ramunematt wrote:
Seriously... get your head out of the bible. It’s outdated and making you say things that would only seem smart to sheep farmers who lived 2,000 years ago that believed the Earth was flat and that every animal in the world was within walking distance.
hmmn... let me ask/answer you this way ....why is the bible infallible and not science?, and not Islam? and not Buddhism? Why can’t the bible share infallibility with another religious text.... well religions are mutually exclusive all of them. Because at one point there is going to be a contradiction between the two religions. If there wasn’t a contradiction between them at one point they wouldn’t be two separate religions.... Science is not infallible because it is constantly changing, and constantly updating , and constantly being corrected, and that something that every scientist will tell you...... now this isn’t to mean that all of science is wrong. But that science doesn’t have the credentials to NEVER be wrong...... You can cancel out most religions the same way.. If a religion ever changes its text then how can we establish that it is credible to be infallible that it is credible to be seen as NEVER wrong. The very fact that the da-li-lamba witnesses changes in Buddhism to go in accordance with obvious contradictions to the natural world takes away its credibility to be infallible.....
But The bible is unique in that its pure 66 book version form it has never been changed. It has been translated, yes, because people like me cannot speak Hebrew and Greek...... But we do have access to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and the 66-book bible is 99.9% in accordance with the same original texts that are millennia old, it has not been changed, the .......01% error is only due to the translation.
That is why the bible is infallible and that is why the bible stands out from all text and even text books as to being the most credible for infallibility.....
Because the bible is fallible. Just as fallible as every other religious holy book. Who told you it was infallible? And why did you so gullibly believe that?
o’i, so this is so not the tread for this .......anyways, say that mammals are descended from some reptiles, unknown, of course, and birds from others, also unknown. Mammals differ from reptiles in having breasts (Latin, mammae), a four chambered heart instead of three, a coat of hair or fur or wool, and a womb for the young. The temperature of the blood of reptiles is as low as 60 and even 40 degrees, since the temperature of the blood is about the same as the environment, sometimes approaching the freezing point. But mammals have a temperature approaching 100·.............. you guys are to believe that one progressive branch of reptiles which passed through the sieve of natural selection, during the Ice Age, was capable of being adapted to the colder climate. But this chasm between reptiles and mammals was crossed unaided by any external interference, unaided by God; then the mammals groped their way, without intelligence or design, up to man! No satisfactory explanation has been given..... No fossils, part reptile, part mammal, have been found. We would naturally expect millions of them. Evidently none ever existed. How could such radical changes be brought about? What caused the development of hair, fur and wool? The change in the heart, and the temperature, the formation of the mammae and of the womb? There is no evidence of such change. But it is necessary to the scheme......
Watchman wrote:
the plot thickens.....the evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical probability...... It is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case.....all had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet witness the motley products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc......... all developed from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well chavs, the difference in size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the difference in intellect between man and the lobster....
While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000 reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of man?......bollocs
Can you not copy from christian websites... why is their only 1 dominate species on the planet..... do I really have to answer something so obvious?
Watchman wrote:
heh...does you know Romanes, a disciple of Darwin?....well after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, he found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old. Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience..... Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one?..... lets say in war, out of 3,000,000 people, developes one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability...again one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior..... but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species...... It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. Like I said it violates mathematical probability.
arrgghhhh, where did you get these numbers from? Did you know chimps have better short term memory then us?
everything else you have said has been refuted by other people.. thank you now go and learn something other then blindly following what your preacher says.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
Watchman wrote:
the plot thickens.....the evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical probability...... It is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case.....all had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet witness the motley products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc......... all developed from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well chavs, the difference in size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the difference in intellect between man and the lobster....
While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000 reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of man?......bollocs
Can you not copy from christian websites... why is their only 1 dominate species on the planet..... do I really have to answer something so obvious?
Watchman wrote:
heh...does you know Romanes, a disciple of Darwin?....well after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, he found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old. Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience..... Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one?..... lets say in war, out of 3,000,000 people, developes one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability...again one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior..... but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species...... It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. Like I said it violates mathematical probability.
arrgghhhh, where did you get these numbers from? Did you know chimps have better short term memory then us?
everything else you have said has been refuted by other people.. thank you now go and learn something other then blindly following what your preacher says.
Watchman wrote:
the plot thickens.....the evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical probability...... It is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case.....all had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet witness the motley products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc......... all developed from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well chavs, the difference in size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the difference in intellect between man and the lobster....
While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000 reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of man?......bollocs
Can you not copy from christian websites... why is their only 1 dominate species on the planet..... do I really have to answer something so obvious?
Watchman wrote:
heh...does you know Romanes, a disciple of Darwin?....well after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, he found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old. Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience..... Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one?..... lets say in war, out of 3,000,000 people, developes one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability...again one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior..... but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species...... It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. Like I said it violates mathematical probability.
arrgghhhh, where did you get these numbers from? Did you know chimps have better short term memory then us?
everything else you have said has been refuted by other people.. thank you now go and learn something other then blindly following what your preacher says.
Psalm 14.1
You gonna post what that says? Or do you expect people to go look it up?
how about some of you start addressing the points than bitching about people who you obviously dont like. stop acting like idiots who want to be favoured.Like the asshole upstairs, why dont you look up what is said and respond to it rather than trying to be clever. your points dont usually add to scratch, and you just seem to bitch against other people’s post. Plex, dude, you are like the last person to talk about copying and pasting considering how many times people have spotted thats exactly what you are doing.I even read something that you dont even read the post you paste from. people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Im kinda guessing that the majority of posters in this thread are atheist whio have a gang mentality.As long as they are in the majority, they think they are right.morons and assholes. Respond to the thread and stop attacking the poster.Or it could be that you have shit to say, and the only way to discredit the post is to attack the poster by saying shit. but then again, some of you are kids. and thats the way kids, especially in shity usa think. and the usa has the majoity of dumbest kids in education.
truepoison wrote:
...Respond to the thread and stop attacking the poster.Or it could be that you have shit to say, and the only way to discredit the post is to attack the poster by saying shit. but then again, some of you are kids. and thats the way kids, especially in shity usa think. and the usa has the majoity of dumbest kids in education.
Truepoison... way to be a big 'ol hypocrite, in nearly the same sentence at that! Also, it would probably be in your best interest to clean up your spelling while you try to insult our education... Just a suggestion.
As for Watchman, it is his responsibility to state his own points. If he is going to quote something, then he should site it’s source. This is a debate (albeit a sloppy one). It is not our job to present HIS information.
The point I wanted to address, Watchman, is you seem to be asking a number of times, is why we don’t find more animals becoming humans. You seem to have it in your head that “human” is the next step beyond mammals... like mammals or birds are to reptiles. We ARE mammals, and biologically, we are nothing more. We have a lot of brain power, sure, but how superior does this make us? Without our brain power, we would die... we would be easy pray to almost every predator half our size.
Another point, is that Human beings are far from flawless. Humans, as a species in general has terrible flaws to our design. The size of our massive head creates many birth complications. The size of our brain consumes tons of calories, which requires us to consume a massive amount of calories. We naturally develop back and hips problems from walking upright. Our vertebrae weren’t designed to sustain our body weight vertically all day everyday.
This is just a few of the examples.
God’s image and design you say? I would have assumed he could do better.
da fuck you talking bout boy? stop with the meaningless cleverness allready.what makes you think that the points are not allready stated in the post.its your reading of it and your subjective interpretation that is is in question. having read a number of post, there are a few here who can be called concise in their arguements.you are not one of them khorib, although you think and give the imprression that you are. Personally I think few here are right on anything but at least there is evidence of thought processing going on, something that aint meaningless and random fact vomit. some here actually present something that pretty good, but because of the mob mentality, its just ridiculed and pissed on. I ainit fighting for nobody, but at least have the balls to say when you’re being outthought, “i dont know”, rather than go on attack mode, and look like a clever pussy. anyways, i 'll let the bastard watchman write his own shit and defend his shit, just like sean, itachi,nihlus and all the other god believers. just dont piss on what their saying just because you cannot understand it, or are easily irrated by it and goes against your own shitty grain
I dunno what has set you off on a tangent, but perhaps you should stick to the debate rather than attacking others, yea? If you’d like to partake, then by all means join in... However, if you are just going to be a troll and flame, then begone or we will deal with you
What did I say that was so clever? Do you want me to apologize for not contributing enough into this particular thread? Should I be sorry that I typically only visit this site while I’m at work, during breaks? Do not pretend to know someone by their posts in a few particular threads.
If you really want to get into it with me, then post on my thread “Defining Atheism”. I have a feeling you’ll play my devil’s advocate
truepoison wrote:
how about some of you start addressing the points than bitching about people who you obviously dont like. stop acting like idiots who want to be favoured.Like the asshole upstairs, why dont you look up what is said and respond to it rather than trying to be clever. your points dont usually add to scratch, and you just seem to bitch against other people’s post. Plex, dude, you are like the last person to talk about copying and pasting considering how many times people have spotted thats exactly what you are doing.I even read something that you dont even read the post you paste from. people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Im kinda guessing that the majority of posters in this thread are atheist whio have a gang mentality.As long as they are in the majority, they think they are right.morons and assholes. Respond to the thread and stop attacking the poster.Or it could be that you have shit to say, and the only way to discredit the post is to attack the poster by saying shit. but then again, some of you are kids. and thats the way kids, especially in shity usa think. and the usa has the majoity of dumbest kids in education.
This guest account writes extremely similar to watchman - the lack of capitalization, lack of spaces after periods, no separation of paragraphs - it’s quite suspect. And I’m just not a fan of guest accounts.
another pretentious dick, who thiniks that using big words is applying their brain.your an asshole who has a suspicious mind, and no you’re wrong. this is not peepman, watchman,candyman, or any other assholewho debates here. from your last post, you seem to be a christian, (orange)but one who would rather take a backseat and borrow from other people opinion. I NOTICED SOMEONE has allready said you and khorib seem to be tight as shit which is why I would expect your candyass to support your friend. ignorant peasant. say something concerning the thread or fuck off. trying to bring other people name into it, what an asshole. Oh wait , you said something about EPOCH. well, i guess you have made a contribution, but please, dont take the piss. oh and Khorib, its that pretensiousness that is what Iam talking about. You’re as fake as gold ring on a pig-nose. stop pretending you know shit when you’re as transparant as glass.just be fucking normal and stop screwing with yourself. debating with you must be hard on people as you’re a coward who says whats expected. always justifying yourself
truepoison wrote:
another pretentious dick, who thiniks that using big words is applying their brain.your an asshole who has a suspicious mind, and no you’re wrong. this is not peepman, watchman,candyman, or any other assholewho debates here. from your last post, you seem to be a christian, (orange)but one who would rather take a backseat and borrow from other people opinion. I NOTICED SOMEONE has allready said you and khorib seem to be tight as shit which is why I would expect your candyass to support your friend. ignorant peasant. say something concerning the thread or fuck off. trying to bring other people name into it, what an asshole. Oh wait , you said something about EPOCH. well, i guess you have made a contribution, but please, dont take the piss. oh and Khorib, its that pretensiousness that is what Iam talking about. You’re as fake as gold ring on a pig-nose. stop pretending you know shit when you’re as transparant as glass.just be fucking normal and stop screwing with yourself. debating with you must be hard on people as you’re a coward who says whats expected. always justifying yourself
AS said before you’re the biggest hypocrite here! What valid information have you posed to this thread....nothing! So take you’re own advise and post something valid or GTFO.
On top of that earlier you stated that there are kids on this site. So why don’t you clean up you’re language, you sound like a kid yourself.
Post some valid information pertaining to the topic or leave
To watchman: Are you gonna post the psalm or a link to it at all....
One thing that I think all Christians should take note of is that the Creation Story was written as a revelation from God (since mankind was not around before they were created). Like most revelations and prophetic words in the Bible, it is most likely NOT something to be interpreted literally.
What I believe it is supposed to show is not only God’s Sovereign Power, but also the amount of care and planning that He put into His Creation.
I’m an evolutionist, but I don’t believe that macroevolution evolved by random chance. To not believe in a Creator, but to believe that macroevolution is entirely governed by random chance is showing more faith than it takes to believe in a Creator to begin with.
Back to the topic, although it is possible we evolved directly from monkeys, it is also possible that we evolved from a common ancestor. Humankinds' common ancestor is probably one of the “early men” that have been discovered in Africa.
Leorio wrote:
One thing that I think all Christians should take note of is that the Creation Story was written as a revelation from God (since mankind was not around before they were created). Like most revelations and prophetic words in the Bible, it is most likely NOT something to be interpreted literally.
What I believe it is supposed to show is not only God’s Sovereign Power, but also the amount of care and planning that He put into His Creation.
I’m an evolutionist, but I don’t believe that macroevolution evolved by random chance. To not believe in a Creator, but to believe that macroevolution is entirely governed by random chance is showing more faith than it takes to believe in a Creator to begin with.
Back to the topic, although it is possible we evolved directly from monkeys, it is also possible that we evolved from a common ancestor. Humankinds' common ancestor is probably one of the “early men” that have been discovered in Africa.
It’s refreshing to see someone not taking the bible literally.
ramunematt wrote:
Your an evolutionist but you think macroevolution is random chance?
I think you need to do a little more research there buddy
I said I don’t think it is by random chance.
By random chance, I mean random events. These events could be genetic errors that cause mutations (eg. non-disjunction) or other events (eg. point mutations caused by DNA reacting with UV radiation + the presence of mitochondria in eurakyotic cells).
I don’t think that macroevolution on our planet has happened without some form of intervention. If we look at microevolution, we see that it is extremely hard for a mutation to produce a beneficial phenotype. Most mutations are either silent or produce a malignant phenotype (particularly when it comes to polygenic traits). To create an entirely new species, many of these mutations must be made and they must be able to work.
For so many species to have arisen, and in some cases (like the Cambrian Explosion), to have arisen so quickly...there had to be something that organised that. There was a time when I was questioning my own beliefs quite seriously, but that was one thing I always held on to: it seems extremely likely that something created life and that something intelligent guided evolution. When I was questioning my beliefs, I always held on to the notion of a creator: I just wasn’t sure what that creator was.
OddPixie wrote:
It’s refreshing to see someone not taking the bible literally.
Thanks. It’s good to see someone else who thinks the same ^_^
It even says several times in the Bible itself that certain passages are not meant to be taken literally. Prophecies are usually such passages.
ramunematt wrote:
Your an evolutionist but you think macroevolution is random chance?
I think you need to do a little more research there buddy
I said I don’t think it is by random chance.
By random chance, I mean random events. These events could be genetic errors that cause mutations (eg. non-disjunction) or other events (eg. point mutations caused by DNA reacting with UV radiation + the presence of mitochondria in eurakyotic cells).
I don’t think that macroevolution on our planet has happened without some form of intervention. If we look at microevolution, we see that it is extremely hard for a mutation to produce a beneficial phenotype. Most mutations are either silent or produce a malignant phenotype (particularly when it comes to polygenic traits). To create an entirely new species, many of these mutations must be made and they must be able to work.
For so many species to have arisen, and in some cases (like the Cambrian Explosion), to have arisen so quickly...there had to be something that organised that. There was a time when I was questioning my own beliefs quite seriously, but that was one thing I always held on to: it seems extremely likely that something created life and that something intelligent guided evolution. When I was questioning my beliefs, I always held on to the notion of a creator: I just wasn’t sure what that creator was.
OddPixie wrote:
It’s refreshing to see someone not taking the bible literally.
Thanks. It’s good to see someone else who thinks the same ^_^
It even says several times in the Bible itself that certain passages are not meant to be taken literally. Prophecies are usually such passages.
»
Religion
» We did not evolve from monkeys
