 |
Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online Magic: the Gathering Play with Apprentice and Magic Workstation; casual or tournament play.
|
|
|
| Did this convince you of the fact of creation? |
| Yes, you have enlightened me. |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, I was already convinced of it's clear truth. |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, I am too brainwashed by evolutionists. |
|
83% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Engrishskill
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 249
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: O Rly? |
 |
|
Hah, if there really was a god, he wouldn't need inbreds running around, pounding his book, saying it's so. Aids, downs syndrome, alcoholism, Roma Downey Jr., Maroon 5, constant death and starving in Africa, religious fanatics, rape and so forth. If were god, I would assert my authority...I'd be all like "respect ME bitches!" and shot scalding hot menstrual blood at non-believers and then murder believers with linoleum knives just because I didn't trust them. Seriously, when you're god it's all about the popping up and effing with people and invoking fear. I guess you could compare it to when that one haggard spice girl shows up for celebrity crap with that homo Beckham.
Even if there was a god, he can go f*ck himself with all the marvelous things that he has allowed mankind to inflict on eachother.
There is free will and then there is making a parasytic and innately evil race called man. I mean seriously...Avril LeVine and Maroon goddamned 5! God is dead.
This message has been brought to by god: the invisible giant you turn to when you're about to die.
Last edited by Engrishskill on Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
warwizard87
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thedarkness i just read your post very well thought out perfect arguments, you sir do need to read a book called "the Jesus mysterys" they shed alot of light on how currant Christianity formed and were its origins sprang from. the things this book state and back will have most of you doubting currant church doctrine and looking at your religion in a new peaceful light. I would explain it here but it is a huge thissis and far to advanced for a few simple posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Engrishskill
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kent B! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Avata
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a Christian, but I stopped reading when I saw you use www.answersingenesis.com to try and prove anything constructive.
Seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsa_
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
STEVE WONDER IS BLIND.
IF LOVE IS BLIND,
AND GOD IS LOVE,
SO, STEVE WONDER IS GOD!!!
God evolved! Now, he is a Rock Star, can´t you see it? It´s just evolutionism!
ha ha ha
Your topic is insane and funny! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coolcreep
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you want a real debate, don't post things that insinuate "i am 100% right you are 100% wrong if you disagree with me and nothing you say will ever change that LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALA". You post "the theory of evolution" then use your own words as fact and try to attack evolution, then post "the fact of creation" and again use your own diction to try to support creationism as fact. These circular arguments may convince your feeble mind, but I am afraid I require something more solid to base my opinions on, such as overwhelming scientific evidence proving evolution. To argue things such as the grand cannion being created by errosion over a 40 day flood is simply rediculous. If you want to live in your little bubble and thump your little book until your hands are raw, then be my guest, but don't expect to change any intelligent minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_Metallica_
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's get things clear... first of all i'm a REAL catholic, with REAL i mean, a man that bealives in God and try to follow his laws (i obviously sin like everyone) but i know why i bealive in God. People that bealive in something without proof are stupid (that includes bealiving in God without any proof), but people that doesn't bealive just because they haven't saw it are stupid too, i won't discuss the tons of proofs there are.
and don't come with the "God wrote the bible and the bible says he exist", because that is a huge lie and stupid logic.
We (Catholics) bealive in evolutionism... God obviously didn't create the earth as it is writen in the bible, REAL catholics are aware of that. God created life, nature and it's laws.
i'll say something that you might not understand.
"Faith and Science are never opposed".
You (average guy) obviously fail at understanding this; I mean if you don't know that the bible is sometimes metaphoric you don't know shit about religion.
You says that we are brainwashed, well i'd say you're brainwashed, i mean you're "so openminded" because it's a trend, society tells you to be "rebels" and "go again the system" i won't discuss that either.
I rest my case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sun_Jian
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, i find your link on the holocaust highly offensive. How can you hope to make a serious argument for your case with such utter nonsense?
Secondly, though I must admit I have time nor interest to read all your links, I find that all you do is argue against evolution, and than present those arguments contra evolution as pro creationism? How are those valid arguments?
That is like saying that just because, say, this banana is not yellow, it must be an apple, although the only thing it proves is that the banana is a non-yellow banana( ok this may be farfetched  ) or is in fact another fruit altogether, but in no way it must be that apple.
What I'm trying to say is, just because you think something isn't true, or you simply don't believe it, doesn't mean that the complete opposite must be true. Nobody can say for sure whatever happens, and even the most fanatical Darwinists can be dazzled by how bacteria can live under polar ice(mystery of live), and even the most religious people alive will have a hard time debating the truthfulness of the laws of physics or mathematical laws, even when these very same laws can be used to make a case for Darwinism.
Lastly, your preaching to the wrong crowd here mate, we're here to play magic, a non- political, non-religious, non-racial game I assume we all enjoy, or else we wouldn't be here now would we. What business have you then to try and 'convince' us about the big ol' hoax that evolution is and tell us the great answer to all questions ever posed is, well, God. I truly don't believe you will achieve anything by this, and that you should stick with your own crowd of like minded people, and take your need to win new souls for Christianity elsewhere.
cheers, Sun_Jian
P.S. I'm an atheist all the way, and believe that religion is merely created by the need of people to understand things that are beyond them, and that that is an outdated principle because nowadays, if you have the will to try and understand, say, lightning (or any natural occurrence) you can go a long way with math and physics, instead of creating a new god for it, or call it the wrath of god ( and hey, now we' re back at magic ;)let's stay there, i heard its a good place to be, seriously) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naifler
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marten2 wrote: | | naifler wrote: | Don't Believe In The Hoax Of Evolution, Part II
The Theory of Evolution:
As the title states, evolution is nothing but a theory, weak and unfounded, belief in this concept is nothing but irrationality, contrary to basically every piece of evidence that science has put forward in the latest decades and behemently denied by respectable researchers. |
this of course is true for every theory existing about how everything became like it is now. we just can'y know how it went and that makes practically every theory (including the religions) irrational. the sentence about the evidence that is put forward against it isn't quite true either since there are also respected researchers who think differently about the proof (this always happens with "proof" for things we can never know for sure). |
The theory of evolution is still a theory while the fact of creation is still a fact.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Not only is this a blatant falsehood, but it also is insulting, stating we are nothing but a monkey's grandsons and granddaughters, insinuating we are merely the bestial sidekicks of gorillas, comparable to mindless pools of goo. |
who are you to say it is insulting to state that some monkeys are related to us (as a species). you live on this earth, which has existed for a couple of billion years, for about just 80 years and you become arrogant about you and your species being superior. there are no living beings who can rightfully claim they are superior than other species, because the only thing you do here on earth is making sure your species doesnt stop existing. amoebas succeed in that as good as you and me, so we are not superior to amoebas. in the same way we are not superior than any species succeeding at existing |
You don't need to degrade yourself just because somebody told you so. We humans are the only creatures able to wonder about their own existence, origin and purpose, just like God, who made us in his own image.
| Quote: |
not actually an arguement for creationism being true; the truth isn't found by democracy |
It does, however, show that there is a lot opposition to the theory of evolution, this wouldn't happen if it wasn't such a far fetched theory in the first place. You don't see such discrepancies from genetics scientists, do you?
| Quote: |
take this back. you have your right to believe you are right about creationism and maybe you are actually right, but this is just wrong.
genocide, and especially genocide against the jews has existed like forever.
I know it was done by the Romans and it was probably done before, but I dont know that for sure. it is also done by the Christians (yes, your holy Christians who are always right). all of this before Darwin and others came with their theory.
the jews have always been hated and I don't know why, but it certainly wasn't caused by evolution theory. |
Just because other reasons for genocide existed before the theory of evolution doesn't mean it is impervious of guilt. It's like saying since people killed for land before hierarchies existed, then people do not kill for positions.
Oh and the part about the Christian genocides against the jews is just a blatant lie, please do not bear false witness onto your neighbor.
| Quote: |
please note I am just arguing just for fun. I know I can't accomplish anything and I also know that I can't deny you altogether, for you actually might be right.
I expect you not to try to make me a christian, because I have lost all fait in the bible. Just belive what you want to believe and argue just for the sake and the fun of arguing
(On a side note, since this is quite a long post I don't want to check for grammar and spelling, please don't flame me for that, unless you really don't understand what I am saying) |
My objective is to show you all the evidence, the conclusion must be drawn by each one of you independently, even if the result is evident.
| Quote: | | I must say I really hate people like you as you contradict yourself a lot. If you believe in god and creationism then you must also realize god gave man the power of free will. Thus you are going against god saying "That is wrong. You should believe this." Because you are telling people to not make there own decisions. So back off, believe what you want, as I am sure many people agree with you. On the other hand there are many who disagree with you. So if you don't believe what they do, then don't deal with them. Personally my beliefs govern me, but I don't press my issue of my beliefs out on other people telling them to believe what I do. Everyone has a choice to believe what they want. So let people decide for themselves. And be happy that by your beliefs you think what is right and how things happened. So in conclusion don't worry about other people and what they believe as you really cant force them into your way of thinking, well you can, but then its just a cult. |
Once again, I'm here to show the evidence, not the conclusion.
| Quote: | | i love people who use the bible as a blazing sword in support of their blind, idiotic beliefs and yet fail to recognize a single discrepancy or incongruancy in the Bible (if which there are too many to count)....if the Bible is the word of God and the infallible truth, how is it that all 4 gospels tell different stories of the events reagarding jesus' life and death?? wait, let me guess, u're gonna come back w/ some bunk comment about how they actually arent different at all and u just have to look deeper and understand the true meaning to see that they're all the same. religious fanatics are the worst, absolute worst, part of humanity. |
Please enlighten us in what parts of the Bible are in contradiction of others.
When you're done looking you'll realize the Scriptures are as consistent as a mathematical system.
| thedarkness wrote: | First and foremost, I will say this:
This is NOT a counter-argument. I do not debate with extremists or fanatics, because they only speak out in places like Magic-League, places full to bursting with atheism and agnosticism, to try and convert the nonbelievers. I myself have been an atheist since the age of six, when I renounced the possibility of a single, supreme higher power, replacing it instead with a much more rational and supported theory of utter chaos. |
Looks like a counter-argument, smells like a counter-argument, shrieks of counter-argument, are you sure it isn't one?
| Quote: |
Now, on to the point. A “theory” will remain a theory until proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be a fact. However, no one in their right mind would recognize anything as a theory if it were totally unfounded. This is why evolution, despite the fact that there are plentiful laboratory tests (not dating tests, but I’ll get to that), historical, geographical, and geological evidence to support it, remains only a theory: it cannot be proven on such an enormous scale as would have to be supported for the population of the entire world to have evolved from the most basic of organisms. |
Goes to show that evolutionists aren't THAT deluded to call their proposition a fact, but the theory label doesn't mean it has as much credit as you insinuate in your post. You don't need any reliable amount of evidence to crown something as a theory, for example, the AEther theory, the Raisin Budding Atomic Model, Lamarck's theory, Lamarckism, etc.
| Quote: |
Creationism on the other hand has only one “reliable,” and I am reluctant to call it such, source: the Bible. How can you have such blind faith in the words of a book that, a mere 700 years past, was in the hands of a manipulative “organization” of the likes of the Church of England? They were not interested in the well-being of the people, or anything short of taking their money. But that all aside, they were also the *only accepted scribes of the good book.* If it wasn’t written by the Holy Mother Church, it was burned, even if it was, word for word, what the Church had written. I spent a long time wondering about that while I was in school, and I reached this conclusion: the book you follow so blindly today is NOT the same book that was written in years past. I am of the opinion that the Church of England, given their numerous motives to and their ability to as well, *changed parts of the Bible to suit their wishes.* |
I'm certain if what you said is true then you'll be able to show us your sources and reveal such horrendous manipulation. Of course this is impossible since it isn't true, please do not spread such lies without at least telling us how you came to that conclusion.
| Quote: |
But I won’t try to prove that theory, because I don’t practice theology, and I honestly don’t know enough about the Bible or its history to play one. |
You didn't have to say that.
| Quote: | | However, my knowledge of science is more than sufficient to disprove your tasteless articles on the falsity of the supported and the truth of the unproven. |
We'll see.
| Quote: | | Quote: | In other words, you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be.
And that is what we have been saying all along.10 That is why we won’t accept any date that contradicts the eyewitness evidence of human history recorded in the Bible. Such contradictory dates can’t be right.
In short, the dates are wrong because they are based on wrong assumptions. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some 4,500 years ago.11 The uranium methods do not make the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the samples or about the effects of changing environmental conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same problem. |
I’m not going to defend the current dating methods, as most of them will produce different results on the same specimen under the same conditions. However, I have several problems with this particular passage from your silly article.
It’s true, it isn’t advised to accept the lab work if it doesn’t fit the known. However, the biblical definition of “the known” differs greatly from any other that I have seen or heard, and here is a perfect example: “eyewitness evidence of human history recorded in the Bible.”
eye•wit•ness - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. ahy-wit-nis, ahy-wit-nis; v. ahy-wit-nis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it: There were two eyewitnesses to the murder.
–verb (used with object)
2. to view with one's own eyes: to eyewitness a murder.
So, if I understand this correctly, that means that the Bible is recorded from firsthand knowledge of the events that came to pass. In short, Noah MUST have had all of the ORIGINAL documents up to the time of the alleged Flood for any of it to be logically considered accurate. But as I understand it, the Bible was not actually comprised of paper at all in those times, or for that matter, even firsthand knowledge. Now, I could be wrong, but if there were only two humans on the whole of the planet for 40 days and 40 nights, and there was no written record of history to speak of, and most importantly, if those two people who were the only human life on Earth at the time *did not write that part themselves,* how are we supposed to validate it? And even if they had, how do we know that it was changed for some bizarre reason by the Church of England in the middle ages? Or before then? Or hell, even AFTER then? |
The bible was written by God, essencially. Are you saying now that God wasn't there at the time of the Great Flood?
| Quote: | | Quote: | As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. |
“What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think.”
Is that not the very definition of the “brainwashing” to which you seem so vehemently opposed if it conflicts with your views? |
Nope, the teacher is basically telling the students how he came to those conclusion, rather than just mindlessly stating what the conclusion is and subsequently priving the students of the ability to question such conclusions.
[quote]Anyway, that is just an aside.
| Quote: |
All the evidence is ours to view as we choose, but the fact that Christians choose not to inspect any of it on their own, placing their stock solely in the words of the Bible, does not mesh well with trying to cut down everything that other people have actually worked to understand. I am under the impression that were a Christian to search *in earnest* for evidence that proves the theory of evolution, they would find exactly what has already been found. The only problem is that this very search would be to renounce Christianity, since blasphemy and faith are kind of opposite ends of the spectrum. |
Or would be if it wasn't just one big hoax, I'm sure any decent Christian would realize just how far fetched evolution is.
| Quote: |
I find myself getting off track. How about this. 1 Corinthians 15:6, the passage wherein hundreds of “eyewitnesses” (there’s that damned word again) saw the Lord Jesus rise from the dead. Maybe one of them caught on and would like to replicate the act so we can ask them? Unless that happens, there is no RELIABLE proof that Christ existed, and since all of this would have happened long before any of us were around, I don’t want to hear anyone saying, “But the Bible said they saw it, so it must be true!” |
That's why we examine the evidence, which lead us to the conclusion that the Bible is completely right, not the other way around.
| Quote: |
I could go on about this for days, but I think I'll just end with this.
Did you see it? Any of it? Has anyone reading this seen anything even remotely akin to the miracles mentioned in the Bible?
Anyone at all?
Thought not. |
I certainly have.
Now, I got to go once again. While I'm gone I pray for everyone to continue asking questions regarding this topic in order for me to answer all your doubts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TofuBoy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 126
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The theory of evolution is still a theory while the fact of creation is still a fact. "-Naifler
It's closed-minded statements like that why no one wants to listen to you. Like I said earlier: Just because you state something as fact, doesn't make it a fact. Creatio-sorry "Intelligent Design" and evolution are both theories. Some people say that they are equal-footed theories. Although I choose to disagree I'm fine with them telling me their opinion. Now I'm looking forward to YOUR reasoning as to why "creation" is "fact."
That's why we examine the evidence, which lead us to the conclusion that the Bible is completely right, not the other way around. [/quote]
In the meantime, I will do the same as George Carlin who said quote:
"I've begun worshipping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
-George Carlin
Finally, here's my link to Penn & Teller's Bullshit: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1074819989721659487&q=Penn+%26+Teller+Bullshit&total=141&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
I just watched the YouTube video of Kirk Cameron on the O'Reilly Factor. The comments posted under the video itself poke holes in what Kirk was saying. In his argument, he refers to the eye as a complex object, however the eye we have now is not the eye that we have had since we had developed eyes. Well, it's a long explanation, but to sum up, there is lots of evidence that points to plausible evolution of the eye. Something like this:
- Starts as photoreceptor cells
- Becomes dented to allow different angles of light
- eye 'hole' shrunk, making it into a pinhole camera
- transparent cells covered eye, eventually became lens
- filled with humours for focusing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
warwizard87
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please enlighten us in what parts of the Bible are in contradiction of others.
When you're done looking you'll realize the Scriptures are as consistent as a mathematical system.
here you go how about the first 10
1.Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
4.God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
5.How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
6.How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
7.How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Three months (2 Kings 24:
(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
8.The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:
(b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
9.When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
(b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
10.How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
who needs more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naifler
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coolcreep wrote: | | If you want a real debate, don't post things that insinuate "i am 100% right you are 100% wrong if you disagree with me and nothing you say will ever change that LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALA". You post "the theory of evolution" then use your own words as fact and try to attack evolution, then post "the fact of creation" and again use your own diction to try to support creationism as fact. These circular arguments may convince your feeble mind, but I am afraid I require something more solid to base my opinions on, such as overwhelming scientific evidence proving evolution. To argue things such as the grand cannion being created by errosion over a 40 day flood is simply rediculous. If you want to live in your little bubble and thump your little book until your hands are raw, then be my guest, but don't expect to change any intelligent minds. |
You are right in one thing, I can't change any intelligent mind for it would've already sided with the creationists and don't need me to realize the lies behind evolution.
The comments you "quote" are justified, wether you want to accept it or not.
| _Metallica_ wrote: | Let's get things clear... first of all i'm a REAL catholic, with REAL i mean, a man that bealives in God and try to follow his laws (i obviously sin like everyone) but i know why i bealive in God. People that bealive in something without proof are stupid (that includes bealiving in God without any proof), but people that doesn't bealive just because they haven't saw it are stupid too, i won't discuss the tons of proofs there are.
and don't come with the "God wrote the bible and the bible says he exist", because that is a huge lie and stupid logic.
We (Catholics) bealive in evolutionism... God obviously didn't create the earth as it is writen in the bible, REAL catholics are aware of that. God created life, nature and it's laws.
i'll say something that you might not understand.
"Faith and Science are never opposed".
You (average guy) obviously fail at understanding this; I mean if you don't know that the bible is sometimes metaphoric you don't know shit about religion.
You says that we are brainwashed, well i'd say you're brainwashed, i mean you're "so openminded" because it's a trend, society tells you to be "rebels" and "go again the system" i won't discuss that either.
I rest my case |
Real catholics cannot be real Christians, they refuse to accept the Holy Bible for what it is, and are willing to reinterpret is as they find more convenient, even if just to please themselves.
| Sun_Jian wrote: | First of all, i find your link on the holocaust highly offensive. How can you hope to make a serious argument for your case with such utter nonsense?
Secondly, though I must admit I have time nor interest to read all your links, I find that all you do is argue against evolution, and than present those arguments contra evolution as pro creationism? How are those valid arguments?
That is like saying that just because, say, this banana is not yellow, it must be an apple, although the only thing it proves is that the banana is a non-yellow banana( ok this may be farfetched ) or is in fact another fruit altogether, but in no way it must be that apple.
What I'm trying to say is, just because you think something isn't true, or you simply don't believe it, doesn't mean that the complete opposite must be true. Nobody can say for sure whatever happens, and even the most fanatical Darwinists can be dazzled by how bacteria can live under polar ice(mystery of live), and even the most religious people alive will have a hard time debating the truthfulness of the laws of physics or mathematical laws, even when these very same laws can be used to make a case for Darwinism. |
Not all the links I provided are anti-evolution, some confirm the accuracy of creationism and most of these present evidence against evolution AND in favor of creation.
| Quote: |
Lastly, your preaching to the wrong crowd here mate, we're here to play magic, a non- political, non-religious, non-racial game I assume we all enjoy, or else we wouldn't be here now would we. What business have you then to try and 'convince' us about the big ol' hoax that evolution is and tell us the great answer to all questions ever posed is, well, God. I truly don't believe you will achieve anything by this, and that you should stick with your own crowd of like minded people, and take your need to win new souls for Christianity elsewhere.
cheers, Sun_Jian |
Everybody needs Jesus Christ, even if they are Magic: The Gathering players, athletes or astronauts.
| Quote: |
P.S. I'm an atheist all the way, and believe that religion is merely created by the need of people to understand things that are beyond them, and that that is an outdated principle because nowadays, if you have the will to try and understand, say, lightning (or any natural occurrence) you can go a long way with math and physics, instead of creating a new god for it, or call it the wrath of god ( and hey, now we' re back at magic ;)let's stay there, i heard its a good place to be, seriously) |
You're wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
warwizard87
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Real catholics cannot be real Christians, they refuse to accept the Holy Bible for what it is, and are willing to reinterpret is as they find more convenient, even if just to please themselves."
actually you sir are incorrect the roman catholic church was among one of the very first literist Christian churches hence the name roman catholic, learn some damn history. And frankly the protestant movement began several centurys after Catholicism
Which branch of Christianity do you rrepresent? Lutheran? Nazarene? Baptist? damn it man which on is the REAL Christianity!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Black_Elf
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is how creationism is proved. If the evolutionist theory were correct you idiots wouldn't have survived. You'd be at the bottom of the food chain! HE'S PULLING YOUR LEG. The sole purpouse of this thread, is too piss people off and lure stupid people LIKE YOU into stupid conversations. The fanatics one in this discussion are you people that keep arguing with him. GG Naifler just owned you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naifler
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TofuBoy wrote: | "The theory of evolution is still a theory while the fact of creation is still a fact. "-Naifler
It's closed-minded statements like that why no one wants to listen to you. Like I said earlier: Just because you state something as fact, doesn't make it a fact. Creatio-sorry "Intelligent Design" and evolution are both theories. Some people say that they are equal-footed theories. Although I choose to disagree I'm fine with them telling me their opinion. Now I'm looking forward to YOUR reasoning as to why "creation" is "fact." |
The answer lies in the original post.
| Quote: |
That's why we examine the evidence, which lead us to the conclusion that the Bible is completely right, not the other way around. |
In the meantime, I will do the same as George Carlin who said quote:
"I've begun worshipping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."
-George Carlin[/quote]
The sun has written no holy book, nor has it performed any miracle that can be confirmed or made prophecy that came true.
Link doesn't work.
| Quote: |
I just watched the YouTube video of Kirk Cameron on the O'Reilly Factor. The comments posted under the video itself poke holes in what Kirk was saying. In his argument, he refers to the eye as a complex object, however the eye we have now is not the eye that we have had since we had developed eyes. Well, it's a long explanation, but to sum up, there is lots of evidence that points to plausible evolution of the eye. Something like this:
- Starts as photoreceptor cells
- Becomes dented to allow different angles of light
- eye 'hole' shrunk, making it into a pinhole camera
- transparent cells covered eye, eventually became lens
- filled with humours for focusing |
Photoreceptor cells already have many elements a regular cell doesn't, thus making it statistically impossible to form by mutations. This is ignoring the need for a nervous ability to actually perceive the information this one cell obtains.
| warwizard87 wrote: | Please enlighten us in what parts of the Bible are in contradiction of others.
When you're done looking you'll realize the Scriptures are as consistent as a mathematical system.
here you go how about the first 10
1.Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
4.God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
5.How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
6.How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
7.How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Three months (2 Kings 24:
(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
8.The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:
(b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
9.When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
(b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
10.How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
who needs more? |
Having read that I vaguely remember each and every one of those instances, however, there was no inconsistence that I can remember when taking in consideration the context.
Maybe you should quote these in the whole context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
