Conquer Club

Mr_Adams wrote:This argument is completely usless from the christian perspective. I mean honestly, these people wouldn't except that God exsists if he had them trapped in a giant glass jar, like ants. They would yell "E.T., E.T.!!".

rocky mountain wrote:so then why are you still posting here? (not rude, just asking why since you think its a waste of time)

jay_a2j wrote:"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

rocky mountain wrote:maybe he was just saying it in terms they would understand? that the lights were put in the sky... i dunno, but the earth does revolve around the sun...

SlayerQC wrote:I wonder how many tards would die for the pope if the pope said go kill some infidels or burn in hell....

SlayerQC wrote:but most believers are so stuckup that THERE IS a god, it's pathetic.

SlayerQC wrote:SOoooooooo, IF god created everything, then he's a freakin extra-terrestrial being.
Yup, he created it therefore he wasnt living on it=extra-terrestrial, just like the moon is.

rocky mountain wrote:

wiki wrote:Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.

again, is not evolution, but adaptation.
how come we don't see beneficial mutations anymore? all of our mutations nowadays are harmful. if it could happen then, why can't it happen now?

extinction is not evolution. humans have driven many animals into extinction, and you don't say they became extinct because of evolution. the dinosaurs did not become extinct because of evolution either. i say it was a flood, you say it was an asteroid, either way, it was sudden, and does not prove evolution.

wiki wrote:All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

so what was that common ancestor. or is that the "missing link?"
the picture beside it is the "homonoids." who cares if we look like them. humans have more similar DNA to a chicken and E. Coli.

rocky mountain wrote:that is not evolution. its called genetics.
mutations do not prove evolution. they are just mutations. plus, the odds that two organisms that have the exact same, beneficial mutations mate and reproduce and start a whole new species are pretty slim. mutations are not part of evolution.

wiki wrote:Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.

again, is not evolution, but adaptation.
how come we don't see beneficial mutations anymore? all of our mutations nowadays are harmful. if it could happen then, why can't it happen now?

rocky mountain wrote:extinction is not evolution. humans have driven many animals into extinction, and you don't say they became extinct because of evolution. the dinosaurs did not become extinct because of evolution either. i say it was a flood, you say it was an asteroid, either way, it was sudden, and does not prove evolution.

wiki wrote:All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

so what was that common ancestor. or is that the "missing link?"
the picture beside it is the "homonoids." who cares if we look like them. humans have more similar DNA to a chicken and E. Coli.

rocky mountain wrote:not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

rocky mountain wrote:not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

rocky mountain wrote:not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Remember Kids: The Bible can never be wrong. So when it suddenly doesn't make sense, then it must be a metaphor. So you see, apart from the bits which are metaphors all of it is completely true, apart from the bits which are true but need a man in a funny dress to explain them in the right way, those are kind of special parts. A bit like the parts which were written a really long time ago and you shouldn't really read anything into, those are true, but not the kind of true you should listen to, but not metaphors either. Anyway, this is all a bit academic, because true and not true are such difficult things to figure out. It doesn't matter to us because there isn't actually a system to allow anybody to tell which bits of Bible are supposed to be really true, a different kind of true, metaphorically true, and the other kind of true; you just have to figure out which bits would suit you best as you go along. Of course, you can change your deciscion if it turns out not to work so well because the Bible can't be wrong (it says so itself). So if you can make the text sound like it backs you up whether you're calling it true, not true, metaphor, or a special kind of true then you must be right, because the bible is always the truth, even when that truth isn't really true, but a special sort of true which you need to come up with on your own.

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

I'm still not following. If the moon and sun are "in the firmament, between two lots of water" why are you assuming that that means the sun revolves around the earth? You seem to be leaving out that the "water below was gathered together". Just because something is in between something else does not make it automatically "in the center". Just "in between".

MeDeFe wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:"clearly showing the sun and moon both to be moving around the earth, the centre of the creation"



How do you figure?

Because they're both in the firmament which is between the two lots of water.

I'm still not following. If the moon and sun are "in the firmament, between two lots of water" why are you assuming that that means the sun revolves around the earth? You seem to be leaving out that the "water below was gathered together". Just because something is in between something else does not make it automatically "in the center". Just "in between".

So there are two bodies of water up in space and the sun and the moon are between them?

jonesthecurl wrote:

rocky mountain wrote:not EVERYTHING can be taken literally. like Jesus' parables (they were stories that didn't necessarily happen), and some things are metaphors. maybe you're interpreting the verse wrongly?

Please understand: there are people posting on this thread (who have gone a bit quiet) who would have us believe that everything in the bible is the literal undiluted truth. I am just trying to follow this idea through by looking at the bible and reading it, as they frequently tell us to do.
Again, I ask the "literalists", to coin a word, does the earth orbit the sun of vice-versa?

jonesthecurl wrote:The firmament is set above the earth. In it are the sun, the moon, and the stars. Above it are the waters. I fail to see how this allows the earth to orbit the sun. So did those who imprisoned Galileo for blasphemy.

MeDeFe wrote:

rocky mountain wrote:extinction is not evolution. humans have driven many animals into extinction, and you don't say they became extinct because of evolution. the dinosaurs did not become extinct because of evolution either. i say it was a flood, you say it was an asteroid, either way, it was sudden, and does not prove evolution.

wiki wrote:All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

so what was that common ancestor. or is that the "missing link?"
the picture beside it is the "homonoids." who cares if we look like them. humans have more similar DNA to a chicken and E. Coli.

The dinosaurs did become extinct, and it was probably a pretty big event that lead to it. A major change in their environment most likely, and a few million years later we get a lot of fossils of mammals while before everything was reptilian. You know, that corresponds pretty well with what one would expect in light of the theory of evolution, the dinosaurs had been around for 100 million years or so and probably become highly specialized, eating only certain plants for example, you can see the same in any savannah, elephants, gnus, zebras, antelopes all eat different plants and don't have to compete for food with each other which is good for all of them, the downside is that if there is a small change in the environment and one of the plants disappears or has trouble growing, one species will be in a lot of trouble. If there's a big enviromental change and a major change in what grows and what does not, they're all going hungry, then the predators go hungry, and some sort of animal noone had even noticed before might come in and take over the whole operation because it's better adapted to the new climate.
From what we can see today it's pretty safe to conclude that mammals were better adapted to the new conditions that caused the dinosaurs to die out, and once the dinosaurs were in decline and did not pose a threat any more the mammals that were around could diversify quickly. How's that not evolution?
its not evolution because isn't evolution a long process? would the climate change have happened over long periods of time, in which case the dinosaurs would have adapted? if it was a quick climate change, and the dinosaurs died off fairly quickly, then it wasn't a long process. also, isn't evolution the changing of one species to another? the dinosaurs did not change into the mammals, so why is that evolution?

Also, what's your proof for that bold claim that our DNA is more similar to poultry or bacteria than with those now-extinct hominoids? i've seen in textbooks and heard from reliable sources.