User:Aurora sword/ExistenceofGod

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

Debate Topic: The Existence of God

Aurora Vs Bob

this page is for a discussion regarding the existence of god;

The earth is not 6000 years old, we can prove that there were civilisations before that, geologists calculate the earth to be billions of years old, and scientists have come to the same conclusion via carbon 14 dating. We have the big bang theory, we can date the exact start point of the universe (billions of years ago) by looking at red shift, and the on-going expansion of the universe.

we can prove that animals and plants have evolved, through the fossil record, if god created a perfect world as argued by some then why did some species die out? Were dinosaurs around in the garden of eden? it would hardly be "paradise" then now would it.

Gregor mendel (who was an abbott) has proved that evolution exists, by studying the reproduction of peas; he discovered the mechanism that plants use to evolve, to change the characteristics of the next generations-genes. We can prove the existence of genes and that they undeniably perpetuate evolution, as a desperate attempt to combat this the church has come up with it's theory of intelligent design, which gives god the credit for evolution.

Thus accepting evolution in the past 6000 years the church has yet again contradicted itself, in genesis it says god created man in his own image, if this is so then why do we all look different? why not have genes that made everyone look the same? We do not all look like christ or a burning bush, how can this intelligent design account for evolution when it contradicts genesis? the very book the church are trying to verify! one word- hypocrisy!

ok aurora your turn.

[edit] aurora 1

My turn

Aurora sword 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a few ways we can work around that. One explanation is that the events described in Genesis Chapter 1 was not the actualy creation of this world, but rather a "make-over", necessary as a result from the havoc that Lucifer inflicted upon Earth as described in Isaiah chapter 34 or 35 (I forget). True, the Earth is not 6000 years old, but that did not effectively disprove Genesis's account of events from the past.

Notice the wordings in Genesis, that they did not say that God created the Universe. It only said that God created the heavens (sky) and the Earth (ground). It was speculated that the extinction if the Dinosaur was a direct result of Lucifer's fall. That was 65 million years ago, and we a a couple of Ice Ages after that (hard times). Then, around 10000 years ago maybe (since exact date was unknown), God re-made the Earth. Along with new creatures such as mammals. The details is unclear...we can only know so much from a book.

I'll elaborate on the ambiguity of the exact date of The events in Genesis Chapter One. That number, 6000 years was obtained by an old fag of a priest some millenia ago, by adding all the age of the people mentioned in the bible (recorded in Chronicles). But there is a potential flaw in his calculation. Chronicles did not record how long Adam stayed in the Garden of Eden. It could've been hundreds or thousands of years, as he was immortal then. Chronicles only recorded how long time had passed after Adam left the garden until he dies.

Mendel only proved that mutation exists, not evolution. Mutation is a tool for evolution. Luck is the other one. The chance of a "good" mutation is very slim. Thus, if we view it as a whole, Evolution is unlikely. Though I must say it is not impossible, it is improbable. Evolution is quite flawed. For example, evolution suggests that every thing that makes out body had developed gradually over time. So consider the eye. It is an extremely complex organ, and I must say, wonderful. I can't do without it. It couldn't have been developed over just a short period of time over a small number of successful mutations. But, what good is half an eye? To think that maybe the nerves develop first, then the retina, then the pupil. It wouldn't quite work that way. The system has to work as a whole, so the whole must exist from the beginning. This is the whole argument about the "intellegent design" I guess..

There is another way to work around those scientific evidence involving more scientific approach involving the changing value of alpha, but personally, I think it's bullshit.

Quite enough for one post. I still have a lot to say about other things, too.. Also, let's sign our names on top instead of the bottom, it's more neat that way i think.

[edit] bob 2

my turn again (bob) Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}talk}

Yes but what you are saying would mean that dinosaurs are necessarily demonic, by associating them with the fall of Lucifer this is what you are implying, this also implies that they were created by Lucifer and not by god, god was supposed to be the only one who had the power to create. It also strikes me that the church seems to change its mind alot on the issue of date, but we can prove the earth existed before 65 million years ago also. Granted it does not say that god created the universe, only the earth etc and the subsequent "re-modelling" would be fine also, but in this re-making of the earth it says that god created man we can prove that man existed previously, even before those ice ages you have dubbed "hard times", hard times for whom? If man was created approx 10,000 years ago and birds and trees etc, how come we have evidence to prove those things existed millions of millions of years ago, even before those ice ages, take oil for instance we can prove that this is made of the matter of animals and plants that according to you do not exist until as recently as 10,000 years ago.

You have used the words "new creatures" the bible does not say anything about creatures existing prior to adam and eve, and the "re-modelling" of the world (as you have put it), you also say we can also only know so much from a book, this is my point entirely, you only have the bible to use as evidence, we have the world as proof, if god created the world then why oh why does it's very structure contradict the word of god? yes the priest was a fag his calculations were wrong but they were adopted by the church, in it's history it has blamed things it does not understand on pixies witches and suchlike, it seems to change it's view to suit the times the church needs updating, it only has the bible, although the message is kinda still there, it is too old, we don't covet our neighbours oxs' anymore. The bible is packed with parts that contradict each other.

The bible is anti homosexual in many places, but today a large proportion of priests are gay, you see what I mean? It needs updating, otherwise politics and science will be at the forefront, with religion limping in behind, the church has claimed to be a morale leader, but many parts of the bible are immoral, such as the people of sodom wanting to rape the angels, daughters getting their fathers drunk for sex, all these kind of things are in there. Joachim of fiore once predicted that the anti-christ would rise in the form of the pope some time in the 13th century and take over the world, the church believed him, the church promoted crusading when the bible is clear on murder as being bad, this holy war is just as bad as muslim Jihad.

Mutation of genetic information (DNA)is the fundamental principle of evolution, so yes mendel did verify evolutionary theories, we do evolve and change unlike what the bible tells us. This contradicts Paley who said that god created us perfecta dn said we would never need to change and he also raised your question of the human eye I believe, this is typical creationist arguement, you have yet to grasp cumulative natural selection, I suggest you read orgigin of species again (I have read this, the bible and many other sources from both sides.) Your side has yet to advance any alternative explanation supported by evidence for this, by looking at the eye objectively you are not advancing a counter arguement to evolution of the eye via random mutations (evolution), you are speculating that because the bible tells you so the human eye must be a creation of a divine entity, you are agreeing with paley still, he has been proven to be wrong, and another thing the eye is not a perfect organ as paley states it has lots of flaws in its structure, thats the eye arguement blown completely out of the water. (next?)

As Frank Zindler (former professor of biology and geology) stated,

"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!" see http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

this will also explain why the system does not need to work as a whole, an eye could easily have come into play through a series of mutations, starting with sockets and an eye which percieved light pitches alone.

I agree the way around the scientific approach to the universe put forward by the church is bullshit,the fine structure constant (alpha) defies the very reasoning put forward by the church, alpha has changed! but also (according to verified experiments by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) remained constant for the last 7 billion years, thus nullifying the churches arguement.

Ok I'm sorry if I went a little too hard on you there (as I know you agree with some of the things I believe, and are only taking the side of hardline church arguements voluntarily for the sake of this debate)

Are you c of e? catholic? I would like to know that also.

ok your turn: - (oh please advance a stronger arguement, (I am not being nasty) (as I know you agree with some of the things I believe, and are only taking the side of hardline church arguements voluntarily for the sake of this debate)I am just saying if you want to go on take this all the way, because I know my stuff. We have both started off rather weakly to test the water, but now lets go on from here, don't hold back, lol.

[edit] aurora 2

Aurora sword 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Okay lets get serious.

First of all, you misunderstood me. Maybe I din't say it in a quite clear enough way. The alternative I was suggesting earlier did not mean that Lucifer created the Earth. I'll briefly go through what it suggests. God created the universe, perhaps the big bang. Lucifer (which I'm sure you know was formerly a seraphim) and his minions made a rebellion in heaven. He was expelled from heaven and was sent to a planet called Earth (65 million years ago?). He then wreck havoc on that planet because he was angry. One day, God happened to be visiting Earth and saw its miserable state and decided that he will "re-make" it. There were already living things on Earth before then, ie Dinosaurs, insects, germs. The remake was good, and God also made a garden of eden and a man in it.

This theory/doctrine also hints that there is a big time gap between Genesis chapter one verse 1 and verse 2. Putting about a few billion years of nothing-big-happening there.

Also, the 6 days creation might not mean litterally 6 days in our time. People say that one God's day is 1000 years in human time, like Paul (or Peter?) said. But it's sounds like bullshit. What I propose is that God's "time" is a different "time" altogether to ours. That they are not parralel. In other words, it's a different time dimension. I like to view God as a being independent of time (ours).

If you start bringing up facts about the history of the Church, I can't say anything to defend its past atrocities. Inquisition, ex-communication, selling of Indulgence, the Dark Ages... they were a thing of the past and catholic anyway. I'm not a catholic. I dont know what c of e stands for. I was raised in a Protestant family and enviroment. But I wouldn't say I'm even a Christian now. The last church I went to was Baptist. We disagree about a lot of things that the catholics do. Or to be more general, we disagree with everything but ourselves. But anyway...

For us Protestants, we have a Sola Scriptura policy. Meaning that the only reliable source is the Bible. The Old and New testaments, but not the aphocyphrica (spelling???). So yeah, we are limited to just the bible as our source of knowledge. But...with the development of the Bible Code, the Bible suddenly becomes an infinite source of knowledge. I'm very sceptical about that Bible code...but sometimes these things are quite convincing.

About the gay priests... there are also a lot of pedophile priests out there. I'm sure the Catholic church still doesn't allow gay priests. They're not even allowed to marry or have sex. The castration law was probably abolished a few hundred years ago I don't know but anyway. There are a lot of Chritian denominations+sects out there. Each with their own policy and stand on things. I can't speak for all of them, I'm only familiar with a handful of them. I don't support nor go against homosexuality. I have a fetish myself...not to be discussed here...

The immoral things that the bible talked about were always followed by some form of punishment. Sodom and Gomorah was burned by some fire, and Lot's decendants were cursed. I've always thought that that paricular story with his daughters seducing him was kinda hot, actually. I bet they were blonde.

The church promoted the Crusades did they? I don't actually know. Sounds like some result of politics to me. The Crusades was actually just another war for profit, bearing religious banners. They do that... Guess what? Sounds a bit like Amerika with Iraq.

What you said about the eye was interesting. I never knew. Now, how about the simpler argument of wings then? Birds. To imagine that the early birds have useless featherless small wings? Also, the available fossils do not show that there were gradual development over time.

-I had an argument here, but deleted it since I can't back it...I have a limited knowledge about Biology-

Now that I have responded to almost every point made, I want to bring out some of my own points.

When I said I wanted to argue, I was actually thinking more of a philosophical/logical discussion instead of evidential. So I'll try to start heading that way. It seems like you already know what I will say anyway if I keep sticking to what creationist will say.

I'll try to write down what My own theory about God is...if he existed. It complements the Christian view at times, but also destroy some of its main principles. I drew some of the ideas from Christianity, and I like to "integrate" it with Christianity. Forget about mainstream Christianity now, no point in trying to defend something I don't believe. I'm sure someone else had came up with a similiar proposal before, though I haven't encountered any. Anyway, I have a difficult task ahead of me.

This is my view. God, is a being, a being quite like us. But he is not from this world. This world was created by him, by his thoughts. We exist because of him, because he is the point where we can define our existence from. If he did not exist, we cannot define our existence. But not all existence in this world are accredited to him. Some were just "assumed".

I have a whole different theory for explaining the Creation. As I said before, I believe that out time is not parralel with God's. So he did create the world in 6 days. His days. Imagine it like painting. First day, you paint the background, just the colours. On the second day, you paint the landscape, then you add lighting, then the scenery, the animals, etc. In those 6 days, he had also created the entire billions of years of history behind it. It was assumed. For him, those times did not exist, he did not directly create or have anything to do with it, but it was an indirect result of his creation. Just like if you're writing a story, and your character is a 14 year old girl, it can be assumed that she has had 14 years of life behind her before the story starts. For you, those 14 years does not exist, but for your creation, the girl, they were very real. Here, our world's story starts about 6000+ years ago I guess.

God does not have to be an infinitely wise man to be able to make a world. He failed many times anyway. From the stories we know that he is a loving God who wants humans to live a utopian sort of life. Clearly that is not the case. Perhaps he is still a God-in-training? The point is, he's not infinitely wonderful. Maybe he likes people to think that he is, though.

Summing up, my view of the world is that of a infinite-leveled universe, with God creating God creating us creating yet another world. You get the drift. Of course this is a problem.. an old problem contained in "If everything had to be created prior to existing, then God must've had a creator too. If God could create itself, then why can't the universe create itself?", Bertrand Russell said that I think. I've already thought of this problem of having infinite-leveled worlds. The only explanation I could come up with is that..it really is infinite. We're so scared of infinity, maybe we shouldn't be. According to what I propose..the total number of worlds out there I guess is infinity raised to the power of infinity (There's a notation or name for that, but I forget).

I'm afraid that I might not have explained the concept clearly. You might have to think a bit to work out what I'm really saying. It's hard to convey this abstract idea in written words. But do try to argue against that.

[edit] bob3

BOB Again

You said it quite clearly to start with, yes I am aware that Lucifer was of the highest order and hence a confidant of god. (so to speak) After his expulsion from heaven, he was sent to earth, which he set about destroying in his rage etc etc, the point that insects were already in existence is irrelevant, insects were not taken aboard the ark, and hence would have been wiped out by the great flood, they breath through tubes in their exoskeleton, they drowned. According to genesis 1 & 2 there should not be any insects around at all now. Furthermore, Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 define clean and unclean animals rather generally, there would probably not be many species left at all according to the bible, but passing on;

we can prove the existence of man before this "remake" 65 million years ago, (as you say, perhaps you would like to extend this period again? You seem very unclear on this.) I have read up on your statement that the doctrine hints on a large gap between the books of genesis, many tend to disagree saying that it was a much shorter time period, but you seem to have tripped yourself up by saying "Putting about a few billion years of nothing-big-happening there. " This would mean that you figure of 65 million years has just been extended by 2 billion years! this makes man very old indeed! it is a shame there is no fossil evidence of man existing at these times, oh unless of course man evolved? Have you changed your mind about that too?

Even with parrallel worlds and different times, this still only knocks 6000 years of that figure, just a drop in the ocean don't you think? Thank you for letting me know you are protestant, that gets some of the atrocities of the church out of the way, (the protestant church might I add does not have an altogether brilliant white past either.) but lets leave church histories out of it.

Im afraid the Sola Scriptura approach, is exceptionally flawed even with your bible code, the bible is immoral, hypocritical and highly contradictory of itself, not good traits when this book is the foundation of your sola scriptura arguement, and we must remember this was written by human beings we have the ability to lie.

Even though Sodom and Gomorah were burned by fire, and Lot's decendants were cursed, this is still not a very good position for christianity to be in, the attempted sodomising of angels and incest are not good messages to be putting out even if they were punished. The crusades were not a war for profit, take the first crusade for instance they lost a hell of a lot more than they gained, they then lost Jerusalem into the bargain, I don't know where you got that from, but I assure you its wrong.

You are wrong about wings, the fossil record does show steady development over time, from gliding birds, to swimming birds (eg penguins) the development of wings is shown by the fossil record to be a very slow process, from short stubs to the development of stronger heart muscles and lighter bone structure for flight.

Your idea of god days, shoots even more holes in what you said earlier, and for the billions of years to be a direct result (even if unintended) result of creation is absurd, it defies all laws of mathermatics and qunatum physics. You say you want to stay away from evidence, but what else do you have to offer? Nothing except theories, thank you for confirming my point! You cannot prove your increasingly altering (as our conversation goes on) theories. You are only speculating to make the bible fit what you want to believe.

And here you go again ". Here, our world's story starts about 6000+ years ago I guess. " no Do not go back on yourself! We have already discussed this the story of man does not start 6000 years ago! oh my do I have to go trhough this with you again? Or are you going to go along the lines of a mormon and say all fossils are created by Satan? Acknowledged that if god did exist he would not be infinitly wonderful, but where is you proof for this? "God does not have to be an infinitely wise man to be able to make a world. He failed many times anyway." I cant find the records of failed attempts to create worlds? what are you talking about? leaf to leaf cover to cover the bible doesnt mention this, or are we trying to stray away from evidential means again? Ah that kind of put the whole Sola Scriptura thing up the creek without a paddle!

you seem to have proved my next point inyour final paragraphs, if god could create itself then so can the universe, also we should be less afraid of infinity, its complexity can be seen all around us in nature, but this does not justify the existence of god. Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}talk} 4th april 3:45 now im back to barrowing laters.

[edit] aurora 4

Aurora sword 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Even according to the evolution model, mankind had not existed 65 million years ago! Not even pre-historic humans existed back then. Modern humans, if I'm not mistaken, started to appear around 20000 years ago

"This would mean that you figure of 65 million years has just been extended by 2 billion years!" No.. what!? The first verse refers to the initial creation of the universe, which started some 13 billion years ago according to Big-Bang model. The second verse describes the state of the earth 65 million years ago.

You can't say the bible is immoral, because for us, the bible defines morality. It contains depictions of immoral actions, but nothing wrong about that as it does not condone them, but instead discourages them. If people aren't exposed to wrongs, how can they tell right from wrong, and do the right thing?

"Even with parrallel worlds and different times, this still only knocks 6000 years of that figure, just a drop in the ocean don't you think?" I have said that the 1day=1000years isn't literal. If it was, it's really stupid. The writers of the Bible aren't scientists, they like to be poetic, so they throw in lines like that from time to time, even Jesus did. We usually interpret it as "God's time is different to ours".

"and we must remember this was written by human beings we have the ability to lie." We also have this other thing called "Divine Inspiration" (forget what it is in Latin). Which means that they write truth as revealed to them by the holy spirit.

"for the billions of years to be a direct result (even if unintended) result of creation is absurd, it defies all laws of mathermatics and qunatum physics" How?

"You cannot prove your increasingly altering (as our conversation goes on) theories. You are only speculating to make the bible fit what you want to believe....oh my do I have to go trhough this with you again?" Because, I was discussing a different model there! Please regard the first and second part of my last post as separate ideas.

The failure that I refered to was not failure in creating the world itself, but maintaining it. We see many bad things today. If I have to give an example of God's failure, I'd say he failed to keep Lucifer under his control (first and biggest fail). Then he failed to keep the fruit from the Tree uneaten by humans. My point is, he make mistakes, but is playing fair enough not to go back and correct them. He plays by a rule, to put it in other words.

"if god could create itself then so can the universe, also we should be less afraid of infinity, its complexity can be seen all around us in nature, but this does not justify the existence of god." If we can accept that existence is infinitely-leveled, then we can believe in God. It goes like this. a God, contained in a universe, created by a God, who is contained in a universe, and so on. Thus in essence, there are two elements that make up existence, a person(God), and a world (universe). Sounds right to me.

[edit] endasil 1

Endasil

I may jump into this discussion more fully in a while, but I wanted to expand on what you were saying in your paragraph immediately above, Aurora, because you kind of have it backwards. If we can accept that existence is infinitely-leveled, then that negates the need for creation. As finitely-minded beings we approach an object and declare that it must have a beginning. As infinitely-minded beings we approach an object and have no qualm with it not having a start or end. That's all I wanted to mention now, but I will probably post more soon Endasil (Talk) @ 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops I think I may have taken the wrong path in the ambiguity of the statement "God, contained in a universe, created by a God, who is contained in a universe". I thought you were implying that God created himself. Endasil (Talk) @ 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready to respond to one particular paragraph of Bob's, that has been shortly replied to by Aurora: "Even though Sodom and Gomorah were burned by fire, and Lot's decendants were cursed, this is still not a very good position for christianity to be in, the attempted sodomising of angels and incest are not good messages to be putting out even if they were punished. The crusades were not a war for profit, take the first crusade for instance they lost a hell of a lot more than they gained, they then lost Jerusalem into the bargain, I don't know where you got that from, but I assure you its wrong." -- You say, Bob, that including accounts of evil is unacceptable even if that evil was condemned? That's completely fallacious reasoning. That would be along the same lines as saying that our governments' laws mention rape by defining laws against rape, and so are therefore immoral. That's a completely bogus way of looking at morality. As for the crusades, while I am not a historian, what you say there is also fallacious. It's backwards logic. Aurora postulates that the crusades were motivated by a desire for profit. You say that, because they did not profit from the Crusades, they must not have been done for profit. As I have said, backwards logic. Take this analogy. You're late for a meeting, so you speed on the highway to try to make it on time. In the end, you're still late for your meeting. Were you then speeding for any other reason than to try to make it on time? Of course not! {{Signatures/Endasil|02:11, 12 April 2007

[edit] bob 4

BOB AGAIN

ok so it's a bit unfair to call the bible immoral, but whatever way you look at your time arguement it is seriously flawed, (even if you don't agree with the writers of the bible who like to "throw in lines like that from time to time" just to fool us haha, look at those idiots in the future, they believe us! Wat utter noobs lmao.

You usually interpret it as "god's time is different to ours", well thats convienient! thta leaves you an amount of time between genesis 1&2 to play with, you could say it was however many years you like, the church convieniently has so many times. Even if the truth was revealed to them by the "holy spirit", they can still lie! whos to say the spirit wasn't lying! lol no seriously take pixies and witches for example the church wrote about these and obviously lied but what they said was taken to be the truth.

It defies the tangent law of time expansion or something, it basically said that a tangent (the indirect result) was governed by the forces or something, i found a page from a ivy league uni in america it explained this, but i cant remember what i googled for it, so lets forget that.

your post wasn't very clear, you do not have to go through it with me again! because you never did at the beginning, it would help if you tell me when you begin a different model! hello! aurora! how was i supposed to know???

ok assuming god plays by a rule and makes mistakes, why the hell did he bother to add the tree in the first place? As you say lucifer has no power of creation so it must have been god, thats like saying to a child you can have one cookie now, or wait 30 mins you can have two, they will always take 1 cookie! It was bound to happen, if there was no tree their would be no temptation, im no divine being but I can see that! (god doesn't seem very clever does he)

And infinately leveled universes kinda shoot your arguement down in flames, infinate leveled universes wouldn't require a creation to occur, as I see endasil has put above.

and endasil I was not using backwards logic I have studied the crusades from every angle at college all of them! They were not a war for profit, they were more of a war for pride the fact that they looted and pillaged on the way does not mean they were launched for the purpose of making profit, it was innocent who said in 1095 that the purpose of the crusade was for the recapture of jerusalem from the infidel.

and in response to endasil below (who could have left a space for my reply< just a thought!) even with your point we would not have the millions of species and diversity we have today even if a few had crept onto the ark, if u had one or two of each of each species of insect steathily boarding the ark commando style of some sheep or something they would probably fill the entire ark anyway!

ok kang, we know that most christians are misinformed but you have yet to put forward an arguement against evolution, you have said that change caused by the fall of humans forces the environment to change, how? Did god do it if so it isn't documented in the bible. you really ought to make a point here instead of criticising other christians.

yes kang, i think you will find there are many priests accussed of these crimes and found guilty who ARE STILL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH! (kinda negates your point) they are still allowed to be christians, i dont know what kinda religion you are but im talking bout catholics and protestants c of e etc.

well done! the crusades were caused by innocent's thirst for power. But innocent was the head of christianity so it was a massive CHRISTIAN screwup.

"PPPS: I noticed something about how fossils do not necessarily show slow, lengthy organ/limb development like it should. Scientists now think that evolution follows a 'spurt' pattern. No change...no change...no change...MASSIVE CHANGE...no change...etc." (kang) aurora! pay attention this is exactly what i put to you and you have ignored and skipped onwards!

oh and kang read endasil's arguements against your point, his arguement's about not being able to sin and amoeba pretty much match what I was going to say to you, i suggest you stay out of this kang, as so far you have presented no logical arguement that follows from your premises (which are wholly inaccurate to start with) oh and aurora Punctuated equilibrium is a sensible theory can you counter it? (you just told kangthe theories name without leaving a counter arguement)

[edit] endasil 2

Argh, I cant help it. Too easy of a target. You say "the point that insects were already in existence is irrelevant, insects were not taken aboard the ark, and hence would have been wiped out by the great flood, they breath through tubes in their exoskeleton, they drowned. According to genesis 1 & 2 there should not be any insects around at all now." --Again, a bogus argument. Insects may not have been invited, but they sure as hell would have been on the ark. You try to get two of every living animal on the ark without taking their respective colonies of pests! The ark would have been a prime breeding ground for nearly every kind of insect: damp wood, crowded animals, and presumably more vegetation than anyone can imagine for all those animals to eat! Sorry, don't think that I'm trying to prove the historicity of the flood, I simply want to make sure that arguments are defensible, and will destroy those that aren't. Endasil (Talk) @ 02:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kang 1

Kang Smashes Some Heads

Thought I'd put in my two cents.

First, I am a Christian.

Second, most Christians are ignorant, stubborn, or misinformed.

My meaning? Most Christians take the Bible literally. That's not to say I don't believe in the power of God: quite the contrary. I refer to specific sections of the Bible, most noteably, creation.

"God created the earth in seven days!" Moron. The original bible did not use the word days. The original bible used a word that means 'periods of time'. 'Days' was mistranslated. The fact that there are seven is a recurring element of the Bible.

If, then, you accept the translation factor as mentioned above, the age of the earth is no problem. But what about evolution?

"There can't be evolution, God made us perfectly!" Sigh. This is an argument that most Christians are very, very, very stubborn on. I myself have thought of a theory that makes sense.

God creates the universe. Whup-de-doo. The world is perfect, no sin, no evil, everyone's happy. Or NOT! The 'fall of man' occurs, and man now has sin, evil. This means that MAN is now reacting NEGATIVELY to his ENVIRONMENT because he is not acting within the boundaries of the perfect system that is in place. And that means that the ENVIRONMENT must CHANGE or it will DIE. And because it changes, the other creatures who live there must change, or THEY will die. And on and on it goes. Because if one little thing is wrong, it forces change upon change, which is the very NATURE of evolution.

"But God made us in his image! People weren't around that long ago!" You stupid, sourceless dialogue. Here is one of the greatest arrogancies of the Christian faith: 'God made us in His image, so GOD must look like US.' Who's to say God doesn't look like a monkey? A cell? A molecule? But no: we immediately ASSUME that he HAS to look like we do.

See, this is the part where I start punching fellow Christians. They can be so STUPID sometimes *COUGH*Crusades*COUGH*Thirty Years' War*COUGH*Salem*COUGH* Crap...something stuck in my throat. *HAAACCKKK*Inquisition!*KAFF*

PS: Aurora, in your first argument you stated that the Bible only mentions the creation of the sky and the ground. No offense to the Hebrews, but you have to remember how OLD this religion is. We're talking faraway B.C.: Moses wasn't exactly an Astronomer. These people didn't really care about Jupiter, etc, nor did they know they existed.

PPS: Bobby boy, in one section of your argument you claim the Bible 'contradicts' its followers and 'needs updating'. Allow me to butcher that section. (you havent really butchered anything read my reply)

Homosexual/Abusive Priests: These people are not Christian. Perhaps they were, perhaps they think they are...they're not. They are sick, sinful people living a facade. This can be hard for a Christian to understand but...if you're a true believer, you won't become a molester/rapist/etc. You just don't. There are those creepy few who do, but those people are no longer Christians. That's...(I don't want to say 'beneath' you).

Violence, Rape, Etc in the Bible: Life happens. End of story. People are iheritly (sp) evil. Epilogue of story.

Crusades: THE BIGGEST SCREWUP IN CHRISTIAN HISTORY. If you investigate it, it was done not for a God, but for one man's ego and thirst for power.

PPPS: I noticed something about how fossils do not necessarily show slow, lengthy organ/limb development like it should. Scientists now think that evolution follows a 'spurt' pattern. No change...no change...no change...MASSIVE CHANGE...no change...etc.

--Kang227 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] endasil 3

Endasil (Talk) @ 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Kang, you call yourself a Christian so I think it's time that I told you that your grasp of Christianity is very weak.

1. You say that no true Christian can commit the molestation that some priests have been accused of. If that is the case, it is based on an assumption that once you become a Christian, it is impossible to sin. God sees all sin as equal in that they are all completely damning. Therefore, you are not a Christian, because I guarantee that you have also sinned since you became a Christian (you've never told a lie, felt lust, harboured hatred (I daresay you wrote the above paragraph with hate in your heart, so there you go, you're already not a Christian). So cut out the crap saying that no true Christian can make a mistake. It's complete bull statements like that which set up a standard for Christians that no one can reach.

2. You mention the fact that the word used for "day" could mean simply an "era of time." I hate to inform you that that is a very old argument which just floats around to appease Christian evolutionists. The word used for day in Genesis 1 is used exclusively, throughout the entire Bible to only mean a 24 hour period. That's not to say it wasn't metaphorical, however.

3. God made us in His image. I think the real arrogance is when people assume "image" to mean a physical, visible sense, as you have. In the context of Genesis, image means "likeness;" in other words, humans were created to be spiritual when other animals were not.

4. So what you are saying with your theory of evolution fitting into the fall of man is that evolution took place because of the fall of man, in other words, because man disobeyed God. I have many problems with that:

If no evolution occured before the fall of Man, what was "man" at that time? A single cell? By your logic, it would have to be basic protein fluids. Otherwise, where exactly did man start. What did man look like at your bogus "perfect state"?
Because your logic leads the fall of man to occur to basic single-celled organisms, I'll refer to it as the "fall of the amoeba." The problem with the fall of the amoeba is, does an amoeba have the brain capacity to commit sin. In other words, do you really believe that an amoeba can comprehend what the will of God is, and then choose to do something different?

5. All in all, you are obviously wrestling through some real issues that would make you post such a violent response. Perhaps cool it, do some research and don't be so quick to judge people "less smart than you," because in all honesty, based on the response you've given, I daresay they probably are smarter.

[edit] aurora 5

[edit] long article is loooooooooooong

"PS: Aurora, in your first argument you stated that the Bible only mentions the creation of the sky and the ground. No offense to the Hebrews, but you have to remember how OLD this religion is. We're talking faraway B.C.: Moses wasn't exactly an Astronomer. These people didn't really care about Jupiter, etc, nor did they know they existed."

But in no way does it nullify my point. Moreover, astronomy is oooooooold, and Moses was a learned man. Aurora sword 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"I noticed something about how fossils do not necessarily show slow, lengthy organ/limb development like it should. Scientists now think that evolution follows a 'spurt' pattern. No change...no change...no change...MASSIVE CHANGE...no change...etc."

Ah yes I've wanted to talk about that also. That is Punctuated Equilibrium . It seemed unlogical. I'm skeptical about this Aurora sword 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kang 2: The Return

In response to Endy...

1. I was more than likely not being exceptionally clear. I am not saying that being a Christian makes you sinless: quite the opposite. I think that, being a Christian, the devil would actually try to get you to sin even more (sort of an 'oh-no-you-don't' reaction). The point that I was TRYING to make was that, being a Christian, it is unlikely that you would want to do something sinful, such as abuse. Or, doing such an action, you have fallen away from God and into sin, and are thus no longer a Christian (the thing about Christianity is that God will accept us no matter how many times we foul up. The thing is, though, that being Christian means that we trust in God to help us to overcome our sinful tendencies).

2. Did you just...entirely debase my argument about the word 'day' and then admit that it might be metaphorical? That seems...redundant. Not QUITE there, but close...

3. A very good point that I overlooked. It looks like I'm less arrogant than most Christians but still more arrogant than you (grins).

4. Some stuff here...

You yourself said, and I agree, that 'image' may mean the shaping of the soul, not the physical body.

5. Violent? My response is violent?

Swordy...

Right, P.E. Forgot the exact term. Actually, it makes MORE sense for Evolution than slow, gradual change. As always, the rat-to-bat evolution is a prime example. Slow, gradual change makes no sense in this case. Why would a rat need sonar on the ground? Why would a bat WITHOUT sonar be nocturnal? They wouldn't be day-fliers: they feed on insects that are highly active at night (fruit and pollen bats being exceptions).

As Chrichton said, "It's like a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a fully operational Boeing 747." (Albiet very, very slowly). Punctuated Equilibrium makes more sense in this case: rapid change, taking place relatively quickly, would combine traits to be more adventageous overall.

--Kang227 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endasil 4

Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from in this debate. Bob, especially you, seem to think that I'm countering your ideas when I call foul on certain arguments. I assure you, that's not what I'm doing. I have not once gone against anything that you have actually concluded. What I have been doing in this debate is making sure that the logic that flows to those conclusions is sound. For example, the crusades. While I have no idea what the rationale was for the crusades, I noticed that your proof of them not being for profit was backwards logic--that's not to say that your statements are wrong! Just that the way you got there was not valid. Also, the stuff with the ark...I only countered a statement that you made--that no insects could have made it through the flood--not a conclusion. There would of course be thousands of species of insect that wouldn't have made it onto the ark, as you have stipulated. Endasil (Talk) @ 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

your trying to fix our premises? ok go ahead thanks Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}talk}

[edit] I'm Bored!

Like it says i'm bored with this discussion, it hasn't really gone far, I am leaving it to add another 100 lvls to my total. Making all stats 60+ etc, god in my opinion does not exist, but i can't conclusively prove that, Aurora can't prove he/she does. Evolution makes sense and fits the facts, genesis as far as I'm concerned is a load of bull s***, and the bible is a book full of cleches, nothing more, oh and I suggest you just enjoy your life, and put your finger up in religions face, but respect other peoples choices as long as they don't constrict you etc. I have no time for all that cr**. (I don't believe any religion) Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}talk}

Aurora sword 592 edits since March 19, 2007