ClydeR, how old is the planet earth?

[longshot]

Clyde,

Answer these for me...

1. Evolution... just a myth?

2. How old is planet earth?

3. Which version of the rapture do you agree with? When do the zombies come for the end times? Pre-tribulation?

and...

will there be 144,000 Jewish preachers (Rabbis) needed to bring about the return?

[Tisket]

I'll wager a buck he doesn't respond. And ten bucks that Latrinsorm does.

[Arkans]

Someone's obviously trying to make a quick and easy buck.

Regardless, I still don't think that Clyde is for real. He just reminds me of Lysander. Just posts really off the wall shit to get a rise out of people. I think it's all an act.

- Arkans

[Asha]

I'll wager a buck he doesn't respond. And ten bucks that Latrinsorm does.

You're on.

Latrin shh, I need this.

[Parkbandit]

IT'S A TRAP CLYDER.. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

[Clove]

You're on.

Latrin shh, I need this.Let's offer Latrin 5 bucks to keep his mouth shut.

[ClydeR]

Clyde,

Answer these for me...

1. Evolution... just a myth?
I have no clue. How old do you think it is?

2. How old is planet earth?

3. Which version of the rapture do you agree with? When do the zombies come for the end times? Pre-tribulation?

and...

will there be 144,000 Jewish preachers (Rabbis) needed to bring about the return?

I enjoy discussing political issues in this forum, as I understand that to be its purpose. Evolution, religion and even the age of the earth sometimes become political issues, and I do not object to discussing those issues in a political context. You have failed to establish a political context for your questions. Do the candidates have differing views on these subjects? Have they said that their views on these subjects will affect their decisions, if elected? What makes your questions political?

[CrystalTears]

Okay but you didn't answer his questions.

[Clove]

Okay but you didn't answer his questions.Because it makes all the difference which thread it was asked in.

[Tsa`ah]

Nothing happened before Jesus.

[Blud]

will there be 144,000 Jewish preachers (Rabbis) needed to bring about the return?

The only reason I'm answering this is because I was confused about this as well at some point in the past, and it was explained to me as thus:

The number 12 in the Hebrew culture was significant (there were 12 tribes of Israel), but 12,000 was not really meant as a literal 12,000 people from the 12 tribes, rather the number 12,000 represents a "large number" of people from each of the 12 tribes.

So, to say 144,000 people, and only 144,000 people will be saved is not exactly accurate in terms of the intent of what the passage was trying to say. The number 12,000 (from each of the 12 tribes of Israel) was just trying to relate that a large number of people from each of the 12 tribes of Israel will be saved.

FWIW, I admit that I could have been told something wrong here, but there are tons of passages in the Old Testament where the number 12,000 is used, and in every case, it seems to point a "large number".

Here are some examples:

Numbers 31:5

So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

Numbers 31:33

And threescore and twelve thousand beeves

Joshua 8:25

And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

Judges 21:10

And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

2Samual 17:1

Moreover Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Let me now choose out twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David this night:

IKings 10:26

And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Judith 2:5

Thus saith the great king, the lord of the whole earth, Behold, thou shalt go forth from my presence, and take with thee men that trust in their own strength, of footmen an hundred and twenty thousand (NOTE THAT THIS IS 10 TIMES 12,000); and the number of horses with their riders twelve thousand.


Here is the passage I believe you are referring to:

Revelation 7:4-10

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

[Clove]

The only reason I'm answering this is because I was confused about this as well at some point in the past, and it was explained to me as thus:

The number 12 in the Hebrew culture was significant (there were 12 tribes of Israel), but 12,000 was not really meant as a literal 12,000 people from the 12 tribes, rather the number 12,000 represents a "large number" of people from each of the 12 tribes.... Revelation 7:4-10

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.I grok you but why use 12,000 as symbolic for "alot" and then in the same breath say "a great multitude, which no man could number". It seems using both is a recipe for confusion.

[Blud]

Not sure what "grok" means, but in any case, 12,000 (and multiples of it) was used a number of times in the Old Testament to represent a large number. The number "12" in the Hebrew culture was a significant number, so a multiple of 12 (in this case 12,000) was symbolic of a large number. John wrote in verses 4 - 8 of the passages quoted above that there were a total of 144,000 (multiple of 12,000) and 12,000 (multiple of 12) from each tribe saved, and to put a point on the sheer magnitude of the number of those saved, it is written that no man could number them.

Where the confusion lies (at least with me when I was confused) is that it says there are 144,000. That is a number. Why, then, does it say later that no man could number them?

Then you have to understand that saying, "12,000" in the Hebrew culture is kind of like us saying, "dozens". Any multiple of 12,000 is like saying more than just dozens, but a lot of dozens.

"I took dozens of eggs, dozens of pounds of flour, dozens of gallons of milk, and made so many cookies that no man could count their numbers."

I don't know if this helps any or not.

[Clove]

I'm gonna have to ask Tsa'ah for a ruling on this one.

[g++]

Not sure what "grok" means, but in any case, 12,000 (and multiples of it) was used a number of times in the Old Testament to represent a large number. The number "12" in the Hebrew culture was a significant number, so a multiple of 12 (in this case 12,000) was symbolic of a large number. John wrote in verses 4 - 8 of the passages quoted above that there were a total of 144,000 (multiple of 12,000) and 12,000 (multiple of 12) from each tribe saved, and to put a point on the sheer magnitude of the number of those saved, it is written that no man could number them.

Where the confusion lies (at least with me when I was confused) is that it says there are 144,000. That is a number. Why, then, does it say later that no man could number them?

Then you have to understand that saying, "12,000" in the Hebrew culture is kind of like us saying, "dozens". Any multiple of 12,000 is like saying more than just dozens, but a lot of dozens.

"I took dozens of eggs, dozens of pounds of flour, dozens of gallons of milk, and made so many cookies that no man could count their numbers."

I don't know if this helps any or not.


Thank god some scholar in the past took the time to re-interpret the meaning of the explicit number 12 as it appears in the bible to completely change the meaning of the entire passage. Whenever you see the number 11 it actually means to send a check for "12" dollars to me.

[Blud]

I don't know...I think what I'm trying to say is that the Hebrew culture did not have a neat word for 12. We do...we say one-dozen.

Since they didn't have a neat word for 12, they couldn't have a neat word for "thousands of 12", so they say 12,000. To them, this was a convenient way of saying "a lot...Thousands of 12!" For even bigger numbers, it was "thousands of thousands of 12", et cetera.

At least, that's was my understanding of the Hebrew culture.

[Blud]

The number 12 is explicit. There were 12 tribes of Israel. That is not the issue. The issue is how did they take a meaningful number (12), and use it to denote a large number. They basically say thousands of 12.

[Blud]

But, this one goes to eleven.

[Arkans]

The number 12 is explicit. There were 12 tribes of Israel. That is not the issue. The issue is how did they take a meaningful number (12), and use it to denote a large number. They basically say thousands of 12.

Not like that has ever happened before!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/Guderian129/better-hide-this-one.gif

- Arkans

[Clove]

The number 12 is explicit. There were 12 tribes of Israel. That is not the issue. The issue is how did they take a meaningful number (12), and use it to denote a large number. They basically say thousands of 12.I'm pretty sure John had a few words for a great many, or lots by the time he wrote Revelations, in fact it's indicated in your quoting of it.

[Nilandia]

1. Evolution... just a myth?

2. How old is planet earth?

Oy, not again... I'm pretty sure most people are aware, but this is one of my pet peeves so I have to comment.

Being a Christian does not necessitate a belief that evolution is a fallacy. Neither evolution nor 'creationism,' as some call it, are mutually exclusive, and there is in fact a huge spectrum of beliefs in between the two extremes.

And please, leave Bishop Ussher out of this, kthx. ;)

Gretchen

[Tsa`ah]

I'm gonna have to ask Tsa'ah for a ruling on this one.

Sarcasm?

Well aside from Blud making use of the word "saved" in a manner that makes little jewish kids the world wide cry ... he's on the right track.

Some descriptions of counts are meant (or believed to be) in a literal sense.


Numbers 31:5

So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

We tend to think of population in a modern sense when we really should be thinking about it in a context closer to our own history ... say native Americans.

A thousand from each tribe is more realistic than say twelve thousand from each tribe ... depending on the spot on the timeline the story is meant to take place.

During the time of Gideon ... likely 1200-12000. During the time of David, possibly 12,000-120,000

Then we come to figurative representations. Education in the modern sense was a rarity and often a privilege. So when an an educated person told the stories they had to convey numbers in a manner that would be understood.

You couldn't tell a baker that 144,000 thousand soldiers were marching on a city and expect him to understand the magnitude of it all. You would have to tell the baker that a hundred and twenty score of hundred dozen score of men were marching on the city and he could translate that into the work it would take to feed each of them a loaf of bread. He wouldn't come up with the number of 144,000 .... he would think "I would need months and help to accomplish this".

As he said, the numbers 1-12 (maybe even 20) were readily comprehended ... thus a translation into understandable quantities had to be made in order to keep the oral tradition somewhat accurate.

[Latrinsorm]

Responding to the issue between 12s and uncountable, and therefore not responding to the initial post, and therefore securing Drayal his 10 bucks:

If I were to say that I would walk a thousand miles to be by my lover's side, I am not implying that if they were exactly one thousand and one miles away I would not make the trip. The same sort of thing goes on in certain parts of the Bible. To understand which parts refer to numbers symbolically and which parts refer to them concretely requires the sort of study that is not commonly attainable. One can come to a conclusion anyway, of course, but that will most probably result in a misunderstanding.

This is one of the biggest problems with the Bible being in the vernacular languages, incidentally.

[Tisket]

Being a Christian does not necessitate a belief that evolution is a fallacy. Neither evolution nor 'creationism,' as some call it, are mutually exclusive

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/Sassy_Photos_2007/atrraptorjesus.jpg

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Being a Christian does not necessitate a belief that evolution is a fallacy.>>

It kind of does.

[Blud]

Like I said, I could be completely misinformed about everything I have posted so far on this topic. But, when I read the other passages I quoted, and I studied with a person whom I believe to be an "expert" on the Hebrew culture, it put that passage of Revelation in context for me.

[Tsa`ah]

It kind of does.

Not really.

[Tisket]

Responding to the issue between 12s and uncountable, and therefore not responding to the initial post, and therefore securing Drayal his 10 bucks:

Respond to the thread...not the OP. Score! PMing paypal info now.

[Clove]

Responding to the issue between 12s and uncountable, and therefore not responding to the initial post, and therefore securing Drayal his 10 bucks:

If I were to say that I would walk a thousand miles to be by my lover's side, I am not implying that if they were exactly one thousand and one miles away I would not make the trip. The same sort of thing goes on in certain parts of the Bible. To understand which parts refer to numbers symbolically and which parts refer to them concretely requires the sort of study that is not commonly attainable. One can come to a conclusion anyway, of course, but that will most probably result in a misunderstanding.

This is one of the biggest problems with the Bible being in the vernacular languages, incidentally.QFT. A blanket "well 12 just symbolic for a great number" as an explanation is overly simple. It's true in some instances and not true in others.

[Latrinsorm]

Responding to Tisket's picture, but not the OP:

Note that a "raptor" is a kind of ship on Battlestar Galactica, proving once again that Jesus loves Battlestar more than Firefly: hence BSG >>> Firefly.

[Latrinsorm]

Respond to the thread...not the OP. Score! PMing paypal info now.Well.... poop. :(

[Tisket]

Note that a "raptor" is a kind of ship on Battlestar Galactica, proving once again that Jesus loves Battlestar more than Firefly: hence BSG >>> Firefly.

Preaching to the choir.

[Kranar]

Being a Christian does not necessitate a belief that evolution is a fallacy. Neither evolution nor 'creationism,' as some call it, are mutually exclusive, and there is in fact a huge spectrum of beliefs in between the two extremes.


They most certainly are mutually exclusive. The problem is that religion (in its institutional form) has tried to bring science down to the same level so that science, instead of being a body of knowledge based on sound empirical knowledge, is now just another belief full of these so called unproven 'theories'...

Evolution is not a belief, it's not a political ideology where some people are to the left and some are to the right. It's a well studied and understood scientific theory subject to the scientific method. Any other attempt to study evolution by combining it with religion is merely a perversion better left in the realm of pseudoscience.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Not really.>>

Believing, undeniably, that God created man is "not really" different from believing, undeniably, that science created man?

[Clove]

<<Not really.>>

Believing, undeniably, that God created man is "not really" different from believing, undeniably, that science created man?Science did? So... Science is a "force"?

[Latrinsorm]

Evolution does not explain how life arose from non-life on Earth. Hence, a Christian could believe that passages in Genesis about breathing life into clay refer to the generative event of life on Earth, rather than specifically the generative event of human life on Earth.

Or, more broadly, a Christian could believe that the act of creation was even more removed and instead took the form of the construction of a magnificently enormous mechanism that we call the universe. Perhaps you've heard of that theory before.

More broadly still, it is important to note that "Christian" is not a well-defined term here. The general thrust of the context indicates that a "Christian" is a person who believes a certain set of precepts: this is a definition by orthodoxy, and it is not the only definition of "Christian". Equally well-represented in history (esp. Biblical history) is the definition by orthopraxy: a "Christian" is a person who does a certain sort of things; actions rather than beliefs are the salient characteristic. This also might sound familiar, especially when illustrated with statements like "you brood of vipers!"

[Blud]

QFT. A blanket "well 12 just symbolic for a great number" as an explanation is overly simple. It's true in some instances and not true in others.

I didn't say that 12 was symbolic for a great number...I said thousands of 12 is symbolic for a great number.

12 is a discreet value that has very important meaning to the Hebrew culture.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Science did? So... Science is a "force"?>>

Trust me, what I said makes as much sense as creationism.

[Tsa`ah]

<<Not really.>>

Believing, undeniably, that God created man is "not really" different from believing, undeniably, that science created man?

A fanatic will always take scripture as historical and ignore everything else ... or at least dispute it while chucking observation and reason out of the window.

That's not to say a person of religion will do the same. Ask anyone in the field of science that has faith and they'll likely respond (to some extent) that they believe God created everything (including the scientific laws that govern the universe and life).

You'll find some that believe that God planted evidence to test our faith, most are likely to say that theological works are fallible to begin with and a time line between the works in Genesis and scientific evidence isn't very logical.

When you try to infuse theology into religion ... you step over the line from faith to fanatic.

[Clove]

They most certainly are mutually exclusive.In what way? Someone who believes the universe is a creation doesn't necessarily deny the physical laws or the science behind any of it. Why can't someone believe in a god that created humanity via evolutionary processes?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Why can't someone believe in a god that created humanity via evolutionary processes?>>

Because creationism specifically says man was created by God, directly, not evolved from single-celled organisms.

[Clove]

<<Science did? So... Science is a "force"?>>

Trust me, what I said makes as much sense as creationism.Touche, but it's still a dumb statement :D

[Clove]

<<Why can't someone believe in a god that created humanity via evolutionary processes?>>

Because creationism specifically says man was created by God, directly, not evolved from single-celled organisms.Because there is a universal mandate that all churches, temples, mosques and synagogues have a the same definition of "creation" let alone individuals. There was a press release and everything. Swear!

[Tsa`ah]

I didn't say that 12 was symbolic for a great number...I said thousands of 12 is symbolic for a great number.

12 is a discreet value that has very important meaning to the Hebrew culture.

I wouldn't call it very important. It may have become important to some, but I doubt it started out that way.

Yes there are twelve tribes, but the numeric expression was no more important than any other number.

"Child, how many tribes of Israel are there?"

Kid holds up 10 fingers, squirms for a minute, and then hold his extended hands above his feet so that only the ten fingers and two toes are visible.

"That will do pig."

There's really no reverence or significance to the expression. Someone trying to unite the tribes or requesting troops would be keen on equal representation ... and likely educated to an extent.

"We'll need 600 men to take that encampment"

"How many sir?"

"Five score from each tribe of Israel."

[Tsa`ah]

Because creationism specifically says man was created by God, directly, not evolved from single-celled organisms.

You're confusing a belief taken from scripture as scripture ... that's not always a wise thing to do.

[Clove]

Just out of curiosity, when Moses went up the mount for 40 days and 40 nights did they have to express that as two score?

[Blud]

I am a Christian, and I believe that God created the universe, all of the laws that govern the universe, and I do also believe that there are certain things "implanted," if you will, that are there to test our faith. I don't have all of the answers, but I do believe the bible to be the truth, and will die that way.

Do I believe in evolution? Sure. Everything evolves on some level. I can't recall the exact details, but I remember wathing a show on Discovery years ago where they found a lake underground in a desert, and within this lake was a school of fish. This species of fish also exists in the open ocean, but the ones that were found in the underground lake had evolved to the point that they were born without dorsal fins. Being tucked away in this body of water for thousands of years without any current had allowed them to "do away" with some of the features that their open-ocean counterparts needed.

I am an engineer, and have a healthy enthusiasm for physics, chemistry, and other fields of science and mathematics, and the more I study science and math, the more it proves to me that God does exist. There is too much natural order, in my humble opinion, for me to believe it was all an accident.

[Warriorbird]

Tisket won this thread with the Raptor Jesus pic.

[Clove]

If the average Jew had difficulty expressing quantities greater than twenty, how'd they get so good at counting money?

[Kranar]

In what way? Someone who believes the universe is a creation doesn't necessarily deny the physical laws or the science behind any of it. Why can't someone believe in a god that created humanity via evolutionary processes?


Because the usefulness of science has nothing to do with what a human chooses to believe in, they are seperate things altogether. Heck, Sir Isaac Newton believed in some pretty crazy things himself.

As I said, science is not a branch of politics, it's not a form of religion, it's usefulness is solely in its ability to predict future phenomenon, aka, its explanatory power. That's the only basis by which scientific hypotheses are to be evaluated. If you can demonstrate in some meaningful way that using God as a way to explain biology increases biology's explanatory power, then by all means do so, because as of it yet it has never happened.

Just saying that evolution and religion can co-exist because God created evolution, or God created science, doesn't do jack squat to explain any future events. It doesn't help solve any physical/empirical problem, and since science is only concerned with solving empirical problems, it follows that trying to mix God with science is entirely useless.

In actuality, all it does is make people confused as to what science is and the role it is intended to play in society, and cause people to waste time trying to argue in court that if evolution is to be taught to children, then so must creationism and teachers must tell kids that evolution is only a 'theory' (and these fools in many cases don't even know what the definition of a theory is). That's where my big problem lies.

[Sean of the Thread]

I just wanted a pet dinosaur.

[Warriorbird]

If a religion gave out pet dinosaurs I'd join.

[Blud]

Because the usefulness of science has nothing to do with what a human chooses to believe in, they are seperate things altogether. Heck, Sir Isaac Newton believed in some pretty crazy things himself.

As I said, science is not a branch of politics, it's not a form of religion, it's usefulness is solely in its ability to predict future phenomenon, aka, its explanatory power. That's the only basis by which scientific hypotheses are to be evaluated. If you can demonstrate in some meaningful way that using God as a way to explain biology increases biology's explanatory power, then by all means do so, because as of it yet it has never happened.

Just saying that evolution and religion can co-exist because God created evolution, or God created science, doesn't do jack squat to explain any future events. It doesn't help solve any physical/empirical problem, and since science is only concerned with solving empirical problems, it follows that trying to mix God with science is entirely useless.

In actuality, all it does is make people confused as to what science is and the role it is intended to play in society, and cause people to waste time trying to argue in court that if evolution is to be taught to children, then so must creationism and teachers must tell kids that evolution is only a 'theory' (and these fools in many cases don't even know what the definition of a theory is). That's where my big problem lies.

I completely agree with this. The world/universe should be viewed objectively iff you are looking for scientific explanations for why it behaves the way it behaves. That is not saying that once you do that, you cannot believe in God or creationism.

To explain Newton's Third Law of Motion with "God created the natural laws of physics" does not explain how a horse is capable of pulling a sleigh.

[Arkans]

If a religion gave out pet dinosaurs I'd join.


Catholic Church priests will pet your dinosaur, if that is close enough.

- Arkans

[Celephais]

I just have a "good idea".
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/dogma/_group_photos/chris_rock7.jpg

[Clove]

If a religion gave out pet dinosaurs I'd join.You'll all see, after I build my gay-vaporizing-laser, I'm hatching my Holy-T-Rex and then you'll all see...

[Latrinsorm]

"We'll need 600 men to take that encampment"

"How many sir?"

"Five score from each tribe of Israel."A score is 20, btw. :D
In actuality, all it does is make people confused as to what science is and the role it is intended to play in societyYou bring up Newton, though. What Newton intended for science is clearly far different from what you intend for it, or from what I intend for it for that matter.

That all aside, you're arguing from the accidental consequences rather than the necessary ones. There's nothing that says a Christian has to argue for teaching creationism.

[Parkbandit]

Ok.. just for the hell of it (pun intended..)

From Genesis I:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

__________________________________________________ ___

So show me how again evolution can co-exist with creationism? Is this where the religious people claim that 6 days really doesn't mean 6 days like today?

And I LOLed alot when I read Tsa'ah's "explaination" that God left shit around like fossils and carbon dated shit to make us question the existance of God. GOD PLANTED THAT SHIT!

[g++]

The world/universe should be viewed objectively iff you are looking for scientific explanations for why it behaves the way it behaves. .

I dont get why you qualified that. Should you view the world with extreme bias if your not looking for a specific scientific explanation?


That is not saying that once you do that, you cannot believe in God or creationism

Well it seems somewhat illogical to me. I am going to view the world objectively and make a decision between two mutually exclusive theories. Either I can believe a theory that has stood up to extreme scrutiny by the brightest minds on Earth for years or a story written 2000 years ago and re-transcribed 1000's of times by hand about a guy who claimed he could get you into heaven if only you believe he can get you into heaven.

I mean if you want to believe in a higher power and in science obviously thats your own choice. Its as stupid to argue there is no god as it is to argue there is one IMO because obviously you cant prove either. If your going to say you believe in creationism and the biblical explanation of how life came about and in the same breath claim your an evolution enthusiast I think your ignoring the obvious fact that they directly contradict each other.

Their have been some pretty solid studies recently on simple proteins forming cellular wall structures when put in charged solutions recently too. I hope one day an experiment can demonstrate life starting.

[Clove]

A score is 20, btw. :DYeah. He was batting fifty score on that example.

[longshot]

I enjoy discussing political issues in this forum, as I understand that to be its purpose. Evolution, religion and even the age of the earth sometimes become political issues, and I do not object to discussing those issues in a political context. You have failed to establish a political context for your questions. Do the candidates have differing views on these subjects? Have they said that their views on these subjects will affect their decisions, if elected? What makes your questions political?

You are a bitch. Plain and simple. You lack the backbone to stand up for the bullshit that you believe.

I chose this folder, as this is the folder where dump all of your crap.

You want a political context? I want to understand your personal beliefs, as I'm hoping to learn about someone that would support the "constitutional party." Good enough?

Or, how about this? I want you to show me what a crazy piece of shit you are. It will help me during election time... when I can answer the question, "Who the fuck actually thinks that?"

If this isn't good I can move this to another thread if it makes you feel any fucking better.

Way to not respond... fucking unbelievably weak.

Answer the questions.

[Nilandia]

I agree with what you've said 100%, Blud. I also have the highest respect for, and interest in science, but I don't think that necessitates I not believe in God.

That said, Celephais with the Dogma reference wins this thread.

Gretchen

[Gan]

"We'll need 600 men to take that encampment"

"How many sir?"

"Five score from each tribe of Israel."
A score is 20, btw. :D
Now thats what I call batting 1000.

:rofl:

[Gan]

Yeah. He was batting fifty score on that example.

Damn you.

[Parkbandit]

I agree with what you've said 100%, Blud. I also have the highest respect for, and interest in science, but I don't think that necessitates I not believe in God.

That said, Celephais with the Dogma reference wins this thread.

Gretchen


Not sure how one can believe the Bible.. and then believe in Evolution. They contradict each other.

[Celephais]

What happens to people with multiple personalities? If half of them believe in God, and half don't, do only half of their personalities go to heaven and the other half go to hell?

[Skeeter]

I believe in God but I don't really buy the bible. Bible was written by men therefore is fallible.

[Sean of the Thread]

I believe in God but I don't really buy the bible. Bible was written by men therefore is fallible.

Nobody buys the bible.. they steal them from hotels.

[Celephais]

Skeeter... I still love your sig.

[Skeeter]

pretty much covers all the right people.

[Celephais]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/19931024.gif

[landy]

Oh my science! As a member of the United Atheist Alliance, I challenge all you humans to stop using plates and eat from your tummies.

Seriously, atheism is on the rise around the world for a reason (although I prefer the term rationalism to atheism). The creation and perpetuation of religion and religious institutions has served to pacify (albeit not without the occasional clash) the masses. Most people then, and many now, are incapable of handling the true meaning of death, the discontinuation of themselves. Religion was the perfect antidote for the human condition, but most logical reasoning human beings would come to the conclusion that the whole of "creation" was not a matter of chance, but rather a matter of time.

[Celephais]

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the relevation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
Religion is an opiate, we're all meaningless.

[longshot]

Still waiting for Clyde.

The silence is deafening...

[Apathy]

If you are actually enjoying reading this, may I suggest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Expand your mind, yo.

[Sean of the Thread]

Dino-Era Bird Fossil Found; One of Oldest Known
Kevin Holden Platt in Beijing, China
for National Geographic News
May 6, 2008

A fossil of a new species of dinosaur-era bird found in China is one of the oldest ever discovered, experts say in a new study.

The new bird, called Eoconfuciusornis zhengi, or "the dawn of the Confucius bird," is predated only by the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, which lived during the Jurassic period.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-dinosaur-bird.html

[longshot]

The new bird, called Eoconfuciusornis zhengi, or "the dawn of the Confucius bird," is predated only by the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, which lived during the Jurassic period.



The real question is this... what godless, liberal scientist hid that fossil there?

Still waiting Clyde...

[Nilandia]

Dino-Era Bird Fossil Found; One of Oldest Known
Kevin Holden Platt in Beijing, China
for National Geographic News
May 6, 2008

A fossil of a new species of dinosaur-era bird found in China is one of the oldest ever discovered, experts say in a new study.

The new bird, called Eoconfuciusornis zhengi, or "the dawn of the Confucius bird," is predated only by the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, which lived during the Jurassic period.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-dinosaur-bird.html
Sorry, but that's awesome! Learn more with each new discovery!

Gretchen

[Clove]

The real question is this... what godless, liberal scientist hid that fossil there?

Still waiting Clyde...Probably Parkbandit. He's the only former semi-conservative old enough to have hid it there 150 million years ago. :love:

[Parkbandit]

Probably Parkbandit. He's the only former semi-conservative old enough to have hid it there 150 million years ago. :love:

I'm not a former, you mother fucker.

[Warriorbird]

You moved on to nationalism.

[Gan]

The real question is this... what godless, liberal scientist hid that fossil there?

Still waiting Clyde...

Dont you understand? ClydeR only posts here to provoke thought, not to defend his position.

Because if he were forced to defend his position - it would probably out him for whom he really is.

You're not going to get a reponse in the form that you're looking for - no matter what thread or what folder you post your request under.

[Stanley Burrell]

I just wanted a pet dinosaur.

Get an iguana. You can straight up catch them in Florida. Invasive species, ftw.

Also:

RAPTOR JESUS RRNWWWRRAARR. That's about all I read, or rather saw, too. Alright.

[Warriorbird]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/cb/Raptorjesuswithcross.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

Woah, shit. I apparently missed this e-trend because I was too busy <3'ing turtles.

Edited to add: I TOTALLY DID FORREALWAFFLEROFLLEZ!!two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyl__ozv_1w

[Warriorbird]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8a/Raptor_Jesus_1.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Seriously, atheism is on the rise around the world for a reason (although I prefer the term rationalism to atheism).The only reason is the arrogance of the modernist perspective. There have been swells of atheism many times in the past. The notion that our time is that when religion will perish from the earth ignores all the other times religion was so obviously on the way out: the 60s, the 20s, the middle 1800s, the late 1700s. To continue with the Battlestar parallels: all this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

[Clove]

To continue with the Battlestar parallels: all this has happened before, and all this will happen again.Don't you mean The Matrix?

[Latrinsorm]

You have insulted my ship, my Admiral, and my fleet. Prepare to die.

[Blud]

I dont get why you qualified that. Should you view the world with extreme bias if your not looking for a specific scientific explanation?

I didn't mean that the way it was written...What I meant is if you are interested in finding out the science behind how a car turns through a corner, you have to look at it objectively and emperically, and not say, "Well, it turns because God created the physics that make it possible." A statement like that doesn't explain anything about the coefficient of friction between the rubber tires and the asphalt, the acceleration the car while changing direction, the effects of its mass, et cetera.


Its as stupid to argue there is no god as it is to argue there is one IMO because obviously you cant prove either.

Absolutely agree here, that's why I don't argue with people about it.


If your going to say you believe in creationism and the biblical explanation of how life came about and in the same breath claim your an evolution enthusiast I think your ignoring the obvious fact that they directly contradict each other.

I might not have said it clearly, so I'll try again. I believe life was created, and has been evolving ever since. I really don't see a conflict here, but that's just my humble opinion.


Their have been some pretty solid studies recently on simple proteins forming cellular wall structures when put in charged solutions recently too. I hope one day an experiment can demonstrate life starting.

Out of curiousity, what happens if such an experiment is successful? Will that prove there is no God, or will that prove there is?

[Celephais]

Out of curiousity, what happens if such an experiment is successful? Will that prove there is no God, or will that prove there is?
You've already agreed that neither side can "win". You cannot prove or disprove god. Creating life from nothing does not prove either way, it just proves that one of the alternate theories of creation is viable.

[Latrinsorm]

Out of curiousity, what happens if such an experiment is successful? Will that prove there is no God, or will that prove there is?The Answer (http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html)

[Tisket]

You've already agreed that neither side can "win". You cannot prove or disprove god. Creating life from nothing does not prove either way, it just proves that one of the alternate theories of creation is viable.


Would that make the scientist "God" to the created lifeform?

[g++]

Out of curiousity, what happens if such an experiment is successful? Will that prove there is no God, or will that prove there is?


It will prove exactly what it shows, that life can be created from inanimate materials. It would lend a ton of weight to evolution for those still unconvinced. People kept believing bacteria and flys were spontaneous life until Pasteur did his meat broth experiment. If you were to say I think my meatloaf spontaneously turned to flies today people would think your retarded. Sometimes it takes a simple conclusive experiment to bring a complicated scientific idea to the masses.

Even people that believe in evolution rarely understand it. I have heard extremely smart people say things like well in 100 years well all have evolved to smarter people and shit like that. If a dominant gene that caused you to have an IQ of 1 also ensured you 1 extra offspring per life cycle we would all be retarded in a couple hundred years and the correct way to refer to our new idiotic species is that they evolved from humans. Its just incidental that we percieve things that increase the probability of mating as an improvement that we think of evolution in a positive manner. Evolution is not a step forward for mankind its just randomization mashed together with competition. If your convinced of the above I personally find it hard to reconcile with the idea that god created us. Oh Hi Im god have life, and now go nuts guys I didnt have any real plan I just wanted to see which of you are still here in a few millions years.

As far as you believing life was created I said in the original post if you want to sit on the outskirts of both camps and make a generalized statement I cant argue with that because its insanely vague. If your using that to summarize the biblical explanation, once again there are 100's of contradictions between the two ideas.

You cant disprove god and even if you could who would want to.

[Celephais]

Would that make the scientist "God" to the created lifeform?
In the same way that Kranar is "god" of these forums. He can't fully control them, but he does have certain power over them.

[Stanley Burrell]

Oh. Man.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2168478_worship-raptor-jesus.html

[Gan]

Out of curiousity, what happens if such an experiment is successful? Will that prove there is no God, or will that prove there is?

http://www.parodypictures.com/hg2g/hg-deepthought01.png

42

[Stanley Burrell]

42

............


qft.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

[longshot]

Still waiting for \douchenozzle to respond...

[Clove]

Still waiting for \douchenozzle to respond...Oh come on, he doesn't get any pussy...

[Blud]

http://www.parodypictures.com/hg2g/hg-deepthought01.png

42

Love that book and movie adaptation!

[Blud]

You've already agreed that neither side can "win". You cannot prove or disprove god. Creating life from nothing does not prove either way, it just proves that one of the alternate theories of creation is viable.

Yeah, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Some people see a broken glass and run to get a broom and dustpan to sweep up the garbage.

Some people see the same broken glass and see the potential to make something artistic out of it...That was really my point.

Everybody sees what they want in any situation.

[Gan]

Yeah, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Some people see a broken glass and run to get a broom and dustpan to sweep up the garbage.

Some people see the same broken glass and see the potential to make something artistic out of it...That was really my point.

Everybody sees what they want in any situation.

And some people see the same broken glass and have some sort of misplaced faith that they wont get cut if they walk over it barefooted.

[Back]

I’m bumping this because longshot first posited this, not Clove.

[Stanley Burrell]

I right-clicked "Select All" and copied it:

The Gemstone IV Players' Corner > Socializing > Politics
ClydeR, how old is the planet earth?
Welcome, Stanley Burrell.
You last visited: 05-12-2008 at 10:39 PM
Private Messages: Unread 0, Total 1.

User CP FAQ Members List Calendar New Posts Search Quick Links Log Out



Search Forums


Show Threads Show Posts
Advanced Search

Quick Links
Today's Posts
Mark Forums Read
Open Buddy List
User Control Panel
Edit Signature
Edit Profile
Edit Options
Miscellaneous
Private Messages
Subscribed Threads
My Profile
Who's Online

Go to Page...

Page 5 of 5 « First < 3 4 5

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes

#101 05-12-2008, 12:20 PM
Blud
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Athens, Alabama
Posts: 367



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gan


42


Love that book and movie adaptation!
__________________
"Life's tough...It's even tougher if you're stupid."

~John Wayne


Blud
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Blud
Send email to Blud
Find all posts by Blud
Add Blud to Your Buddy List

#102 05-12-2008, 12:45 PM
Blud
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Athens, Alabama
Posts: 367



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celephais
You've already agreed that neither side can "win". You cannot prove or disprove god. Creating life from nothing does not prove either way, it just proves that one of the alternate theories of creation is viable.


Yeah, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Some people see a broken glass and run to get a broom and dustpan to sweep up the garbage.

Some people see the same broken glass and see the potential to make something artistic out of it...That was really my point.

Everybody sees what they want in any situation.
__________________
"Life's tough...It's even tougher if you're stupid."

~John Wayne


Blud
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Blud
Send email to Blud
Find all posts by Blud
Add Blud to Your Buddy List

#103 05-12-2008, 01:04 PM
Gan
Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,236




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blud
Yeah, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.

Some people see a broken glass and run to get a broom and dustpan to sweep up the garbage.

Some people see the same broken glass and see the potential to make something artistic out of it...That was really my point.

Everybody sees what they want in any situation.


And some people see the same broken glass and have some sort of misplaced faith that they wont get cut if they walk over it barefooted.
__________________


Fatherhood Cheap Gas!
"All people appear motivated by an inbred striving for self-esteem that is in large part fostered by the approval of others." - Alan Greenspan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kranar
If you can't handle some offensive content on a real time message board, then don't read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrystalTears
Although I AM a dirty little Cuban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamusPsi
Why can't I stop being quoted here?



Gan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Gan
Send email to Gan
Find all posts by Gan
Add Gan to Your Buddy List

#104 05-12-2008, 11:00 PM
Back
Saint by Day, Devil at Night Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,830



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m bumping this because longshot first posited this, not Clove.


Back
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Back
Find all posts by Back
Add Back to Your Buddy List

Page 5 of 5 « First < 3 4 5



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

vBulletin Message

Cancel Changes
Quick Reply
The following errors occurred when this message was submitted

Okay
Message:







Options
Show your signatureQuote message in reply?


Posting Quick Reply - Please Wait



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread

Display Modes
Linear Mode
Switch to Hybrid Mode
Switch to Threaded Mode

Search this Thread


Advanced Search

Rate This Thread
Excellent
Good
Average
Bad
Terrible


Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 PM.


-- Default Style -- Blizzard Contact Us - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner - Archive - Top


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.