Creation Of Man

[Spikey]

Ive heard some wacked up things about the creation of man, God, The Big Bang, lots of others, also just out of curiousoty, what are the wonders of the world (im sure thts one of them):confused: :confused: :confused:

[Nailbomb]

The Big Bang is a theory to how the universe was created, not life.

[RedOctober]

Well.. The creation of man...

Interesting question...

Well.. You know... There's the birds, and the bees..
And they fly from flower to flower, to gather honey..

And your father must have been busy in that way,
when he stumbled into your mother..

Something like that.. :flamed:

[Piro]

Well.. The creation of man...

Interesting question...

Well.. You know... There's the birds, and the bees..
And they fly from flower to flower, to gather honey..

And your father must have been busy in that way,
when he stumbled into your mother..

Something like that.. :flamed:
No, no, you've got it all wrong. There was this cabbage patch...

[Darklight]

I thought it was my dad and mom loved eachother very much so the stork brought me and my bro to break it up...

[Farceur]

My parents always told me they found me under a rock...

sorry Darklight.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Darklight again.:happysad:

[junglizm]

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/4034/noodledoodlebg3b0at.jpg

[Unforgiven]

I used to think it impossible that we evolved from apes.

But, after looking at certain people, I find it can be entirely possible.:happysad:

[RetArt]

Humans did not evolve from apes. We had the same ancestors than apes.

seven greatest wonders of the world by time-period:

Ancient:
The Great Pyramid of Giza
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
The Statue of Zeus at Olympia
The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
The Colossus of Rhodes
The Pharos of Alexandria

Medieval:
Stonehenge
The Colosseum
The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa
The Great Wall of China
The Porcelain Tower of Nanjing
The Hagia Sophia
The Leaning Tower of Pisa

modern world:
The Empire State Building
The Itaipú Dam
The CN Tower
The Panama Canal
The Channel Tunnel
The North Sea Protection Works
The Golden Gate Bridge

forgotten wonders from medieval:
Abu Simbel Temple
Angkor Wat
Taj Mahal
Mont Saint-Michel
The Moai Statues
The Parthenon
The Shwedagon Pagoda

--huoh.
for every thread what it deserves. This had this stupid-ass listing
coming a mile-away

[Jiraffe]

Maybe we should stop worrying about how the fuck we got here and start worrying about why the fuck we are here! If we let such simplistic (and superstitous) teachings govern our every move we will not learn anything.

I believe our purpose is knowledge of what is. Not of what was. While it is true that history repeats its self and we learn from the past I think of it this way,(especially when it comes to our origin), if its happend before it will happen again THEN we can understand it. Until then concern yourself with the here and now. Explore the mystery of life that is you and your loved ones. Not with all these unproven theories.

[RedOctober]

We're here, because we're here.

That's about it.
A totally insane chaos, we call the universe, and it doesn't have any purpose or meaning. We are travelling through time and space on a giant spaceball called Earth, and the only thing we know is we're all alone in the dark.
If there is any extra terrestial life, it's so far away it's nonsense to even think about ever having contact with them.

To realize that, is the higher form of knowledge, and that is bad for the motivation of mankind to work as a slave. Therefore man invented God to make humans work as slaves for the rich man's profit, and if needed bash each others heads. It has no sense at all.

We're all alone... :sad:

[RetArt]

Red my friend, you are absolutely right.

Man has hidden behind all these myths about higher meanings, goals and Gods just to hide his own weakness. It is much easier to hide behind all the great beliefs of some romantic meaning, than just understanding the obvious.
We are here by chance. A long line of coinsidenses has made of what we now kow the world. There is no great "father" or "mother" who has decided to create, first a piece of rock, then decided to infest it with bacteria, divide it, evolve it, and so forth, and eventually end up with this.
We are here for no meaning. "Meaning" is an abstract word created by man, to suite man. It is something man applies when one must justify ones actions.

Meaning of life is not.

[RetArt]

Let me continue my post with some more philosophical wording, as I am in such a mood.

These beliefs and myths have been created to make some common sense on ethics, morals and such. Western society has taken it´s moral standards from christianity and made them a part of our society. This assimilation of morals has also happened in various other cultures and societies. There we see that to make up some common laws there has had to be a greater authority, a bigger meaning if you will.

Once these laws and ethics are fundamental parts of our mind and our actions, and only then, man can ask whether these myths and beliefs are true or not? It is highly dangerous if a person would notice the world just "a huge coinsidence" before he would have created such moral standards (society is also a powerful organ, keeping up the ethics, morals and such by law). Then there´d be no responsibilty, and everything could be done.

The Bible is a great book, but people read it too atomically. It is fiction (yes ther might have been a man called jesus and such, but most of it is pure fiction). It is a highly symbolical book. It is covered with all these great philosphical values.
Like the one where Jesus had two breads and four fishes (or smthn like that) an amanged to feed everybody at the party. That is not a story about a magic trick about creating food out of nothing, or multiplying things. It is a story about giving. Basically it says "Even if you have little, give"..

It is a great "skills of life" -book but it´s not to be taken too seriously.

I believe that man came from bacteria. That some being rose to the ground and evolved.
In other words. Darwin

[OmegaZeto]

The Bible is a great book, but people read it too atomically. It is fiction (yes ther might have been a man called jesus and such, but most of it is pure fiction). It is a highly symbolical book. It is covered with all these great philosphical values.

Prove that the book is fiction, please. No standalone claim that "it is fiction" will do unless you back it up with facts, man. And don't gimme that "prove it ISN'T fiction" bullcrap, because I'm only telling you to prove it IS fiction so that you actually go do some research on the authenticity and veracity of the New Testament, instead of just cowtowing and going with the mainstream idea of a fictional Bible. Remember, Christians don't believe the Bible is fiction AT ALL, so unless you can prove it is, you've got nothing to stand on.

[RageAgainst]

Prove that the book is fiction, please. No standalone claim that "it is fiction" will do unless you back it up with facts, man. And don't gimme that "prove it ISN'T fiction" bullcrap, because I'm only telling you to prove it IS fiction so that you actually go do some research on the authenticity and veracity of the New Testament, instead of just cowtowing and going with the mainstream idea of a fictional Bible. Remember, Christians don't believe the Bible is fiction AT ALL, so unless you can prove it is, you've got nothing to stand on.

The Ancient testament is fiction. One word proof : dinosaur fossils.

The new testament is a tale about some guy whose mother was a virgin and who could walk on water and turn water to wine. ...

[OmegaZeto]

The Ancient testament is fiction. One word proof : dinosaur fossils.

The new testament is a tale about some guy whose mother was a virgin and who could walk on water and turn water to wine. ...

Dinosaur Fossils prove only that the process of fossilization occurs. Nothing more. We have no concrete proof AT ALL of the age of these fossils. All the dating methods we have are mere guesswork; no matter how much "faith" the scientists have in their guesses.
All you did was say "[it's] fiction", without giving any proof at all. Don't even bother posting if you're not going to seperate your bullshit opinion from facts.

The New Testament is about not "some guy" but THE GUY, allegedly the only human being ever born who is utterly "sin-free" due to the fact that he was fathered by God's Holy Spirit, rather than a human man, which the Bible makes clear is the source of "original sin".
If Jesus was fathered by God Himself, then any questions regarding his ability to bend the fabric of reality at will is no longer an issue.

You fail to defend your "faith" in your beliefs, Rage.
EDIT: No wonder, considering you're the self-proclaimed "Prophet of Stupidity". I'll remember to just ignore your bullcrap from now on, rather than assuming you're here to have a discussion containing any intellect or fact.

[RetArt]

Well, omegazeto. When you think with common sense it is obvious that the old testament is fiction. I mean c´mon. Women were created from the ribs of Adam? Humans lived in "paradise" and where then sent off because they ate an apple? Snake made them do it? You must see that these all metaphores. It is trying to say that man and woman are the same creature, equal. Made from the same substance. (or possibly that men are better than woman). Humans were sent away from paradise by not playing by the rules. It says "act right" or "live well" or "stick to the laws". Snake is the evil in us. "the backside of God" is a phrase I like to use.

The new testament is a lot trickier. I like to think that a man named Jesus lived, and that he was a great philosopher. I just think that to get to the laymen (the folk) they needed to spice it up, they needed to add from different cultures. Every bibleist can tell you a lot in the bible is added at a much much later date. And that many is missing. Propaganda causes this, bible had to fit Alexanders plans. It needed to be altered.
I do not believe that he turned water into wine, I do not believe he waked someone from the dead, I dont believe in immaculate conception. I think they were added to "strenghten" the story. Even a kid would tell you that these things can not be real.

I am sorry I did not clarify this before, I thought this was as clear as that Santa Claus is actually a fictive character.

Want more thoughts on bible? open a thread about it, and I´ll rant away, if you wish

Read Bulgakov´s "The master and Margarita". It opens an interesting view.


EDIT: I´ll speak some more at a later date.

[OmegaZeto]

Well, omegazeto. When you think with common sense it is obvious that the old testament is fiction. I mean c´mon. Women were created from the ribs of Adam? Humans lived in "paradise" and where then sent off because they ate an apple? Snake made them do it? You must see that these all metaphores. It is trying to say that man and woman are the same creature, equal. Made from the same substance. (or possibly that men are better than woman). Humans were sent away from paradise by not playing by the rules. It says "act right" or "live well" or "stick to the laws". Snake is the evil in us. "the backside of God" is a phrase I like to use.
Wrong. One wrong assumption after another, and you think you can say a damned thing about the veracity of THE BIBLE?! Try BEING CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE before you comment on the accuracy of any text older than you.
1. Yes, supposedly, God removed a single rib from Adam's body and created woman from it. Not such a big deal, considering he spent the days before that BRINGING AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE.

2. There was no "apple" that they ate that got them "sent off". There was "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", which Eve and Adam did eat "the fruit of". This caused them to gain the knowledge of good and EVIL, therefore seperating their glorified souls from the immediate presence of God. This caused several changes to the nature of the Universe itself, and so God was forced to remove the pair from Eden and into "the real world".

3. It is NOT metaphor. Those things, in the original language, use specific, literal words where specific, literal meanings were implied, and metaphors where metaphors were implied. If you actually knew a damned thing about the Bible you'd already know that, but you're just another guy ignorant of what he is bashing, trying to look smart without having your facts straight.


The new testament is a lot trickier. I like to think that a man named Jesus lived, and that he was a great philosopher. I just think that to get to the laymen (the folk) they needed to spice it up, they needed to add from different cultures. Every bibleist can tell you a lot in the bible is added at a much much later date. And that many is missing. Propaganda causes this, bible had to fit Alexanders plans. It needed to be altered.
I do not believe that he turned water into wine, I do not believe he waked someone from the dead, I dont believe in immaculate conception. I think they were added to "strenghten" the story. Even a kid would tell you that these things can not be real.

You use "I do not believe" a whole lot. You like to say "I think" a lot. Weren't those kinds of people bashed quite nicely in the WTC Report thread? You're just voicing your opinion of a record you don't know SHIT about, without facts to back you up.



I am sorry I did not clarify this before, I thought this was as clear as that Santa Claus is actually a fictive character.

Again, "[you] thought". Maybe "thinking" isn't the best idea for you?

[RetArt]

Yes. I think. That separates me from you.
Maybe you should try thinking instead of blindly believing every folkslore that crosses your path.

I know my way around the bible. I just THOUGHT that there was no need here going into such detail, as it is seen as common knowledge.

Now, don´t get me wrong, I am not saying it is wrong that you believe. It is even seen as good, as it might give your life a meaning and it might keep you from doing wrong.

But there is evidence that Bible was greatly rewritten at Alexander the Greats era. Christmas for example. It is varified by scientists that Jesus´s birth is placed in december because it suited the needs of the christians spreading their faith. It fits greatly to a previous, heretic day of celebration. That´s how it was spread, and that is why the bible was altered. It was made easier to adapt by adding heretic bits to it.

You may also state that God just put it all there, that is not concrete evidence (agnostically speaking) (as with the dinosaurs again). That God put everything there to test our faith.

In christian art God is viewed as a beardedold man. Also a good example of adjusting christianity with parts of other religions. Zeus ring a bell?

Yes. You seem to have the ultimate phrase to cover it all. "Because he was fathered by God". Yes... well see. You have no proof on existance of God. God is made up to secure ones identity. Therefore I find this whole son_of_god_and_therefore_superman-like - shit rather annoying.

You would probably believe the earth is flat if the bible would state that. Question. THINK. Ask. Post. And after that, you might, if still thinking this myth is true, respond to my post. But if you explain things with some superhuman-philosopher that is fathered by some mythical creature called "God" and born by immaculate conception, and therefore can raise the dead and change water to wine, leave it be.Unless you come up with some other evidence that a 2000 year old folkslore.
continue
THINK

[Spikey]

ok ok, but in all seriousness, what are possible ways we were created its like one thing scientists dont have an excuse fo- err i mean cant explain

[OmegaZeto]

Yes. I think. That separates me from you.
Maybe you should try thinking instead of blindly believing every folkslore that crosses your path.


Now, don´t get me wrong, I am not saying it is wrong that you believe. It is even seen as good, as it might give your life a meaning and it might keep you from doing wrong.

You people always seem to enjoy contradicting yourselves, but never so much as in one sentence right after the other.

Oh, and then there's THIS wonderful gem of stupidity:

You have no proof on existance of God. God is made up to secure ones identity. Therefore I find this whole son_of_god_and_therefore_super man-like - shit rather annoying.

By your own admission, you both "am not saying it's wrong that i believe" and "find this whole [jesus] shit rather annoying". Moron.



But there is evidence that Bible was greatly rewritten at Alexander the Greats era. Christmas for example. It is varified by scientists that Jesus´s birth is placed in december because it suited the needs of the christians spreading their faith. It fits greatly to a previous, heretic day of celebration. That´s how it was spread, and that is why the bible was altered. It was made easier to adapt by adding heretic bits to it.


NOWHERE in the Bible is the exact month of Jesus' birth mentioned. Christmas only became a celebration of "Jesus's Birth" because of modern-day ignorant Christians. The time of Jesus's birth is though to me more around mid-late October. The Bible's take on the whole "Christmas" thing which modern Christians seem to ignore is an event that took place TWO YEARS LATER, during King Herod's search for the infant Jesus.
DONT POST YOUR BULLSHIT IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.



You may also state that God just put it all there, that is not concrete evidence (agnostically speaking) (as with the dinosaurs again). That God put everything there to test our faith.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, it's too obscure. Who said anything about "test our faith"?



In christian art God is viewed as a beardedold man. Also a good example of adjusting christianity with parts of other religions. Zeus ring a bell?

Yes, it does. How about "Stupidity and ignorance exist in every age"? How about the idea that people as retarded as you existed even back in those times?
Shit, maybe there was some super secret conspiracy of the rulers of Rome to dilute and pollute the Christian religion by infusing it with pantheistic symbols, turning it into a state-run piece of garbage? Of course you wouldn't know anything about THAT, would you, dumbass?



Yes. You seem to have the ultimate phrase to cover it all. "Because he was fathered by God". Yes... well see. You have no proof on existance of God. God is made up to secure ones identity. Therefore I find this whole son_of_god_and_therefore_superman-like - shit rather annoying.

If you don't believe in God, then why are you arguing about The Bible? You've obviously got no respect at all for the beliefs of others, as evidenced by this latest turd from you.



You would probably believe the earth is flat if the bible would state that.

The Bible DOES state that. Moron.




You seem to have seirous problems and confusion surrounding you, barring you from actually understanding ANYTHING. You've got this huge collection of stuff called "things I know", and any great thinker will tell that such a thing is the #1 blockage to actually thinking. You have failed to represent yourself and argue the point without lapsing into more "opinion", horrible mistakes concerning the material in quesiton (The Holy Bible), and bullshit like "I don't believe in God so you're wrong bla bla bla"

Come back when you don't suck so bad, and we might have a real discussion. Until then, how about you READ, THINK, and NOT POST HERE.

[Broken]

Big Bang can or does explain the creation of man. If all at one time was a single object then that object contained life. Oh sure perhaps it wasn't the first thing out of the box, but it eventually got it's ass out. Probably when God told it to, I threw that in for the Bible humpers.

[RetArt]

For crying outloud. I am sorry if you dont get me. It is hard to speak in words that firm believers comprehend, as they often are blinded by their faith. You fail to make a reasonable case here. First you say everything the bible says is right, and then you say it is not. But you still believe in it..?

I can say that it is okay for you to "believe" if it makes you feel better. But then again, I can say that your beliefs are obsolete, and proven wrong. There is no contradiction. You asked me to explain, I did. If you would have kept your mouth shut, I would not have stuffed this thread with agnostic thinking.
You asked for it, but then you reply by clinging on to minor details, not once commenting on something serious. If i say i dont care about your beliefs, it doesn´t mean i am not entitled to shout out my opinion.

The fact that I do not believe in God (in any religion) does not mean I can not discuss the Bible and better yet, know it. It is like saying you cant explain the evolutionary theory if you do not firmly believe in it. I was born a lutherian, I have worked true religion-lessons right there beside science-classes, I have read the bible, I have read a book about the symbolism of the Bible. I am interested in it, as I think it is a great philosophical book, which is just taken too word-by-word. One of the main facts in my childhood was that there is a God, Jesus was the bastard-son of God and that he died for our sins. But once people get older they start to think. I mean rationally think. And then they question. At least some of us. This questioning leads to some unveiling of lies. There is no santa claus, no easter bunny, no God.

Yes, christianity was altered by the Romans with pantheistic symbols, and at the same time the text was greatly altered to fit Alexanders needs. Seems to work great, still now. Poeple are blindly believing, not able to see fact from fiction. It is a great myth, a folkslore, a tragedy, but not is not that different from other religional texts. Ancient Finns believed that world was born from an egg of a Bucephala clangula ( a bird). I find that just as believable as your creational myth.

Evolution explains creation of man. from bacteria that came form space, which then divided, to early mammals rising on land, to the ancestors of humans and apes, and to neanderthal and cro-magnon man, and finally to Homo Sapiens.

Omega, How does you almighty religion explain the phossiles of other human-species? Neanderthals, cro-magnons, Eva??

Bible was made to feed the peoples need to know, and as there was no knowledge, they had to make it up. That is how myths are born, from the explaining of the unknown. If people dont know were they came from and what has happened earlier and all those great questions, their life would seem pointless. They would just be meaningless molecyles in the universe, they would be SMALL.
But when somebody says that God created you for his own image, it makes you believe you are something special. It makes you think you are big. Not pointless. And that is why these myths; religions, are so easy to adapt. They make man seem special, in here for a cause. They give life a meaning. It is nice to think yyour life has a meaning doesn´t it..? Ego-booster, eh?

I do not have a things-I-know- library. I have a consciousness. I have my own mind, my own views, and these are backed by knowledge in books and sciences. Yo seem to have the blockage of thinking. "Any great thinker" could tell you that religion is the greatest blocker of free thinking.

Oh, and stop the name-calling, or take it to B&T. It is immature, and shows just how intelligent you are.

[Jiraffe]

I'm sorry but I have trouble believeing a bible that contradicts its self numerous times. For instance: (All texts taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.)

Psalm 145:9-The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works
while Jeremiah 13:14 states-And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them

Good to all? Or just a few?

Matthew 1:16-And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
while Luke 3:23 states-And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

So Joseph had two fathers?

Proverbs4:7-Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Ecclestiasties1:18-For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Corrinthians 1 1:19-For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent

So is wisdom good or bad?

Psalm 92:12-The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree

Isaiah 57:1-The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart

So do the righteous live or die?

And these are but a few of the contradictions. So it is safe to assume that the Bible is not what its cracked up to be.

[OmegaZeto]

I'm sorry but I have trouble believeing a bible that contradicts its self numerous times. For instance: (All texts taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.)

Psalm 145:9-The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works
while Jeremiah 13:14 states-And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them

Good to all? Or just a few?

Matthew 1:16-And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
while Luke 3:23 states-And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

So Joseph had two fathers?

Proverbs4:7-Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Ecclestiasties1:18-For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Corrinthians 1 1:19-For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent

So is wisdom good or bad?

Psalm 92:12-The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree

Isaiah 57:1-The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart

So do the righteous live or die?

And these are but a few of the contradictions. So it is safe to assume that the Bible is not what its cracked up to be.

That argument has been made and refuted a long time ago. Saying "It is safe to assume the Bible is not what its[sic] cracked up to be" is retarded and shows your ignorance of the studies done concerning so-called "contradictions".
Those "contradictions" do not exist. They were placed there during translations from original texts. This occured because, while the monks copying the texts were devout and extremely devoted to their work, they were translating one very strange language into a language that has nothing to do with it. Some errors are expected, but they are not "contradictions".

Between Psalm and Jeremiah; Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Corinthians; Psalms and Isaiah: Who wrote those books? What time periods were they written in? Do you even know? No? Then why are you HERE talking smack about a book YOU DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT instead of actually researching it? You're biased. You're prejudiced. You haven't done a lick of study on the authority and content of the Bible, and yet you just quote some out-of-context verses from differing authors in differing sections. You can nitpick all you like, but those people who continue to try and find things "wrong" with the Bible continuously fail and are proven to be biased people ignorant of the Bible's real content and meaning.

I'm getting tired of you kids pushing every angle, getting beaten at your own bullshit and trying a new tactic. The discussion on the veracity and content of the Bible is over, since nobody who takes up the argument against it seems to have their shit straight at all. Maybe some time in the future there will be a person with the knowledge and correct approach to this discussion, but as for this thread, I'm out of it.

[UberSkippy]

Quite simply put the Bible is a book of parables. To believe them to be fact is simply foolish. To believe them to be 100% false is also foolish.

Noah's arc is a parable. Collect two of every animal, one male, one female and putting them on a boat is impossible. However, there was a great flood which likely inspired the story. So there is some truth to the story but at face value it's a load.

The Bible is one of the most translated books in history. And the original translation of the New Testament was at the time admitted to be dodgy. Monarchs, Emeperors, Biships, Cardinals and other folks of power have made alterations to the Bible to fit their particular needs. In many cases its one or two words here or there but over time that adds up to a LOT of changes.

So, if you take the fact that the original translation was perhaps a bit off, add a few hundred more translations onto that, add the twists and turns of the egomaniacs you end up with the Bible. It's mostly parables and superstitions that can't be proven but can't be disproven because 1. they're to some extent based in fact or 2. there's no way to determine what did or did not happen.

Did Moses carve the 10 commandments in stone on top of a mountain? Perhaps. Did God tell him what to write? Who knows, maybe God did, maybe Moses was sucking a tab and heard shit.

Was the Red Sea ever parted? Not bloody likely.

Did Jesus feed 5,000 from a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread? Probably not. Or if he did EVERYONE went home hungry that day.

[Jiraffe]

Between Psalm and Jeremiah; Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Corinthians; Psalms and Isaiah: Who wrote those books? What time periods were they written in? Do you even know? No? Then why are you HERE talking smack about a book YOU DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT instead of actually researching it? You're biased. You're prejudiced. You haven't done a lick of study on the authority and content of the Bible, and yet you just quote some out-of-context verses from differing authors in differing sections. You can nitpick all you like, but those people who continue to try and find things "wrong" with the Bible continuously fail and are proven to be biased people ignorant of the Bible's real content and meaning.
Psalms-King David partly and other Jewish figures in part. Tracing its roots is difficult but not impossible.
Jeremiah-Hmm here's a toughy. Jeremiah a priest of Anathoth. The first writings can be traced to 628 B.C.E. however many scholars still doubt its origin.
Proverbs-King Solomon
Ecclestiastes-Possibly Solomon but new research suggests an unnamed man of wealthy origin.
Corinthians-Paul, a man from Ephesus
Isaiah- This is my favorite. It is the William Shakespeare of the Bible. Numerous Isaiah's wrote this wonderful book.

I'd find direct dates and time for you but as stated in my little blurb about Jeremiah scholars are constantly debating origins. And I am insulted you thought I posted without doing my research. One question why is it whenever the whole "contradictions" issue is brought up you hard core Christians get all squirmy and pissed? Then after that refuse to debate any more? :confused: Its a debate zeto not a personal attack. As the Bible states, "Take ALL things in Moderation" that means religon too.:thumbsup:

[teh anarchist]

All you people need to realize that when a person believes something with their soul, you're not going to be able to change them with words you use over the interwebnets. You can believe what you want to believe, no one can tell you what to believe, you just believe what you want to based on what you know, or you choose not to believe at all.

Do research on the facts, figure out what you believe for yourself, and stop trying to make others believe the same as you do.

[OmegaZeto]

All you people need to realize that when a person believes something with their soul, you're not going to be able to change them with words you use over the interwebnets. You can believe what you want to believe, no one can tell you what to believe, you just believe what you want to based on what you know, or you choose not to believe at all.

Do research on the facts, figure out what you believe for yourself, and stop trying to make others believe the same as you do.

I wish you'd been there to say that a few days ago on Fark.com. So much as mention that you're both a scientific intellectual and a believer in Creation, and EVERYBODY wants to know exactly what you believe, under the pretense of curiosity. Of course, you'd have to be a fool to believe they wouldn't rip you apart, make fun of anything they can get a grip on, and ignore common sense and decency to do it. It's Fark, what else is expected of those people?

[Jiraffe]

While here I try to remain decent but debate none the less Zeto. I wish you understood that. In a debate it isn't about being wrong or right it is presenting a point and defending that against another point. I do not expect you to believe what I believe I was presenting my facts for my life. I do not care if you rip up my religon. I can do it for you if you like. Ripping anything apart is easily done. Do not take things so serious Zeto.

[OmegaZeto]

Do not take things so serious Zeto.

NEVER assume you have any idea how seriously I'm taking any particular discussion. Such assumption is inherently flawed due to my unique viewpoint and mentality, and I encourage you to instead find a more accurate encouragement. Of course, by indicating that I don't take threads like these so seriously (by leaving the discussion), I expect those of at least moderate intelligence to understand the message. Of course, there are always those who ignore those indications and continue to argue long after I've left.
Between those two, who would be taking things "too seriously"?

[Jiraffe]

Whatever. I came in after I did research and was hoping to have a debate. For fun. So go ahead and be right. "You don't take things serious, everything you say is right" so on and so forth.

[OmegaZeto]

Whatever. I came in after I did research and was hoping to have a debate. For fun. So go ahead and be right. "You don't take things serious, everything you say is right" so on and so forth.
No no, I must INSIST that YOU be right. That way you can tell all your friends about it at Mrs. Sangster's class tomorrow during Juice and Cookies time.


*soooooo not serious, just figured i'd make it easier for him to tell*

[Jiraffe]

Cute. Fine. We'll play. Debate style only. Refrain from flaming. Present evidence. And don't be an asshole about it. Agreed?

[OmegaZeto]

Cute. Fine. We'll play. Debate style only. Refrain from flaming. Present evidence. And don't be an asshole about it. Agreed?

PLAY? But.. BUT... THE INTERNETS IS SERIOUS STUFF!1111

Seriously though, there's no way I'm entering this discussion again. Youu've proven to me beyond any doubt that you:
1. Take this shit too seriously.
2. Contradict yourself as a matter of course.
3. Are a hypocrite and a liar.

I don't readily enter into discussions with that sort of folk, knowing how they are. No more discussy for you until you shape up.

[Jiraffe]

Maybe we should stop worrying about how the fuck we got here and start worrying about why the fuck we are here! If we let such simplistic (and superstitous) teachings govern our every move we will not learn anything.

I believe our purpose is knowledge of what is. Not of what was. While it is true that history repeats its self and we learn from the past I think of it this way,(especially when it comes to our origin), if its happend before it will happen again THEN we can understand it. Until then concern yourself with the here and now. Explore the mystery of life that is you and your loved ones. Not with all these unproven theories.
I'm sorry but I have trouble believeing a bible that contradicts its self numerous times. For instance: (All texts taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.)

Psalm 145:9-The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works
while Jeremiah 13:14 states-And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them

Good to all? Or just a few?

Matthew 1:16-And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
while Luke 3:23 states-And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

So Joseph had two fathers?

Proverbs4:7-Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Ecclestiasties1:18-For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Corrinthians 1 1:19-For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent

So is wisdom good or bad?

Psalm 92:12-The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree

Isaiah 57:1-The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart

So do the righteous live or die?

And these are but a few of the contradictions. So it is safe to assume that the Bible is not what its cracked up to be.
Psalms-King David partly and other Jewish figures in part. Tracing its roots is difficult but not impossible.
Jeremiah-Hmm here's a toughy. Jeremiah a priest of Anathoth. The first writings can be traced to 628 B.C.E. however many scholars still doubt its origin.
Proverbs-King Solomon
Ecclestiastes-Possibly Solomon but new research suggests an unnamed man of wealthy origin.
Corinthians-Paul, a man from Ephesus
Isaiah- This is my favorite. It is the William Shakespeare of the Bible. Numerous Isaiah's wrote this wonderful book.

I'd find direct dates and time for you but as stated in my little blurb about Jeremiah scholars are constantly debating origins. And I am insulted you thought I posted without doing my research. One question why is it whenever the whole "contradictions" issue is brought up you hard core Christians get all squirmy and pissed? Then after that refuse to debate any more?

That is all I said on topic. Where do I contradict myself? Please point it out to me.

[RetArt]

OmegaZeto. First of all. A person who shouts out that he is a "scientific intellect" and at the same time says that " i believe in creatonism" is quite a contradiction himself.
We tried to evoke a normal, intellect discussion, but you kept sticking to words and turning for insults, instead of truly discussing, thinking and posting. I know my views are mine, and that you do not need to believe in them. But stil I have the right to express myself, and state what I believe.
It saddens me that you cannot reply to any concrete issue, you keep sticking to the atomistic details.

Yes, I am an agnostic, so therefore I cannot tell how you true-believers think. I would have liked to know. Maybe someone with coherent, actual intelligence, and ability to a normal discussion will tell me that.

This thread (which has gotten off track by a mile) reminds me of twelve year-olds.

[OmegaZeto]

I can't find my exit-post, so I think somebody deleted it. Smooth move, ex-lax.
I'll re-post it anyway.

I'm out of this thread, because you have a problem. You have long since stopped just shooting the shit, and have been taking it too seriously, even though you're on the fucking internet and it doesn't mean SHIT. I'm taking my toys and leaving this playground. If you've got anything close to a decent level of maturity, you'll accept the fact that I don't want to play with you any more and go find someone else to bitch at. I'm gone.
No more baiting. No goading. No parthean insults. Just out.

[Spikey]

wow
got more outcome than i expected

[Jessica43999]

tl;dr - except the first post.

I really don't know - but, if i had to choose one of the "popular beliefe" I'd pick evolution... but...

When you think about it - do human's really belong here on earth? Look how we mess up everything. Like, we destroy nature, pollution, roadways, nukes, etc, etc. Does any other animal destroy the planet the way humans do? -

Maybe we're like the Austrailia of some alien civilization. The Europeans sent people to Australia instead of going to jail right? ... so... - think about it!

Maybe some alien came and mated with a monkey or something 8-)

[Broken]

Ya'll light some candles, incense, herb and STFU. Bickering bible quotes, tit for tat bullshit; is on par with, “Does Bush look like a monkey?" Yes, but less hairy in most places~Pfft. Life hardly proves there is a god.

[Siryus]

Pfffft! All of you are wrong, everone knows The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the worldhttp://www.venganza.org/. Here I give you a artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b7/Siryus/him2.jpg

[dustinzgirl]

My parents always told me they found me under a rock...



My parents said that too! And that if I was bad, they would sell me to the gyspies.....ah, good old times....

Anyhoo,

The creation of man, like the creation of the universe, is probably none of our damn business. If it were, we would already have known about it.

[curliestalicia]

Well I suppose I'll give it a go..

I'll speak about a little something of which I noticed while reading through the thread..

First though, I guess I should open properly and say yeah I believe that humans were created and that science is merely the way in which we use trial and error to understand the world around us.

Is wisdom good or bad..that one stuck out for me (thanks Jiraffe)

Actually the answer is wisdom is both good and bad..hmm see any parallels? The simple explination of the good things one recieves from wisdom is understanding, and from that understanding comes the pain of knowing better or disilluisonment with human nature.

If you fall down and scrape your knees the imediate reaction as a child is to cry..when you grow up usually by now you no longer cry. The changes come about from life experience which is gained through wisdom..the good thing: you learn that things hurt sometimes, but the little things are no biggie. The bad thing: you learn that if you show weakness in front of others that you will suffer ridicule, and in that process an innocence is lost.

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I do not think or wonder or explore my world..Would be a rather closed view really if we were given a brain and not supposed to make use of such a fantastic and crippling organ.

And one thing is for sure I don't think I could give up my only child to give others who are hateful a chance at realzing what eternal happiness is like. That is how loving I should be. Unfortunately I am just not that good.

[Jiraffe]

Well I suppose I'll give it a go..

I'll speak about a little something of which I noticed while reading through the thread..

First though, I guess I should open properly and say yeah I believe that humans were created and that science is merely the way in which we use trial and error to understand the world around us.

Is wisdom good or bad..that one stuck out for me (thanks Jiraffe)

Actually the answer is wisdom is both good and bad..hmm see any parallels? The simple explination of the good things one recieves from wisdom is understanding, and from that understanding comes the pain of knowing better or disilluisonment with human nature.

If you fall down and scrape your knees the imediate reaction as a child is to cry..when you grow up usually by now you no longer cry. The changes come about from life experience which is gained through wisdom..the good thing: you learn that things hurt sometimes, but the little things are no biggie. The bad thing: you learn that if you show weakness in front of others that you will suffer ridicule, and in that process an innocence is lost.

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I do not think or wonder or explore my world..Would be a rather closed view really if we were given a brain and not supposed to make use of such a fantastic and crippling organ.

And one thing is for sure I don't think I could give up my only child to give others who are hateful a chance at realzing what eternal happiness is like. That is how loving I should be. Unfortunately I am just not that good.

That was beautiful. Thank you for being rational and explaining a point to me rather then flipping out curlie. Rep up!:)

[junglizm]

Prove that the book is fiction, please. No standalone claim that "it is fiction" will do unless you back it up with facts, man. And don't gimme that "prove it ISN'T fiction" bullcrap, because I'm only telling you to prove it IS fiction so that you actually go do some research on the authenticity and veracity of the New Testament, instead of just cowtowing and going with the mainstream idea of a fictional Bible.
You really shouldn’t ask people to empirically prove things that you can neither prove nor disprove yourself. But to approach your challenge logically, disbelief would be THE default stance, not belief. NO child was ever born with the knowledge of a creator, much less a Judeo-Christian “god.” People must be taught such concepts to believe them, however, any child can observe reality without any outside interaction.

So with that in mind, the burden of proof is on the person making the claims in contrast of what is readily observable, a la reality, not the person using realistic, rational evidence to form their views.

For example, anyone that knows what defines the color green will tell you that grass is certainly green. If someone comes along and says that grass is in fact red, the burden of proof would be on them to disprove the claims of everyone else. This is because grass is observably green; one uses realistic evidence to form this opinion.

Remember, Christians don't believe the Bible is fiction AT ALL, so unless you can prove it is, you've got nothing to stand on.You’re either lying or over generalizing here. Not all Christian are fundamentalists; in fact, there are conservative, moderate and liberal factions inside this religion. Some Christians believe every single passage of the bible is a literal account of the events it chronicles, others believe that some events were factual while others are parables or metaphors, and still others believe that the bible is mostly fictional; a book written to edify the religion and teach morals through metaphorical stories.

When you made broad base generalizations with no supporting evidence, you only highlight your bias, and ensure that you "have nothing to stand on."


Dinosaur Fossils prove only that the process of fossilization occurs. Nothing more. We have no concrete proof AT ALL of the age of these fossils. All the dating methods we have are mere guesswork; no matter how much "faith" the scientists have in their guesses.
You’re either flat out lying, ignorant of scientific procedures or just skewing facts to fit your slant.

Radiocarbon dating is accurate within a few million years for older dates, and a few thousand for newer dates. Period.

While it is true that the accuracy of carbon dating was inaccurate in the past, recent methods have improved accuracy to very respectable levels. Time and time again scientists try to prove their old observations wrong, and while older dates have changed a bit, younger dates are consistent and considered to be very accurate.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.
There is also empirical evidence for the accuracy of Carbon dating. Of course, some Christians point to this bit of evidence when it suits them, but carbon dating magically becomes a “best guess” when dealing with evolution or the dinosaur era. :rolleyes:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.
Of course this is all very basic chemistry; the fact that you’re ignorant of such information only underscores the ridiculously fallacious nature of your “factual” assertions.

Biblical accounts are at most 4000 years old, and the Christian myth of a 'young Earth' is nothing more than some king making a list of who beget who, beget who, beget who, beget who, beget who, et al. If you choose to believe this error-prone, and flat out fallacious dating convention, over proven and observable science, then you really have "no leg to stand on" in a rational, factually based debate.

The very fact that we can prove the existence of fossils that predate biblical times lends credibility to the fact that the bible isn’t as factual as some might beLIEve. In fact, if such foundations of biblical teachings are incorrect, which they most certainly are, it only sets the stage for scrutiny and skepticism of other so-called biblical and dogmatic “facts.”


Don't even bother posting if you're not going to seperate your bullshit opinion from facts.You make such bold statements, but fail to offer any proof to your claims. Hypocritical much?

The New Testament is about not "some guy" but THE GUY, allegedly the only human being ever born who is utterly "sin-free" due to the fact that he was fathered by God's Holy Spirit, rather than a human man, which the Bible makes clear is the source of "original sin".
Actually, you’re wrong. ‘Original Sin” describes the sin man supposedly inherited because of Adam and Eve’s actions; it is NOT because we aren’t born of “god’s divine something or other.”


If Jesus was fathered by God Himself, then any questions regarding his ability to bend the fabric of reality at will is no longer an issue. I love it when logic goes in circles! I’m sorry, but you're going to have to stop begging the question if you intend to make a valid point in this debate.


No wonder, considering you're the self-proclaimed "Prophet of Stupidity". I'll remember to just ignore your bullcrap from now on, rather than assuming you're here to have a discussion containing any intellect or fact.
I find the fact that you mention intellect in this thread ironic, give that your “intelligent” arguments thus far have amounted to nothing more than huge departures from logic, rationalizations, thinly veiled flames and pseudo-intellectual opinions asserted as fact. How very droll. Please learn to say more than "I'm right and you're wrong" before you claim your arguments to be intelligent.

I’d also like to take a moment to remind you why you were banned last time, and to remind you that any further flames, however disguised they may be, will result in punishment. If you can’t make valid, intelligent arguments without constantly resulting to this kind of garbage, your Fringe Theory and Issue forum privileges can be removed… or your account banned. Again.

I would also like to note that you display one hell of a “Christian” attitude and demeanor. http://justinb.us/images/emote/waycool.gif


Wrong. One wrong assumption after another
You condem RetArt for making asumptions, yet do so yourself in the following quotes. This is the second or third time you've used hypocritical means to rationalize your assertions as "fact."


1. Yes, supposedly, God removed a single rib from Adam's body and created woman from it. Not such a big deal, considering he spent the days before that BRINGING AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE. What’s this? The great Omega Zeto is using one of those dreaded assumptions he condemned earlier. Surely this cannot be. :rolleyes:

You're using circular logic in an attempt to prove your point, and it's just not going to work. In case you weren’t aware of this, circular logic is a form of logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Fallacy). You discredit yourself with your own statements.

2. There was no "apple" that they ate that got them "sent off". There was "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", which Eve and Adam did eat "the fruit of". This caused them to gain the knowledge of good and EVIL, therefore seperating their glorified souls from the immediate presence of God. This caused several changes to the nature of the Universe itself, and so God was forced to remove the pair from Eden and into "the real world". Again your statements defeat their purpose. While knowledge of the exact fruit eaten is ambiguous, many Christians believe that the forbidden fruit was, in fact, the apple.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene.htm - See the table at the bottom of the page.

3. It is NOT metaphor. Those things, in the original language, use specific, literal words where specific, literal meanings were implied, and metaphors where metaphors were implied. If you actually knew a damned thing about the Bible you'd already know that, but you're just another guy ignorant of what he is bashing, trying to look smart without having your facts straight.Yet again your statements are misleading and generalized. You’re referring only to fundamentalists, not all Christians, and you offer no evidence for your claims. Congratulations on doing exactly what you accused RetArt of doing.

You're just voicing your opinion of a record you don't know SHIT about, without facts to back you up. The funny thing about this quote is that it would work perfect in this context had it been posted by RetArt.

Christmas only became a celebration of "Jesus's Birth" because of modern-day ignorant Christians.
This is incorrect. Christmas was moved to Dec 25th during the fourth century to give Christians an alternative to celebrating the Pagan holiday surrounding the winter solstice. It had nothing to do with the “ignorance of modern Christians.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm
Dating December 25 as the birthday of Jesus, is known to have gained popularity only by the mid-fourth century in order that Christians could have an alternative to a popular pagan festival at this time of year. December 25 was the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar, and it was on that day that Mithraism, a chief rival to Christianity, celebrated the birth of the god, Mithra. It is unlikely that we shall ever know exactly when Jesus was born (scholars estimate sometime between 12 and 4 B.C.) or the real circumstances surrounding his nativity. We can, however, attempt to separate historical fact from literary fiction.
Again and again you prove that you’re less than knowledgeable about your own religion, while flaming others for their supposed ignorance. Hypocrisy++

The time of Jesus's birth is though to me more around mid-late October. This is incorrect. Theologians are pretty unanimous in their belief that Jesus was born sometime between the month of March and early November. That’s a 7 month span, which in no way translates to “mid-late October.” There simply isn’t enough contextual evidence to deduce the exact birth month. Anyone positively asserting that October is the exact birth month is either lying or guessing.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#month

Note that I'm only being pedantic about this particular quote since you've attempted to take the same stance throughout this thread.
DONT POST YOUR BULLSHIT IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I’m quoting this in hopes that you heed your own advice.


The Bible DOES state that [the earth is flat]. Moron.
This is also incorrect. The bible does not reference a flat earth even once. It does, however, reference a spherical Earth, or ‘body’ many times. The idea of a flat earth came much, much later in history.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

You have failed to represent yourself and argue the point without lapsing into more "opinion", horrible mistakes concerning the material in quesiton (The Holy Bible), and bullshit…

Come back when you don't suck so bad, and we might have a real discussion. Until then, how about you READ, THINK, and NOT POST HERE.
http://justinb.us/images/macro/irony-alert.gif

Oh man, if there was ever a post on WTF to match the text book definition of irony this would be it.

[junglizm]

That argument has been made and refuted a long time ago. Saying "It is safe to assume the Bible is not what its[sic] cracked up to be" is retarded and shows your ignorance of the studies done concerning so-called "contradictions".
Those "contradictions" do not exist. They were placed there during translations from original texts. This occured because, while the monks copying the texts were devout and extremely devoted to their work, they were translating one very strange language into a language that has nothing to do with it. Some errors are expected, but they are not "contradictions".
To say that dissenting accounts are not contradictions is a ridiculous rationalization. The origin of such contradictions is of little significance; the fact that the book Christians see as infallible and empirically factual has contradictions speaks for itself. It goes to show that the “veracity” and “accuracy” of the bible are indeed questionable, provided you approach the book from a logical standpoint. The problem is religion requires illogical thinking, so most believers never read that far into it.

If you knew anything of theology, you’d know that many the biblical texts were revised and rewritten many times before the bible was even compiled. Even after the Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_canon) (link incase you’re not aware) was finalized, and the books and order of the bible had been “written in stone” the books continued to be revised. And before you say that these were mere corrections to the translations, I suggest you do some research.

Additionally, many books were left out for being too unbelievable and comparable to folk lore. These were texts written in the same ways, for the same purposes as the books of the bible. What you seem to lack an understanding of, is that all of these texts were written for one purpose – the edification of the Christian religion. Nothing more.

The entire point is, a factual account would speak for itself and not need multiple revisions to be believable. This alone fuels the skepticism of non-believers and liberal and moderate Christians.





Now let’s look at some of the problems/lies/fallacies surrounding biblical creation and subsequent myths. Creationists have “no leg to stand on” with these.

The bible says that plants were created on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes. All plant life would have died out before the creation of the sun on the fourth day.

Light was created on the first day, before anything was created to emit it. The sun and stars were created on the fourth day.

God spent a tremendous amount of effort creating the Earth and sun, but as an afterthought, created hundreds of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars. This is an illogical action for such a “perfect being.”

Talking snakes are a myth.

Homo sapiens are in no way modeled after a perfect being. Not even close.

Samson had magic hair that gave him super human strength.

The Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years, when the trip took only 10-12 days. There is also a gross lack of archeological evidence of any such 40 day journey.

Hubble images show the continuous evolution of galaxies.

The CMB (core-mantle boundary) layer.

The slightly elliptical orbit of the earth. If God exists and is perfect, then why did he create a slightly imperfect Earth?

The fact that humans and some primates share genetic codes that are 90% + similar.

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Carbon dating.

The evolution and adaptation of viruses to their host and/or environment.

Pygmy pigs and elephants that evolved into smaller beings after being trapped on islands after the ice age.
Fossil evidence

No evidence in Earth’s geological record for a global flood.

The fact that the bible claims there was a time when giant people lived, even though there are no skeletons or fossilized remains of them.

Noah’s ark supposedly housed millions of species.

[Easty]

And the award for LONGEST FUCKING POST EVER goes to...

Jung!

Come on down and take a bow, then take a nap, you really need one.

[MsChevyKat]

I find the theory of Zecharia Sitchin interesting.

His theory is based on his interpratation of Sumerian religious texts.

Basicly,he says that a race from another planet came here to exploit the natural recources of this planet: The mining of gold in particular.

He believes that these beings geneticly engeneered the primitive hominids by mixing their own genes with them to make a being intellegent enough to do the hard work for them.

I'm not saying that this is true or not true...just that it's an interesting theory.

[screwy]

The origin of life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

[junglizm]

The origin of life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
Blind pupils. -- As long as a man knows very well the strength and weaknesses of his teaching, his art, his religion, its power is still slight. The pupil and apostle who, blinded by the authority of the master and by the piety he feels toward him, pays no attention to the weaknesses of a teaching, a religion, and soon usually has for that reason more power than the master. The influence of a man has never yet grown great without his blind pupils. To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former. (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm)
--From Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.122, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

[dustinzgirl]

Being that I am ultimately a more spiritual person than a logical person, I have to say bravo to Jung for posting all of that. Shit dude, Im tired just reading it! Christ its 8th grade science all over again! LOL

Now, for the riddle of Empericus or whatever the fuck his name is, God did not create evil. God is able to stop evil, however, that entire theory negates the fact that God, in his unfailing wisdom, has given Mankind free will. The freedom to do great evils and even greater good. It is a personal choice to do evil, God is an overseer and a creator, but He does not and will not make our choices for us.

I would address more of your linear logic, but Im to tired and its too early. Mabye later. I have an answer for everything, which either makes me very dangerously smart or very dangerously stupid.

As for the viability of the bible, were any of you there when it was written? NO. and I would bet that like me, most of us have only read the King James version, and not the original version (from a time when priests, ven Catholics, performed spells of "good" and "black" magics). Now, since none of us were here when it was written, we can only surmise that it was a book written as a guideline, as much as L. Ron Hubbards Diarrheatics was. You can not possibly discount the bible as not being real any more than one can discount the Tantra, the Koran ect. These are real books that real people read and real people believe in. You can not possibly say that the reality of dinasaurs automatically discounts the possible reality of Genesis, since it states in teh bible that Cain, son of Adam, brought a wife from the land of Nod (believed to be africa, where once there was a lush and fertile land), this makes several points. The first and most important being that Adam and his kin were not the first of mankind, however they were the most blessed and the first of what we so call "modern" man. Not to mention the fact that the time of modern man and the time of dinosaurs exists on a completely different timeline. In conclusion, early man (neanderthal or whatever the fuck you want to call it) existed in the land of Nod, while the man that we are today existed near Eden (which I think was really early man in Europe). Now we have two seperate kinds of man, living thousands of miles from one another, who came together by the folley of one, long after the dinosaurs became extinct. Man and dinosaurs did not live in the same timeline. The bible is interpretive, kittens, not literal in most cases. Unless you were there, you can not say one way or the other.

PS JUNG: I'll get to you later, but most of your logic is on track, if colored. XOXOXO lol.

[FlipTheState]

Goddamn Jung.... you think you could take it a little easier on them next time and leave some for the rest of us??

Don't forget that while God was spending "8 Days" creating the earth, about 4 billion years actually passed... sheesh...NO WONDER HE WAS TIRED!!! :D

The question about God and the originations of "evil" have interested me for years. Let's look at this from a within a Biblical framework, shall we?

God did not create evil, are we agreed? Because, if he did, well that's about the lowest form of "I don't give a fuck about you" that a God could hand out to his people.
Who is the - for lack of a better term - "God" of evil? Who is the epitome of evil? Who represents evil in it's purest, unadulterated form within the Christian dichotomy? Satan.

Now, who IS Satan? Wasn't he an ANGEL before God cast him out of the Kingdom of Heaven? Ahh..yes, he was the Angel Lucifer, the most beautiful and powerful of angels who, in his arrogance and jealousy, thought to challenge God himself. So if there was no Satan (Prince of Darkness, et al) before Lucifer got himself cast from heaven, then arguably there was no 'evil' before this point, correct?

Well...arrogance and jealousy? Well THOSE certainly aren't angelic traits, now are they? Especially if arrogance and jealousy are the work of the devil...whom we know hasn't started his second career yet because he's still Lucifer and not Satan....

So where did these 'evil' character traits come from? How did they manifest? If Satan is the King of Evil, but he didn't exist yet, then how is it that God's angels were feeling a little....well...evil?

Just something I've often wondered.

[dustinzgirl]

Evil began before mankind. If you read your bible, you would know that. Anyways, carry on.

[screwy]

Read the Bible? No.

[junglizm]

You can not possibly discount the bible as not being real any more than one can discount the Tantra, the Koran ect. These are real books that real people read and real people believe in.
It seems you’ve missed the point. Nobody is challenging the existence of the bible; it is a real book; it is tangible; and, I could go buy one right now if I chose to do so. What people question is the accuracy of the text contained in the bible.

You can not possibly say that the reality of dinasaurs automatically discounts the possible reality of Genesis…
You’re right, the existence of dinosaurs doesn’t empirically disprove the bible… but I don’t believe I said that in the first place. What it does do, is make a case for inaccuracies and/or mythical text in the bible, as well set the stage for further scrutiny and skepticism of the rest of the bible. If the bible is wrong on some things, it’s only logical to assume that there are more inaccuracies.

Whatever speculations you might make, the fact is, the bible makes no reference to dinosaurs. None. Yet we know they existed, and know that they pre-dated any ancestors to Homo sapiens. There is a huge gap between observable facts and religious conjecture here.

Another thing it does is highlight the irrigational non-thinking that so many Christians participate in. Some Christians use the absence of biblical reference to dinosaurs as an arguing point against old earth and evolution by rationalizing that anything not in the bible is a lie, human mistake or test put in place by god. This is thinking worthy of mocking.




The first and most important being that Adam and his kin were not the first of mankind, however they were the most blessed and the first of what we so call "modern" man. Not to mention the fact that the time of modern man and the time of dinosaurs exists on a completely different timeline. In conclusion, early man (neanderthal or whatever the fuck you want to call it) existed in the land of Nod, while the man that we are today existed near Eden (which I think was really early man in Europe). Now we have two seperate kinds of man, living thousands of miles from one another, who came together by the folley of one, long after the dinosaurs became extinct. Man and dinosaurs did not live in the same timeline.I’ve never seen any evidence to these claims. Perhaps you could link me to some supporting evidence?God did not create evil.
God supposedly created the environment to spawn evil though, which is to say that his creations aren't perfect.

Now, for the riddle of Empericus or whatever the fuck his name is, God did not create evil. God is able to stop evil, however, that entire theory negates the fact that God, in his unfailing wisdom, has given Mankind free will. The freedom to do great evils and even greater good. It is a personal choice to do evil, God is an overseer and a creator, but He does not and will not make our choices for us.
If god's wisdom is unfailing, why did he allow an angel, which is not mankind, to become evil then? There is no logical explanation for that, unless you just think god, being all-knowing and all, foresaw his coming boredom after creation and decided to create an arch enemy to pass the time.


Evil began before mankind. If you read your bible, you would know that. Anyways, carry on.
Which is pretty much what he just said... The existence of evil is still a paradox though.

[FlipTheState]

Evil began before mankind. If you read your bible, you would know that. Anyways, carry on.

I did know that...That question had nothing to do with the timing of man's existence. If you would have read my post you would know that ;)
The idea that Satan existed in his current form prior to the story of Adam and Eve already shows that evil existed before man...however, that was not the point of my argument.

Here's my point:


Satan is the epitome of evil
God did not create 'evil'
God DID create Satan


Sooooo.... if God did not create evil, then where did the angel Lucifer get all those nasty un-angel-like characteristics? It's got nothing to do with 'man'..

[Jack]

There has never been a point in debating organized religion with rational thought. You delve too deep.

[dustinzgirl]

God created the right to make a choice. You free thinkers would rather it be the other way around? No choices? We just all sang happy songs all day? No pre-marital sex? I mean, you ask for a world of freedom, and bitch that it was given to you. This is the price of freedom of choice. People will make evil, cruel and bad choices.

You all want someone to blame. You know what, fuck you. Look at yourselves. What do you guys do to make the world a better place? Blame the creator for it being fucked up? Im a little fucked up I don't blame my parents.

DO you see the point I am trying to make here? You are trying to make me back down with logic, but logic does not rule all. there is no logical definition of good or evil, only mankinds perception of it as an imesureable feeling. You all are barking up the wrong tree.


The other option would have been for god to create us in the vision of angels, which would mean that while we could make the choice between good or evil, we would always, always know that God existed. We would never learn for ourselves. Never kiss a baby, or have sex to make that baby. Never fight with your parents as a teen and never get too drunk and puke on the carpet. Never hold hands with someone, never hug your grandma. We would be asexual, and ignorant of all the being a human means, deep down inside you, beyond the logic.

We would have no freedom of choice or thought.

[FlipTheState]

The second half of your post was better than the first half, DG.

Look, I'm a spiritual person even if I'm not as religious as some others... but don't get all fired up about questions! If you're telling us that we have the right to choose, to question, to ask...then doesn't that inevitably entail the right to question not only the validity of the framework but also the validity of the entire construct?? How can you tell us that we have the freedom to choose, but then get pissed off when we try to rationalize our questions outside the bounds of religion?
Allowing the freedom to choose means allowing for the possibility that the ultimate choice may even be outside the realm of what the originator of that choice thought possible...i.e. our 'choice' may be to outright question the very existence of the person who may or may not have given us the ability to choose in the first place....

I, for one, do not expect to argue logically with you in order to disprove your beliefs. I'm not arguing to dismantle your beliefs nor am I questioning your degree of commitment. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and I believe strongly in the concept of allowing you to believe whatever the hell you want to believe regardless of what I think of it.
Similarly, I do not care to argue creationism with a practising devoted Christian...I mean, at the end of the day it's just not going to go anywhere.
I would also ask you to re-read my post, I'm quite sure it was far from accusatory or attacking. If your indignant response was not intended for me (I just assumed it was since we exchanged posts) then I'll just STFU.
However, ask questions because I am interested in understanding the believer's point of view....If we have questions about your doctrine or beliefs, and we are free to ask them...who, then, do we ask if not those of you who believe?

Either way...my point to you is that not every anti-religious comment is an attack on your personal relationship with God nor is it an attack on your personal beliefs. If you are taking them as such, and you subsequently feel compelled to defend them, then perhaps you should explore that for a moment. I have not seen a single religiously-themed post from you since I joined last year where you have presented yourself as fundamentalist, ultra-right wing conservative, black-Nike wearing, intolerant, or evangelical in nature. Why, then, would you assume that statements directed at such people include you?

I enjoy the opportunity to throw questions at Christians, and I enjoy more the Christian who can answer those questions without going high and to the right or getting all preachy or angry on me...

[dustinzgirl]

my responses are general and not direct. You is a term I use to tell everyone who is not me. LOL. There is way too much from you and jung for me to address, in short, you guys always have me at an end, which would by any logical standards mean that I am incorrect, however, I do not work soley on the basis of logic.

here, mabye this quote will explain me better:

Dostoevsky:

Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.

http://www.karelia.ru/~Dostoevsky/main_e.htm

And as for the creation of man, I believe in both evolution and creationism, which is what I thought I was saying. I think they are two seperate occurences on the same timeline.

[FlipTheState]

There are a LOT of things that science might never be able to fully explain...just as there are a LOT of things that religion may never be able to fully explain. Any theory or system that puts itself forward as having ALL of the answers to EVERYTHING is automatically suspect because we simply have not figured out how to reconcile science and religion... hell we're not even sure they can peacefully co-exist.

There are logical thinkers for whom religion holds few answers, and there are those who are able to work on faith in that there is something bigger than themselves guiding the universe and therefore do not consider small inconsistencies a matter of concern... after all, if it's that way then maybe it's just that way because it's supposed to be.

I know that I personally have seen/experienced enough to convince me that there is too much out there to completely discount ANYTHING. For example, in Iraq I was walking down a street and all of the sudden something didn't feel quite right...I stopped and turned around to check my surroundings. At the moment I stopped, a large chunk of rock wall exploded about 6 inches in front of me where a bullet had just got sent by express delivery. Wierd. Not a religious experience because I don't feel like God 'protected' me, not luck or random chance because I know I turned around because something didn't feel right. No explanation...just wierd.

Another experience from my own life: I'm 1/4 Japanese..my maternal grandmother was full-blooded, old school WWII era Japanese. The family is old old old. So obaachan (grandma) comes down to texas to visit the fam in San Antonio. Mom and Dad decide to take her sight seeing. Now, grandma has lived in the US for decades but still speaks like she's fresh of the boat. She doesn't know a lick about American history, especially any of the battles in Texas (she lived in AZ). So she steps into the Alamo and stops dead in her tracks. Little old lady looks around and asks my mom: "People died here, huh?...lots of people die here".... she turned right back around and wouldn't come within about 20 paces of the place...

Ok, so two stories just to point out that wierd stuff happens that can't be explained by either science OR religion...so why should we be forced to accept that either school of thought is the end-all be-all final word?

And that, DG, is what I think Dostoevsky meant.

[dustinzgirl]

Yes, so wht I am saying is that both sides are, in thier own way, correct. I'm just showing you guys the opposite of your opinions. doesnt mean I think I am infallible, just that there are two sides to every coin, and I am usually the only voice for the other side, at least the only voice that won't poor scripture down your throat and can converse in a manner without getting pissy about it. It just irks me that Jung is way better at this logic stuff than I.

[junglizm]

God created the right to make a choice. You free thinkers would rather it be the other way around? No choices? We just all sang happy songs all day? No pre-marital sex? I mean, you ask for a world of freedom, and bitch that it was given to you. This is the price of freedom of choice. People will make evil, cruel and bad choices.The whole thing is still a paradox. If god is all knowing, he would’ve known that evil was going to spring out of his creations. This begs the question of why god created a 'perfect being' with such a huge flaw, and why he allowed evil to be born in the first place? Everything in the bible points to god being ‘at war’ with evil, so why did he choose to create an environment capable of spawning his enemy? If god is truly all knowing he would’ve known the outcome of his action before he made them - this creates a paradox. Furthermore, if god is all knowing and all capable, why couldn’t he create a being capable of free thought, but incapable of evil? With all the omnipotence god gets attributed with, you’d think that would be a parlor trick.

That's kind of like if we were to drop off some nuclear weapons in a random place and then proclaim "it's OK, anyone that finds these has free will so all will be fine." I mean, did god have Subway for lunch that day or something?


You all want someone to blame. You know what, fuck you. Look at yourselves. What do you guys do to make the world a better place? Blame the creator for it being fucked up? Im a little fucked up I don't blame my parents. I can’t blame a creator I don’t believe in. All of my comments have been for the purpose of approaching the beliefs form the view point of the believer.

DO you see the point I am trying to make here? You are trying to make me back down with logic, but logic does not rule all. there is no logical definition of good or evil, only mankind's perception of it as an imesureable feeling. You all are barking up the wrong tree.That’s an easy out; a predefined all encompassing answer, and it doesn’t carry any weight in the real world. Whether or not there is a god remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain – there are only humans on Earth. Humankind's perception of good and evil is the only perception that matterss in reality.

[chas4]

just have someone like, die temporarily & then come back to life like when the doctors say CLEAR! & then ask them what they saw

[JLXC]

First, Jung you are my hero when it comes to religion, I have to spread out more rep though.

Next, the creation of man. I believe man did evolve from something, though there may have been "alien" influences. I'm not sure to be honest, but evolution goes a long way towards explaining it to me.

[HoneyImHome]

... and on the 73rd day Jung replied to Ometa's post...

and it was good. :tongue:

I'll have to take a couple of hours to read all this... my own belief on creation is basically, God sneezed and it made a big bang dripping slowly with this primordial snot and everything came from that. Well, not exactly like that but close. ;)

On the discussion of good and evil and why would an omnipotent being create such a "flawed" being - why not? I believe he did this so that we could "earn" our place with him. If there was no evil, there'd be no temptation, everyone would be let in. Also, I truly don't believe a life with no evil/bad would be fulfilling, if there's nothing negative, then what's to say something's a good thing? No basis of comparison would just breed mediocrity. It's up to man to use their gift of free-will to choose the right and wrong things in life.

Ok, this is where you'd probably say, if God is omnipotent, he could have just created man to be good all the time and happy. Here, is where I lean to the bible, even if it's not acceptable, it's a good illustration of what would happen.

I think God just wanted us to prove our own worthiness.

[FlipTheState]

I like the thought that God wanted people to earn their way into heaven...unfortunately, why, then, did he interfere in the affairs of men so much (Old Testament) or send his 'only begotten Son' to die for people's sins (New Testament)? Not being argumentative, just trying to take the conversation one step further.

Jung: My point about good vs. evil wasn't that God created evil...in fact, (re-read it) it fully supports the existence of evil independent of God.
God 'creating' evil doesn't hold water very long (see opening paragraph), and giving Satan the position of "creator of evil" doesn't hold either (see previous post).

So, my thought is that - let's say that God exists - where did Lucifer get his 'evil' disposition? To say that God gave it to him leaves the door open for the argument that God purposefully subjected his own angels to evil... not something a loving God would do, in my opinion, which invalidates the 'loving God' theory.

Either way, I won't argue for or against God... mostly because I don't definatively know one way or the other. I just like to play - for lack of a better term - Devil's Advocate.

[HoneyImHome]

I suppose he interfered in the time before the bible because at that point there were no known rules (i.e. Ten Commandments, bible). He had to start first by making his presence known to a few people he felt would be able to carry on his message. Anyway, up until the bible itself there was no way to spread his will I suppose.

Oh, and as far as giving of his own son, I'd just say he wasn't pleased with the way mankind was handling it so that was his way to deal? I really don't know. I'm not on a real "speaking" level with Him. I don't honestly think it's up to me to try to explain the rationale of a God with all his omnipotence in human terms of "logic".

But, put it on a human level and you could see why someone would do certain things such as what you mentioned above to "help" or give some guidance to a favorite person during their own trials and turmoils if you could. He makes the rules, if He wants to "cheat" a bit, then who are we to stop Him? It's His game and His toys.

[RageAgainst]

If God created Adam and Eva, and then they had children, how did the children reproduce, if not the brothers banging their sisters?

Way to go, Bible.

[dustinzgirl]

If God created Adam and Eva, and then they had children, how did the children reproduce, if not the brothers banging their sisters?

Way to go, Bible.

The land of nod. if you do not read the bible and are not familiar with biblical history, then please keep your comments aside. Jung and I may not agree on many things, but at least he knows his shit.

[Lonely_Person]

it all depends on your beliefs and religion

[JLXC]

The land of nod. if you do not read the bible and are not familiar with biblical history, then please keep your comments aside. Jung and I may not agree on many things, but at least he knows his shit.


WHAT? I can't let this go. You can't have it every way and you can't make sense of it.

God created Adam and Eve. They were the first two people EVER. Then they have two boys... who marry some people from the land of Nod? What? Where? How? Where does reason enter into this?

[junglizm]

it all depends on your beliefs and religion
How fucking profound! I wonder why nobody was smart enough to say that 72 posts ago? We could have saved a whole lot of typing!

[Zickddot]

Jung, I'd have to say I agree with you. The Flying Spagetti Monster created us. He's invisible and you can't touch him, and he messes with our machines to think we've been around for millions of years.

THANK YOU SPAGETTI MONSTER!!

[Lonely_Person]

How fucking profound! I wonder why nobody was smart enough to say that 72 posts ago? We could have saved a whole lot of typing!

i hope you're not being sarcastic and yeah i stick with that point...everyone argues that their religion is true but if we were to ever find out which religion is true everyone else would be saying, "what the fuck?"

And I'm not absolutely sure if we evolved from apes or not...if we did, are there still unevolved humans around us?

[HoneyImHome]

And I'm not absolutely sure if we evolved from apes or not...if we did, are there still unevolved humans around us?

ABSOLUTELY! (no sarcasm there). ;)

[Lonely_Person]

so you support the theory of us evolving from humans?

[HoneyImHome]

You mean Adam and Eve? sure, if you buy that they perhaps stomped around grunting and eating each others fleas. ;)

I was more stating that I believe there are definite cave-dwelling, barely bipeds walking around - and worse - conversing with us everyday. :D

[Lonely_Person]

:tongue: good theory

[FlipTheState]

And I'm not absolutely sure if we evolved from apes or not...if we did, are there still unevolved humans around us?

Yeah. They live in East Texas.

[junglizm]

i hope you're not being sarcastic and yeah i stick with that pointI was being sarcastic... I made my statement the way I did because you were just stating the blatantly obvious. This thread is about intelligent debate (OK, so maybe intelligent is a bit much, but debate nonetheless), not one-liner write offs that don't really say anything. Anyone with half a brain knows religion plays a large part in creation theories, so why even bring it up in such a vague way?

everyone argues that their religion is true but if we were to ever find out which religion is true everyone else would be saying, "what the fuck?"I seriously doubt that; every single religion in the world, save for maybe Buddhism and Hinduism, is focused around being correct and 100% truthful, a la dogmatic teachings and scriptural "knowledge." Those followers will never admit to being wrong, regardless of what evidence they're faced with. If anything, the proof will only strengthen their beliefs.

And I'm not absolutely sure if we evolved from apes or not...if we did, are there still unevolved humans around us?
http://justinb.us/images/emote/eng101.gif We did not evolve "from apes," we evolved from a common ancestor to humans and apes. And no, there are no "unevolved" humans hiding out somewhere.

[HoneyImHome]

And no, there are no "unevolved" humans hiding out somewhere.

You're a mod here.... and you still say that....???:eek:

[Spikey]

You're a mod here.... and you still say that....???:eek:
Necropost:eek:

[HoneyImHome]

WTF are you talking about, Spike?

[Aazon]

The whole god vs science I really just don't get.

Let's say that scientists' theories' are true. Everything happened from the Big Bang right? The whole world we know today was made from dust (at least I think that's how it went) right? Well even that enough is questionable for me, where the hell did all this dust come from? Has it been floating around forever? Who put it there? And if it came from something else, where did that come from? And how can creatures such as humans have such complex bodies (whatever) and all that. Dust must be pretty damn smart. :rolleyes:

Let's say that the theory that we were all made by a god or higher being is true. Where the hell did he come from? Has he been around forever? Did he make himself even though he didn't exist yet? Did someone else make him? If so, where the hell did they come from?

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. :confused:

I really don't know what to believe...

Glad I finally said all that. :happysad:

[scarfacebob]

Seems quite evident that Evolution and Creation are one in the same. "a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as one day"

[Spikey]

The whole god vs science I really just don't get.

Let's say that scientists' theories' are true. Everything happened from the Big Bang right? The whole world we know today was made from dust (at least I think that's how it went) right? Well even that enough is questionable for me, where the hell did all this dust come from? Has it been floating around forever? Who put it there? And if it came from something else, where did that come from? And how can creatures such as humans have such complex bodies (whatever) and all that. Dust must be pretty damn smart. :rolleyes:

Let's say that the theory that we were all made by a god or higher being is true. Where the hell did he come from? Has he been around forever? Did he make himself even though he didn't exist yet? Did someone else make him? If so, where the hell did they come from?

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. :confused:

I really don't know what to believe...

Glad I finally said all that. :happysad:
I made the same mistake, that is the creation of the universe.
People may agree or disagree with me, at this point in my life, I am Christian, but I think God is as real as the tooth fairy. Science can prove almost everything, except the creation of such a complex creature as a human being.
All body systems work together to keep this being alive.
It is impossible for a "higher power" or humans alike to make another creature as detailed as humans.

[HoneyImHome]

It is impossible for a "higher power" or humans alike to make another creature as detailed as humans.


Wow, that's a hell of a statement. Can you prove that "higher powers" can or can't do anything? How exactly do you test that? Well, I guess you can post a note on the bulletin boards of churches/temples/synagogues ...etc.

"Looking for Higher Power volunteers for study on creation. Will pay $30 /hour to the tithe of your choice. Please call the School of Science at the below number to join up." You know, the kind of notes with the numbers listed vertically and cut into slits at the bottom so people/higher powers can just snatch them off and stick them in their pockets... err robes... errr plasma pockets??? :rolleyes:

[Spikey]

Wow, that's a hell of a statement. Can you prove that "higher powers" can or can't do anything? How exactly do you test that? Well, I guess you can post a note on the bulletin boards of churches/temples/synagogues ...etc.

"Looking for Higher Power volunteers for study on creation. Will pay $30 /hour to the tithe of your choice. Please call the School of Science at the below number to join up." You know, the kind of notes with the numbers listed vertically and cut into slits at the bottom so people/higher powers can just snatch them off and stick them in their pockets... err robes... errr plasma pockets??? :rolleyes:
What the fuck are you on about?