Evolution vs. Creation

[FREE SERVANT]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Mikey got hit on the head by a meteorite with the face of Jesus in it.
Which is actually still more sane than Wolvie's Bigfoot or Chuck's... well, anything.

Pardon me if I fell asleep on the turnip truck, but I surely thought Latin came from Italy.....

[Charles Idemi]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
The scientific Adam and Eve are just labels given to the male and female universal common ancestor to everyone alive today. They existed thousands of years apart from each other and if you were making a comment that anyone could understand, they'd undoubtedly counter your lack of logic by simply saying that there is no absolute proof possible for events in prehistory, AND that your inevitable rebuttal would be yet another demand that advocates for Evolution prove the Bible wrong. That isn't anyone's responsibility.
Even centuries from now, no one is going to give a toot about your non-sequiturs regarding the origin of the English language, the divine authority of the queen of England, biblical explanations of the nature of dark skinned people, or trivial inconsistencies in the fossil record that you demand justifies complete authenticity of the story of the great flood.
You're not even providing insights into a symbolic interpretation of the Bible and I absolutely refuse to read one line of that book of slop so you can attempt to claim any kind of evangelical victory. Your religion is complete garbage.
My take: You're a liar, just another in a long history of people who think they don't have to play by the same rules that they demand others play by. GOT THAT? I doubt it, but either way, you'll just try again and hope to wear people down.
There is no way that any leadership effort will come to anything other than failure once they go down that path. You've obviously already decided that your image is far more important than any form of truth. You're already on the path to failure. I don't have a moment to spend on your @#$@$ pride.
Open your gop and tell the truth or shut up and stop trying to wave your fairy wand around until your ignorant and arrogant statements are forgotten! Don't bother playing the martyr because when you don't tell the truth, you don't earn diddly in sympathy. In fact, you've already done about everything you can to reinforce my opinion that ALL politically obsessed apes need to be heinously crushed as a warning to the next generation. Was that was part of the game plan?

Hogwash!!!
Your hatred for christianity will take you no where.

[Subduction Zone]

superwilly wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as evidence, what are you looking for, pieces of the ark?
Why would you be looking for evidence of what you say is a delusion?
Why not just ignore it?, any rational person would!

I would ignore it, like I ignore other myths, but there are certain idiots that claim it is real. I point out the obvious and am waiting for their evidence. This is one case where lack of evidence of an event is evidence that the event never took place.

[Charles Idemi]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Charlie...facts are facts and no matter how much you deny them they are true.

I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?
So, i do not see any anomalies there. They wrote down what they saw or they wrote down, what was passed to them.
So, they are in better position to tell the truth, than us.
We were not there, but they were.

[The Dude]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>Pardon me if I fell asleep on the turnip truck, but I surely thought Latin came from Italy.....

Can't we be mean and pedantic? We usually are.

[thewordofme]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?
So, i do not see any anomalies there. They wrote down what they saw or they wrote down, what was passed to them.
So, they are in better position to tell the truth, than us.
We were not there, but they were.

The people you talk about were NOT there either Charles. The Genesis chapter was written around 500-600 BC. Most people in the Christian religion believe that the earth was created around 4000-4050 BC and there were NO human eyewitnesses.

So the people who wrote the stories down were not telling lies necessarily, they were passing along the old myths. They had no way of telling that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and that their, way way back, ancestors were kinda' ape-like.

The people who wrote Genesis just told a story that the people of the time could understand. Stories that were passed around the campfire when they were out herding sheep or goats.

They didn't have the science to determine that way back 40,000 years ago their ancestors mated with pre-human Neanderthals, or that Waaaaay back orders of magnitude ago, their basic ancestor was something that looked uncomfortably like a monkey.

We have the technology now Charles. We can follow blood/gene lines, we can date those lines and we can determine that the whole of humanity came from Africa and OUR modern ancestors started out 200,000 years ago. The lines of evidence are irrefutable and accepted by mainline science all over the globe.

Now can you tell me how there can still be a true Adam and Eve as the Bible describes, that lived some 6,000 years ago??

Remember that the BIG evidence for this is essentially the same as they use to send criminals to prison or to the death chamber. Also used to release people from prison who were wrongly convicted.

[The Dude]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?

Your obedience. And money.

[NikkiShae]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Blasphemy?
He was a christian who was not satisfied with the church of England.
He thought that the church was not really following the right biblical doctrines.

Of course he wasn't. In his investigation of scripture and nature he was unsatisfied. His interpretations of Jesus was idol worship. I wonder how much of him being a Christian was just a front to avoid punishment from the power vested in the church.

[NikkiShae]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Deflecting what?

That... If you weren't blind you could see.

[NikkiShae]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?
So, i do not see any anomalies there. They wrote down what they saw or they wrote down, what was passed to them.
So, they are in better position to tell the truth, than us.
We were not there, but they were.

Constantine. Without him unification and relevance of Christianity doesn't happen. It was a political move with a touch of him taking Pascal's wager.

[NikkiShae]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Hogwash!!!
Your hatred for christianity will take you no where.

Nor will the love of Christianity. The good merits or ill will of a person need not be described by scripture or declared by self appointed spokesmen for imaginary deities.

[FREE SERVANT]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Can't we be mean and pedantic? We usually are.

No and yes and yes you are.....On second thought carry on*

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Hogwash!!!
Your hatred for christianity will take you no where.

I'm not asking for Christianity to take me anywhere and I'm contemptuous towards all the major religious groups who meddle in other peoples affairs. It just so happens that you're selling the preferred snake oil in this part of the world.

If you want to label it hatred, make sure you're pointing it at the right thing. I hate meddlers, especially the ones with criminal intent. Don't bring your witch doctor dance to my house. Once I've publicly rejected your literal interpretations of the Bible, I don't expect to see you shoving them at me again or you'll have a hard time distinguishing my contempt for the concept and contempt for you.

[superwilly]

NikkiShae wrote:

<quoted text>
Nor will the love of Christianity. The good merits or ill will of a person need not be described by scripture or declared by self appointed spokesmen for imaginary deities.

How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?

[NikkiShae]

superwilly wrote:

<quoted text>How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?

It's really as easy as understanding benevolence and malevolence. All people and animals understand this, including you. Religious paradigm unnecessary without motive.

[timn17]

superwilly wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as evidence, what are you looking for, pieces of the ark?
Why would you be looking for evidence of what you say is a delusion?
Why not just ignore it?, any rational person would!

If your religion didn't try to impose itself on everything from public policy to social mores, we would be happy to ignore it. Do you ever hear people complain about buddhists?

[timn17]

superwilly wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?

Really? You need a simple "punishment vs reward" religious paradigm to guide your morality, and without it you would be lost?

A very simple way to determine good vs bad, in a very black and white sense, is to use kant's categorical imperative - this means that any action must be universifiable. This means that whatever you do - you must imagine a world in which everyone did that, all the time, and act according to whether or not such a world would be a "nice" place (to put it very simply).

The point is,there are many other ways to judge good vs bad, and that's just one. You don't make yourself look too intelligent by claiming that religion is the only authority on morality.

[albtraum]

superwilly wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?

Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. This has been said many times by many philosopers and religious folk. However they say it, this is what it boils down to. No religion required.

How about less judging and more tolerance? Certainly couldn't hurt. Even the bible's god says that judgement is his sole purview, people shouldn't judge at all. So theist or atheist, it should work for pretty much everyone.

[I fish]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>Really? You need a simple "punishment vs reward" religious paradigm to guide your morality, and without it you would be lost?
A very simple way to determine good vs bad, in a very black and white sense, is to use kant's categorical imperative - this means that any action must be universifiable. This means that whatever you do - you must imagine a world in which everyone did that, all the time, and act according to whether or not such a world would be a "nice" place (to put it very simply).
The point is,there are many other ways to judge good vs bad, and that's just one. You don't make yourself look too intelligent by claiming that religion is the only authority on morality.

Could you say the mere existence of religion and law in so many cultures is evidence that the God you choose must be moral?

[anonymous]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>
Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. This has been said many times by many philosopers and religious folk. However they say it, this is what it boils down to. No religion required.
How about less judging and more tolerance? Certainly couldn't hurt. Even the bible's god says that judgement is his sole purview, people shouldn't judge at all. So theist or atheist, it should work for pretty much everyone.

The average zealot is of a dual nature. They are statistically in the majority on the self-awareness bell curve so they tend to prop up their egos with numbers and an ever increasing maze of phony logic. None the less, they lack genuine ability to understand others.

The largest minority faction is inherently better with empathy but they depend on all the simpler folk in their quest for power. They are far more likely than the zealot to lower the bar on public/political ethical behavior in order to get short-term results from the masses.

The average zealot is convinced that being of the statistical majority in their patterns of logic is proof that they genuinely understand others better than more complex groups. Some know their act is a lie, while the crazier ones convince themselves that their constant revisions have been completely consistent in their inspiration. Either way, zealots are about as nutty as they can get.

The flaws in a zealot's logic are constantly nibbling away at them from multiple sides. They know that they are trapped in their own lies. They don't think that it matters as long as they are true to the "big picture", but they don't have the big picture. That is where the denial like you see on this forum kicks in.

This is a good example of our current party politics and is why global conflicts are inevitable and cyclic in nature. Nobody learns from history because the real criminal acts are never addressed in the aftermath of conflict. Not by zealots who are driven to hide their mistakes. Not by the usurpers of the status-quo who don't want to admit to taking ethical short cuts in their quest for power.

Religion is dead but for the embarrassed silence of an already obsolete aristocracy who has already decided to let the masses fight it out. "Do unto others" morality is fine with me, but if you want to survive the next conflict, treat both sides of the political spectrum like the criminals and dumb beasts that they are and don't waste a moment on wondering what God thinks about you.