AGuSTiN wrote:Here's a good Google Video

"Creationist Kent Hovind Reveals The Truth About Dinosaurs And Evolution!"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162&q=squid&pl=true

I watched an hour of that vid just for the hell of it, lol. Here are some notes I took:

--the public schools are here to bring on the new world order
--2000 years ago people drew pictures of brain surgery, artificial limbs and steam engines
--400 years ago an Italian guy killed a dinosaur that scared his cows
--there were giant sea monsters alive during WW1
--God talked about radio and tv
--the word "behemoth" obviously means Brachiosaurus
--the devil is the reason scientists believe that dinosaurs lived billions of years ago
--dinosaurs are still alive in a huge swamp in Africa
--dinosaurs are merely really old reptiles( just like the ones we have today, but they lived for hundreds of years so they got big)

BTW: It's great that he took time out of his sermon to attack "liberals"

Damn it, well you get the picture.

i know that throughout the ages gods were created to explain the unexplainable, the god of the sun, sea, moon. im just waiting for science to completely disprove the whole thing. ill stick to george carlin, "i pray to joe pesci"

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:
why is it, that you consider GOD to be so powerful and great, but yet you DENY the fact that someone or more or less SOMETHING sooooo great couldnt invent a species that evolves?

I have faith in the Lord and believe in the Bible, everything that I have ever wanted to learn or know about creation spells it out for Christians, like myself in the book of Genesis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:43 AM

Sunb1rdPunk wrote: ill stick to george carlin, "i pray to joe pesci"

Why does everyone quote George Carlin? He's an old, unfunny guy. He hasn't been relevant since, what, 1975?

Just remember that "days" in Genesis are periods of light divided by darkness and not actually 24hours and you're right Snoeterp82.

Anyone who cannot understand why Carlin is funny, well, just doesn't get the jokes do they? Aside from his fart jokes, Carlin is always relevent and enlightened regarding most political issues. He takes the ugly truth and makes it funny. Kinda the way Pryor used his personal trajedies to make good humour, Carlin takes the world's troubles and makes them funny.

Comedy Central Gave the title "greatest standup ever" to Pryor and runner up spot to Carlin. I can't argue with that.

Carlin is funny to smart people. If you don't think he's funny, then you likely can't "do the math" yourself.

Pryor is just plain funny. To everyone.. That's why he won.

The Bible does tell all, you just have to know how to read it. That's why it took 1600 years before the church allowed the people to read it themselves.. Then look at the mess. Maybe they should have retained control, but they knew that kind of power caused their corruption, so they had to let it go.. Besides, King James was already taking steps to bring it to the people anyway.

PAX

Quote:

The Bible does tell all, you just have to know how to read it.

Eh, I somewhat agree...I do believe that many parts of the Bible are up to individual interpretation and how things can be applicable.

Unfortunately, the fact that they did keep it from the masses now means that it's authenticity is under question. After all, 1600 years is a long time to clean up a trail of evidence manipulation.

Coming from a cynic, take that as you will. I'm not saying it *did* happen, but that it doesn't help the cause with so many different bible versions out there.

Just take faith in what you will, since the universe is far from being explained. The besides that, don't expect others to put the same faith into what you hold sacred.



Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I have a question, just out of curiosity. Did those of you who use the KJV of the bible research to find the most accurate translation? IMO, the KJV is a terrible translation of the original texts. There is even a mistranslation in the 10 commandments! I have no problem with people of faith if they made that decision on their own, but IMO anyone that is going to base their life on a book should search for the correct translation, it's pretty important. I think people should think for themselves, that includes not accepting everything your parents did as inherently correct. I also think that most people follow whatever religion and texts as their parents do, just out of familiarity and IMO that is a bad situation. Again, no offense, I'm just curious. (Don't mind my sig )

BTW: It is widely known that the "church" actively destroyed any text they did not believe in. There was also a committee that decided what went into the original bible, do you trust or even know who was on that committee?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:03 PM

_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

Yes, it is known who was on the council, most are now saints. We have no choice but to trust them as there is no other option. I would also argue that although imperfect like the rest of us, they took the religion seriously as well as the fact that it is a sin to alter God's word. More faith required.

The KJV is a rough translation but it is also the only version with that particular set of texts. There is no Revelation in certain Bibles, and no book of Angels in KJV, so you need a couple different ones just to get all of the "Authorized" books. The chuirch did not destroy texts they did trust, they simply left them out of the Bible. For example, the Gospel of Thomas is still around, just not in the Bible as it was altered by Gnostics.

PAX

Book of Angels? I have heard of no such thing.

But that could be because I am not Catholic, Jehovahs Witness, or Seventh Day Adventist; all which have additional books added to the Bible specifically for their religion.

And as for the King James version of the Bible, I don't like to read it because the type of language used is not applicable to which that is spoken today. Plus, does anyone not remember why there is a KJV? I have a huge problem with someone who wants to change a sect of religion due to wanting a divorce and having marital unfaithfulness.

You have King James confused with King Henry VIII.

King James was not at all part of the whole Anglican (Episcapalian) Schism at all. He was a victom of it.

A little background.

Quote:

In May 1601 King James VI of Scotland attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at St. Columba's Church in Burntisland, Fife, and proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English. Two years later he acceded to the throne of England.

The King James Version was first conceived at the Hampton Court Conference, which the new king called in 1604 in response to the problems posed by Puritans in the Millenary Petition. According to an eyewitness account, Dr John Rainolds "moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixt were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original."

Not be confused with Henry the VIII who lived from 1491 to 1547. Dead fully 50 years before James took up the challenge.

Now, to be fair to Henry VIII, he was not the unfaithful one, he was the victom of his wife and a guy he thought was his best friend (Cromwell). He did not simply want a devorce. He knew the only way out of his marriage to his unfaithful wife was to kill her. He loved her and did not want hewr dead, so he had to find a way to get a devorce. He had already killed one wife, and would have Anne Bolin beheaded for treason later, but in this case, he did what he did to save a life. Cromwell was also allowed to live, however he was never given his freedom again and died in the Tower of London.

James was a fantastic King as was Henry VIII. Henry may have had marital trouble and was unable to produce a male heir, but he was loved by the people (who he actually cared about), he built the Brittish navy (later very important) expanded the empire and brought the standard of living up quite a bit for the people. He was ruthless, but fair. He is also the man who gave us Elisabeth I, likely the best monarch the empire ever had (barring Victoria and William the Conquorer).

So there ya go. James' motive was to bring the Bible to the people, not to get a devorce.

PAX

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:
why is it, that you consider GOD to be so powerful and great, but yet you DENY the fact that someone or more or less SOMETHING sooooo great couldnt invent a species that evolves?

Evolution exists, but not in man. Different animals and species can evole (example, a cave that was newly discovered a few months ago had species never seen before, such as scorpions with no eyes) I haven't read this thread and the responses by people, and I'm not going to read anyone else's point on this. This is my belief.

oops, wait.. Had the circumstances confused. The wife in question, that was at the heart of the schism issue was not Anne Bolyn, she came after. The wife he wanted to divorce was Catherine of Aragon. She had previously married a prince, then married Henry (invalid?) and had 6 children and could bear no more. Henry was convinced that the English people at the time would not stand for a female monach (the empire was previously very unstable) and felt the only way to stablize the country was to have a male heir. He was advised to seek an anullment of his marriage to Catherine (which may have been illegitimate in the first place) and seek the favour of Anne Bolyn (he had already fathered a child with her sister, before he was married, that child was male, but considered a bastard). When the petition was sent to the Pope (Clement) they had great difficulty gaining an audience (the Pope was under the control of Charles of France). The Pope was afraid to cross the French King, and issue a decree that Henry could marry whoever he wanted, but he did not anull the marriage to Catherine (a soft political move). Henry saw this and legal battles began. In the end, he was made head of the church by parliment, not an act he undertook on his own.

The whole convoluted story is avaiable online. Henry VIII is by far the most famous, least understood King of England, Scotland, Ireland and defender of the faith ever.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:Yes, it is known who was on the council, most are now saints. We have no choice but to trust them as there is no other option. I would also argue that although imperfect like the rest of us, they took the religion seriously as well as the fact that it is a sin to alter God's word. More faith required.

True, I'm sure that they took religion seriously and did not alter what they thought was gods word. They did decide, on their own, what books they believed were truly inspired by god. The problem is, how did they know? They didn't, unless you believe that god gave them the ability to tell the difference. They just picked the books THEY liked and as a result, any books they did not pick are seen as fakes or nonsense. You do have an option, read all of the scriptures available, even the ones they did not include. Ever here of the book of Judah or Mary? How about the other versions of revelations?

Hahahaha wrote:The KJV is a rough translation but it is also the only version with that particular set of texts. There is no Revelation in certain Bibles, and no book of Angels in KJV, so you need a couple different ones just to get all of the "Authorized" books. The chuirch did not destroy texts they did trust, they simply left them out of the Bible. For example, the Gospel of Thomas is still around, just not in the Bible as it was altered by Gnostics.

So do you follow the KJV? You describe it yourself as a "rough translation", and there are better versions. IMO there is no such thing as "authorized" books, who gave these people the authority to judge which books were inspired by god and which books were not? Just because they took it seriously doesn't mean they were right. Yep/url]

RoNuS20 wrote:Evolution exists, but not in man. Different animals and species can evole (example, a cave that was newly discovered a few months ago had species never seen before, such as scorpions with no eyes) I haven't read this thread and the responses by people, and I'm not going to read anyone else's point on this. This is my belief.

Nice open-mindedness there bud! You don't have to believe what others believe, but if your not at least willing to talk about it why even enter the discussion? These kind of people crack me up, we are all adults here and we are having a civilised conversation but he can't talk about the subject without getting his feelings hurt or have to listen to a person with *GASP different beliefs. These are the same kind of people who want prayer out of school simply because they do not believe, pathetic. I appreciate that the rest of y'all can be mature and intellectual about this subject, many folks can't.


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

RoNuS20 wrote:Evolution exists, but not in man. Different animals and species can evole (example, a cave that was newly discovered a few months ago had species never seen before, such as scorpions with no eyes) I haven't read this thread and the responses by people, and I'm not going to read anyone else's point on this. This is my belief.

Nice open-mindedness there bud! You don't have to believe what others believe, but if your not at least willing to talk about it why even enter the discussion? These kind of people crack me up, we are all adults here and we are having a civilised conversation but he can't talk about the subject without getting his feelings hurt or have to listen to a person with *GASP different beliefs. These are the same kind of people who want prayer out of school simply because they do not believe, pathetic. I appreciate that the rest of y'all can be mature and intellectual about this subject, many folks can't.

I responded to the original poster and answered his question. Why do I need to read all the other posts about this if I'm just answering the question? Calm down buddy. Don't try to think like you have me figured out though just based on one post. I was mainly saying in my post that I'm answering his question without reading what everyone else has said first.

Let me try and explain before someone else tries to jump on my case.

In my original post, I said that evolution exists, but not in man. I also said I'm not going to read anyone else's point to influence my belief before answering the question.

I didn't say that I'm not going to discuss it with anyone. I should probably point out that after I posted, I did go through and read the rest of the posts (just for your info). Sorry for the confusion in my earlier post there bud.

Sorry, I misunderstood you, I was too quick to judge. Wow, I feel like an ass So anyway, why do you feel that evolution is at work in all other animals but humans? I want to point out that the different races are very well suited for their original environments. To me this points to micro-evolution, but to you it may be further proof of creation.


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

RoNuS20 wrote:

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:
why is it, that you consider GOD to be so powerful and great, but yet you DENY the fact that someone or more or less SOMETHING sooooo great couldnt invent a species that evolves?

Evolution exists, but not in man. Different animals and species can evole (example, a cave that was newly discovered a few months ago had species never seen before, such as scorpions with no eyes) I haven't read this thread and the responses by people, and I'm not going to read anyone else's point on this. This is my belief.

well for purposes of keeping the discussion going.... man is classified as an animal. we are mammals and over time just the same as the smaller animals you have mentioned and organisms down to microorganisms have proved...

the larger , more complex, or more dense the animal/object...the longer it takes to show change.

for example.

micro organisms can show evolution in a few hours, also have the shortest lifespans

the scorpions which have a shorter lifespan than humans by far a few years or decade at the most for the longest living ones.

humans, which are far larger, more complex, and more or less since the start of the US have only been through on avg about 5 generations will take far more time to evolve.


see, my main point of evolution, is like any other thing on earth.


the larger, more dense, more complex something is, the longer it takes the change. if something lives for a long time, per generation over lets say 100 years, you are NOT gonna notice much change. a human thats barely 2 full generations worth of time.

100 years for something like micro bacteria thats millions and millions of offspring and generations, so its more evident, that organism would have had more time to change.

Stephanie--

joooo know i respect that and you first and foremost... but your answer kinda sidesteps the question....

Quote:

I have faith in the Lord and believe in the Bible, everything that I have ever wanted to learn or know about creation spells it out for Christians, like myself in the book of Genesis.

see the point i am getting at here with this post, is lets say GOD created all..... in most christian or religion based worlds, allah, etc... this is the rule of thumb....

however the question lies in....if the GOD, thing, being, whatever you wanna call it by...was so powerful to create all of this in 7 days no less...... then shouldnt your GOD be strong enough to design and create pretty much EVERYTHING to the point where it can evolve?

i mean we ADAPT, becuase we are MAMMALS.... over time, adaptation is pretty much nothing more than evolution. the word EVOLVE is denoted as change.

Quote:

Main Entry: evolve
Pronunciation: i-'välv, -'volv, E- also -'väv or -'vov
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): evolved; evolv·ing
Etymology: Latin evolvere to unroll, from e- + volvere to roll -- more at VOLUBLE
transitive verb
1 : EMIT
2 a : DERIVE, EDUCE b : to produce by natural evolutionary processes c : DEVELOP, WORK OUT <evolve social, political, and literary philosophies

so if you put a mammal in a colder climate for generations, over time the mammal evolves, usually ending up growing more body hair, gaining more body fat, which will be genetically evident in future generations.


i mean its obvious that since the 1800's theres really only been a handfull of human generations to study from. FAR LESS than smaller animals or organisms that reproduce and die withing a few hours up to a few years such as 2-3 years.

however, in relation to the subject of my post.... for anyone with a christian belief...WHO DENIES EVOLUTION.... <---making that clear to ALLLLLLL.

isnt is pretty much saying ,for those that apply, see above for whom it does apply, pretty much saying that their god is powerful enough to create an entire world, planets, beings, etc in 7 days.... but not powerful enough to make it so that none of them have the natural ability to ADAPT/EVOLVE? remember, if one believes in a GOD, then they have faith that their god can do, change, invent, destroy anything.

so in a sense, saying evolution doesnt, or CAN NOT exist is like saying the god that they worship is strong, up until a certain point. when he, it, she, reaches that point, that god is purely weak and can not accomplish the feat of making something that evolves.




cause realistically both words are pretty much the same exact meaning. adaptation is pretty much short term ,evolving is more long term.

Quote:

True, I'm sure that they took religion seriously and did not alter what they thought was gods word. They did decide, on their own, what books they believed were truly inspired by god. The problem is, how did they know? They didn't, unless you believe that god gave them the ability to tell the difference. They just picked the books THEY liked and as a result, any books they did not pick are seen as fakes or nonsense. You do have an option, read all of the scriptures available, even the ones they did not include. Ever here of the book of Judah or Mary? How about the other versions of revelations?

If you yourself take a good look at the excluded gospels you can find the alterations. You can tell by the writing style and by the content. Then there are the passages that simply do not agree with what 4 other gospels say for example. If you look at copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you can literally see the changed sections. Once one piece is known to be corrupted, then the entire body is thrown out.

Better to have left out some good than to include any bad.

In short, yes they could tell, and you could too given the chance. The gnostic sections of Thomas are so obvious, I suggest you take a look at it yourself, just to see what I'm talking about.

I am not saying that these men were perfect, as none of us are, but they did their best and it was good.

Do I follow the KJV? Well yes and no. I do not argue against it, but I know it's not perfect. The fact is, no version is perfect so I take what I can get. The King James version was created partially to correct the version published before it that were known to be corrupt.

Quote:

Dr John Rainolds "moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixt were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original."

PAX

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:

RoNuS20 wrote:

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:
why is it, that you consider GOD to be so powerful and great, but yet you DENY the fact that someone or more or less SOMETHING sooooo great couldnt invent a species that evolves?

Evolution exists, but not in man. Different animals and species can evole (example, a cave that was newly discovered a few months ago had species never seen before, such as scorpions with no eyes) I haven't read this thread and the responses by people, and I'm not going to read anyone else's point on this. This is my belief.

well for purposes of keeping the discussion going.... man is classified as an animal. we are mammals and over time just the same as the smaller animals you have mentioned and organisms down to microorganisms have proved...

the larger , more complex, or more dense the animal/object...the longer it takes to show change.

for example.

micro organisms can show evolution in a few hours, also have the shortest lifespans

the scorpions which have a shorter lifespan than humans by far a few years or decade at the most for the longest living ones.

humans, which are far larger, more complex, and more or less since the start of the US have only been through on avg about 5 generations will take far more time to evolve.


see, my main point of evolution, is like any other thing on earth.


the larger, more dense, more complex something is, the longer it takes the change. if something lives for a long time, per generation over lets say 100 years, you are NOT gonna notice much change. a human thats barely 2 full generations worth of time.

100 years for something like micro bacteria thats millions and millions of offspring and generations, so its more evident, that organism would have had more time to change.

There's your answer. God did create a species to evolve.....

Ya got me, Hahahaha, I have to admit that I have not read the dead sea scrolls so I can't argue with your interpretation. I'm pretty sure that I can read them on-line, so I will take your advice. The rest of my argument will be based on articles I can find on the net as I have no first hand knowledge. Maybe I should just shut-up...nah.

If you read the Wiki article on the four gospels, one man decided that the four gospels were collectively and exclusively true. He said that it was "obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic." Four corners of the universe? He, and most of the world, believed that the earth was flat also. This alone, is definitely not good enough to prove that he was correct, especially since that statement is false. Even if there were "four corners of the universe" it would prove nothing, a stop sign has 8 corners but has no bearing on weather a text is true or not. He also says "These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers". The author of the wiki article seems to think that he is saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are written by the person they are named after. No one knows weather they were or not, but even if they were, who's to say that they were true and those that wrote texts contradictory theirs are wrong? If a text disagrees with one of the four gospels, does this prove that the text in question is false?

RoNuS20 wrote:There's your answer. God did create a species to evolve.....

What makes you think that we are any different?


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

bigj480 wrote:

RoNuS20 wrote:There's your answer. God did create a species to evolve.....

What makes you think that we are any different?

*sigh* Come on, do you really have to ask that? You should know by know what my beliefs are.

Dude, I know you think that we didn't evolve but you never said why. Is it because you believe that everyone came from adam and eve(incest)? How did the different races come to be? If you don't believe in at least micro-evolution then there must be no such thing as race. Unless you believe that race came about as a result of god making people speak different languages after building the tower of babel.


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

RoNuS20 wrote:

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:

RoNuS20 wrote:

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:
why is it, that you consider GOD to be so powerful and great, but yet you DENY the fact that someone or more or less SOMETHING sooooo great couldnt invent a species that evolves?

Evolution exists, but not in man. Different animals and species can evole (example, a cave that was newly discovered a few months ago had species never seen before, such as scorpions with no eyes) I haven't read this thread and the responses by people, and I'm not going to read anyone else's point on this. This is my belief.

well for purposes of keeping the discussion going.... man is classified as an animal. we are mammals and over time just the same as the smaller animals you have mentioned and organisms down to microorganisms have proved...

the larger , more complex, or more dense the animal/object...the longer it takes to show change.

for example.

micro organisms can show evolution in a few hours, also have the shortest lifespans

the scorpions which have a shorter lifespan than humans by far a few years or decade at the most for the longest living ones.

humans, which are far larger, more complex, and more or less since the start of the US have only been through on avg about 5 generations will take far more time to evolve.


see, my main point of evolution, is like any other thing on earth.


the larger, more dense, more complex something is, the longer it takes the change. if something lives for a long time, per generation over lets say 100 years, you are NOT gonna notice much change. a human thats barely 2 full generations worth of time.

100 years for something like micro bacteria thats millions and millions of offspring and generations, so its more evident, that organism would have had more time to change.

There's your answer. God did create a species to evolve.....

hence the point of trying to ask people who say evolution doesnt exist....