First Human Cloned - What do you think?

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost
The word God written in the Torah is IHV(or W)H as i said before there are no dots. so the truly pronunciation of His name is lost so saying that is Jehova, Yahwe or whatever is inexact, because at this point no one knows (well maybe 2 or 3 mad Kabalists know)

More's the point, then, of showing that different names for God isn't that big a difficulty to surmount...

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
Don't get me wrong, I may beleive creationism, but I don't act like it's fact. And neither is Evolution, or any other believe on how life came to exist. They are ALL personal beliefs.

...I tell you, if I had different beliefs, I sure wouldn't want to find out there's a God, and that I have to do what he says. Surely not 20 years ago, and definitly not now that there is all this new self empowerment, "YOU are God!" trife.

...P.S. If you realy think a mass community is incable of lying on such a scale, look at modern day Germany.

--I'm confused: If you believe in it, is that not then a "fact", for you?... And if it's not a "fact" in your mind/heart, why would you bother to believe it, then?... Maybe it's just semantics, but please explain. I mean, everything I can think of that I "believe" is either a scientifically proven fact: If I stomp on the brake pedal, my car will stop; or an empirical fact: if I don't pay my taxes, the IRS will come a callin'; or at least an experiential fact (I'll stay away from religion, though I would place it in this category): If my wife gives me "the look", I'm dead meat... I can't think of a single thing I "believe" that isn't a fact on one of those levels. So, whattaya mean, there?...
--Plz clarify: Are you sayin' that you're Christian and you sure wouldn't want to "find out later" about God & such?...
--Iraq woulda been a better example there ("Saddam wins with 99% of the vote"-HAH!). In any event, my position was not what you're inferring. For one, I wasn't talking about a "mass community"; I was referring to the biblical writers themselves. And it's not that they were incapable of lying, it's that they in any event DIDN'T do so...

Originally posted by cff

...Actually IIRC hebraeish (that is surely spelled wrong, isn' it)

...Sure. But some ancient Israelish guy overglorifying himself is surely a lot more likely then Bin Laden comming to his execution willingly...

...Actually as far as I recall the bible it isn't that monumental there as well. Sure up front they say that all will be killed. But after the flood at least some human outside of the Ark seem to have survived as well, don't they. Or am I misremembering?

...The bible teaches too many contradicting things. Similar it is said that non believers should be tortured to death before the eyes of their children and such nicities...

...What holes?

...Both groups share so many text it is rediculous to fight each other IMHO. Just because of the naming/organisations this happens.

--"Hebrew" is the spelling you seek, I think (occasionally the derivative term "Hebraic" is used)
--"Overglorifying himself" more likely?--perhaps. But when no one can produce your dead body, your followers are too wimpy, scared and powerless to steal it, and the powers that be (the Jewish elders and the Romans) have both the power and the vested interest to see that the body STAYS put in the tomb, and yet it somehow "disappears" anyway, well.... that makes this guy just a tad more "special" than the various 'false messiahs' that were around in them days, wouldn't ya say?...
--You are misremembering indeed. The only recorded survivors were Noah, his 3 sons, & all of their wives (=8 people). As to animals, Noah sent a dove taken from inside the ark to go search for dry land.
--I'm not a Bible scholar or an ordained minister, but I've read the Bible thru several times, and I don't recall any of the stuff you mentioned here, whether the 'torture' thing or the contradictions you refer to. Care to provide some examples of what yer sayin?... I'll mention one example sometimes given as "proof" of biblical contradiction, and show ya why it actually ain't: Christ said that His apostles must "hate" their fathers/mothers/etc. in order to follow him (Luke 14:26) Seems pretty harsh and out of character, eh?... Well, it aint when you consider ancient (?Aramaic) terminology. See, the word translated in English there as "hate" simply means "to love less" (than someone/something else). Jesus was saying you must love Him MORE THAN anyone/anything else, that's all...
--Holes?...Well, how about the lack of a missing link, for one...
--Both groups do NOT share texts. For one, Christians (and, AFAIK, Muslims/Jews as well) do not share ANY religious texts in common with the polytheistic religions. However, there is a bit of overlap with the monotheistic religions, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, and you got it mixed up: Christians do believe in the 'Jewish Bible' (commonly referred to as the Old Testament), but also in the scriptures that came later (the NT). Muslims have many of the same stories in the OT present in their Koran, but it is a totally separate text (Even those said stories diverge, though, after the time of Abraham, because Muslims believe that his son Ishmael was the "chosen" line of descent, whereas Christians/Jews hold it to be his other son, Isaac.

Originally posted by TC

...That's not any more proof than just seeing him, though

...Preacher, a theory is well backed with facts.

--Actually, it is more proof, empirically speaking. For example, if the resurrected Christ was a hallucination or "ghost", one wouldn't be able to touch him (read Luke 24:29).
--I realize that. My point was that a theory is simply not a proven fact, even if generally accepted...

Originally posted by Kalfor

...its unfortunate I cant remember what apostle was it, so I have to keep refering to him as "the man." anyone can help here on his name? the man asked for proof of the miracle, thats what Im talking about

...Believing is one thing, wanting to force it is another if a religion says understand and tolerate, if youre not supposed to go door by door or get into people`s conversations trying to conving them to belived in what you do, which is what Preacher wants so much to do all you need is to believe in it, if you think that will help you so learn to live your own life and not try to force others to live it

...extremist is to believe in what one religion says at the ultame truth, and that everyone must follow it... No, a person doesnt have to blindly follow it to have faith. all he/she needs is to believe in what conforts him

...oh, look at that! 2000 years ago, someone could simply had come and said "oh, he ressurected Lazarus" when what happended was... his pulse was just faint. Jesus could have just said the man was still alive and to wait, and writers said he touched and said "Rise lazarus" and the man got up.

...you want to say your religion is the right one (even against what someone else mentioned that supposedly your religion preaches acceptance and understanding), why does YOUR religion has to be the right one? sounds kind of egotistical, hum?
oh, of course...cause its YOUR religion! thats why
human nature, hum?

...This tends to be the reasoning of those who dont know a clear point to bring up in a proper discussion
and since it looks like you are not capable of an adult discussion without bringing up points like this, I wont bother anymore.So, go ahead, hold your own personal truth, but please try to grow up a bit. It may help on your future relations with the outside world

--The apostle you're referring to is Thomas, aka "The Doubting Apostle".
--Most Christians don't go door to door; you're prolly thinking of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or else the Mormons, or both. Ironically, neither, thought they profess a belief in Christ, are actually true Christians, BTW...
--Your definition of "extremist" is way off, bub. And I never said anyone has to "blindly follow it". The fact is, we (Christians) are to "search the Scriptures" and to " test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (Acts 17:11 and 1 John 4:1), not to just blindly follow what some pastor tells us. Heck, I urge YOU to search the Bible if you want to verify the things that I say are in accord with it or not.
--Read the account, bub. Lazarus was in a sealed tomb for FOUR days before Christ got there. The likeklihood that a seriously ill man with a weak pulse could survive in a cold cave, with no air/water/food for four days is negligible. This same argument, interestingly, is also used to argue against the resurrection. It's even more outlandish when used there...
--For one, if my religion is the "right" one, that doesn't compromise the acceptance and understanding my faith preaches in the least. You are sadly mistaken, Padawan. You must go back and unlearn what you have learned. I "understand", for example, that a woman who is beaten by her husband repeatedly over time may one day strike back and kill him. If she does so while he's adminstering his latest beating to her, that's "acceptable" (self-defense). However, if she buys a gun, waits till a week later when he's asleep drunk, and shoots him, that's wrong ("murder"). I feel no less compassion for her if she chooses to do the latter, but if she does, she's wrong, and needs to do some time in the pokey. That hardly makes me (or "the state") egotistical, or guilty of some flaw in human nature. One can understand and accept another perfectly well without condoning their beliefs/conduct, yet that's apparently what you would have us all do.
--Alllllllrighty then... Buh-bye, now...

 

[Preacher]

[Not a double-post: Stupid character-limit thing]:

Originally posted by steampunk

...But it did NOT occur the way the Bible says. The Bibles discription is wrong. It was not that huge, naoh did not build an ark large enough for 2 of every animal to get on board. Do you reallize how many speicies there are?

...Fossils date back longer than the age of the world as given by the bible. There they've disproved one thing.

...I have read some of it. Lord of the Rings fits seemlessly together. The seemlessness of the Bible only proves that the authors made sure they read each others work before they published. George Lucas does that with SW.

...Kalfor, I think people are missing topics in their replies because the thread to too long to read and reply too perhaps we should all agree to disagree - man I hate that cliche.

--How, then, did it happen?...
--Yeah but have you ever noticed, over time, how many datings they've had to revise? The dating technology is not as exact a science as most folks believe it to be. Used to be Carbon-14 was the gold standard. Now it's something elswe, I remember reading a few years back...
--You read some of it? Good, now go back and read the rest. Lord of the Rings is a ridiculous analogy, because all the books (3?) were written by one guy in his one lifetime. That don't even compare to the Bible. The only point where your "read each other's work" idea holds water is in the fact that the NT writers (Paul, Peter, the Apostle John, etc.) had the Hebrew scriptures (generally analogous to the current Old Testament) to draw from.
--Yes, the posts are too long to reply to all of 'em, and besides, I'm not interested in responding to everything that has been posted, only those subjects I know something about and/or can respond to intelligently. Others would do well to do likewise (present company excepted, I think).

 

[t.c.cgi]

Originally posted by Preacher
--I'm confused: If you believe in it, is that not then a "fact", for you?... And if it's not a "fact" in your mind/heart, why would you bother to believe it, then?... Maybe it's just semantics, but please explain. I mean, everything I can think of that I "believe" is either a scientifically proven fact: If I stomp on the brake pedal, my car will stop; or an empirical fact: if I don't pay my taxes, the IRS will come a callin'; or at least an experiential fact (I'll stay away from religion, though I would place it in this category): If my wife gives me "the look", I'm dead meat... I can't think of a single thing I "believe" that isn't a fact on one of those levels. So, whattaya mean, there?...
--Plz clarify: Are you sayin' that you're Christian and you sure wouldn't want to "find out later" about God & such?...
--Iraq woulda been a better example there ("Saddam wins with 99% of the vote"-HAH!). In any event, my position was not what you're inferring. For one, I wasn't talking about a "mass community"; I was referring to the biblical writers themselves. And it's not that they were incapable of lying, it's that they in any event DIDN'T do so...

1. What I mean is none are tangible fact, like everything you listed. The point I'm driving at is Evolution, currently, is nothing more than another popular belief to chose from. Personally, I believe Creationism is fact, but that is only personal belief, educated by both biased and non-biased sources, not tangible fact. The same can be said of Evolution, however most people don't realize what they are brainwashed in school/mass media/every "scientific" institution isn't truely fact, but well though out theory, at best. Much like Creationism...

2. If I were a different person, with a different (See: Athiest) upbringing, I would be out and out upset if all of the sudden BAM Creationism is it, and now that means no matter what, there is a God. Crap, so much for my debauchery. Evolutionism, at it's base, is purely to allow for the denial of God.

3. I was actualy refering to how people buy into Evolution's propaganda on the basis it is supported by such a massive scientific community. It realy boils down to the old addage your parents say, "If they jumped off a bridge, would you?" Believing something because it's popular is a poor way to live life. My reference, for clarity, is to Germany's complete denial of WW2's more heinous occurances. Just because a whole nation can bold-face lie about something, doesn't make it fact.

 

[Kalfor]

Preacher, about door to door thing
its not because you dont see it over there (Im guessing USA, but I might be wrong) that it doesnt happen in other places. My point refers to that. I live in brazil, and I lived in portugal (and the USA for a short period)

in south america and more recently on some european countries, there was been this type of thing by christians. its a fact, in which I based my comment. I am sorry I didnt expecify it

and the Lazarus thing, once again, its not because its written that that is EXACTLY what happended. Ok, i wont discuss that with you, but Im talking about how it is done by historians. The bible (like many other religious books and documents) are seen just like any other document: as something to help see how the people of the time saw things. You cant verify that unless you check other documents refering to the same subject, be it a book, scroll, tablet or monument. It said that he was in a tomb for 4 days could be exageration, bad translation from the original, or, the most common way of things to go, second-hand (or worse) information. Yes, legends many times come from the truth, but they are more than often exagerated. Knowledge some people normally didnt have in a region could easily be seen as miracle or magic

- K

 

[Napoleon]

I realize that I am quoting from several pages back but I must respond to the response to my post.

Originally posted by Preacher
-
-There has been substantial evidence that a worldwide flood of great magnitude DID actually occur in the ancient past. The several feet thick layer of clay and sediment referred to in another post here has been found in several wide-ranging spots on the globe, not only in the Middle East. Combine that with the fact that many religions/cultures in these same parts of the globe have their own flood stories/legends, and your premise that such is scientifically "impossible" gets shot down right quick (FOX ONE!)
-Evolution, being at present just a theory (having not been proven, and having considerable holes in it), cannot conclusively be said to have "happened". (FOX TWO!)
-That same evolutionary theory allows for a type of "Adam", in that a "missing link" (from which apes and man's evolutionary paths diverged) is postulated. Just as Creationists can't prove that the "missing link" is a fallacy, neither can you & the Evolutionists prove to anyone that there wasn't an "Adam". (FOX THREE!)
-As I said before, science has disproven not one thing in the Bible, whereas recent scientific discoveries by archaeology have in fact proven science wrong on their previous stances about various biblical events/figures. (SPLASH ONE!!!)

==================
**Footnote/Disclaimer:
I freely admit that Creationists have not yet come up with a solid explanation for every scientific fact that has been established via the fossil record (at least, not in the reading I've done thus far), but this is no surprise to me. Bottom line is, NEITHER side of this argument has scientifically proven their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", and they may never be able to do so. Thus (at least for now), scientifically speaking, BOTH are only theories. Pick the one you want to believe, and move on.

I would love to see your source about that world wide flood because i would be willing to bet you my left kidney that it is complete BS.

I would also love to see how you take the fact that lots of civilizations have some variation of a flood myth and have that be interpreted as anything other than the fact that most people are afraid of the river they live near flooding over and killing them, destroying their houses, etc. All this ancient mythology (all modern religions included) demostrates what people have historically been afraid of.

Fact is it is simply and totally impossible for the genesis flood to have happened. To begin with there is no way for all the living things to have been stored on a boat of any size made by a man. In order to make one big enough to carry enough food for all those animals to eat, etc the boat would be so large that it would leak. Even in the 19th century wooden ships couldnt be any larger than around 350 ft long because otherwise they took on too much water, reverse that by about 4000 years and the fact that there is no tar to help out (since all the oil would have had to have been made in the flood). Also add in the fact that any of the hypotheses presented by the YECS (young earth creationists) would have resulted in the oceans boiling away and noah going bye bye. Add in the fact that the genetic bottleneck that would have been created for all species would result in complete extinction for well almost every species. Also the numbers do not add up, in 4000years a single family of people could not populate the earth to a large enough degree. IN under a hundred years there would have had to have been enough people to build the great pyramids of egypt, meaning prettymmuch that all of noahs family would have had to have been creating about 50 babies A YEAR. Ohh other things, we have continuous records from Egypt dating back before this flood supposedly happened, why didnt they talk about a massive flood? where is the interuption in their records?

Your point about evolution being a theory demonstrates your sheer ignorance as to the way science and intellectual pursuits work. Basically the only field where ANYTHING can be proven is mathematics, nothing is concrete in science, ever. Nothing can ever be proven, there is always doubt, theories are always being revised to fit new data more accurately. Evolution can be said to be both a fact and a theory. IN scientific terminology fact can be taken to mean an observed phenomina that has such a high probability of being accurate that it defies all logic and sense to reject it. Common Descent IS a fact in this sense, Evolution is an observed process, we have observed speciation in several species of tree, we have the fossile record which rather well documents most transitions, especially for the descent of man. Homo Sapien <-- Homo Erectus <--- Homo Habilis <--- Austrailopithicus <--- Etc. The claim of no transitional fossiles is just wrong. The theory aspect of evolution comes from the mechanism for common descent to have occured. The most recognised current theory is an alteration of the darwinian model of natural selection, known as punctuated equilibrium (in adition to several other differences from Charles's original theory) which states that evolution for a given species happens in reletively short bursts (still on the order of millions of years) followed by long periods of reletive inactivity.

Once again the "missing link" concept is a creationist generated fallacy and pseudoscience to the Nth degree. There are no missing links, there is no "first man" it was a gradual process of genetic mixing and mutation that slowly caused our traits to appear. Adam in the sense of your adam is rather impossible, simply speaking no man can be randomly created out of dust. Also the genetic diversity from 1 male and one female reproducing would cause such horible symptoms of inbreeding among humans after a few years that we would most probably have died out.

Give examples of these aspects of the bible that have been shown to be true. that are supposedly supported. I highly doubt that anything of significance has been found to be true, significance to me is purely the aspects of the bible that violate the physical and biological laws by which life and the universe are run.

As to your footnote, there is more evidence to conflict with the theory of gravity than there is to conflict with common descent. ALl of the creationist's "evidence" is either based on inaccurate data, pseudoscience, illogic, or much more blatant outright lies. They have yet to present the least bit of evidence to support their claim, and not only that have never done it in a scientific matter. Basically current models for evolution are as well demonstrated as any theory ever has been, you are just too opinionated to see the truth.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Napoleon
I would love to see your source about that world wide flood because i would be willing to bet you my left kidney that it is complete BS.

You're confused. Your arguments do not have anything to do with the flood. You're saying that the story of Noah's Ark can't be true, and you're probably right. But the floods themselves are very, very clearly established as fact - some 12,000 years ago, rising temperatures ended the Ice Age, and all around the world, humans would have witnessed an unimaginable rise in water levels. This may have happened a few thousand years earlier than the Biblical stories would put it, but it nonetheless happened.

BTW, I find your tirade about evolution to be highly amusing. It's funny that someone who says that nothing in science is ever fact would talk about evolution with a fanaticism that ignores anything that gets in the way of the "truth". If you weren't so busy embracing the current view of evolution, you would have noticed that over the past decade or two, many fossil finds have challenged the current views of the relationships between the various species considered to be ancestors of human beings. Not to mention that all around the world, there are anomalous findings of fossil human bones that pre-date (sometimes by million years or more) what we assume is the point when man appeared.

In general, the proponents of evolution are still debating about how the human race arose. This is a good thing, because it can only make the theory of evolution stronger in the long run. Ignore these debates at your peril, because in doing so you sound like a religious fanatic unwilling to even consider anything that doesn't fit your world view. Oh, and I've deleted the last paragraph of your post. You can argue with Preacher all you like, but "you're wrong because religion is stupid" is where I draw the line - do not cross it again.

 

[cff]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
Than again, Evolution lets you deny the existance of God, while Creationism does just the opposite.

I don't see why evolution denies the existance of god...

Originally posted by Kalfor

though that wouldnt be cloning in itself, it would use the benefits of that technology

If you read my posts I didn't condemn gene technology as a whole. Similar I'd not prohibit research in nuclear technology. In both cases I just object to parts of it. In the case of Biotec that would be cloning and gene manipulaton of food.

Originally posted by Kalfor

And on the vampire thing, those diseases that may have relation with part of those myths of vampire have been known for quite a while. both photophobia and the need to consume blood. BUT not only are those limited to a small group of the vampire myth (believe me, there are dozens of different myths, even in europe). that, though, has nothing to do with the fact that society believed evil spirits caused sickness

I know. Count Dracula (I think this is the English title?) comes from Dracul. A Romanian leader that was well known for his brutality. He decorated the streets with the heads of his enemies mounted on spears...
I just wanted to mention that even most ghost myths do have some scientific roots.

Originally posted by Preacher

--"Overglorifying himself" more likely?--perhaps. But when no one can produce your dead body, your followers are too wimpy, scared and powerless to steal it, and the powers that be (the Jewish elders and the Romans) have both the power and the vested interest to see that the body STAYS put in the tomb, and yet it somehow "disappears" anyway, well...

How unlikely would it be that the very roman soldier that should watch the grave was a sympathisant?

Originally posted by Preacher

--You are misremembering indeed. The only recorded survivors were Noah, his 3 sons, & all of their wives (=8 people). As to animals, Noah sent a dove taken from inside the ark to go search for dry land.

I know about the dove. Back to bible lecture then...
Hmm... seems you are right - at least I cannot find anything different right now.

Originally posted by Preacher

--I'm not a Bible scholar or an ordained minister, but I've read the Bible thru several times, and I don't recall any of the stuff you mentioned here, whether the 'torture' thing or the contradictions you refer to. Care to provide some examples of what yer sayin?...

Try the book of the prophet Isaiah To quote a very few examples:

13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one
that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.

49:26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and
they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all
flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the
mighty One of Jacob.

The bible isn't exactly a childrens book...

Originally posted by Preacher

--Holes?...Well, how about the lack of a missing link, for one...

How does "not having found it yet" nullify a theory?

Originally posted by Preacher

--Both groups do NOT share texts. For one, Christians (and, AFAIK, Muslims/Jews as well) do not share ANY religious texts in common with the polytheistic religions.

Bad wording I think. What I wanted to say is that the monotheistic religions share textes and that the polytheistic religions do so as well. Each of the two groups of course only in its group. That is why I say for me there are in principal only two religions.

Originally posted by Preacher

--Read the account, bub. Lazarus was in a sealed tomb for FOUR days before Christ got there. The likeklihood that a seriously ill man with a weak pulse could survive in a cold cave, with no air/water/food for four days is negligible.

You surely never heared of someone being buried alive?!
I mean at a time people here have gone as far as to install bells onto the grave and have the cord extend into the casket so if they get buried alive they have some way of alarming. When medicine wasn't advanced as far this happened rather often.
Actually IIRC: less then a year ago someone was declared dead _HERE_ and after some days in the morgue he awaked...

Originally posted by t.c.cgi

3. I was actualy refering to how people buy into Evolution's propaganda on the basis it is supported by such a massive scientific community. It realy boils down to the old addage your parents say, "If they jumped off a bridge, would you?"

No I wouldn't. Not if I didn't see a very very good reason for doing it.

Originally posted by t.c.cgi

Believing something because it's popular is a poor way to live life. My reference, for clarity, is to Germany's complete denial of WW2's more heinous occurances. Just because a whole nation can bold-face lie about something, doesn't make it fact.

Uhm... could you expand a bit on that accusation? I actually more think that they still got a trauma about that years (well we - Austria - as well I'd say). You know that games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein are forbidden because of certain logos? You know that for right wing activity you go to jail? I can propagate Communistic ideas however without any problems.
It actually sickens me, because you cannot do a normal discussion that also points out the good things (mostly pre-war) the Nazis did. There might not be a whole lot of them, but still. Similar the victory states have their own bodies to hide. You think the death camps had been patented by the Germans? Not at all.
I don't know what you are reffering to as denial. Maybe it is exatly this tendency to better not talk about the occurances at all? Not that there aren't some really morbid discussions talking about efficiency of killing and that the Jewish death rates propagated cannot be true. I think that one also landed in court. I am not goint to comment on that one because even the reduced numbers if true are sickening enough. I invite you to vivit one of the former death camps once. A creepy feeling even 50 years after.

Originally posted by Napoleon
Also the genetic diversity from 1 male and one female reproducing would cause such horible symptoms of inbreeding among humans after a few years that we would most probably have died out.

Contrary to popular belive inbreeding per se does _NOT_ produce any horrible symptoms.
What inbreeding does is to activate a whole lot of recessive genes. This way many illnesses that are recessive suddenly appear leading to this assumption. If the originating species would be perfect no negative effect would be seen by inbreeding.
Also note that if you inbreed long enough you get such a perfect member of the species. Its basically the one that doesn't die. Science actually does this for genetic studies nowadays in order to purify the genetic material AFAIK.

PS: Thanks Ghost for that clarifying regarding God's name. Seems my memory wasn't very precise anymore here. And I knew that the Torah didn't have vowels (look at some pages of that "Bible Code" fanatics). Looks that my brain imagined the rest together.
Said bible code is another wonderful example how people are ignoring mathematical chances in order to prove their believes.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Re-read it. And then re-read it again. I didn't say evolution directly denies God, but that it allows for one to do it. There is no requirement for any diety, and thus one does not have to believe in one.

Don't get me wrong, I respect everyone's free-will, but it just ticked me off when Napoleon went off calling Preacher stupid because his views did not coincide, and then going on to pretty much state Evolution is law. My point is it is not, and is not any more proven than Creationism. Someday, one may well be proven irrefutably right, or both wrong, but there is no point in being an ass about it until then...

Ohh, and CFF, sorry if I angered you, but at least my statements got me a correction of facts. Shows what happens when you listen to too much propaganda.

 

[Kalfor]

just a note on Cff`s mention of dracula
Vlad Tepes (that was his name) is actually a great romanian hero
he have defended the region against the turks and germanics several times

he is known to be brutal for one reason: the turks had overwelmingly larger number in one of their invasions. as an idea to make them run, captured soldiers were placed on large wooden poles and left there to slowly slide down (and slowly die), so that other enemies saw them. from that, other rumors spread, etc
eventually, the idea worked, and the turks retreated, fearing for the lord`s brutality

Oh, and adding an extra note, Vlad Tepes (Draculea) is not seen as a vampire to the romanian. they only enjoy the legend to their own economical profit
the romanian legends for vampires use the name strigoii
Bram Stoker was the one who made Tepes into the big mean vampire (and that was only in late 19th century)

- K

 

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by Quarto
You're confused. Your arguments do not have anything to do with the flood. You're saying that the story of Noah's Ark can't be true, and you're probably right. But the floods themselves are very, very clearly established as fact - some 12,000 years ago, rising temperatures ended the Ice Age, and all around the world, humans would have witnessed an unimaginable rise in water levels. This may have happened a few thousand years earlier than the Biblical stories would put it, but it nonetheless happened.

BTW, I find your tirade about evolution to be highly amusing. It's funny that someone who says that nothing in science is ever fact would talk about evolution with a fanaticism that ignores anything that gets in the way of the "truth". If you weren't so busy embracing the current view of evolution, you would have noticed that over the past decade or two, many fossil finds have challenged the current views of the relationships between the various species considered to be ancestors of human beings. Not to mention that all around the world, there are anomalous findings of fossil human bones that pre-date (sometimes by million years or more) what we assume is the point when man appeared.

In general, the proponents of evolution are still debating about how the human race arose. This is a good thing, because it can only make the theory of evolution stronger in the long run. Ignore these debates at your peril, because in doing so you sound like a religious fanatic unwilling to even consider anything that doesn't fit your world view. Oh, and I've deleted the last paragraph of your post. You can argue with Preacher all you like, but "you're wrong because religion is stupid" is where I draw the line - do not cross it again.

Wait a second, you are saying that simply because the water levels rose, and covered areas that were not previously covered (places that are covered today, i might add, ie land that we know not of) that we are supposed to believe that htis was interpreted as a world wide global flood killing everything?. First off this happened as such a gradual process that NO ONE would have realized what was going on. It would have taken thousands of years for the water level to rise, and there is no one who would have rememebered such an event. Plus during the iceage, people lacked the ability to record information, writing had not been invented yet, so good try, but no.

OMG are you really that serious, yes nothing can be proven, but once again the word, fact, means different things in colloquial language than it does in scientific terms. also there have never been any fossiles found that conflict with the concept of evolution, sure we dont know all the details of the exact progession yet, and newer data gets added into the models but nothing ever discovered has ever conflicted with the basic premise, beyond of course a single collection of ancient tribal myths.

I also take GREAT offence to your usage of the word fanatic. I am by no means a fanatic about anything, i merely take the data that has been collected, and learn about it, and then know what we do today. All the evidence ever presented to support creationism is completely fallicious, and has been shown to be in complete violation of the observed facts. If any evidence was ever shown that couldnt be quite easily discounted as wrong, i would take that into account, as would the scientific community. If the creationists could EVER present a logical and properly documented argument with well collected data, the scientific community would listen, as would the entire world. The fact is that it has never happened, and i seriously doubt it ever will.

I also take great offence at the lunacy of your moderation. The fact is that is someone refuses to accept the observed evidence as to how the universe works without the least bit of proof to support their view they cannot be logical. Creationism cannot be backed by logic, and thus far hasnt been backed by any evidence. The only way for it to be accepted by anyone is to admit that it isnt logical, that faith isnt logic. You can have faith that the creation story is true only by accepting your illogic and saying that you admit that your beliefs arent reasonable, arent logical, but that that doesnt matter because you believe it. This cannot be argued with and doesnt need to be, because first off it isnt an argument that works in any form of intellectual debate, but it is one that works to justify your own beliefs.

 

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
1. What I mean is none are tangible fact, like everything you listed. The point I'm driving at is Evolution, currently, is nothing more than another popular belief to chose from. Personally, I believe Creationism is fact, but that is only personal belief, educated by both biased and non-biased sources, not tangible fact. The same can be said of Evolution, however most people don't realize what they are brainwashed in school/mass media/every "scientific" institution isn't truely fact, but well though out theory, at best. Much like Creationism...

2. If I were a different person, with a different (See: Athiest) upbringing, I would be out and out upset if all of the sudden BAM Creationism is it, and now that means no matter what, there is a God. Crap, so much for my debauchery. Evolutionism, at it's base, is purely to allow for the denial of God.

3. I was actualy refering to how people buy into Evolution's propaganda on the basis it is supported by such a massive scientific community. It realy boils down to the old addage your parents say, "If they jumped off a bridge, would you?" Believing something because it's popular is a poor way to live life. My reference, for clarity, is to Germany's complete denial of WW2's more heinous occurances. Just because a whole nation can bold-face lie about something, doesn't make it fact.

Ok:
1. Evolution isnt on the same level of creationism. The only thing that supports creationism is a book writen thousands of years ago by a bunch of semi literate slaves and sheep herders. Evolution in all its outlets is supported by observed phenomena, fossiles, genetic similarities, phenotypes, observed speciation and processes. Basically the fact of common decent is as well supported as gravity. Then again you could say gravity is "just a populist belief" and that levetation is a realistic and probable theory, but you would be denying a volume of evidence greater than most people can imagine.

2. Evolution has NOTHING to do with god. More religious folk are willing to accept evolution (in addition to the catholic church, iirc) than athiests and agnostics(because there are so many more religious people), the people who doubt the scientific verracity of evolution are that small percentage of biblical literalist fundamentalists (yes they are fundamentalists, they take what is said in the bible as the truth, no room for error, and they must be right no question, that is the definition of a fundamentalist). Just to remind you the person who created the roots of modern evolutionary theory (but by no means the first evolutionary theory) was a minister. The only variant of christianity which is directly contradicted by science (and it isnt only evolutionary theory which contradicts this brand of christianity, it is the sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, archeology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, geology, and basically all other sciences) is biblical literalism. The belief that everything in the bible is the literal word of god, no questions asked, no room for the error of the writers, no room for some of the tales to have been parables rather than actual truth, just complete dogmatic belief in what is said. Do NOT represent it as either god or evolution, it is either biblical literarism fundamentalist dogma or science, or any blend in between.

3. NO, no one accepts evolution because thats what everyone else does it and if they do they are sad pathetic creatures. Evolution is accepted because it has a body of evidence to support it that would fill several university libraries, and then some. Because it has the combined observations of the entirety of many different disciplines of science to support it. Because it has been shown to have such a high probability of being correct in some form as it is illogical and silly not to accept it.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Napoleon
First off this happened as such a gradual process that NO ONE would have realized what was going on. It would have taken thousands of years for the water level to rise, and there is no one who would have rememebered such an event. Plus during the iceage, people lacked the ability to record information, writing had not been invented yet, so good try, but no.

Over the past decade or so, weather patterns around the world have been changing wildly. These changes - most likely caused by global warming - include, surprise surprise, unprecedented floods. Central Europe has endured a flood almost every year for the past seven or eight years, which is more than unusual. And what we're going through is barely noticeable compared to what would have happened at the end of the ice age.

As for lacking the ability to record information - the ability to record information is convenient, certainly, but not the least bit necessary to preserve information. In fact, for most of human history, information usually wasn't recorded - even as late as the middle ages, only a select few could read and write. That's why you had bards, who would learn their tales by heart and eventually pass them on to others. Some of the greatest "literary" works, like the Iliad and the Oddyssey were transmitted purely orally for many generations before they were written down.

OMG are you really that serious, yes nothing can be proven, but once again the word, fact, means different things in colloquial language than it does in scientific terms.

Fact means exactly the same thing in ordinary language as it does in science - a fact is a fact, pure and simple.

also there have never been any fossiles found that conflict with the concept of evolution, sure we dont know all the details of the exact progession yet, and newer data gets added into the models but nothing ever discovered has ever conflicted with the basic premise.

I never said there have been any fossils that conflict with evolution. However, when people like you try to present the current theory about how the human species evolved as truth rather than a theory (and a rather weak one - human evolution, not evolution in general, that is), this can only hurt the argument in support of evolution.

I also take GREAT offence to your usage of the word fanatic. I am by no means a fanatic about anything, i merely take the data that has been collected, and learn about it, and then know what we do today.

What you've shown is that you ignore anything that doesn't suit your world view. That's fanaticism. I don't claim that you're a fanatic - but you sure as hell do act like one.

All the evidence ever presented to support creationism is completely fallicious, and has been shown to be in complete violation of the observed facts. If any evidence was ever shown that couldnt be quite easily discounted as wrong, i would take that into account, as would the scientific community.

You're ignoring the point. Their argument is that if you assume that God exists (in the same way that, when trying to prove any scientific theory, you first assume that it is correct and then back it up with facts), then everything on Earth and in the universe is evidence in support of God's existence.

Tell you what, let's try this another way. You've challenged them to disprove evolution. Well, here's a challenge for you - I want to see you disprove the existence of God. If you can achieve that, then, and only then, will you be able to claim that their argument is based only the writings of a few slaves and sheep herders. Until then, all you're doing is basing your argument on the "fact" that they're wrong - and it's impossible to prove someone is wrong based on them being wrong .

I also take great offence at the lunacy of your moderation.

I really couldn't care less. I'm the moderator, and you're out of line. Nobody says you have to believe in God or that they have to believe in the evolution. But you have no right to insult their beliefs, just like they have no right to insult yours. The next time you cross that line, I won't bother editing your post - I'll simply delete it.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Here here, Quatro!

To Napoleon:

You can start by researching the aftermath of Mt. Saint Helens... in absolute detail. Not the human impact, but the geographic impact. What you may find could very well rock your opinion of "fossil records." I suppose thats why you never hear a peep about it now. (Hint: The sudden rushes of water are key here.)

Just found this website on exactly what I'm referring to: http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article52.htm
Here's another one. Don't bother looking for the photos refered to, it's an old 1983 print, archived online: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v6n1_mt-helen.asp
However, there is a video or two floating around, and it's a must-see, as they actualy get pretty in-depth (at least the one I have). And in case you can't tell Mt. Saint Helens is very tangible fact, as opposed to the "theories" it disproved. I'm betting one can probably go out there and see it for him/herself still. It's only been about 20 years. And as Evolution states, it takes thousands or millions of years for anything to change drasticaly. (Yes, I'm patronizing you.)

Also, since you are only interested in purely biased views, and not un-biased, look up the workings of Dr. Kent E. Hovind. Then again I think you probably feel very comfy in your current views. What I might suggest is building a bunker, and locking yourself in it. That way us fools couldn't possibly cause you to be slightly tollerant of other's beliefs, no matter how skewed you think them to be.

I'm sorry if this debate is making you irritable, but you shouldn't boast of your beliefs as irrefutable fact, because someone will come and refute it.

 

[Meson]

You two have no idea how science works. Napoleon is corrent in everything he said. As a catholic, I am aware of the two Creation stories in teh bible. I am also aware that what the bible says has never been, never is, and never will be intended to be historical proof. It is written in code so that it wouldn't get burned by the Romans, so you have to translated it out of the code to read it. Since there are two very different Creation stories, we can fairly sure that what was written shouldn't be accepted as fact, as teh writers themselves didn't know. Evelution was discovered by inspiration by a minister who was on a pilgrimage in the wild. Of course he didn't have all the answers, but his ideas were never disregarded. In fact, all scientific theories are true and used all teh time, even if other more better ones come along. This is because the old way is a subset of teh new one. In this light creation and evolution are the exact same theory. Creation IS evolution when a particular set of conditions are present, namely the presence of a god. If there is a god, evoluition is creation, and all creation ideas can be used. But just becuase there is a god doesn't mean that is the only set of conditions that could be present, thus a general evelution theory that covers all conditions that may be present. That's where science is trying to put together. To try to find the ultimate form of evelution.

 

[Ghost]

There are 2 creations of the world in the Bible?
1 in the Old and 1 in the New Testament?

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Meson
You two have no idea how science works. Napoleon is corrent in everything he said.

Except for the parts where he is wrong, and unfortunately those seem to prevail. And I think everybody here knows how science works, even if some would claim to know better than others.

Creation IS evolution when a particular set of conditions are present, namely the presence of a god. If there is a god, evoluition is creation, and all creation ideas can be used. But just becuase there is a god doesn't mean that is the only set of conditions that could be present, thus a general evelution theory that covers all conditions that may be present. That's where science is trying to put together. To try to find the ultimate form of evelution.

I have nothing against Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, it makes a lot more sense to me than the world being created in seven days. What bothers me is when people are arrogant and fanatical enough to claim that creation by God couldn't be true because God cannot exist. In other words, it's not Napoleon's views that I object to, it's the way he presents them and the way he insists that everything else is wrong simply because he doesn't believe in it.

 

[T8H3X11]

Evelution was discovered by inspiration by a minister who was on a pilgrimage in the wild.

No, it was Charles Darwin, who didn't discover it it...first of all because it isn't true because God created everything in 6 day's and on the 7th rested, second of all he just thought it was an interesting thing to ponder.

 

[T8H3X11]

In fact, all scientific theories are true and used all teh time

Oh contrare. If a scientific theory was always true it wouldn't be called a theory, but a law.

 

[T8H3X11]

Evolution isnt on the same level of creationism. The only thing that supports creationism is a book writen thousands of years ago by a bunch of semi literate slaves and sheep herders.

Whoa Whoa Whoa! I'm sorry if I'm double posting but, most of your statement is complete and utter crap! Most of the Bible was written by some of the best taught people in the land. Genesis and Exodus - Written by Moses who was adopted by Pharoah'd daughter and received the best teachings in Egypt, Most of Psalms written by King David, the four gospels written by successful businessmen, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesias and several others were written by Paul, who was a Roman centurion who killed Christians, was a tent-maker, and received the best education in Rome was struck by a bright light on the road to Damascus and became a Christian. The minority of the books were written by slaves/sheep herders. Do your research before you try to make correct accusations. The Bible is complete truth. If you want me to go into more detail, then I will be more than happy to.

 

[Aries]

you can put more than 1 quote in a post you know