Quote:

magicjay said:
Well, the entire article was published, as the abstract states, in the journal Nature. You might try there.



So, I should buy into a website just to make an argument for your sake…..I don’t think so.

In any event, however, you seemed to have missed the point of my post (no you didn’t). You don’t seem to realize exactly why the exploits of China aren’t in the text-books now even after 4 years of exposure….And it’s making me laugh my ass off.

Quote:

MagicJay said:
Of course you know this statement makes no sense.



I’ll walk you through it:

The majority of secularists and creationists agree that civilized habitats were first made within the Fertile Circle.

The majority of secularists do not agree with the majority of creationists that the world started around 13 millennia ago and still retain the billions year-old earth and sun.

Quote:

magicjay said:
The reason 'Intelligent Design' is not science is that it has a conclusion and seeks evidence to support that conclusion. True science works the other way around; evidence leads to conclusion not conclusion needs evidence.

I think we may have an example of cognitive dissonance in action here. Believers are presented with evidence that conflicts with their initial conclusions about the nature of the world, causing psychic disequalibrium. With Intelligent Design theory they can pick and choose evidence that supports there initial beliefs and return to a state of psychic equalibrium. They are once again happy campers!



Actually, the dissonence is moreso in your court at this point. I've already pointed out various scientifically proven historical events asserted by the Bible, yet you ignore the bulk them and just google up text that speaks for your side of the argument--Whether that text has credibility or not.

Quote:

majicjay said:
Silly me. I thought the OT says The Grand Poobah created the heavens and Earth. It's far more plausable that a dense iron core planet, the third one of four, sprang magically into the set 12m years ago, 5 billion years after the others were formed!



God can do anything. *shrug* In which case, I misspoke; I meant all of the Sol System. I really don’t know if He decided to create the universe and Sol at the same time, but there’s nothing in the Bible that says before or after, so I don’t have a set conclusion at this point in time.

Quote:

Magicjay said
Why don't you just answer the question? You've presented falsehoods as truth.



Actually, I haven’t. You just keep trying to converse on a subject you know nothing about. You throw out accusational and condescending insults, which you call “arguments”, and then google for the slack that you can’t pick up yourself.

Quote:

That leaves two possibilities; either you're ignorant of the truth or you're lieing. Which is it?



Hmmmm…..I’m either a) ignorant, or b) I’m a liar……..I think I go with “c”. Magicjay’s a lunatic.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Solomon. And it was a standard practice for lords of houses in the Bible to take many wives.



Solomon was a book of poems that were describing the women, and the names of those women, who were devoted to Christ. “Married to the Lord”. As for “standard practice”: Whilst I’m aware of some people in the Bible being described as polygamous, I don’t remember any Biblical lesson telling us specifically that it’s okay to marry multiple women.

Quote:

Please show me the verses in the Bible that discuss genetics.



It’s elementary logic. God put off telling His people to not lie with their relations. Why for so long if there wasn’t a reason? Pre-Exodus, intercourse and marriage within the family was a common practice. Even after so voluminous amounts of in-breeding, the offspring’s physiology wasn’t degraded as one would expect from a child of incest in modern times. If it didn’t happen then, it technically shouldn’t happen now—According to the secular scientists of today….Of course they don’t take into mind the sudden laws put forth by Moses (from God), and the fact that if they weren’t adhered to in the following generations, there would have been mass amounts of deformation.

Quote:

Sodomy used to mean a lot of thinks. There was a point where sodomy was any sex act that wasn't man on top of woman.



…..So? What does that have to do with my specific reference? You know what I was referring to since I was using modern context. And this particular context was not only specifically banned in Sodom and Gommorah, but also Leviticus. In which case, that’s (slightly) irrelevant, because I was saying sodomy on a mass scale, and a small one, isn’t society-friendly, namely it’s not healthy. Anyway, the point is, you know what context I was using.

Quote:

Translation: People are getting mad at Pariah for being an idiot.



Getting mighty defensive.

Quote:

oookay...



Are you disputing that? If so, how?

Quote:

which is just not true. secular people and secular cultures aren't the babykilling rapists you seem to think they are.



I never said they are. I said they would have been without Christianity/Judaism. Religions.

Quote:

and you don't think most of the religious laws are set up to keep people in line?



Of course some are, but they have what secular laws lack: Sense of morals. In the end, there is no rooted moral standard that originated from static secularism. It was through religion (Christianity/Judaism) that morality was instilled in secular law.

Quote:

They were pretty much the same in terms of morals as any other culture at the time.



…….Uh…..Yeah. Exactly. No concept of morals. Pre-Christianity/Judaism, their was no morality in relation to their secularity/poly-theistic theocracies at all.

Quote:

Remember many "christian cultures" kept slaves for over a thousand years after christ.



Meaning, you’re being out-argued and so you’re trying to desperately (pathetically) shift weight.

So what examples are you trying to use to paint Christianity as amoral in the face of slavery.

Quote:

you can't base your argument on "because and expect any one to take you seriously. Its like me saying Superman is real because it says so in Action Comics.



The Bible isn’t Action Comics. As I already told you, the Bible is historically accepted by secular culture, meaning it’s a valid source of historical backing, which you’d have to adhere if you want to be “taken seriously”. Avoiding it simply because you hate Christianity and don’t “take it seriously” isn’t a valid excuse. It’s just exemplification of bias on your part. I don’t take evolution seriously or find it at all factual, but I at least address the subject with serious intent. I don’t feel I should have to, but I do simply because the majority of the people here (and on the planet) believe in it.

Quote:

and as I've said before. You may be able to show evidence for certain geological events that took place in the bible, but there's no proof of the people involved and the acts they performed.



Why stop with the events? The Old Testament has already, time and again, proven itself to be historically accurate—Not only when it comes to its historical figures such as Josue, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and David, but also the events that took place. Telles’ wall at Jericho fell “mysteriously”, as geological evidence proves, and the only account of how such a reinforced fortress could have fallen flat was from the Bible—More than that, it’s the only source that covered the battle at Jericho at all. At this point, we also know it was indeed fire and sulfuric that charred Sodom and Gommorah. The Bible knew of a flood, which wouldn’t even be proven by science for millennia. Furthermore, the Bible was also correct about the atrocities that Noe was fleeing. The bodies found in flood and pre-flood strata had all shown to have participated in acts viewed as abominable by the Bible.

Quote:

but if it was a slow flood then a whole bunch of people would've had time to build arcs and survive, which undermines the point of Noah.



No. They wouldn’t have. The pre-flood civilization wasn’t ocean faring, they were too far into the mainland. Furthermore, it took Noah a couple of centuries to finish the arc after he was given the instructions on how to build it. They did not have that much time to create more vessels.

Quote:

isn't there a bible quote about turning the other cheek.



Why is it exactly that you constantly quote the Bible, yet constantly misinterpret and/or misquote it at the same time? I mean, how exactly could you be jerk stupid enough to think that a society should turn the other cheek according to God unless you don’t know what you’re talking? God teaches us to not hold grudges. If a person hits you, your prime motivation shouldn’t be to continue the violence, but to defuse it. Just walk away if you can—Even if you’ve been physically affronted. If you absolutely can’t, you’re totally justified in defending yourself. One thing that means attack on sight, however, is the defense of your fellow man. If you see a person being hurt by others, you go into full readiness. That’s exactly the case with Europe—That’s why governments have to remain objectivist, even, logically, in the eyes of God. For a Shepherd not to watch over his flock would be a sin.


Quote:

and by your logic, are you cool if indians came into your house and slaughtered you because we attacked them first?



……Holy shit! You’re as loony as Jay. I mean, seriously, this stuff is worse than the first time you decided to challenge everyone using lies and talking about history you weren’t even aware of.

Quote:

you don't know much about (real) history do you? the pope back then was not like the pope of nowadays. He could order kings around under threat of excommunication.



Wrong. By that time, there was already a secular sect within European culture. The Papist lost that total dominion over centuries earlier. In which case, why would the armies need a nudging from the Papist to attack if they were already poised for it anyway?

Quote:

so revenge is now "cool" for catholics?



No. That’s just your patented ad hominem. You usually accompany them with straw mans when you’re shown to be full of shit—As per usual. You already tried to reason that the only ones who hadn’t persecuted anyone were the Jews and tried to say the Christians were the worst. I was just correcting your fallacy and informing you of your bias.

Quote:

The IRA, Timothy Mcveigh, David Koresh. Neither side is free of crazy killer fanatics.



With a big difference. It’s in the doctrine of Muslims to do what they’ve done. According to their majority, we’ve offended them somehow, and now they want retribution based on their teachings. The IRA has no such blessing from religion or the Vatican in general.

Quote:

I'm talking about your everyday average member of each church. An average Christian will try and convert whenever possible, an average Muslim will not, an average Jew will not.



So this is an example of Christians forcing you to convert.

Quote:

You look stupid when you assume that all Muslims are terrorists.



Where did I say “all Muslims are terrorists”? Seriously, where? Map out what I said for you to get the idea that I said, “all Muslims are terrorists”. You avoided showing me where I said it earlier when you made the same accusation.

Quote:

But the Jews got over it. And this was 2 thousand years ago.



No they didn’t, they just became out numbered.

Quote:

The Christians were oppressing Jews as recently as a few centuries ago.



Whatever. I just hope you’ve figured out at this point that monopolizing blame on the religion which you place the most hatred in and exempting others simply because they don’t annoy you is no way to make a point.

Quote:

True, scientists do operate on faith sometimes. But the very core of their belief in science is that the facts and evidence create conclusions. I can prove gravity easier than you can prove heaven.



However, simply because faith doesn’t provide direct and tangible proof of Heaven, that does not mean it cannot logically exist.

Quote:

Fine, Pariah. The Earth is 12,000 years old. We all sprung up from dust and a man's rib.
That really does make a lot more sense than evolution and a slowly evolving and developing planet.



Indeed it does.

Quote:

The Bible is never wrong. The writers of the bible never fudged the details. Kings and priests never altered it at all over the thousands of years.



And that’s one more thing secularists have failed to prove: An editing of the Bible.

You know, I think the fact that everything asserted in the Old Testament was confirmed speaks for me prodigiously in this area. I rest my case.

Quote:

they why isn't god active in the last few thousand years?



Because God made His point in the form of the Bible. After he conglomerated all of his lessons for mankind, we shouldn’t need His viewed presence by the senses to prove His existence.

Quote:

why is he so big in the bible, but more of a mysterious force in today's christianity?



His punishments and His rewards were demonstrated in the Old Testament. He wanted to make clear how He felt about sin. And that would reflect onto the current era and we’d understand what to do to get into His good graces.

Quote:

why do good christians die needessly when god can just come along and snap his fingers to save them?



A person passing on from this world isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Those “good Christians” would be saved by him if they were truly good. They’d go to Heaven—Of course this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t avoid death, the point is simply that a cease of our biological functions, on its own, doesn’t mean a person was forsaken.

Quote:

There is no way to believe 100% of what's in the bible through the prism of the real world.



And that’s simply because we’ve festered the perceptions that God doesn’t exist for the past half millennia. Whilst in its place, evolution takes the popular stand and misleads people into believing it’s the truth when after so much failure, it’s so obviously fiction.

The words of the Bible have weight. People simply choose not to acknowledge it. That fact alone does not mean the Bible’s teaching can’t be reality.

Quote:

well, where was (Judeo) god in Japan/China/Russia/the Americas?
Are the mideast people the only ones worthy? If that's true then is it okay to slaughter non-middle easterns because they're not descendants of the holy people?



WE’RE ALL DECENDENTS FROM THE “HOLY PEOPLE” YOU STUPID FUCK!!

Jeez! Talk about ignorance.

Europe and the Middle East were God’s catalysts. Christ’s influence created missionaries, namely the Apostles, and they traveled all over the world and spread the Word. In the end, just about all of the Globe has gotten a chance to turn to God. Ignoring it without genuinely looking into it first would be their own fault.

Quote:

r3x said:
the current pope was a Nazi.



Or, more accurately, he was apart of the Hitler youth.

Tell me r3x, why do you feel the need to lie—All the time?

Quote:

if you think that all morals are based on religious morals then that's the same as saying that religion has a monopoly on morality.



As I already said, it originally did. If it wasn’t for its influence, secularity wouldn’t have had a standard of morality.

Quote:

what about dinosaurs? or did I dream them?



Actually, dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible. I believe God pointed Noe in the direction of a dinosaur and proceeded to explain his physiology. Surprise surprise the description was that of a Brachiosaur. I also believe the Leviathan, mentioned in Old Testament again, was described as looking like the Lochnee Monster.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
And science does not assume what the causal factor is. Scientists test their assertions and leave those assertions open to falsifiability based on empirical evidence.



No. They don’t.

Quote:

Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:
No, according to me, others can't have a different opinion without you thinking we're all reacting to your posts:



So you're saying their insults weren't directed at l'il ol' me?

Quote:

Most of us ignore your long rants, you know.




Last edited by Pariah; 2005-07-16 4:05 AM.