sixth Commandment and the sacred laws of hospitality? 'So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD.'

Could you explain in what sense a book like this can be of use as a guide? Are we supposed to model our behaviour on that of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite?

As for, "why would an all loving deity allow..." It surprises me that people have trouble understanding the answer to that. Life is struggle... Struggle is strengthening... Strength is good.

As simple as that, eh? No, the Problem of Evil is not so easily disposed of. If God is good, why does He allow evil to happen? It is not enough to say He allows it for a good purpose. Ends do not justify means if the actor is omnipotent. God could have found another way to achieve His ends, one that did not involve pain and suffering. He could have given us strength without struggle.

Some will argue that pain and suffering are the price of free will, but this is triply fallacious: first, it has to be shown that we actually have free will (and the scientific consensus is that we do not); second, even if we do have free will, it is limited; we cannot, for example, will ourselves to float through the air in defiance of gravity. Why could our free will not similarly be limited to prevent us from doing evil, while leaving us free to do whatever we liked that was good? Thirdly, there is pain and suffering in the world that is not of human origin – for example, to quote madness, AIDS and Ebola. And innocent beasts also suffer pain and death, without even the hope of an afterlife to console them. If God is good, why does He allow such things?

I'm sorry, but your simple answer does not even begin to satisfy these objections.

Just try to remember that there are people still using the bible for positivity.

I feel very sorry for those people, and sorrier still for those on whom they practise their Biblical 'positivity'.

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you for the reply. I have some answers for you. Please consider these things before implying I am delusional.


The bible is man made, yes, but it is based on facts. Such as the life of Jesus. I suggest you read the new testament again, and then tell me it cannot be used as a guide to living a peaceful life. The teachings of Jesus quite literally saved my life, and you feel sorry for me?

I'm sure you noticed that I suggested the old testament was primative. Even Jesus knew this. A crowd of people were going to stone a woman to death for commiting adultery, Jesus said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone". Even Jesus knew the old testament was out dated, BUT there are still a lot of passages in the old testament that have very powerful meanings. You don't need any word from God himself to understand what the right thing is..

I read the new testament religiously. I read the old testament for inspiration ( the same reason I read ANY book).

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVIL!

What we call evil is actually just ignorance or confusion. That is exactly why Jesus challenged us to forgive and love our enemies. He explained that it could be the most difficult thing you may ever put yourself through, but love your enemies. You feel sorry for people who choose forgiveness over hate?

You don't have to believe me or any other religion that claims God...ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!

I am not preaching Hell.

I am not attacking any other religous belief, or ideology.

I am only living my life based on the teachings of Jesus. Any sensible person would agree that peace is more powerful than violence and hate.

You feel sorry for people who think that way?

You should not incourage people to lose their faith. You have every right to say "I disagree", you have no right to imply that I am delusional for defending what most people in the world believe. And yes, I believe christians are wrong to attack science, but scientists that attack religion are also WRONG! Their major arguments against creationism (i.e. big bang) are not hard facts, just theories based on theories based on theories. Science usually (if not always) operates under the assumption there is no God or afterlife. Why? Because it seems crazy? That is not really a logical argument for a scientist.

It doesn't matter if God is proved, what matters is whatever it takes to get a person to live a better life. Say what you want, but for me, it took an understanding of Jesus' teachings to turn me around. I'm by no means perfect, but I am doing a lot better than I was as an atheist. It was totally worth it.

I'm finally happy again and you feel sorry for me?

If I live to be 10,000 years old, I don't think I'll ever understand what you meant by that.

If atheism works for you, great. But, for you to imply that you are right, and christians are wrong is stooping to the same level the fundie-christians stoop to to tell you that you're wrong.

There is nothing ignorant about a peaceful person.

You should also read what I posted at the bottom of page 2 on this thread, it also answer some of your questions and challenges.

Also, no disrespect intended. I am merely defending the thing that saved my life.

I say it a lot, so you won't forget....IT SAVED MY LIFE.

Think about that, please.

Don't feel sorry for me or my family and friends. You don't know anything about any of us.

reply to post by Astyanax



"If God is good, why does He allow such things? "

Most of the darkness in the world is caused by our own hands, not God's.

Is it God's job to go around and make life a happy wonderland for every individual? Seems pointless to me.

A disease is a another form of life, right? Nothing more evil about cancer than a lion eating a human. Life is a struggle, you think it shouldn't be? What would be the point of life if we didn't have these struggles to strengthen us?

reply to post by applesthateatpeople

Your reply to me does not address even one of the points I made. If you wish to continue this conversation, please answer the following:

• How can we tell for certain which parts of the Bible are true, and which are false?
  
  
• If the Bible is man-made and 'flawed', what is the source of its moral authority?
  
  
• If God exists and is good, why do pain and suffering exist?
  
  
• If God exists and is good, why do predators, parasites and pathogens exist?
  
  
• If God exists and is good, why do innocent beasts suffer along with fallen humanity?

Unless you can provide satisfactory answers to these questions, you have lost the argument.

Now, let's take a look at what you did say...

About the Bible

I suggest you read the new testament again, and then tell me it cannot be used as a guide to living a peaceful life.

It is an absolutely hopeless guide. It teaches us to kill other people's pigs, steal their donkeys, curse perfectly innocent fig trees, attack blameless, officially licensed tradesmen and encourage lazy sisters to refrain from helping industrious ones. And that's just the Gospels. In the Epistles of Paul, we are taught to accept slavery without complaint and regard women as inferior to men, while the heinous example of the Book of Revelation teaches us that it is good and right to punish and torture (for all eternity!) those weaker and less fortunate than ourselves. And any fool who tries to live according to the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount will find himself dead by violence and shoved into a pauper's grave tout suite. Do you disagree?

About Morality and the Problem of Evil

You don't need any word from God himself to understand what the right thing is.

Are you implying that everyone knows (instinctively, perhaps) what is right and wrong in every situation? Then why are there endless arguments about everything from sexual manners to the testing of pharmaceutical drugs on animals? Clearly you are wrong; human beings are not automatically able to tell right from wrong, even in the commonest of situations.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVIL!

Fiddlesticks. I agree that there is no such thing as an evil person and have said as much on these forums more than once, but any act that causes pain and suffering is evil, whether it be a human action or an act of God.

What we call evil is actually just ignorance or confusion.

No, what we call evil acts may be perpertrated out of ignorance and confusion. They remain evil for all that.

It doesn't matter if God is proved, what matters is whatever it takes to get a person to live a better life.

And is it ethically acceptable to lie to them and coddle their delusions in order to achieve this? How would they feel about that if they ever found out?

You should not encourage people to lose their faith.

Why not? Is it not doing someone a service to lead him from error and set him on the way of truth?

You have no right to imply that I am delusional for defending what most people in the world believe.

Why not? Is there a some critical mass of belief that turns a lie into the truth?

About Science vs. Religion

(The major scientific) arguments against creationism (i.e. big bang) are not hard facts, just theories based on theories based on theories.

If you take that line, remember that in the end there are no 'hard facts'. There are only propositions more or less justified by logic and experience. In this regard, the 'theories based on theories' of science are a hundred thousand times better founded and more credible than any religious claim, Biblical or otherwise.

Science usually (if not always) operates under the assumption there is no God or afterlife. Why? Because it seems crazy? That is not really a logical argument for a scientist.

Not because it seems crazy, but because there is no evidence for it. Science does not concern itself with things that cannot be shown to exist. That is the province of religion and metaphysics, not science.

About Feeling Sorry for People

You feel sorry for people who choose forgiveness over hate?

No, I feel sorry for people who lie to themselves, or embrace delusion for the sake of their peace of mind.

Any sensible person would agree that peace is more powerful than violence and hate. You feel sorry for people who think that way?

No, but I do feel sorry – very sorry – for people who believe that peace can be secured merely through refraining from violence and hatred oneself. That is a necessary condition for peace, but not a sufficient one.

The teachings of Jesus quite literally saved my life, and you feel sorry for me?

If – as it seems – you insist on descending from the general to the personal in an intellectual debate, you are certainly deserving of sympathy, though perhaps not for the reasons I cited earlier.

I'm finally happy again and you feel sorry for me?

How long can happiness last when it is founded on a lie?

Two hundred, a hundred, even fifty years ago, it was possible for a Christian to go through life without encountering a conflct between truth and faith. This is no longer possible; you have demonstrated as much with your posts on this thread. Your 'happiness', therefore, is predicated on successive denials of truth, and in the end it cannot last. So yes, I do feel sorry for you. Sorry, but there it is.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by applesthateatpeople

 

Your reply to me does not address even one of the points I made. If you wish to continue this conversation, please answer the following:

Actually, I provided answers for all of them, but I'll do it again just for you.

• 
  How can we tell for certain which parts of the Bible are true, and which are false?

  
  
  The parts that tell us to love and share and forgive. Jesus mostly talked of such things.
  
  

• 
  If the Bible is man-made and 'flawed', what is the source of its moral authority?

  
  
  The New Testament is based on events that actually took place. In the New Testament, Jesus and his God are the "moral" inspiration ("Moral Authority" is an oxymoron).
  
  There is no right or wrong, good or evil. There just happens to be an idea that harmony is achieved through love. I happen to agree.
  
  
  

• 
  If God exists and is good, why do pain and suffering exist?

  
  
  Life is a test. We each have our own specific lesson to learn in this life. I believe in reincarnation. Some souls have learned all their lessons and have moved on to the next phase of a never-ending existence.
  
  Pain and suffering is nature's crash course work out program for the spirit. Without pain and suffering there would be no happiness or sense of achievement. When we overcome a great hardship, we our always stronger as a result. If you don't already know this, then you have to be very young. I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just saying that someone who has been out on their own in the world for some time, understands what true struggle can mean.
  
  

• 
  If God exists and is good, why do predators, parasites and pathogens exist?

  
  
  Why does man exist? Man is more deadly than all three things you listed combined.
  
  

• 
  If God exists and is good, why do innocent beasts suffer along with fallen humanity?

Unless you can provide satisfactory answers to these questions, you have lost the argument.

That is the best question you've asked so far (even if it is redundant next to your previous two questions). I do not have a good enough answer to suit you, I'm sure. But I have faith that there is a reason. And like I said earlier in another reply, a lifetime of seventy-odd years in this struggle we call "life" is nothing more than a pin-prick in the face of eternity. I believe a "good" soul lives forever. The "bad (not evil) soul" I'm implying by saying "good soul" would be a soul that doesn't want to exist no matter how many lessons they learn.

And who are you to decide who wins an "argument" like this. Neither one of us have provided any 100% proof of anything. I'm merely explaining my beliefs, because, I feel too many christians are snotty about their beliefs. Any christian that preaches Hell-to-nonbelievers has a vulgar lack of understanding when it comes to Jesus and God and the bible.

---------------------------

As for your other comments:

How exactly do you figure my beliefs are based on a lie? You say that several times in your post in several different ways.

Let me tell you a story... (To anyone who is an atheist, the following is only my personal experience and is in no way an attempt at speaking on behalf of any other atheist)

I have always been an atheist (up until 2 1/2 year ago).

To make a long story short, my beliefs not only caused a great deal of negativity, but also a kind of spiritual laziness. I believed that even if I did live more positive (which required a lot of effort on my part), it could possibly be for no reason. I saw the world as a horrible place of suffering, and felt life was hopeless. This thinking lead to more negativity.

In 2008, I began meditation. I almost immediatley started feeling more at peace and relaxed. I started to have faith in hope.

During meditation in early 2010, I recieved a vision. I can't possibly explain the vision and do it justice, but the jist of it all was that I would find what I was looking for in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I ignored the vision, but I also started to think about the little knowledge I had of his teachings over the next couple of weeks and began to have dreams about it. I finally started reading the new testament. The more I read, the more I started to feel better as a person. Jesus became my teacher.

Atheism was holding me back (not my cup of tea). The New Testament is responsable for one less wild beast in Detroit, Michigan (me).

Meditation effected my wife the same way. She was agnostic, but now believes relentlessly in a higher power.

Meditation can teach you a lot about yourself. Meditation can show you a higher power.

Science can waste billions and billions of dollars just to collect rocks from lifeless planets. It's not like we will ever be able to send a rocket shuttle much further than we already have. Space exploration is pretty close to pointless at this phase in our technology, so why waste so much money on it? It's illogical.

And yet science doesn't seem to want to take things like meditation and psychic readings seriously.

Meditation is essential. If you disagree, then you know almost nothing about it, and that is one of the only FACTS that I will claim here.

The proof is out there, but is only available to the individual, not the collective.

Now there are some atheists that are happy, and live peacefully and love and forgive. To those people, I say keep up the good work.

I'm just saying that I couldn't have done it without Jesus' teachings to guide me.

I believe that if you believe we were bred by robot vampires from the 5th dimension, and live a peaceful life, then you are more correct than any so-called "christian" group that promises Hell (eternal torture) to non-believers.

And just so you know, the book of Revelation is still a mystery to me, so I have no answers about it. Except to say, the books of the bible were written by a lot of different people. Each one of them had a different perspective of God, and in the N.T. Jesus.

I have to tell you, you seem angry with people who believe in God. You are attacking believers in the exact same manner a fundamentalist christian group would attack an atheist.

That kind of attitude is ignorant. And it is ignorant to say God is a lie. You may not believe in God, but what proof do you have to call it a lie?

I do not condemn you for disagreeing with me. I would like it if you extended me (and other peaceful believers) the same courtesy.

MEDITATE ON IT, BROTHER!

reply to post by applesthateatpeople

Answers and Questions

Astyanax: How can we tell for certain which parts of the Bible are true, and which are false?

applesthateatpeople: The parts that tell us to love and share and forgive.

I didn't ask which parts are true, I asked how we can tell the true parts from the false ones.

Astyanax: If the Bible is man-made and 'flawed', what is the source of its moral authority?

applesthateatpeople: The New Testament is based on events that actually took place. In the New Testament, Jesus and his God are the "moral" inspiration ("Moral Authority" is an oxymoron).

Even if Jesus really existed and the events in the Gospels did take place, veracity is not the same thing as moral authority.

If you want to quote Josephus and Tacitus at me, or explain why you think 'moral authority' is an oxymoron, go ahead, but first please answer the question.

Astyanax: If God exists and is good, why do pain and suffering exist?

applesthateatpeople: Pain and suffering is nature's crash course work out program for the spirit. Without pain and suffering there would be no happiness or sense of achievement. When we overcome a great hardship, we our always stronger as a result. If you don't already know this, then you have to be very young. I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just saying that someone who has been out on their own in the world for some time, understands what true struggle can mean.

I am over fifty years old and have seen my share of pain, suffering and death. It is your answer that is full of naivety and unexamined assumptions. What is a 'spirit'? Does such a thing exist? Why does it need a 'crash course workout programme'? And why should pain and suffering be indispensable to happiness? Is achievement truly something desirable, and if so, why? If you think the answers to any of these questions are obvious or trivial, it shows you haven't thought hard enough about them.

If God created the Universe, then He must have created it to be like this, or, at least, created it knowing it would be like this. Why did He, Who is said to be omnipotent and good, not find a better means to His ends than one that involves the pain, suffering and death of His creatures? Why was this deemed necessary?

Yet again, my question remains unanswered.

Astyanax: If God exists and is good, why do predators, parasites and pathogens exist?

applesthateatpeople: Why does man exist? Man is more deadly than all three things you listed combined.

Indeed, why does Man exist? A good question. But not, sadly, an answer to the question I asked.

Other animals besides Man suffer predators, parasites and pathogens. All life is prey to other life that lives upon it. This is the world God made, or at least (if we believe fairytales of original sin) allowed to come about. If He exists and is good, why is the world shaped thus? Yet again you have no answer for me.

Astyanax: If God exists and is good, why do innocent beasts suffer along with fallen humanity?

applesthateatpeople: I do not have a good enough answer, but have faith that there is a reason.

Well, at least you admit it this time.

*

applesthateatpeople: Who are you to decide who wins an "argument" like this?

It is not I that decides. In an argument, one who cannot support his claims with evidence or sound argument must end up the loser.

applesthateatpeople: How exactly do you figure my beliefs are based on a lie?

The lie is that God exists and is good. We live in an amoral universe. If it was created, it was not created by a moral being. Either God exists beyond good and evil, or He does not exist at all. You can take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.

Truth, Lies and Belief

applesthateatpeople: I have to tell you, you seem angry with people who believe in God. You are attacking believers in the exact same manner a fundamentalist christian group would attack an atheist.

You are confusing beliefs with believers. I am angry with the lie – what you would call the belief – that has made dupes of so many. In exchange for what it provides – a palliative for suffering and the fear of death – it stunts and enfeebles us, and fathers lies upon us. But unless they be proselytizers or violent fanatics, I have no quarrel with believers; a person who balks at evident reality out of fear inspires not anger but pity.

I do not doubt some illusions are needful to us – else how should we live at all? – but the price of this one is much too high. Suffering and death are terrible, but surely not so terrible that we must deny life for fear of them.

Still, every man and woman must judge the bargain for themselves, and take it or leave it.

You may not believe in God, but what proof do you have to call it a lie?

I hope what I have written above makes things a little clearer.

reply to post by tinfoilman


I'm done addressing your posts. I made the point of the argument from verbosity as you seem to take individual sentences of mine and then write a few hundred words while ignoring the meat of my posts.


I'm just going to cut this short by saying that the Bible clearly says that things reproduce after their own kind. We have evidence of massive morphological change over millions of years. It isn't just speciation, it's a change in genus as well. It might not be a massive shift between single generations...but the shift happens over centuries.

Also, the Bible clearly states that the order of creation was:

Plants (on the land)
Sun and Moon
Fish and Birds
Land Animals
(Source: Genesis 1)

This is incorrect. We have clear evidence that it is incorrect from not only the fossil record but a knowledge of cosmology. We know that the Sun and Moon proceed plant life.

You're not following me at all, and you didn't read my other posts on this thread, like I suggested.

I personally base my morals on the ten commandments (in the bible there is actually like seventeen) and the teachings of Jesus Christ, mixed in with various inspiration from other prophets and apostles of the OT and NT.

Some people find their inspiration in another religion (i.e. hinduism, buddhism, two very beautiful and inspiring religions)

It has given me strength, and for you to suggest that I am close-minded or unenlightened because of a simple belief in a higher power is nothing short of ludacris. Absolutely mind-boggling. Keep reading, there is more to go with this later on...

I'm sorry you won't accept my answers to your questions, but just so you know, I did not find your questions challenging. The one I didn't answer, was because my answer would have taken up a whole page (or pretty close), and you don't seem to be paying much attention to what I'm telling you. Something I will actually prove later in this reply.

It is not I that decides. In an argument, one who cannot support his claims with evidence or sound argument must end up the loser.

Really? I'll come back to that one too...

The lie is that God exists and is good. We live in an amoral universe. If it was created, it was not created by a moral being. Either God exists beyond good and evil, or He does not exist at all. You can take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.

I have already told you, I do not believe in good and evil. That is one of things I believe the strongest. Now you've already agreed that a man cannot be evil, but then went on to suggest that God is evil, because there are deadly things in nature, like pathogens. Actually, you implied that nature itself is evil. I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you think earthquakes and volcanos are "evil"?

If we lived in an "amoral universe"; Wait a minute, how exactly do you know the morality of the universe beyond Earth? You have proof that there are no peaceful intelligent life forms in the outside universe?

What was it you said? Oh yea:

one who cannot support his claims with evidence or sound argument must end up the loser.

I'm sorry, but just simply saying "we live in an amoral universe", is neither evidence nor "sound argument" of ANYTHING.

Anyway, as I was saying, if we lived on an amoral planet (better), then how were we able to bring any kind of order to a nation?

Truth, Lies and Belief

You are confusing beliefs with believers. I am angry with the lie – what you would call the belief – that has made dupes of so many. In exchange for what it provides – a palliative for suffering and the fear of death – it stunts and enfeebles us, and fathers lies upon us. But unless they be proselytizers or violent fanatics, I have no quarrel with believers; a person who balks at evident reality out of fear inspires not anger but pity.

I do not doubt some illusions are needful to us – else how should we live at all? – but the price of this one is much too high. Suffering and death are terrible, but surely not so terrible that we must deny life for fear of them.

Still, every man and woman must judge the bargain for themselves, and take it or leave it.

Here's the part where you proved to me that you did not read my replies very well.

There is no part of my personal belief that should inspire fear in someone. I do not fear death. I believe EVERYONE goes to the place we call "Heaven" or "Paradise". I also believe that to some, even once they are there, will not be very impressed or understanding to it's true meaning. I have not been duped into anything. I don't give money to any church. If I decide to give to charity, I will choose the charity myself.

I told you that I don't believe in Hell in the bible is to be taken literally. I believe the fire and torture are metaphors for anger and confusion (these things are powerful and can stay with the soul after what we call "death")

I agree with these last two things you said, but for the opposite reason: I blame the believers for the bad name religion has got these days. A lot of "christians" misrepresent the word of Jesus, the ten commandments and everything else written in that book. Look at muslims... Here in America, a lot of people seem to think that Qu'ran actually instructs the faithful to commit suicide bombings. lol, It's silly, but it's true, and that is because most Americans hear about the threats of islamic extremists (on the news, often) a hell of a lot more often then they read from the Qu'ran.

You may not believe in God, but what proof do you have to call it a lie?

I hope what I have written above makes things a little clearer.

You call that proof?

Once again, you said...

one who cannot support his claims with evidence or sound argument must end up the loser.

Just because you say it's a lie is neither evidence nor "sound argument".


Also, it would be impossible for me to "lose" an "argument", when all I am really doing is explaining my beliefs. Most important of which is love and forgiveness.

God is simple. God would have to be simple, so that everyone could understand.

My seven year old daughter understands what Jesus was about very well.

Go read the red ink in the new testament, and then come back and tell me it's a "lie". Even if you don't believe in God, a lot of what Jesus taught could still be very rewarding.

MEDITATE ON THAT!

Edit to Add: Look, it seems like you genuinely care about people. That is what I'm talking about.

As long as you love your fellow man, I don't care what you believe.

I think you should agree with that, and then there will be no reason to argue.

reply to post by applesthateatpeople

(My faith) has given me strength, and for you to suggest that I am close-minded or unenlightened because of a simple belief in a higher power is nothing short of ludacris.

I don't recall suggesting anything of the kind.

From the outset, you've been bent on interpreting my remarks as a personal affront to yourself. Seeing how general and philosophical my remarks have been, this has clearly taken some doing; yet you have managed it somehow. I hope the achievement gives you pleasure, for it certainly gives me none. I have no wish to offend you.

In sober reality (I say again), neither your beliefs nor mine are of any value. We are trying (at least, I am trying, in good faith) to work out what is true, based on logic and the evidence of the senses. Please keep your eye on the ball.

Here we go, one last time:

Astyanax: The lie is that God exists and is good. We live in an amoral universe. If it was created, it was not created by a moral being. Either God exists beyond good and evil, or He does not exist at all. You can take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.

applesthateatpeople: I have already told you, I do not believe in good and evil. That is one of things I believe the strongest. Now you've already agreed that a man cannot be evil, but then went on to suggest that God is evil, because there are deadly things in nature, like pathogens. Actually, you implied that nature itself is evil. I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you think earthquakes and volcanos are "evil"?

Do you believe that God is neither good nor evil, that God is amoral? Then how the hell can you call yourself a Christian? For a Christian, God defines morality. You said so yourself a couple of posts ago.

I do not suggest that God is evil. If He were, then whence would come good, and how would we recognize it? No; if God exists, He is neither good nor evil. He is beyond such distinctions. He is amoral. Or else he hews to some transcendent morality in which humanity and life on Earth are of negligible value.

Never would I suggest that Nature is evil. Since I've been talking quite a bit about God, allow me to remind you once again that I'm an atheist. I don't believe the universe was created; I believe it came into being spontaneously, out of nothing, and has evolved to its present form through the action of certain universal laws and autonomous processes. Such an object cannot be either good or evil; it simply is. Amoral and innocent, it subsists beyond the ambit of judgement. Earthquakes and volcanoes are no more evil than love and loyalty.

applesthateatpeople: If we lived in an "amoral universe"; Wait a minute, how exactly do you know the morality of the universe beyond Earth? You have proof that there are no peaceful intelligent life forms in the outside universe?

The universe is amoral because all that lives in it, whether it lives on Earth or Aldebaran, must suffer and die. The universe is amoral because good deeds go unrewarded and evil deeds unatoned for – at least on Earth, and that is sufficient. The universe is amoral because the laws of physics cannot be broken. The universe is amoral because it is, unlike the God Christians believe in, not human.

applesthateatpeople: Simply saying "we live in an amoral universe", is neither evidence nor "sound argument" of ANYTHING.

Frankly, I did not think any of the above needed to be stated. It seems rather obvious.

Finally,

applesthateatpeople: I do not fear death. I believe EVERYONE goes to the place we call "Heaven" or "Paradise"... I don't believe in Hell...

Could it not be that heaven just a lie some tell themselves to keep the fear of death – of dissolution, ceasing to exist, being gone for ever – at bay? After all, we don't have a shred of evidence for any afterlife. On the contrary, all we know tells us the concept of life after death is absurd. Look at all the silly questions it raises: do pets go to heaven? what about babies? which of my ex-wives will I end up married to for all eternity? how do they cope with the crowds? and what the hell am I going to do in heaven to pass that eternity of time?

But as I said earlier, each man and woman must drive their own bargain with the fear of death.

For the last time, the lie is not that God exists. The lie is that it makes a difference.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

I'm done addressing your posts. I made the point of the argument from verbosity as you seem to take individual sentences of mine and then write a few hundred words while ignoring the meat of my posts.


I'm just going to cut this short by saying that the Bible clearly says that things reproduce after their own kind. We have evidence of massive morphological change over millions of years. It isn't just speciation, it's a change in genus as well. It might not be a massive shift between single generations...but the shift happens over centuries.

Also, the Bible clearly states that the order of creation was:

Plants (on the land)
Sun and Moon
Fish and Birds
Land Animals
(Source: Genesis 1)

This is incorrect. We have clear evidence that it is incorrect from not only the fossil record but a knowledge of cosmology. We know that the Sun and Moon proceed plant life.

Again you use the logical fallacy that argument length determines if the argument is correct or not.

Yes the shift happens over centuries or longer, but that's not against what the Bible said. The Bible said each animal would only give birth to its kind. It never said there wouldn't be new kinds of animals. Just that when each one gives birth, it will give birth to whatever kind of animal it is.

Unless you can show me evidence of an animal giving birth to another animal of a completely different genus than itself then I'm sorry you lose. Why can't you just admit you lost the argument? I mean it was no win battle to begin with? You started the argument using MY arguments to prove MY arguments wrong? Why don't you just admit you were trolling to begin with?

Unless you can show me where in the Bible it says new animals will never be created, or unless you can show me a dinosaur that gave birth to a fully formed bird. You lose. That's not what the Bible says. The Bible was only classifying the animals as they were at the time and it only addressed what each animal would give birth to.

Yes new animals form, but no animal ever gives birth to animal of a different kind or genus. Just like the Bible says.

Also you ramble on some stuff about the order of creation and it being wrong. You try to prove the Ark story wrong. I told you I'm not a creationist. I'm sorry, you so lost this debate. I've never seen anyone lose a debate as badly as you, and also refuse to admit it. You've used nothing but logical fallacies all the way, and proved no point, and the only time your argument ever made any sense is when you were just REPEATING what I said while still saying I was wrong.

I never came in here to say the Bible is true. You're moving the goal post by trying to prove the order of creation wrong and the ark story wrong. I'm sorry, but you're not saddling me with proving the whole Bible correct. I didn't come in here to prove the whole Bible correct, and it's not part of my argument.

The only claim I made is that birth of a new species does not prove the Bible WRONG. I never said it proved the Bible correct. The Bible may very well be wrong and you may very well be able to prove it wrong some OTHER way, but that's not what I'm discussing. All I said is that new species don't prove it wrong. That doesn't mean everything else in it is right. I'm not here to defend the entire Bible.

But since you've admitted twice you're actually too lazy to even read my posts, how can you debate them? If you're going to be that lazy then will you please just STFU because you don't know what you're talking about. No animal has ever given birth to an animal of a completely different genus. Ever. Please show me proof a dinosaur gave birth to a bird? It didn't happened. Birds evolved over time. Birds didn't just pop out of a dinosaur. Come on, at least learn a little bit about evolution before you spew crap off. I can't believe you believe new animals just pop out. They don't, they evolve over time.

reply to post by Astyanax


I apologize for taking your comments as an attack. You are right, I did interperet some of them that way. My bad.

Could it not be that heaven just a lie some tell themselves to keep the fear of death – of dissolution, ceasing to exist, being gone for ever – at bay? After all, we don't have a shred of evidence for any afterlife. On the contrary, all we know tells us the concept of life after death is absurd. Look at all the silly questions it raises: do pets go to heaven? what about babies? which of my ex-wives will I end up married to for all eternity? how do they cope with the crowds? and what the hell am I going to do in heaven to pass that eternity of time?

I enjoy these kinds of questions. They are good ones.

My wife is an automatic writer. She is absolutely amazing. One of the reasons, I believe she is so good at it, is because she is the most honest and peaceful human being I've ever known. The fact that I was able to have such a woman as my wife is evidence of a higher power to me. It was a miracle.

Through her readings, I have come to believe in the after life. At first, I thought it could be a form of ESP...

...But strange things have happened. For starters (and it's almost as if these events occured for the soul purpose of strengthening our faith), my wife works in a doctor's office, but one summer she took a part time job at a local pizza place. There was a regular (showed up 2-3 times a week), that suddenly stopped coming in. People close to this person had recieved word that he had died in a car accident (I think that's what it was). Me and my wife had been talking to all kinds of dead people at this point, so we decided to talk to him. My wife asked her spirit guide, "Can we talk to D____ H_______?"

The guide answered quite simply, "No".

My wife asked why, and got no further information. about 3 or 4 days later, the guy walked into the pizza place and ordered his usual. He seemed to know about the rumours, but no one is sure how they started.

I have dozens of tales like this that came from my wife's readings or my own meditation.

I only tell you these things, so that you understand: The proof of God and the afterlife that I have witnessed was for me alone. There is no way I can prove why I believe, so I am reluctant to even talk about it.

I believe faith is achieved on your own. Like I said, a personal experience.

Ex-wives? I believe that a family and marriage only exist on Earth in this life. In what I believe to be paradise, we will all be brothers and sisters and that is all. No wives, no parents, just brothers and sisters.

Babies go to heaven. I do not know about pets, but during meditation, I have had animal guides (to guide and protect) follow me through the wilderness. These animals are always former pets of mine. I do not imagine them that way, it just comes through naturally. The effects of meditation and spiritualism are very difficult to explain, but if you really seek answers, I highly suggest you put a couple years into meditation. Prayer is a good way to present a pretext to your sessions.

I thank you for the debate, I found a lot of things you said to be quite interesting. And I was ecstatic to hear you are seeking truth, and not just dumping on religion.

Good for you, brother.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Again you use the logical fallacy that argument length determines if the argument is correct or not.

I never said that your point was invalid because it was long, it just seemed a bit silly that you took a single sentence and went on for a while. I never mentioned that it was more or less valid based on its length. I'm just suggesting you could be more succinct.

Yes the shift happens over centuries or longer, but that's not against what the Bible said. The Bible said each animal would only give birth to its kind. It never said there wouldn't be new kinds of animals. Just that when each one gives birth, it will give birth to whatever kind of animal it is.

I'll grant you that. I get what you're saying now. If you had been a bit more succinct I might have understood you better. Of course, you cannot define 'kind', and that's an issue.

Of course, the Bible is wrong on other counts here.

Unless you can show me evidence of an animal giving birth to another animal of a completely different genus than itself then I'm sorry you lose. Why can't you just admit you lost the argument?

Because that's not what the Bible says. It uses an undefined term. Neither of us wins. We both lose because you're taking kind to mean genus and I'm taking kind to mean a different species. Neither of us can say that the other is wrong because neither of us can lock in on exactly what the Bible means by kind.

I mean it was no win battle to begin with? You started the argument using MY arguments to prove MY arguments wrong?

Your argument was that the Bible mentions 'kinds' rather than speciation. We cannot say what a kind is, as the Bible surely doesn't make it clear.

Why don't you just admit you were trolling to begin with?

...me? Trolling? Seriously? Wow, that's a stupid accusation.

Unless you can show me where in the Bible it says new animals will never be created, or unless you can show me a dinosaur that gave birth to a fully formed bird. You lose.

False dilemma. We cannot simply say that the Bible allows for it because it doesn't strictly prohibit it and you cannot claim superiority over my definition of kind. If I say kind can mean 'species' can you cite a passage in the Bible where it says kind cannot mean species?

That's not what the Bible says. The Bible was only classifying the animals as they were at the time and it only addressed what each animal would give birth to.

And it doesn't say what 'kind' means.

Yes new animals form, but no animal ever gives birth to animal of a different kind or genus. Just like the Bible says.

No, the Bible says 'kind', not genus.

Also you ramble on some stuff about the order of creation and it being wrong.

Ramble on? I went on for 50ish words. 50 words is rambling? I took a random paragraphed portion of your post and it was 65 words.

Secondly, my point was that it says birds came about all on their own before land animals, excluding the idea of a gradual change from land reptiles to birds.

You try to prove the Ark story wrong. I told you I'm not a creationist.

I mentioned the flood twice in this thread and it was never in a post addressed to you.

I'm sorry, you so lost this debate. I've never seen anyone lose a debate as badly as you, and also refuse to admit it. You've used nothing but logical fallacies all the way, and proved no point, and the only time your argument ever made any sense is when you were just REPEATING what I said while still saying I was wrong.

Man, you've rambled on for 62 words here. I'm sorry, but you've not demonstrated I'm wrong, you've merely claimed it. I've also not used a logical fallacy. I never actually claimed that the length of your posts had any bearing on their validity.

You've basically been arguing from a false definition of an undefined term. You cannot win, I cannot win. Why? We don't know what the hell "kind" means.

I never came in here to say the Bible is true. You're moving the goal post by trying to prove the order of creation wrong

I'm merely linking it to how the word 'kind' is used. We have an order of creation and birds start reproducing after their own kind prior to any land animals existing.

and the ark story wrong.

Never in a post addressed to you. Sooo why the hell are you bringing it up?

I'm sorry, but you're not saddling me with proving the whole Bible correct. I didn't come in here to prove the whole Bible correct, and it's not part of my argument.

No, but you did come here with a false definition of an undefined term.

The only claim I made is that birth of a new species does not prove the Bible WRONG.

Based on an indefensible definition of an undefined term.

I never said it proved the Bible correct. The Bible may very well be wrong and you may very well be able to prove it wrong some OTHER way, but that's not what I'm discussing. All I said is that new species don't prove it wrong.

With an illogical argument.

That doesn't mean everything else in it is right. I'm not here to defend the entire Bible.

Good to know. It's mostly hogwash anyway.

But since you've admitted twice you're actually too lazy to even read my posts, how can you debate them?

Where did I say I didn't read your posts? I said they were long, but I never said I didn't read them. In fact, I'm currently responding to your unnecessarily long post in this form to show that I've read this post because apparently saying a post is long means I didn't read it.

If you're going to be that lazy then will you please just STFU because you don't know what you're talking about.

And I'm the troll? I'm at least reserving a level of decorum for you.

No animal has ever given birth to an animal of a completely different genus. Ever.

Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the term "genus". Ever. In fact, the Bible as a whole shows an utter ignorance of the classification of life. Seriously, bats are birds? What the hell?

Please show me proof a dinosaur gave birth to a bird? It didn't happened. Birds evolved over time. Birds didn't just pop out of a dinosaur.

Wow, straw man. Birds sure did evolve over time. But you cannot put the burden of proof upon me to prove that they didn't.

Come on, at least learn a little bit about evolution before you spew crap off.

I'm sorry. What? I'm not going to toot my own horn, but clearly you've not read a lot of my posts if you think I'm ignorant of evolution.

And since you called me lazy...you must be too lazy to look a few dozen pixels below my username to see my avatar.

I can't believe you believe new animals just pop out.

Man, you must be the guy that the first little pig got his straw from. I mean, you keep killing all those poor straw men, what are you going to do with them?

They don't, they evolve over time.

Welcome to the brilliant world of scientific knowledge circa 150 years ago.

So how do Creationists explain the history of man that extends beyond 6000 years?

The Kurgan Empire & the Cimerians, just to name a couple...

These guys had empires around 10 - 15 thousand years ago and the proof is in their texts, their artifacts, their stories.

Are Creationists saying that these people simply did not exist and that Satan planted their stuff in the ground to trick us?

Creationists are sooo funny..lol

You say the Bible is Gods actual words and must be taken litteraly, but what if those who wrote the bible were the ones lying?

Do you not even think that this is a possibility?