Evolution vs Creationism - Page 14

Mot73 · 07-29-2004, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

The reason you're concerned about seeming disrespectful is because your questions seem silly, when in fact the reasons your questions are silly is because that which motivated the questions is what truely lacks base.

Ummm No..the reason I'm concerned about being respectful is that I desire to be respectful. wow..you can read between the lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!

typing thoughts out on a screen of this depth is not an easy thing to do. I like dudeman and play games with him and desire NOT to offend him. Thats all!!

**=DdogG=** · 07-29-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

The reason you're concerned about seeming disrespectful is because your questions seem silly, when in fact the reasons your questions are silly is because that which motivated the questions is what truely lacks base.

I truly have no desire to fight why my belief is as worthy of consideration as yours. It still boils down to the fact that this debate centers around a human intelect and its extremely limited sense of reality. no one here has definitive proof of either side. until someone can provide this proof, this thread can go on ad nuaseum with no resolution. therefore, I respectfully take my leave of this pointless argument that can only lead to inflamtory comments that have speckled already the mature content that has been so well preserved. kudos to everyone who kept the debate intelectually sound and emotionally detatched. the rest of you should rethink your future posts.

**Wyzcrak** · 07-29-2004, 04:20 PM

Yes, yes... we all like Dudeman. Content is being discussed here, not people.

Since we're asking people for tangible proof, someone, preferrably Mot, please define what something must be for it to be, for the sake of argument, tangible.

Touchable?

Perceivable by the mind?

I think the comment about all of this, science and religion, requiring faith is spot on. DdogG is bowing out for good reason. We're debating details of two unprovable faiths. Like most (and not all) threads in the Sandbox of 10 or more pages, it comes down to opinions without proof, and with few or no participants changing their mind about anything.

Makes for an entertaining read, though.

Mot73 · 07-29-2004, 04:30 PM

I think you could have done this..but I'll do the work

Tangible:
Etymology: Late Latin tangibilis, from Latin tangere to touch
1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : PALPABLE b : substantially real : MATERIAL
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

Proof
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6 a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly-polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic print made from a negative
7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8 a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45% alcohol>

anything else I can help with?

**Wyzcrak** · 07-29-2004, 05:03 PM

I guess my point was that I wanted you to make a decision more than cite a dictionary, which any of us can do.

I mean, if you're asking Dudeman for tangible proof, I would think it noteworthy that the three definitions you've cited for 'tangible' are, at least within the context of a discussion as touchy ( man, talk about putting the P.U. in pun

) as this one, very different.

One of the three should be selected as the definition which will be used for the sake of argument. If you're asking for tangible proof of how the existance of life began, it becomes significant as to whether evidence is such because it can be "touched" or simply "realized by the mind," much less "appraised at an actual or approximate value."

My mind can realize the Big Bang, but I still must have faith that it occured, regardless of how or why it occured. I cannot touch it, so one could argue that I do not have "tangible" proof, despite your above dictionary citation clearly supporting someone else's argument that I do.

**Pokerface** · 07-29-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

well no it is infact what you were calling, me, but i also inplore that you find evidence that i have said the bible was a mold of what a christian has to follow as the law to the last full stop.

i havernt, therefore when you make the assumption that it must be what i mean, you are incorrect.

OK then, I apologize.

Quote:

the fact is that ok old or new, does every christian follow everything in the new and noothing in the old. this is a possibility but it is also wrong by some, if not many standards, therefore the conflict is aparant in the teachings of the bible.

Now, the above, you DID say.
Not every Christian follows everything in the new and nothing in the old, true. There's stuff in the Old that was never replaced, and still rings true today. Then again, there's a great deal that was revised. But pointing out the contradictions of the Bible as a reason that the religion itself (and possibly God itself) are flawed is no argument. It's like looking in a history book and saying "Look, in this chapter the people had slaves, but in this chapter everyone's saying slavery is bad! History sucks!"

Quote:

what worries me more i suppose, it if you are following the new testiment, whos interpretation is it of what god meant, and why should i even credit them. while it may be logical, the old testiment was used for hundreds of years.

In general, the person whose interpretation it originally was has their name printed in the top corners of the pages. Exceptions being the ones named for a group of people, in which case, Paul would be the author.

The reason the New Testament IMMEDIATELY supercedes the Old Testament is Jesus. I mean, you DO have to buy into Christian belief for the next sentence to be true, but it's a whopper. God became man, came to earth, and told everybody important stuff, and then DIED for man. That's a reason to start writing a new playbook if e'er I saw one.

Quote:

you see i never once said that christians are going to follow the bible to the letter, but it is this mistical guidence you talk about that makes them better than the pathless unguided non believers (

) and how can you take guidence from a rehash of a rehash of what someone alledgedly said.

Again, to drive it home: God became man, came to earth, and told everybody important stuff, and then DIED for man. We're talking the infinite becoming finite for the purposes of salvation. I'd try to dig for some original work, but in the absence of such, I'd probably take God's word any way I could get it.

Brooklyn · 07-29-2004, 06:26 PM

Well Dudeman here we are again WE MUST CONVIENCE DUDEMAN THAT GOD EXITS.....
NO we dont " The heavens and the mountains proclaim God's greatness" When you go out to the country or the beach or even look up into the heavens at night deep down you know , you feel theres a God . Goodnight an may God bless you ! ALL

P.S. The reason I quote the Bible is because its Gods word to man. "And his word shall not come back void" .

wickerman · 07-29-2004, 06:42 PM

Honestly, you shouldn't make any attempt to convince him of anything. Most of the discussion here has been each side stating their positions on different issues in a very respectable manner. I'm withdrawing from this discussion too.

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

No. The God of Christianity may WANT the devotion of man, but he isn't about to make us do so. And he certainly isn't up for making us pay or killing us. Why is it the naysayers are so fixated on the Old Testament here?

Because those books exist? The Biblical god is suppose to be unchanging. If that's true, the OT gives us a unique look at your god at his worst. The NT shows Jesus, his son <and himself if you believe the Trinity> showing all kinds of love. The OT doesn't do that. He was an angry god. He was a jealous god. Also, I believe it's Revelations in the NT that tells us how God will destroy the earth and every living person that hasn't gone to heaven or been saved.

Quote:

Amen. Or whatever word you wish to use to express agreement.

Like most who use the English language, I simply use "agreed" or "absolutely". "Sing it, brother" will work for me...

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Bull, and you know it. The Bible is HORRENDOUSLY contextual, which is why parts contradict other parts and so on and so forth. Its original writers weren't thinking about folks 2000 years down the line, and so they didn't write explaining the ancient world they lived in, because their audience already LIVED in that world.

Interesting. My families Baptist religion doesn't believe there are any errors in the Book and if I quote them a verse, they tell me it's out-of-context and I have to look at verses in other books to divine the true meaning. I do that, and you tell me it's bull.

Quote:

Christianity may have had 2000 years, yes, but its mythology goes back further than that. It was making life by day five.

Paganism is the oldest religion and it would argue that point.

Quote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"Why worry about things you can't know.", followed IMMEDIATELY by "Look to the future."
That's CLASSIC. Man, talk about things you can't know...

But you can know the future. You only have to wait for it. I can't know what happened 20 million years ago, but I will know what is going to happen on Friday. I'll tell you all about it Saturday.

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

LOL....Its a danger to look at others as the benchmark of what christianity is or should be....sad to have to say that....but one must use the benchmarks that are stable...The Bible and God himself. Only then can you get a true picture. And I know the Bible has been translated over the years.....and I know there are descriptive stories and so forth that don't apply to todays culture...you have to look at the meanings....not read everything as literal.

The Bible isn't stable. It's contradictory and mis-translated. Some stories are literal and some are just allegory. It's pretty useless without someone saying "Yea that one is fact".. "No.. that is just symbolism". Unfortuantely, Christians will argue which one are which. My boss believes that the creation story is allegory and describes the big bang and it's results.

Christians must be used as a benchmark. If I don't like how Christians act, why would I want to become one? Sure... Those people aren't really Christians... How am I suppose to know since we are all sinners? One can't expect a Christian to be perfect sure but where is the baseline?

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

Maybe God created that moral guidepost within you? As human beings who having a free will, choose to reject God and that guidepost within them, God deemed it necessary to get it on "stone"

Just because He decided to put on in written form at a point in time doesn't mean its "pre" or exists without God.

Have you ever seen "A Few Good Men"? Jessup made it "crystal clear" that men follow his orders or men die. Yet he was moving Santiago because he wanted to protect him from his men, who he ordered not to do anything <or so goes his story>.

Quote:

Col. Jessep: Ever put your life in a man's hands or asked him to put his life in yours?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple. Are we clear?
Kaffee: Yes, sir.
Col. Jessep: ARE WE CLEAR?
Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I just have one final question before I put Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez on the stand: If you gave an order that Private Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Private Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?

If God created a moral guidepost within me, he wouldn't need to put it on a stone as well. Why would it be necessary? If I have a moral guidepost in me, why do others not? "They choose not to follow it" Sure. Why put it on a tablet if I'm already ignoring the moral guidepost?

Quote:

This post is just "another" could it be type to be used as food for thought.

Ditto

Quote:

I submit that morality exists because of God. He is the author of the guidepost that is within each of us. I know you all won't believe it. and Thats ok

As long as you believe it's ok, in the end we won't have a problem.

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

That seems a little disrespectful. To the Christian, the Bible is more than a storybook.

We don't call much of our formalized educational text books storybooks. The bible is similiar. A book with stories yes..but much more.

Respectfully.

It's not disrespectul and I'm not Christian. It's what I think. Just because you believe it's more, doesn't mean I do. Read the post using my monitor.. not yours :P

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 07:21 PM

[quote=Pokerface]The Old Testament is OLD for a reason. Because there's a NEW one. I'll even go so far as to say a BETTER one.

My argument is that the people most against Christians seem to think that the entire Bible is carve-it-in-your-forehead truth, when it's not.[quote]

As I've already said, it's many of your fellow Christians who believe that. Don't knock us for trying to debate with your groups general rules.

I've noticed a lot of people complaining <media and other websites> about how much crap Christians get. Why do you think that is? Why aren't the Wiccans taking crap? Buddhist? Hindus? Islam and Christianity believe that their way is the only way. The others believe their are many roads. How many people like to be told their way is bunk? How arrogant is that religion to do so?

Fait_Maker · 07-29-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

I hear both of you Ice and Wicker....but I guess I don't understand the concept that evolution is the more plausable answer. Frankly...the term evolution itself really is saying that "something that has been" is now something different. Ok..I can buy that to a degree. The entire topic of creation vs evolution doesn't even make much logical sense as "creation" implies something coming into being that didn't previously exist...its a beginning.

why do we compare the two?

How did "life" in whatever form start? THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!! No one has ANY tangible proof!!!!!!

I've already noted in a much previous post that people mistake origins of life with Evolution theory. As I've most recently noted, if you can believe in god, you can believe that the big bang theory IS the creation story. It's all about how literal you take Genesis to be.

07-29-2004, 04:20 PM	#198 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Evolution vs Creationism Yes, yes... we all like Dudeman. Content is being discussed here, not people. Since we're asking people for tangible proof, someone, preferrably Mot, please define what something must be for it to be, for the sake of argument, tangible. Touchable? Perceivable by the mind? I think the comment about all of this, science and religion, requiring faith is spot on. DdogG is bowing out for good reason. We're debating details of two unprovable faiths. Like most (and not all) threads in the Sandbox of 10 or more pages, it comes down to opinions without proof, and with few or no participants changing their mind about anything. Makes for an entertaining read, though. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

07-29-2004, 04:30 PM	#199 (permalink)
Mot73 Join Date: May 2003 Location: DuBois, PA Age: 43 Posts: 586	Re: Evolution vs Creationism I think you could have done this..but I'll do the work Tangible: Etymology: Late Latin tangibilis, from Latin tangere to touch 1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : PALPABLE b : substantially real : MATERIAL 2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible> 3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets> Proof 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning 2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE 3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity 4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness 5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal 6 a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly-polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic print made from a negative 7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality 8 a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45% alcohol> anything else I can help with?

07-29-2004, 05:03 PM	#200 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Evolution vs Creationism I guess my point was that I wanted you to make a decision more than cite a dictionary, which any of us can do. I mean, if you're asking Dudeman for tangible proof, I would think it noteworthy that the three definitions you've cited for 'tangible' are, at least within the context of a discussion as touchy ( man, talk about putting the P.U. in pun ) as this one, very different. One of the three should be selected as the definition which will be used for the sake of argument. If you're asking for tangible proof of how the existance of life began, it becomes significant as to whether evidence is such because it can be "touched" or simply "realized by the mind," much less "appraised at an actual or approximate value." My mind can realize the Big Bang, but I still must have faith that it occured, regardless of how or why it occured. I cannot touch it, so one could argue that I do not have "tangible" proof, despite your above dictionary citation clearly supporting someone else's argument that I do. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

07-29-2004, 06:26 PM	#202 (permalink)
Brooklyn Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 157	Re: Evolution vs Creationism Well Dudeman here we are again WE MUST CONVIENCE DUDEMAN THAT GOD EXITS..... NO we dont " The heavens and the mountains proclaim God's greatness" When you go out to the country or the beach or even look up into the heavens at night deep down you know , you feel theres a God . Goodnight an may God bless you ! ALL P.S. The reason I quote the Bible is because its Gods word to man. "And his word shall not come back void" .

07-29-2004, 06:42 PM	#203 (permalink)
wickerman Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 230	Re: Evolution vs Creationism Honestly, you shouldn't make any attempt to convince him of anything. Most of the discussion here has been each side stating their positions on different issues in a very respectable manner. I'm withdrawing from this discussion too.

07-29-2004, 07:21 PM	#209 (permalink)
Fait_Maker Join Date: Mar 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 467	Re: Evolution vs Creationism [quote=Pokerface]The Old Testament is OLD for a reason. Because there's a NEW one. I'll even go so far as to say a BETTER one. My argument is that the people most against Christians seem to think that the entire Bible is carve-it-in-your-forehead truth, when it's not.[quote] As I've already said, it's many of your fellow Christians who believe that. Don't knock us for trying to debate with your groups general rules. I've noticed a lot of people complaining <media and other websites> about how much crap Christians get. Why do you think that is? Why aren't the Wiccans taking crap? Buddhist? Hindus? Islam and Christianity believe that their way is the only way. The others believe their are many roads. How many people like to be told their way is bunk? How arrogant is that religion to do so? __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links