IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Organized Religion
Sara
post Feb 20 2004, 10:15 PM
Post #31


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Straycat @ Feb 21 2004, 07:32 AM)
i didnt say you were being arrogant or stuck up, my point was that it is quite strange (and somewhat senseless) -at least 4 me- trying to convince somebody to your own beliefs in a conversation where both sides are unlikely to change their points of view (like me and dataika in stalin thread, or you and dataika here).
it's just argument for an argument and you aint goin anywhere.

well, i didnt post here to try and change ppl's minds...personally, i just shared my views, and i expect others, wether they agree or not, to respect my views. and i didnt feel that defiance was trying to force his beliefs (i am not speaking for him, i am just telling u how i interpreted his posts) as for others who choose to belittle other's opinions and get all ethnocentric...well that would be forcing ur beliefs on someone, but that doesnt bother me smile.gif


as for evolution and creationism and all of that, we all have different world views and different cultural knowledge and so, what u might think is not convincing enough might be enough for others. like u said it doesnt have to be correct, but it is correct for who believes in it, and that's enough for them, dataika believes in evolution, to him it's a fact, to others it may not be, i guess u have to do ur own research to get the answers ur looking for? dunno.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 20 2004, 10:58 PM
Post #32


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
i didnt say you were being arrogant or stuck up, my point was that it is quite strange (and somewhat senseless) -at least 4 me- trying to convince somebody to your own beliefs in a conversation where both sides are unlikely to change their points of view (like me and dataika in stalin thread, or you and dataika here).
it's just argument for an argument and you aint goin anywhere.
(my post wasn't in any way personal-i dont like disin people)


Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, and sorry if I overeacted, but I'm noot going to be compared to him just because I believe in religious freedom. My problem is not his religious beliefs (or athiest beliefs), it's his idea that most religions are mind enslaving and should abolished. Don't worry about how long your posts are, if they're long they're long, if they're short they're short. What difference does it make?

I will respond to some of the evidences, but first let me respond to the other points that you make.

QUOTE
No it is not, but when chimpanzees and humans look so similar and one tracks the evolutionary progression it is rather obvious that there was a common ancestor. The "missing link."


As I said before, just because something is possible doesn't mean it did for a fact happen. And as for the evidence, I will respond to that soon.

QUOTE
Goodness gracious, I never said anything REMOTELY similar to this.

See previous quote, and you will find that you did say, or at least imply, that that is the case.

QUOTE
Yet you haven't given any evidence for this. But oh well, that's your style of debating I guess.


I haven't given any evidence for what? Oh well, I guess that's what you consider refuting evidence.

QUOTE
If you think there is no proof that neanderthals existed, I'll just provide you with a website. http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/


I didn't say there was no evidence at all for your claims, I just think it's been misinterpreted. Like I said, skulls don't prove that we descended from them, they just prove that some person or animal once existed that had a skull like that. In the same way, just because certain of our genes are the same or resemble certain animal genes, that still does not mean that we all have a common anscestor. In fact though, I do not believe that we all appeared seperately, I believe our "common anscestor" was the creator, not a powerless germ cell of some kind, or an ameoba. In my opinion, abiogenesis is a completely baseless and unreasonable belief that has absolutely no scientific evidence for it and is (again in my opinion) completely impossible. I have given factual scientific proof for that claim, and I expect you to respond those facts, whether you accept them or deny them. As for evolution, I'm getting to that.

QUOTE
Which is not what I said. I said you DO have a set of principles based on faith that you MUST adhere to in order to be included in that religion.


That is exactly what I just said. Stop claiming you didn't say something and than saying the very thing you claim not to have said. Stop contradicting yourself.

QUOTE
Which is true, but has nothing to do with the point I was getting to. Once they decide on a religion, they will defend it at any cost. By faith alone and absent of evidence if necessary (which is/was VERY common). They are looking for evidence to BACK UP what they ALREADY BELIEVE.


Like I said, that is what every belief system does, evolution included. If you already believe something is true (like evolutionists believe evolution is true) than obviously any evidence you look for is for the purpous of proving what yuo already believe. What exactly is wrong with that? In short your problem is not that religion has no evidence, or that it enslaves the mind, but that the method of research chosen by most religions is different than your own method of research.

QUOTE
Goodness, is all you're going to do is throw around ad hominem? Simply, I have put up a case, you have not. You've made broad generalizations and when a website is shown to you with proofs for evolution you ignore them. You don't even make counter-claims.


Counter-claims to what? As I have already said, I don't know which points you want me to respond to, and all of your points are still locked in your website, you have not posted any of them. I would respond to the evidences, but I don't understand what they are, cause the way it's presented is not point by point, but it's seperated into chapters and subchapters, so I can't respond to it on this post. Maybe I'll do it next time, but I would actually prefer for you to just post each evidence one by one, however many you want, than I can just directly respond, instead of spending hours trying to read the whole entire article. By the way, have you read any of the counter-claims made in the True.Origins link? I haven't read them myself, so I don't know how good they are or if I agree with them, but I would just like to know if you've read them and if you feel they were reasonably presented.

QUOTE
Which was caused by natural causes in the Universe, which is the source of life because there was no time before it. Therefore there is nothing for it to spring from. I could say it came about the same way that your God did. Again, why do I have to ASSUME that God "did it"? There's no reason to.


Actually, as has also already been scientifically proven, time is not an object, therefore time has always existed, just like space has always existed. Why should you believe that there was a God behind it? Because it's alot more reasonable and scientific to assume that life came from life, than that life came from nothing. Life is very mysterious, and can not just be explained by chemicle combinations or energy structure. No energy that exists today other than life itself has been known to result in other life, even simple life such as germs or viruses, which in fact are not simple but very complex, involving detailed genetic structures and fragile chemicle combinations, which although they did not create that life, nor do they alone cause that life to continue, yet they are nevertheless vital to the existence of those life forms. Yet even nonliving structures as complex as crystals or even atoms are not ever known to have suddenly sprung to life, which would be neccessary without God to begin the life cycle that is said to have evolved into such highly complex and intelligent creatures as Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Humans, among millions or billions of others. It seems to me like the only way we could even be here today is from the existence of and labor of some kind of God. However if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll be glad to take a look at it.

I am very sorry I can not yet respond to the points in the link you gave me, but I do not have the time right now and I will have to deal with those next time. Meanwhile, think about these last points that I've just made, and it will require alot of thought if you want to come up with a truly scientific explanation of the miracle of life.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 21 2004, 05:22 PM
Post #33


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 21 2004, 06:58 AM)
As I said before, just because something is possible doesn't mean it did for a fact happen. And as for the evidence, I will respond to that soon.

You must not know what a fact is in terms of science. A fact is something that so much evidence points to, and you don't believe it, you are being silly or unreasonable. For instance, there is a knife next to a man, his finger prints are on it, his blood are on it, his wrists are slit, there are no entries into the room except for his footprints. There is NO EVIDENCE of any entry except for his own indentations in the carpet. THere is no evidence of hair fibers, NOTHING that points to another being in the room. The time of death points to a time in which a neighbor SAW the man grab a knife and start slicing his arms. I could go on and on. Now, COULD there have been someone who killed him so EXPERTLY that there is not a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest that he did? No witness that saw him? Of course it's a possiblity. In philosophy nothing is 100%. However, in science, it's rather obvious that the man killed himself as it would be silly to assume that someone else killed him. The same is with evolution, with so much abundant proofs for it, it's just silly and unreasonable to deny it. Which is why 95% of scientists DON'T deny it.

QUOTE
See previous quote, and you will find that you did say, or at least imply, that that is the case.


You implied that it was the ONLY REASON why I assumed it was fact. They don't assume that because it's possible that it is true. A theory is not something that is merely guessed, it is a hypothesis that is tested by evidence and corroborates with it. If a theory doesn't do this, then it should be abondoned.

QUOTE
I haven't given any evidence for what? Oh well, I guess that's what you consider refuting evidence.


Any evidence for the Bible being proven to be true.

QUOTE
I didn't say there was no evidence at all for your claims, I just think it's been misinterpreted.


Sorry Comrade, but in order for anyone to take what you "think" seriously, you should publish it in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, your "opinion" isn't going to be highly regarded/accepted.

QUOTE
n the same way, just because certain of our genes are the same or resemble certain animal genes, that still does not mean that we all have a common anscestor.


And you have the credentials to make such a claim? You've actually studied all these issues for how long? Where have you studied?

QUOTE
In my opinion, abiogenesis is a completely baseless and unreasonable belief that has absolutely no scientific evidence for it and is (again in my opinion) completely impossible. I have given factual scientific proof for that claim, and I expect you to respond those facts, whether you accept them or deny them. As for evolution, I'm getting to that.


What factual scientific proof? You haven't given ANY other than your "assumption" that God can just be, but the universe can't just "be." How much "proof" is that really?

QUOTE
That is exactly what I just said. Stop claiming you didn't say something and than saying the very thing you claim not to have said. Stop contradicting yourself.


I didn't - you made it seem as if I claimed that their beliefs are unchanging and that they don't have a choice in waht they believe. I said they do have a choice, but what they choose to believe and the principles they choose to believe in is what they must adhere to. Understand now?

QUOTE
Like I said, that is what every belief system does, evolution included.


No, sorry. Evolution is not a theory that is conjured up without any evidence and then is looked to have evidence behind it. It's the OPPOSITE. It's when people look at the facts and EVOLUTIONARY THEORY appears based on evidence.

QUOTE
If you already believe something is true (like evolutionists believe evolution is true) than obviously any evidence you look for is for the purpous of proving what yuo already believe.


No scientists starts out with presupposed facts about the data. They say evolution is a theory based on facts, they don't say the facts are based on evolution, which is what a THEIST does.

QUOTE
What exactly is wrong with that? In short your problem is not that religion has no evidence, or that it enslaves the mind, but that the method of research chosen by most religions is different than your own method of research.


No, my problem is that there is no evidence for a creator, no evidence that the way the Bible says things happen is true, etc.. The method of research chosen, SHOWS that the mind is enslaved. So, I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

QUOTE
Counter-claims to what?


Evolution. You merely say "oh well just because the evidence points to it, doesn't mean it happened." Which is just silly considering you ahven't given any reasons to doubt it and you don't have the credentials to use your "opinion" as proof. Nevermined the fact that you offer NO PROOF that your God created the world, or that the genesis account is correct. You just attack a widely accepted (by biologists) theory without offering any evidence for your own theory. But okay.

QUOTE
I would respond to the evidences, but I don't understand what they are, cause the way it's presented is not point by point, but it's seperated into chapters and subchapters, so I can't respond to it on this post.


Most authors who publish evidence for certain theories do this. They don't just make an outline of presupposed assertions, they provide evidence for every assertion they make. I only wish you would take the time to read them. Like I said, CHOSE ONE proof that it lists (it lists 29, so it shouldn't be THAT hard) and respond to it. You should be familiar with the arguments since you claimed you have refuted most of evolution's "proofs."

QUOTE
Maybe I'll do it next time, but I would actually prefer for you to just post each evidence one by one, however many you want, than I can just directly respond, instead of spending hours trying to read the whole entire article.


I could do so, but I would not be able to present the case strongest to the author's assertion. Simply read one proof, and respond.

QUOTE
I haven't read them myself, so I don't know how good they are or if I agree with them, but I would just like to know if you've read them and if you feel they were reasonably presented.


I have and they are poorly presented. They, like you, don't want to prove that creationism has occured but would rather try to destroy an existing (albeit, imperfect) theory that is at odds with their religion.

I'm just curious as to how 95% of biologists, geologists, etc.. consider evolution a FACT.

But hey, I'll tell you what, I'll make it even EASIER for you to examine the evidence for young earth/old earth yourself. Just go here Another webpage refute some of the evidence presented there (as it is put in a much more managable position) and I'll be content.

QUOTE
Actually, as has also already been scientifically proven, time is not an object, therefore time has always existed, just like space has always existed.


Time always existed because space has, correct. Why then, should I consider your God any kind of factor in it? Therefore there was no time before time and space existed, therefore, there is no room for me to believe in a creator, nor do I *have* to, in order to be reasonable. The burden of proof is back on your shoulders.

QUOTE
Because it's alot more reasonable and scientific to assume that life came from life, than that life came from nothing.


Actually, it'd be more reasonable to assume that life came from nothing in the Universe than it is to assume it for a God. God is life, and it supposedly came from nothing. God, because he created the Universe, must then be more complicated than the universe. Therefore, it is MORE UNREASONABLE to assume God came from nothing than it is to assume life in the Universe did.

QUOTE
No energy that exists today other than life itself has been known to result in other life, even simple life such as germs or viruses, which in fact are not simple but very complex, involving detailed genetic structures and fragile chemicle combinations, which although they did not create that life, nor do they alone cause that life to continue, yet they are nevertheless vital to the existence of those life forms.


Yet you make the exception for your God, miraculously. I guess, you STILL failed to grasp the argument I was presenting.

QUOTE
It seems to me like the only way we could even be here today is from the existence of and labor of some kind of God. However if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll be glad to take a look at it.


We were not discussing my atheism, because it has nothing to do with organized religion. There are many who are against organized religion yet embrace a creator. Pantheism, Deists, etc..

Besides, it's not up to me to prove that it wasn't because of God (more specifically, your God), it's up to YOU to prove that it WAS your God.

QUOTE
I am very sorry I can not yet respond to the points in the link you gave me, but I do not have the time right now and I will have to deal with those next time. Meanwhile, think about these last points that I've just made, and it will require alot of thought if you want to come up with a truly scientific explanation of the miracle of life.


I have, you just failed to adequately address my argument. Better luck next time, Comrade.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Feb 21 2004, 05:26 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guerrilla
post Feb 21 2004, 07:18 PM
Post #34


Socialist Pride
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 604
Joined: 6-October 03
From: North Florida
Member No.: 916



The never ending saga. Well I wasnt gonna get involded in this, but I'd have to say theres been some very poor arguments for creationism here.

QUOTE
I have and they are poorly presented. They, like you, don't want to prove that creationism has occured but would rather try to destroy an existing (albeit, imperfect) theory that is at odds with their religion.


Thats so true. Most christians in particular are bent on destroying the teaching of evolution, rather then concentrating on proving there own beliefs. Not so much even proving theres a god, but that the bible is fact, and knowing with out a doubt who wrote it.

I think the largest problems with relgion, lay with christians, and zionist. Jesus, Allah, nor the decendents of mosses, would aprove of these common day organisied religions. For the last 10,000 years they have been munipulated, and explotied to serve those in power. The church nees to be broken down, and rebuilt.


tovarish Dataika, ti rusky?


--------------------
"Dip my tounge in gun powder, then I clear my throat."
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side,
but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Straycat
post Feb 22 2004, 01:55 AM
Post #35


WHO KILLED BAMBI?
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 764
Joined: 6-January 04
From: ROOM 101
Member No.: 1,487



yeah.........
creationists state their theory and then look for evidence to back it up. i think it's very misleading. in this way you can prove anything if you're smart enough...









....i'd like to write sumthin more but i think most stuff has been already written... blink.gif


--------------------
user posted image
I've got a gun you know, and I'd use it,
I wouldn't....I wouldn't I can't get it out you know,
What I mean, if I got a gun, I would use it,
But maybe I would, but maybe I wouldn't...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
regilas
post Feb 22 2004, 07:10 AM
Post #36


Writer
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 2,656
Joined: 10-October 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 929



I think that you can't try to force somebody. The proof will come to you. It's your choice what u wanna believe. Only time will tell the truth from the lies. wink.gif


--------------------
A world this evil should be black, blind, and deaf, and without any feelings at all. Then there won't be any color to be seen, no hatred to be heard, and no pain to be felt.
- Anne Moody.

The simplest man or woman with passion will be more persuasive than the most eloquent without.
- Descartes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Straycat
post Feb 22 2004, 11:57 AM
Post #37


WHO KILLED BAMBI?
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 764
Joined: 6-January 04
From: ROOM 101
Member No.: 1,487



huh? huh.gif


--------------------
user posted image
I've got a gun you know, and I'd use it,
I wouldn't....I wouldn't I can't get it out you know,
What I mean, if I got a gun, I would use it,
But maybe I would, but maybe I wouldn't...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 23 2004, 12:03 PM
Post #38


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



I will now respond to some of the evidences in talkorigins.com.

QUOTE
All fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms. Similarly, there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods.

Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals.

It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.

However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.

One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.


First I would like to point out that according to current evolutionary belief, only one "phylogenetic tree" has developed in the billions of years of life on Earth, which is very interesting in my opinion, as it gives one the impression that it was just pure luck, and it was not the result of any organized energy forces or chemicle combinations. If it was an organized energy force at work, it should have been repeated several times since then, which it has not been. And of course, if there was no organization behind it (which seems unlikely anyway, if there wasn't a God behind it), it would make it very hard to explain the complicated developements that have occured in evolution (according to scientific theory). Second I would like to address the Human-Ape fossils. First of all, as I said before, there is no written record of them having evolved into Humans, so they could very easily have been some kind of ape. Second of all, for those that do seem more Human, like Cro-Magnon man, they could in fact be evidence of pre-flood Humans or Human-like creatures like the Nephelum. I heard somewhere that Cro-Magnon may have had a superior brain capacity to Humans, possible evidence of pre-flood Human superiority to modern Humans. Also you should remember that there are many races of Humans today, and most of them have considerably different skeletal structures, which means that what are sometimes interpreted to be different Human related species, are in fact just other races of Human. It should be remembered that Humans today are much more refined than they were at one time, the racial groups are more fully developed, while five or six thousand years ago, the many different ethnicities were still developing and, in the small scale, evolving. While these arguments obviously do not prove the Bible, or any religious theories true, they do at least make enough sense to not disprove religious theories.

QUOTE
Anatomical atavisms are closely related conceptually to vestigial structures. An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population (Hall 1984). For developmental reasons, the occasional occurrence of atavisms is expected under common descent if structures or functions are gradually lost between ancestor and descendant lineages (Hall 1984; Hall 1995). Here we are primarily concerned with potential atavistic structures that are characteristic of taxa to which the organism displaying the structure does not belong. As a hypothetical example, if mutant horses occasionally displayed gills, this would be considered a potential atavism, since gills are diagnostic of taxa (e.g. fish) to which horses do not belong. As with vestigial structures, no organism can have an atavistic structure that was not previously found in one of its ancestors. Thus, for each species, the standard phylogenetic tree makes a huge number of predictions about atavisms that are allowed and those that are impossible for any given species.


See website for more information, http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

As is pointed out in the article, these are primarily due to misfunctions in the Human system, which are mainly the result of somatic or germline mutations, or environmental influences, much like the mutations found in animals, resulting from nuclear radiation or some other harmful kind of chemicle or radiative influences. For instance, frogs have been found in waste areas with extra legs, a child was born recently with a partaily formed extra head etc. The list of harmful matations goes on and on (mainly due to deadly mistakes made by SCIENTISTS, like pestcides), and though some might choose to interpret it as evidence of evolution,it is not full proof and should not be taken that way. As with the previous evidence, although I hardly expect these arguments to change your mind, nor do I consider them to be complete evidence against evolution, nevertheless they are strong enough for me not to consider evolution a proven fact.

These are mainly the basesfor many of the other arguments presented in the article, and if you still wish to prove your theory with such evidence, feel free to use other parts of the website to back up your arguments. Meanwhile I'll respond to other points in this debate.

QUOTE
creationists state their theory and then look for evidence to back it up. i think it's very misleading. in this way you can prove anything if you're smart enough


That is hardly a valid objection. Of course people are going to do the best they can to prove their beliefs, what else should they do. Your acting as if you want them to be stupid and arrogant, instead of reasonable and logical. Try to find a real objection if your going to have any at all.

QUOTE
I think the largest problems with relgion, lay with christians, and zionist. Jesus, Allah, nor the decendents of mosses, would aprove of these common day organisied religions. For the last 10,000 years they have been munipulated, and explotied to serve those in power. The church nees to be broken down, and rebuilt.

I agree religion does have alot of problems, but than so do science and politics, which are the main path chosen by athiests to solve their problems. But also like those two, not alol religions are as bad as you try to picture them, and obviously if one them is right, than it can't be corrupt. For instance, true Christianity (much like true islam supposedly, but I haven't studied islam very much so I wouldn't know for sure), as well as many inacurrate attempts (I believe) to follow it, is in fact very humaine and idealistic, and tends to very strongly encourage helping the poor, the disabled, the sick, etc. The problem is with the people who claim to follow it. Even most athiests will admit that Jesus as a person was very good, and many even try to follow his philosophies on pacifism and generosity.

QUOTE
Most christians in particular are bent on destroying the teaching of evolution, rather then concentrating on proving there own beliefs. Not so much even proving theres a god, but that the bible is fact, and knowing with out a doubt who wrote it.


As I have said over and over again, the reason I got involved in this debate was not to prove creation, it was to refute Dataikas conviction that basically all forms of organized religion are corrupt and need to be abolished. The reason I brought up evidence for the Bible was not originally to prove that it was true, so much as to show that there is alot of research put into some religions and that they are not all harmful. You yourself seem to admit that true Christianity, as well as Islam and some other religions, is nothing like what it has been interpreted as. However since everyone is determined to ignore that and just turn this into a religious/scientific debate, I'll be happy to show more evidence. Unfortunately Dataika will probably just ignore everything besides scientific evidence as being either false or irrelevant. But since you (Guerrilla) want me to prove my case religiously, here you go...

One of the amazing facts about the Bible is that basically all of it's prophecies (except some of those concerning the end, such as those found in revelation) came true. I do not know of one prophecy that didn't come true. Here are a few examples.

The prophet Isaiah predicted two hundred years before hand, that Cyrus the king of Persia would conquer the city of Babylon, and that its gates would be opened before him. Two hundred years later, Cyrus the king of Persia took the city of Babylon in one night by diverting the river Euphrates, entering through the water gates (which had been left open by the drunk gaurds) and than opening the main gates and taking the city from the hands of its previous rulers.

The prophet Daniel predicted several hundred years before hand, that the Persian Empire (which had not even defeated Babylon at this point, a prophecy in itself) would fall to the king of Greece, and afterward the his empire (the Greek Empire) would break into four seperate kingdoms. Hundreds of years later, Alexander the Great conquers Greece, makes it his kingdom, conquers Persia (a seemingly impossible feat), dies from disease or poison and his empire breaks into four seperate kingdoms.

Don't forget of course, the countless prophecies that predicted that a Messiah would come from the line of the kings of Judah, and hundreds of years later, Jesus is born, the son of Joseph, the descendent of David the king of Judah. The prophet Daniel even predicted the timing, saying that "From the commandment to restore Jeruselem to the Messiah shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks... and after sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off." In Bible language, years are often called days. So it should not cofuse you to hear him declaring 483 days, when it was in fact 483 yearsbefore Jesus himself was baptized. The entire prophecy just mentioned was somewhat longer and more detailed, and involved more than just that part of it, but if you read it and compare it to the actuall supposed events, you will find that all of it came to pass.

Jesus predicted that enemies would besiege and destroy Jerusalem and told his people to leave when the armies surrounded Jeruselem. Decades later, the Roman army surrounded Jeruselem, broke through its walls and destroyed the Temple. They also destroyed the geneological records that had served as proof of Jesus' descending from the line of David.

These are just a few of the prophecies in the Bible, but as far as I know, all of the prophecies up to this point have come true, except for a few that have yet to be fulfilled, as they do not deal with the present time but with the end predicted in many parts of the Bible. If these do not convince you (Dataika especialy) than that is your own business, but I hope you realize by now that the Bible at least is far more reasonable than you try to say it is. I will respond to the rest of Dataikas arguments in my next post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
regilas
post Feb 23 2004, 02:47 PM
Post #39


Writer
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 2,656
Joined: 10-October 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 929



QUOTE (Straycat @ Feb 22 2004, 01:57 PM)
huh? huh.gif

ok, read my post again


--------------------
A world this evil should be black, blind, and deaf, and without any feelings at all. Then there won't be any color to be seen, no hatred to be heard, and no pain to be felt.
- Anne Moody.

The simplest man or woman with passion will be more persuasive than the most eloquent without.
- Descartes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 23 2004, 04:29 PM
Post #40


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
What factual scientific proof? You haven't given ANY other than your "assumption" that God can just be, but the universe can't just "be." How much "proof" is that really?


Apparently you do not understand what I have been saying. I have already said and proven that the Universe has always existed. You seem to like misinterpreting people's words, or else you're not paying much attention to what I'm saying. What I said was that Earth has not always existed, and since life can not exist unless it was already there or something else created it, it seems like the only logical explanation would be that something created life on Earth. Just as the Universe is infinate in space, so also the creator must be infinite in time. There is no other explanation. To say that the Universe created life, is like saying the Ocean created life, or the Earth created life, which is totally unacceptable, no matter how many scientists claim that isn't. Life can not exist without previous life. Since the creator always existed, than he is not breaking rule, for he is coming from previous life, back and back forever, he has always existed so he is always coming from previously existing life. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to grasp that.

QUOTE
I didn't - you made it seem as if I claimed that their beliefs are unchanging and that they don't have a choice in waht they believe. I said they do have a choice, but what they choose to believe and the principles they choose to believe in is what they must adhere to. Understand now?


No I don't understand. But I do understand that if you are choosing to believe something than it is completely volluntary and therefore it is not forcing you to adhere to anything. As I said before, the majority of people in the world do not accept every doctrine of their religion, so I don't know what you're talking about. There are a few religions that do that, but the problem in those cases is not with religion itself, but with those particular religions. And for that matter Communism does the same thing. Look at your beliefs on freedom of speech. You want it for yourself, but as you said "Why should I give freedom of speech to those who deny to others?" What about your signature? "Ideas are more powerful than guns. If we would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" What about the strongly anti-religious attitude that many Communists have, which is reflected in your own statements? If that's not hypocritical I don't know what is.

QUOTE
No, sorry. Evolution is not a theory that is conjured up without any evidence and then is looked to have evidence behind it. It's the OPPOSITE. It's when people look at the facts and EVOLUTIONARY THEORY appears based on evidence.


As a matter of fact, the original basis for the theory of evolution (or so I heard), was that Darwin observed the variety of life and concluded that, based on nothing more than variety, we must all have a common anscestor. Darwin and his successors than began researching whatever evidence they could find and trying to interpret it the best that they could. If this is true, than evolution was in fact, from the beginning, no more than a hypthesis based on a simple observation, with no more evidence for it's truth than my own observations of life being unable to come from nothing. If this is true, than evolution was, from the beginning, based on no more than simple faith in a single scientific observation. However I am not a student of Darwin, so correct me if I am wrong. Nevertheless, evolution was originated quite awhile before any fossil evidence had even appeared yet, which means it obviously can't have originated from just evidence, like you say it did.

QUOTE
No, my problem is that there is no evidence for a creator, no evidence that the way the Bible says things happen is true, etc.. The method of research chosen, SHOWS that the mind is enslaved. So, I don't know what you're trying to get at here.


Actually the methods of research are not all that different, except that (according to you, though I have a hard time believing it, considering how the theory began) evoluutionists first observe the fossils and then come up with the theory, while creationist come up with the theory and then try to prove it with scientific evidence. Actually though, it seems to me more like, scientists came up with the theory based on minimal scientific evidence and then set out to support it with fossils, but the scientists and their followers are so arrogant that any theory that they did not come up with is considered unreasonable and any form of religious belief (which is not shared by scientists) is considered superstition and therefore illogical and again unreasonable. They deny the miracles as breaking the laws of physics and therefore impossible, and somehow that alone is supposed to prove that God does not exist. Yet aside from the fact that spontaneous life is far more miraculous than creative life, the only case in which that argument would be valid is if someone claimed to have performed a miracle without divine power or influence, as is the case with atheism. However besides the miracle of life itself, I have just shown that many supernatural have happened, and therefore there must be a God, or else they couldn't have happened. They did happen though, which by itself is enough to prove atheism wrong. I am not confined by a single belief, you are, which is shown by statements like "Macroevlution is FACT". Have I yet said that Creationism is a fact? I did however say that Abiogenesis is not a fact, rather the opposite, as life can not exist without previous life.

QUOTE
I'm just curious as to how 95% of biologists, geologists, etc.. consider evolution a FACT.


And I'm just curious as to how 100% of Bile scholars consider the Bible to be true, and 100% of muslims consider Islam to be true, and 100% of creationists consider creation a fact. Like I said, you are the one who enslaved by your current beliefs, not me. But there's one big difference between us on that issue, I wouldn't make all other forms of religion or scientific research illegal, you would (you say you wouldn't but than everything else you say just reinforces my belief that you would). If you believe in evolution good for you, I will reason with you as much as I can and if it is not enough than too bad.

QUOTE
Time always existed because space has, correct. Why then, should I consider your God any kind of factor in it? Therefore there was no time before time and space existed, therefore, there is no room for me to believe in a creator, nor do I *have* to, in order to be reasonable. The burden of proof is back on your shoulders.


What does that statement mean. It looks to me like the worst case of unreasonableness that have ever seen. Time and space have always existed, I never said you *have* to believe in God, the burden of proof is not back on me and there is every reason to believe there was creator (and still is). Try to make sense, otherwise I can't debate with you.

QUOTE
Besides, it's not up to me to prove that it wasn't because of God (more specifically, your God), it's up to YOU to prove that it WAS your God.


I wasn't originally trying to prove my beliefs, I was trying to refute your conviction that all organized religion is bad and needs to be abolished. However you have turned it into a religious/scientific debate, so now I am going to prove the Bible. Read my last post for *proof*.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 24 2004, 08:48 AM
Post #41


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 23 2004, 08:03 PM)
as it gives one the impression that it was just pure luck, and it was not the result of any organized energy forces or chemicle combinations. If it was an organized energy force at work, it should have been repeated several times since then, which it has not been.

Of course you have adequate scientific principles, laws, evidence to back this assertion up right?

QUOTE
Second I would like to address the Human-Ape fossils.


Nothing more than your "opinion" on what COULD BE or COULD HAVE BEEN. Hardly an argument Comrade, more like "well, gee it could be this." Again, you misunderstand what a FACT is.

QUOTE
As with the previous evidence, although I hardly expect these arguments to change your mind, nor do I consider them to be complete evidence against evolution, nevertheless they are strong enough for me not to consider evolution a proven fact.


Yet again you respond with "well, could be..." with nothing to support it OTHER THAN your opinion. If you're going to keep using your opinion without any data to back it up, at least give me your credentials. Where have you studied? How long have you studied evolution?

QUOTE
Your acting as if you want them to be stupid and arrogant, instead of reasonable and logical.


I assume Straycat wants people to look at evidence and then make decisions based on them, not make decisions then look at the evidence.

QUOTE
The prophet Isaiah predicted two hundred years before hand, that Cyrus the king of Persia would conquer the city of Babylon, and that its gates would be opened before him.


Of course that's assuming that it was written by Isaiah and that it was written during this time frame. I could easily write TOMORROW what's going to happen today, and pass it off as PROPHECY FULFILLED.

QUOTE
The prophet Daniel


It's not even certain whether Daniel wrote the book, nor that he even EXISTED. In fact, there is evidence to support this theory here.

QUOTE
Don't forget of course, the countless prophecies that predicted that a Messiah would come from the line of the kings of Judah, and hundreds of years later, Jesus is born, the son of Joseph, the descendent of David the king of Judah.


That's assuming that he followed all these prophecies physically, and not that the writers of the NT MADE HIM follow them in books of fantasy.

QUOTE
Jesus predicted that enemies would besiege and destroy Jerusalem and told his people to leave when the armies surrounded Jeruselem


Yeah, and it was such a great prediction that NO ONE was making the same one. Of course it seemed obvious that EVENTUALLY the Romans would destroy the Jewish temple.

QUOTE
If these do not convince you (Dataika especialy) than that is your own business, but I hope you realize by now that the Bible at least is far more reasonable than you try to say it is


It's still unreasonable to assume evidence based on superstitions. They serve no real purpose, only to enslave and divide the proletariat. I can't believe an Anarchist is a creationist and a Biblical fundamentalist. This is so amazing to me, it's absurd.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 24 2004, 09:24 AM
Post #42


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 24 2004, 12:29 AM)
Apparently you do not understand what I have been saying. I have already said and proven that the Universe has always existed.

No, I understand what you're saying, you're not understanding what I'M SAYING. I never said that you said the universe doesn't always exist, but you are trying to argue that the vast design in it can only be contributed to God. Therefore, you are trying to say that the Universe must have been created at some point and couldn't just be.

QUOTE
What I said was that Earth has not always existed, and since life can not exist unless it was already there or something else created it, it seems like the only logical explanation would be that something created life on Earth.


Good grief, no atheists say that life wasn't created on Earth. What they say is that it was created by natural causes NOT some diety.

QUOTE
Since the creator always existed, than he is not breaking rule, for he is coming from previous life, back and back forever, he has always existed so he is always coming from previously existing life. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to grasp that.


I merely stated that since you say God always was and you make an exception for him in doing so, then I do the same for the Universe, and the natural causes inside of it that cause life to spring forth.

QUOTE
No I don't understand. But I do understand that if you are choosing to believe something than it is completely volluntary and therefore it is not forcing you to adhere to anything.


How do you NOT understand it? Look, it's like a man with three choices of ice-cream. He chooses chocolate, because he likes chocolate. Based on the rules of chocolate icecream that he just chose, he must eat it on his hands and knees like a dog. Now, he had the free-will to CHOOSE the type of ice cream, but AFTER HE CHOSE IT, he HAD to adhere to the principles INVOLVED with the ice cream.

QUOTE
As I said before, the majority of people in the world do not accept every doctrine of their religion, so I don't know what you're talking about.


I didn't say that they adhered to EVERYTHING in their religion, either. Try actually responding to the points I'm making. I said there are CERTAIN PRINCIPLES that they AGREE TO though. It's what makes organized religion, organized religion.

QUOTE
And for that matter Communism does the same thing. Look at your beliefs on freedom of speech. You want it for yourself,


Jesus, you will look for ANYTHING to try and disprove my beliefs. We are NOT discussing this. But if you must know, I don't wnat freedom of speech for fascists and capitalists. I want it for the proletariat, which is what communism is; the FREEDOM OF THE PROLETARIAT; Marx doesn't say "FASCISTS CAPITALISTS AND WORKERS UNITE!" does he?

QUOTE
As a matter of fact, the original basis for the theory of evolution (or so I heard), was that Darwin observed the variety of life and concluded that, based on nothing more than variety, we must all have a common anscestor.


Even if that were true. It's still OBSERVING THINGS and then making a THEORY BASED ON WHAT HE OBSERVED. It's not the opposite. He didn't say "we have a common ancestor" and then set out to prove that assertion.

QUOTE
Darwin and his successors than began researching whatever evidence they could find and trying to interpret it the best that they could


No, Darwin made a theory based on his research, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. How many times do I have to tell you this?

His successors didn't follow his teaching as if he were some sort of God, they looked at evidence and discovered that Darwin's teachings co-exist with the evidence. And thus, the theory of evolution was born and is now adopted as a FACT by 95% of the world's scientists.

QUOTE
Actually the methods of research are not all that different, except that (according to you, though I have a hard time believing it, considering how the theory began) evoluutionists first observe the fossils and then come up with the theory, while creationist come up with the theory and then try to prove it with scientific evidence.


Goodness, when did I ever say what you said? I said they look at ALL EVIDENCE not just the *fossil record.* And, if you had been following along, I said creationists don't try to prove creation AT ALL. They merely CRITIQUE evolution and say "well if it wasn't evolution, then uh... it had to be YAHWEH or (insert God here)"

QUOTE
Actually though, it seems to me more like, scientists came up with the theory based on minimal scientific evidence and then set out to support it with fossils, but the scientists and their followers are so arrogant that any theory that they did not come up with is considered unreasonable and any form of religious belief (which is not shared by scientists) is considered superstition and therefore illogical and again unreasonable


You haven't proven ANY ASSERTION that you made in this paragraph, but okay.

QUOTE
They deny the miracles as breaking the laws of physics and therefore impossible, and somehow that alone is supposed to prove that God does not exist.


I don't know very many atheists who attempt to prove that God doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative, pal.

QUOTE
Yet aside from the fact that spontaneous life is far more miraculous than creative life, the only case in which that argument would be valid is if someone claimed to have performed a miracle without divine power or influence, as is the case with atheism.


You still don't get it do you? Life came from natural causes, caused by the laws of the Universe (which you admit, always existed). There is NO REASON for me to assume that God did ANYTHING if the Universe has always existed. Let's see if you can grasp it THIS TIME.

And even then, your argument is still faulty because you believe God (that is more complciated than life) can come from nothing, but life on Earth can't come from natural causes in an already existing Universe. Who's being unreasonable now?

QUOTE
However besides the miracle of life itself, I have just shown that many supernatural have happened, and therefore there must be a God, or else they couldn't have happened.


You have? Where?

QUOTE
I am not confined by a single belief, you are, which is shown by statements like "Macroevlution is FACT". Have I yet said that Creationism is a fact? I did however say that Abiogenesis is not a fact, rather the opposite, as life can not exist without previous life.


LMAO, man oh man. Poor creationists get confused all the time. I simply said EVOLUTION IS A FACT, which you admit MICROevolution was. I further said that MacroEvolution is a fact because the evidence is so overwhelming it's SILLY not to acknowledge it. You have yet to prove the opposite is true.

QUOTE
And I'm just curious as to how 100% of Bile scholars consider the Bible to be true, and 100% of muslims consider Islam to be true, and 100% of creationists consider creation a fact.


This is such a ludicrous objection to the poll I posted that it's unreal that you would use it.

95% of scientists claim that evolution is a fact. That's 95% of ALL SCIENTISTS in America; not 95% of evolutionary scientists. It's a poll of all scientists in America and found 95% of them to consider evolution a fact. The polls you gave are dependent on the categories adherents; this is based merely on the broad categories of science like Biology. Something more along the lines of what I said, is something like 90% of religious scholars are Christians.

But I'm glad to see you are now saying that evolution is Science, as the polls you give are dependent on the category of study, so Muslims believe Islam is true, just like SCIENTISTS say evolution is a FACT. You are readily admitting that evolution is science and not dogma. Thanks for proving point on various levels.

Do not get confused, however; I'm not saying that popular scientific opinion is ALWAYS correct, but it's more of a challenge to you. If you say it's wrong, you had better have some evidence to back it up; your "opinion" doesn't mean squat in terms of this evidence.

QUOTE
But there's one big difference between us on that issue, I wouldn't make all other forms of religion or scientific research illegal, you would (you say you wouldn't but than everything else you say just reinforces my belief that you would).


I wouldn't, I just wouldn't make it as easy to be willfully ignorant. What do I say enforceses that belief? Is it just because I argue against it so vigurously? So? You're arguing Christianity and Creationism is true vigurously too that doesn't mean you would make all other beliefs illegal (by your own statement) does it?

QUOTE
Time and space have always existed, I never said you *have* to believe in God, the burden of proof is not back on me and there is every reason to believe there was creator (and still is).


First, I'm sorry that that argument went over your head. It's a shame.

You have given no reasonable reason if the Universe and time always existed. So what reasons have you given besides "well if evolution is false then my God must have done it!" or "THere's so much diversity on Earth that GOD MUST HAVE CREATED IT!" You keep falling back into the God of the Gaps fallacy and still cannot prove that there is "every reason" to believe there was a creator, nor have you proven that there is reason that it still exists. So, whatever.

QUOTE
I wasn't originally trying to prove my beliefs, I was trying to refute your conviction that all organized religion is bad and needs to be abolished. However you have turned it into a religious/scientific debate, so now I am going to prove the Bible. Read my last post for *proof*.


LMAO, I wont even respond to this, I'll just post evidences from your current post that show you tried to prove atheism illogical and prove that your religion is right. I told you countless times I wanted to debate evolution, not atheism. Here is you, trying to disprove my atheism and atheism in general :

QUOTE
They deny the miracles as breaking the laws of physics and therefore impossible, and somehow that alone is supposed to prove that God does not exist. Yet aside from the fact that spontaneous life is far more miraculous than creative life, the only case in which that argument would be valid is if someone claimed to have performed a miracle without divine power or influence, as is the case with atheism. However besides the miracle of life itself, I have just shown that many supernatural have happened, and therefore there must be a God, or else they couldn't have happened. They did happen though, which by itself is enough to prove atheism wrong.


Now let me show how this got started:

When I tried to keep on track of evolution you said:
QUOTE
Atheist Macroevolutionism (was that term scientifically accurate enough?), is closely related to Abiogenisism. The imppression I've gotten is that you are an athiest and that you believe life came from nothing. Or let me rephrase, you believe that life came from a chance combination of hot chemicles that somehow caused life to just suddenly appear. These facts have everything to do with this debate, and since you haven't denied that they're true, I assume that you admit that they are true. Start thinking clearer and stop being arrogant.


And then you claimed:
QUOTE
Again, it has everything to do with this debate, so stop trying to ignore the facts that you claim to be so devoted to.


So, we see, I tried to stay on track with evolution, and you wanted to differ and travel towards my atheism and debate it. You are a sad, strange person who has failed to prove anything so far, and you have my pitty.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Feb 24 2004, 06:51 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smooth FeEdBak
post Feb 25 2004, 01:42 PM
Post #43


"Welcome to Neotokyo"
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 323
Joined: 19-July 03
Member No.: 534



Why must the topics that have the most potential in showing our thoughts and how we express them always turn ugly? Earlier today i read a topic just like this on another message board and there were no personal remarks made and i was completly blown away by what was said, but here i feel dissapointed.

This post has been edited by smooth FeEdBak: Feb 25 2004, 01:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 26 2004, 10:20 AM
Post #44


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
Of course you have adequate scientific principles, laws, evidence to back this assertion up right?


Yes. I have observed that so far there is no evidence, nor do scientists even claim there is, that there has been more than one occurance of spontaneous life on Earth. That is combined with the observation, based on the scientific theory of repeatability, that if life had spontaneously appeared on Earth, it should have happened again. This is pretty simple logic to me, but maybe you are blinded by devotion atheism.

QUOTE
Nothing more than your "opinion" on what COULD BE or COULD HAVE BEEN. Hardly an argument Comrade, more like "well, gee it could be this." Again, you misunderstand what a FACT is.


I already said that was what it was, I didn't say it proved your theory wrong. But if those ideas are possible (or other ideas from other people as well) than obviously it would foolish to assume that either one is fact. I never said that the fossils didn't exist, I just said that scientists have misinterpreted it. You apparently are the one who doesn't understand what a fact is. I don't care how scientists interpret it, if there is still another option, which also has evidence of its proposed theory, than the first option is still not a proven fact. In the same way, there are no written records of interspecies evolution, nor have we not personally observed it happening, and as there are still other possible options, the theory of evolution is not a proven fact.

QUOTE
I assume Straycat wants people to look at evidence and then make decisions based on them, not make decisions then look at the evidence.


I don't really care how the decisions were made, if there is evidence of it, and no other theory has yet been completely proved, than it is still an option.

QUOTE
Of course that's assuming that it was written by Isaiah and that it was written during this time frame. I could easily write TOMORROW what's going to happen today, and pass it off as PROPHECY FULFILLED.


You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, so I'm just going to accept it. You have however, to your credit, provided some evidence against Daniel, and now I will respond to that, with excerpts and references from a book that deals with those criticisms.

In the 1850's several cunieform Babylonian tablets were discovered that were written by the Babylonian king Nabonidus that recorded him as having left his son Belshazzar to gaurd the kingship while he was out conquering the world. It is already known that Nabonidus was not in Babylon at the time of its fall, but up until that point no secular histories had given any mention of Belshazzar, only the Bible. Of course this was used as evidence of its historical inaccuracy. However those tablets basically destroyed that claim and added considerable credibility to the Biblical acount, especialy since apparently no one else knew about Belshazzar, which gives you the impression that Daniel must have personally been in Babylon at the time of the writing.

Another still common objection is that Darius the Mede did not exist. Although no discoveries have yet proven his existence, it is known that Cyrus apointed a man named Gubaru as governor of Babylon, and that he in turn appointed many smaller governors or satraps, which Daniel mentions. It was quite common in those days to refer to governors or other political leaders as kings, even though they weren't really kings. So it is very likely that Darius was in fact a title-name for the governor Gubaru. It is also well known that Medea was a powerful ally of Persia, and partly shared in ruling the empire. It is interesting to note how well aquainted the supposed forger of Daniel was with the laws and customs of Babylon and Persia, which were long destroyed by the time of the Macabee wars, when the book was supposedly forged. The contrast between the two legal systems was quite remarkable, and for Daniel to have known how those systems worked would be even more remarkable if he had not been in Babylon at the time of the writing. The laws presented in Daniel are well known today from archeological discoveries, which have therefore also proved that part true, but at the time when it was supposedly forged there was very little knowledge left of the customs of those two kingdoms. Even such famous historians as Herotudus made no mention of Belshazzar and did not have nearly the same knowledge of Babylonian and Persian customs as what Daniel seems to have had

Still another objection to Daniel is that it was partly written in Greek, and Greece was not yet the dominant language in the Middle-East. However, it has turned out recently that many of the supposedly Greek words were in fact Persian, leaving only three Greek words in the entire manuscript. If Greek was really the dominant language at the time of the writing, I think there would have been alot more Greek words in it. And anyway, Greek influence was in fact already starting to spread through the Middle-East, so it's not suprising that three Greek words were in the manuscript. It is also interesting that it was largely written in a form of Aramaic that was no longer used by the time of the supposed forgery.

As for certain other so-called mistakes in the manuscript, Sheole and Hell are both the same place, the translation literally being "the grave". The fact that Jeshua Ben Sira did not mention him in his list does not in any way prove that he did not exist, as he also failed to mention other heroes who were already well known and revered by that time. Even Paul in his list of faithful people in the book of Hebrews does not mention some of the most revered heroes, though he does mention Daniel. The person who made your site obviously hasn't studied his points out very carefully, as he accused the book of being false because mentioned the "abomination of desolation" (the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple in 167 BCE) which means it must have been written at the time when it was erected. But if he had really studied the Bible carefully he would have found that this is not referring to the alter of Zeus, as Jesus warned of its future coming long after the alter of Zeus had been destroyed by the Macabee's. And once again that is part of a prophecy that has already been largely fulfilled. His interpretation of that prophecy is grossly of track from accurate interpretations of this vision. By the time he has reached Daniel 11:40-45 the kings of the north and south have changed completely and are no longer referring to the kings of Syria and Egypt. As a matter of fact, contrary to the websites claims, that prophecy does indicate the reign of the Roman Empire. It was a prophecy that was hard to understand at first, but as more parts of it have been fulfilled, so we also understand it much better. On the other hand, many more of the prophecies throughout the Bible have already come true and not only vindicated the Bible, but they have also discredited any ideas of atheism. If there is no God, howcome supernatural occurances have happened throughout history? That in itself doesn't prove the Bible, but it does disprove atheism.

Whoever made that website has done a poor job of proving Daniels prophecies wrong. Now it's true, it isn't his job to prove it true or false, it's the job of those who believe them to prove that they are true. But it's a pretty poor arguments against the Bible to purpously misinterpret the prophecies and then try to say that those misinterpretations prove that it was inaccurate. I also notice that all of your arguments, or those presented on the links you give me, tend to focus on disproving the very worst arguments for what I beleive. Half the time I don't even agree with the creationists they're attacking, and meanwhile you try to disprove my arguments by breaking them into different subjects and refusing to take everything into acount. First you ask me to prove the Bible, then you tell me to stick to evolution, but a debate about evolution alone can't prove the Bible because it focuses on much more than just creation. But by proving the rest of the Bible I can also make a strong argument for creation, unless you simply refuse to even acknowledge those points, in which case I don't really see any point in continuing this debate, cause nothing would ever be enough for you.

QUOTE
It's still unreasonable to assume evidence based on superstitions. They serve no real purpose, only to enslave and divide the proletariat. I can't believe an Anarchist is a creationist and a Biblical fundamentalist. This is so amazing to me, it's absurd.


But I have already shown that it is not superstition, it is real events that really happened. And no they don't "enslave the proletariat", unless they are corrupted to do that, just like all things can be corrupted, including communism or socialism. As far as being a fundamentalist, that depends on what you mean. When I hear about fundamentalists, I think of right-wingers trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. In fact, to call me a fundamentalist would imply that I was refusing to take part in any major secular activities or ideas, which your own statement proves to false. But believe it or not, I don't have 100% devotion in anarchism, nor do I believe that it can solve the problems that exist today, but niether can any other form of government that we create. I believe much more in doing what we can individually to help those who are suffering. Sorry if I sound like I'm preaching to everyone, I don't mean to sound like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 28 2004, 08:27 AM
Post #45


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
Good grief, no atheists say that life wasn't created on Earth. What they say is that it was created by natural causes NOT some diety.


Creation from God is just as natural as creation from nothing, which is basically what you are trying to say happened. Life can only exist from pre-existing life. Since God always existed, that means he is always coming from pre-existing life. But since life obviously hasn't always existed on Earth, it must have come from some other source. There are only two explanations for that, either aliens dropped down and planted micro-organisms to grow on Earth, or God created it. I think the last explanation makes more sense.

QUOTE
I merely stated that since you say God always was and you make an exception for him in doing so, then I do the same for the Universe, and the natural causes inside of it that cause life to spring forth.


Well as far I know, no scientists have ever been able to find any proof that life can exist without pre-existing life. So it seems just as reasonable or more to me to say that God created it, than to say that life somehow just sprung up out of nothing. Natural or unnatural, it had to come from something else. And you still haven't explained other supernatural occurances, so I'm going to let you do that.

QUOTE
How do you NOT understand it? Look, it's like a man with three choices of ice-cream. He chooses chocolate, because he likes chocolate. Based on the rules of chocolate icecream that he just chose, he must eat it on his hands and knees like a dog. Now, he had the free-will to CHOOSE the type of ice cream, but AFTER HE CHOSE IT, he HAD to adhere to the principles INVOLVED with the ice cream.

That's the worst example I've ever heard for anything. That just proves my point even more, cause no choice like that is ever presented. Well there are alot of religions that force you to accept their doctrines if you choose to join them, but that's not that far fetched. And not all religions force you to do that, just some. Many religions require very little or even no statements of faith or acceptance of doctrine to join them. By the way, just in case you think I am, I am not currently part of any organized religion, but I do think people have the right to be part of one if they choose to. I do not support policies like what the Catholic Church had in the middle ages. Strangely enough, many Catholics today are very liberal, there is even a former preist named Aristide who is currently trying to bring stability back to Haiti. There is even a brand of Catholicism called Liberation Theology which believes that by helping the poor we are serving Gods purpose.

QUOTE
I didn't say that they adhered to EVERYTHING in their religion, either. Try actually responding to the points I'm making. I said there are CERTAIN PRINCIPLES that they AGREE TO though. It's what makes organized religion, organized religion.


Well if you don't believe in a certain religions doctrines, than don't become part of it. For that matter, as I have already pointed out many times, if you join a political party you have to accept its policies. That's completely normal to me. Why for instance, would you want to join a Christian church if you are Muslim, or in your case, atheist? If that's your objection than I suggest you drop it, cause it's not a very good one.

QUOTE
Jesus, you will look for ANYTHING to try and disprove my beliefs. We are NOT discussing this. But if you must know, I don't wnat freedom of speech for fascists and capitalists. I want it for the proletariat, which is what communism is; the FREEDOM OF THE PROLETARIAT; Marx doesn't say "FASCISTS CAPITALISTS AND WORKERS UNITE!" does he?


Yeah and I'm not a Marxist, and if Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Kruchev or any other brand of Bolshevik Communist was in control of the US today I'd probably be arrested for my anarchistic ideaology. That and my religious beliefs which stand in total contradiction of Bolshevism. And I'm guessing that in order for me to be part of a Communist party I would have to accept its central ideals. So the point was completely valid, as your beliefs about religion having to be destroyed because it's "oppressive" are actually just as oppressive, because it would take away people's freedom to worship as they please, so long as they don't harm anyone else. But that's right, you don't really have a point against religion, cause your only real problem is that in order to be part of some religions you do have accept its doctrines, though not all religions do that anyway. Like I said, if that's your only objection than you should quickly drop it.

QUOTE
Even if that were true. It's still OBSERVING THINGS and then making a THEORY BASED ON WHAT HE OBSERVED. It's not the opposite. He didn't say "we have a common ancestor" and then set out to prove that assertion.


And I have not observed enough evidence to make me believe that Humans developed through evolution, or that all religion is oppressive and should be abolished. But I have observed that life itself could not have appeared on Earth without the direction "some diety", as you called it.

QUOTE
No, Darwin made a theory based on his research, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. How many times do I have to tell you this?

His successors didn't follow his teaching as if he were some sort of God, they looked at evidence and discovered that Darwin's teachings co-exist with the evidence. And thus, the theory of evolution was born and is now adopted as a FACT by 95% of the world's scientists.


Yeah but the research that first convinced him of evolution was so unscientific that most scientists today would probably dismiss it instantly when they heard it, because it had far less evidence behind it than my so-called "unscientific" observations have. I am reminded of a statement made by a scientist/evolutionist that basically said that, in the end, evolutionists are put in the exact same place as creationists are. Their case, just like religious theories, ultimately rests on faith. I have alot of respect for some of the attempts that some scientists have made to find out if and how we came from evolution, but I have no respect for people who act like theirs is the only reasonable theory and should instantly be adopted by everyone. That to me is total disrespect and I will argue against it as long as there is any argument to be used, and as long as they argue back.

QUOTE
Goodness, when did I ever say what you said? I said they look at ALL EVIDENCE not just the *fossil record.* And, if you had been following along, I said creationists don't try to prove creation AT ALL. They merely CRITIQUE evolution and say "well if it wasn't evolution, then uh... it had to be YAHWEH or (insert God here)"


You have obviously not read the better arguments for creation, or you would have far more respect for it, unless you're completely arrogant. Creationist arguments deal with many fields of study, not just science. That's probably why you haven't understood the full argument for creation. You're to obsessed with fossils and genes and can't see the whole picture. You, like most scientists, are trying to solve a large and complex puzzle with just a handful of pieces by focusing on just one corner, instead of skipping it and coming back later when you've found more evidence and you've put together more of the rest of the puzzle. You can't ever hope to understand the puzzle if you only focus on one or two portions. You have to look at the whole picture.

QUOTE
You haven't proven ANY ASSERTION that you made in this paragraph, but okay.


Let me refrase, YOU are so arrogant that any theory other than your own is considered unreasonable, and any form of religious belief, no matter how much research is behind it, is dismissed as superstition. By the way, can you please tell me or link me to a website where I can learn exactly what the dating methods are that scientists use to find out how old a certain fossil or artifact is? I would honestly like to know how reliable their experimants really are.

QUOTE
You still don't get it do you? Life came from natural causes, caused by the laws of the Universe (which you admit, always existed). There is NO REASON for me to assume that God did ANYTHING if the Universe has always existed. Let's see if you can grasp it THIS TIME.

And even then, your argument is still faulty because you believe God (that is more complciated than life) can come from nothing, but life on Earth can't come from natural causes in an already existing Universe. Who's being unreasonable now?

You are. Of course I grasp your argument. I know what you are trying to say, but it is impossible and is completely against the laws of science, which you claim to be so devoted to. However you still apparently don't understand my argument. I didn't ever say that he came from nothing, I he always existed. If he always existed than he wouldn't need anything to create him, or to give birth to him. More complicated, yes definately, but not neccessarily in the way you think. He is a very complex being in that no one can completely understand him, but whether he is a a physical being like we are, or just a spiritual being, I do not know. It is hard to understand a spiritual being, since we picture everything being made of cells and atoms etc, but just because we, being immersed in purely physical things, can not fully comprehend spiritual existence, doesn't mean that it's impossible. We also can't comprehend eternity, that is, always having been alive. We, because we all started somewhere and everything we see and do starts somewhere, can not fully picture having always existed, but that doesn't make it impossible. In fact that inability to comprehend certain things which have happened, really just shows how our reasoning is, and how imperfect we really are.

QUOTE
LMAO, man oh man. Poor creationists get confused all the time. I simply said EVOLUTION IS A FACT, which you admit MICROevolution was. I further said that MacroEvolution is a fact because the evidence is so overwhelming it's SILLY not to acknowledge it. You have yet to prove the opposite is true.


Well if you believe the evidence points to macroevolution, that's fine, but it certainly is as overwhelming as you say it is. I am not in the slightest bit overwhelmed. As you keep on saying, I don't have disprove your theory, you have to prove it. If you choose to interpret the evidence the way you do, I have no problem with that, its not my job to control everyone elses minds. I will not judge your integrity by your iterpretation of scientific evidence. But neither will I sit by idly while you try to smash my beliefs and ridicule my faith in my religion. By attacking organized religion, you attacking my own beliefs, and you are attacking me. You are the real one judging people because they don't believe the same way you do. You are exactly what you claim to oppose, and for that you are a hypocrite. I am trying to insult you, and I am sorry if I sound like that, I am just telling you how you sound when you first accuse religion of one thing and then turn around and do the exact same thing.

QUOTE
You have given no reasonable reason if the Universe and time always existed. So what reasons have you given besides "well if evolution is false then my God must have done it!" or "THere's so much diversity on Earth that GOD MUST HAVE CREATED IT!" You keep falling back into the God of the Gaps fallacy and still cannot prove that there is "every reason" to believe there was a creator, nor have you proven that there is reason that it still exists. So, whatever.


I have given a perfectly good reason to believe in some kind of creator. The Universe is not alive and therefore can not create life, or give birth to it. The Universe is just an endless amount of space, which in itself is not enough to create or even allow for life to exist. Aside from how complex the Earth itself is and how rediculous it is to assume that without any direction, species could just evolve, I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation as to how life itself appeared. It wasn't always there, according to you, so how did it get here? I say, life always existed in God, and he created life on Earth and set things so that it could be easily sustained. Even if the Bible specifically wasn't true, and I firmly believe it is, I would still believe in a creator.

QUOTE
This is such a ludicrous objection to the poll I posted that it's unreal that you would use it.

95% of scientists claim that evolution is a fact. That's 95% of ALL SCIENTISTS in America; not 95% of evolutionary scientists. It's a poll of all scientists in America and found 95% of them to consider evolution a fact. The polls you gave are dependent on the categories adherents; this is based merely on the broad categories of science like Biology. Something more along the lines of what I said, is something like 90% of religious scholars are Christians.

But I'm glad to see you are now saying that evolution is Science, as the polls you give are dependent on the category of study, so Muslims believe Islam is true, just like SCIENTISTS say evolution is a FACT. You are readily admitting that evolution is science and not dogma. Thanks for proving point on various levels.

Do not get confused, however; I'm not saying that popular scientific opinion is ALWAYS correct, but it's more of a challenge to you. If you say it's wrong, you had better have some evidence to back it up; your "opinion" doesn't mean squat in terms of this evidence.


No science itself is not dogma, you are right in that. But the same is true of religion. If a certain religious group is dogmatic, that is that groups problem, not religion itself. The same is true of science and scientists. As you said, scientific opinion is not always right, so just because most scientists do believe in evolution doesn't mean they are right. The same is true with everything. I am not claiming to be infallible, that to me is dogma. But scientists are just as imperfect as anyone else. I have given you a possible interpetation of the facts, and you haven't yet given any proof against it. That doesn't mean you now have to believe my interpretation, it just means that my opinion must not be too unreasonable, cause it still has a good chance of being true. In order for you to say it is unreasonable or worthless, you have to give solid facts against it. And I don't mean facts like you do, I mean proven indisputable truth that either something else did happen or that what I believe happened didn't happen. That is just the way things work, and if you don't like it too bad for you. In a courtroom opinion for or against a theory doesn't matter, you have to prove your theory. Since I am not restricted to fossils alone, I have no problem using other evidence to prove my point, as long as the fossil evidence at least allows it to be true.

QUOTE
I wouldn't, I just wouldn't make it as easy to be willfully ignorant. What do I say enforceses that belief? Is it just because I argue against it so vigurously? So? You're arguing Christianity and Creationism is true vigurously too that doesn't mean you would make all other beliefs illegal (by your own statement) does it?

Alright well I'm sorry for the misinterpretation, but I advise you, if you don't want to confuse people, to be careful of how you come across with people. I have no doubt of what you are saying, but your constant accusations of religion being dogmatic and unreasonable, and of all forms of organized religion enslaving the mind, make it sound as if you want all organized religion to be abolished. I would never even dream of abolishing scientific research, whether the scientists believe in evolution or not. So just be careful of what you say.

QUOTE
LMAO, I wont even respond to this, I'll just post evidences from your current post that show you tried to prove atheism illogical and prove that your religion is right. I told you countless times I wanted to debate evolution, not atheism. Here is you, trying to disprove my atheism and atheism in general...

Okay, now I understand why you took it that way, but I wasn't doing it for that reason. Part of it was just defensiveness and I'm sorry if I confused you by that, but the main reason was to show that there is plenty of logic and reasoning that goes into religious study and it's not just dogma. I'll tell you what, if you want to drop the debate right now I'm fine with that, but if you want to continue our discussion of how we got here I'm also fine with that, and I will be sure to refrain from being over argumentive as long as you do the same. I hope you've changed your opinion by now about religion only being based on dogma. I personally would enjoy this discussion if we could keep it from becoming an argument. I apolagize for own argumentive statements.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2020 - 07:52 PM