*Spinoff* Creationists And Theists... Time To Speak Your Clout
Options
Bodhi
Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
If your theories on ? /heaven/salvation/punishment/souls are so concise, why not make the evidence more accessible ???
If your tangible physical evidence of the universe being created by an intelligent being is so convincing, it should be all up in our faces from Kindergarten through 12th grade.......but it isn't is it? Why?
I see theism for what it is, a way to cope with the unknown (i.e. death); wishful thinking, and as a whole not scientific at all. But when it comes to theistic religion, all of the theories are a blistering embarrassment and setback for the advancement of humanity as a whole.
The PROVABLE/OBSERVABLE evidence of evolution is available to everybody who seeks knowledge......
BUT THEISM IS A DISSERVICE TO US ALL !!!!!
before anybody comes in here with that "? you going to hell", "? this this thread", "? prove evolution"
THAT IS WEAK SAUCE !!!!! ....... it doesn't prove sh*t
You're gonna have to come better than that.
Longtime posters know Righteousness......New jacks will get an introduction.
You have fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and arthropods.......all of which come from a common ancestor and originated through evolution..this is acceptable because we have the evidence........but you'd rather believe in fairy tales
Since it is so convincing to y'all, help persuade me!
SHOW ME WHAT IT IS THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE !!!
Peace, love, and soul (but not the eternal kind)
If your tangible physical evidence of the universe being created by an intelligent being is so convincing, it should be all up in our faces from Kindergarten through 12th grade.......but it isn't is it? Why?
I see theism for what it is, a way to cope with the unknown (i.e. death); wishful thinking, and as a whole not scientific at all. But when it comes to theistic religion, all of the theories are a blistering embarrassment and setback for the advancement of humanity as a whole.
The PROVABLE/OBSERVABLE evidence of evolution is available to everybody who seeks knowledge......
BUT THEISM IS A DISSERVICE TO US ALL !!!!!
before anybody comes in here with that "? you going to hell", "? this this thread", "? prove evolution"
THAT IS WEAK SAUCE !!!!! ....... it doesn't prove sh*t
You're gonna have to come better than that.
Longtime posters know Righteousness......New jacks will get an introduction.
You have fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and arthropods.......all of which come from a common ancestor and originated through evolution..this is acceptable because we have the evidence........but you'd rather believe in fairy tales
Since it is so convincing to y'all, help persuade me!
SHOW ME WHAT IT IS THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE !!!
Peace, love, and soul (but not the eternal kind)
Comments
-
there is no proof species change into other species. that weak ass fruit fly ? already beat to death in the other thread dont prove that. those experiments only prove that when evolution cant be proven in situations where it is erroneously predicted SCIENTISTS JUST CHANGE THE ? DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION.
just stop. science and religion both give an illusion of explaining the unexplainable. the people that possess the knowledge of the unexplainable keep it hidden and give the masses ? explanations to keep them distracted and pliable. if religion proved ? ; muthafuckas would not be able to be controlled. if science disproved ? ; muthafuckas would not be able to be controlled. i personally give a ? less about either. neither has put a solution on the table to solve the unexplainable and exponential destruction unfolding before us in real time so what the ? is the point? -
Stay on topic bruh, this is about ? and creation not evolution.
-
Simple answer off the top of the dome: The fact that the human body requires all of the minerals found in the earth tho have perfect health complemented by the Hebrew words "Adahm" ( as humanity) and "adamah" (earth) are obviously interelated concepts. The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it. The fact that the creation around us itself is IRREDUCABLY COMPLEX. One thing out of place and life would be vastly different or in most cases not exist at all.However a true understanding of the root text to the bible reveals that the bible does not even attempt to address the creation of the earth. It is written in psalms "the foundations of the earth are forever". The bible root text does not say the world was made in 6 24 hour intervals nor does it say dinosaurs did not exist, btw.Stay on topic bruh, this is about ? and creation not evolution.
-
The irreducable complexity argument does not work. If we are to remove one part of a whole that would be vital to that whole's existence, the whole may fail to work properly now, but this may not hold true through out the whole's ancestry.
-
The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent. -
However a true understanding of the root text to the bible reveals that the bible does not even attempt to address the creation of the earth. It is written in psalms "the foundations of the earth are forever". The bible root text does not say the world was made in 6 24 hour intervals nor does it say dinosaurs did not exist, btw.
1. The Bible attempts to explain the creation of the earth and universe in Genesis
2. The writers of the Bible had no true knowledge of how the earth or universe was created
3. The writers of the Bible had no knowledge of dinosaurs to begin with
-
Stupid Spinoff......
LOL...
Ole' let me start a new thread so we can turn the tables.....HEAD ASS ? ......
Creationists ~ 19
Anti-creationist ~ 0
I found out the origins of your RESEARCH SHOWS BLACKS TO HAVE LARGER BRAINS
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about11606.html
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695640/replies?c=63
This ? has no author and was pulled from the bowels of another online forum.....
I think that Dr. Rushton is responsible for this research.....
-
Stay on topic bruh, this is about ? and creation not evolution.
LOL......
? is mad cause they lauce......
http://youtu.be/6PQ6335puOc -
The True Flesh wrote: »Blatant topic avoidance is making you look intimidated by THIS topic.
If you don't have anything to contribute to THIS THREAD.......go post in one of your ? Kemetic threads where you can make yourself look smart to those d*ckriding embiciles.
Is there anybody that will be able to adress THIS THREAD now that we have exposed the cowardly elusiveness this topic always brings out?
PEACEA lot of ? that support creationism are not familiar enough with the theory to hold a conversation on it.....
Good luck......... -
LOL......
You are just looking to score a point where you could not in the other thread.....
Typical of atheists....
loosing the intelligent design argument and then turn to attacks on the creation stories of the people in the argument.....
Have you no shame???? -
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »However a true understanding of the root text to the bible reveals that the bible does not even attempt to address the creation of the earth. It is written in psalms "the foundations of the earth are forever". The bible root text does not say the world was made in 6 24 hour intervals nor does it say dinosaurs did not exist, btw.
1. The Bible attempts to explain the creation of the earth and universe in Genesis
2. The writers of the Bible had no true knowledge of how the earth or universe was created
3. The writers of the Bible had no knowledge of dinosaurs to begin with
1.) the text it originates from does not attempt to explain the creation of the universe or the earth but some basic foundational knowledge of how it is run. I know what Genesis says and plenty scholars who can read the text will concur with what Im saying.
2.) not true. speculation. it apparently was not important enough for the writers to include and even more apparent is the fact that an explanation of how the earth and universe was created was not the intent of the text anyway, but rather a series of studies and declarations of principle on how to exist harmoniously within the created earth and universe. some of it is code on how to hack it but that conversation is not for the forum.
3) cant verify or deny but what i can say is there are reptoid species mentioned in the tanach and a couple are identified as being very large. since the hebrew roots of the names of them are (allegedly) obscure from proto-hebrew (official version..idk).
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
You just wast to be able to say that there is no "evidence" for the various creation stories.......
However you have little to say about the "evidence" associated with the intelligence argument......
Which is why you slithered in her and made this bogus thread........ -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
-
First ? made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of ? was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And ? said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And ? saw that the light was good; and ? separated the light from the darkness. 5 ? called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And ? said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And ? made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And ? called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And ? said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 ? called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And ? saw that it was good. 11 And ? said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And ? saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And ? said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And ? made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And ? set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And ? saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And ? said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So ? created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And ? saw that it was good. 22 And ? blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And ? said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And ? made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And ? saw that it was good. 26 Then ? said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So ? created man in his own image, in the image of ? he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And ? blessed them, and ? said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And ? said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And ? saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day ? finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 So ? blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it ? rested from all his work which he had done in creation. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD ? made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD ? had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- 7 then the LORD ? formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
-
1. Genesis clearly attempts to explain the origin of the universe. Even if you accept it as "basic" knowledge, the basics are wrong. Genesis says that Earth was created before Heaven (I'm assuming heaven in this particular instance is referring to space, and not the abode of angels), even before light was created which not only goes against scientific knowledge, but against your own; I believe you claim that light is the foundation of all creation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2. ? created day and night before the sun. smh.. And the Bible specifically says what it means by "day"; Evening and morning passed, that was one day. We can't interpret this as a "period" any longer than an actual day
3. ? goes on to create, clearly for our purpose, lights in space, which I'll take as stars and such.. Besides the fact that most stars are invisible to the naked eye, we know that the earth was not created before stars were formed.
4. An omnipotent being "rests" on the seventh day, because 6 days of work was so tiring
5. Why did ? decide to have a mist come up from the ground to water the plants instead of causing rain? -
thats not what it say in hebrew. if you want to discuss it for real i suggest you reference the strongs concordance and a book called The Hebraic Tongue Restored/Cosmogyny of Moses ( mostly packaged as last chapter) in which there is an interlinear examination of what the text actually says. i cant argue for the bible mistranslation however. so unless we are speaking on the grounds of what the source text says i cant even have this discussion. were not talking about the same thing.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
Thats not an answer to what I specifically asked.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote:Longtime posters know Righteousness......New jacks will get an introduction.
You have fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and arthropods.......all of which come from a common ancestor and originated through evolution..this is acceptable because we have the evidence........but you'd rather believe in fairy tales
Peace, love, and soul (but not the eternal kind)
Are you referring to the evidence that is being properly deconstructed in the other thread that you ran away from?????
-
Stupid Spinoff......
LOL...
Ole' let me start a new thread so we can turn the tables.....HEAD ASS ? ......
Creationists ~ 19
Anti-creationist ~ 0
I found out the origins of your RESEARCH SHOWS BLACKS TO HAVE LARGER BRAINS
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about11606.html
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695640/replies?c=63
This ? has no author and was pulled from the bowels of another online forum.....
I think that Dr. Rushton is responsible for this research.....
You do know that there is no direct correlation to brain size and intelligence, right? Especially considering that studies of (societal ideas of) race (which does not exist but for this thread we will pretend it does) show that negroids score lower on them than mongoloids and caucasoids, having a larger brain means nothing in such an instance.
Alright, now that I've thrown some doubt on the significance of that I am going to show you guys a counter argument i created for the existence of heaven. It is not super great, i thought of it one day on the bus after a philosophy of religion course. Here goes:
1. If heaven exists as the bible/torah describe then it is a pleasurable place.
2. If you really care for someone who dies, you would like them to be somewhere pleasurable.
3. If someone dies they likely go to heaven.
4. So why is it human instinct to feel life shattering sadness when dealing with death?
I call it the argument from instinct. In such it seems that human nature is ingrained with knowledge that there is no afterlife, or that it is not a pleasurable place due to the infinite sadness that occurs after loss of a life. The instinctual sadness contradicts the belief of heaven which is odd.
This is just one argument I thought up randomly, i have a few more penned out in my notebook somewhere. But i think that if one can show the alleged inconsistencies of the bible to be undoubtedly true then the words within it are to become more and more less trustworthy. In this the average human will eventually come to disregard much of what is in religious texts as premature explanations for the way the universe operates and unsubstantiated speculation; nothing more. -
thats not what it say in hebrew. if you want to discuss it for real i suggest you reference the strongs concordance and a book called The Hebraic Tongue Restored/Cosmogyny of Moses ( mostly packaged as last chapter) in which there is an interlinear examination of what the text actually says. i cant argue for the bible mistranslation however. so unless we are speaking on the grounds of what the source text says i cant even have this discussion. were not talking about the same thing.
props -
RodrigueZz wrote: »Stupid Spinoff......
LOL...
Ole' let me start a new thread so we can turn the tables.....HEAD ASS ? ......
Creationists ~ 19
Anti-creationist ~ 0
I found out the origins of your RESEARCH SHOWS BLACKS TO HAVE LARGER BRAINS
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about11606.html
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695640/replies?c=63
This ? has no author and was pulled from the bowels of another online forum.....
I think that Dr. Rushton is responsible for this research.....
You do know that there is no direct correlation to brain size and intelligence, right? Especially considering that studies of (societal ideas of) race (which does not exist but for this thread we will pretend it does) show that negroids score lower on them than mongoloids and caucasoids, having a larger brain means nothing in such an instance.
"It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the 0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures (though 0.20 is still significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ."
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »thats not what it say in hebrew. if you want to discuss it for real i suggest you reference the strongs concordance and a book called The Hebraic Tongue Restored/Cosmogyny of Moses ( mostly packaged as last chapter) in which there is an interlinear examination of what the text actually says. i cant argue for the bible mistranslation however. so unless we are speaking on the grounds of what the source text says i cant even have this discussion. were not talking about the same thing.
props
just simply looking at the definition of "day" (yom) in hebrew shows a little of what i mean.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3117&t=KJV
gotta cross reference as you can tell strongs misrepresents some stuff to fit christianity but gesenius lexicon and vine expository dictionary fill in certain gaps nicely. i got all that stuff hardback 4 da low..
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »
I call it the argument from instinct. In such it seems that human nature is ingrained with knowledge that there is no afterlife, or that it is not a pleasurable place due to the infinite sadness that occurs after loss of a life. The instinctual sadness contradicts the belief of heaven which is odd.
This is just one argument I thought up randomly, i have a few more penned out in my notebook somewhere. But i think that if one can show the alleged inconsistencies of the bible to be undoubtedly true then the words within it are to become more and more less trustworthy. In this the average human will eventually come to disregard much of what is in religious texts as premature explanations for the way the universe operates and unsubstantiated speculation; nothing more.
My argument is the eternal pain argument. Pain is experienced by having a physical body. If, when we die, we leave our bodies, our soul would no longer experience pain. So how are souls to "suffer" in hell for all eternity?
