quote:

Let me decode.
Your fellow xian believes you are the mouthpiece of the devil.
Nice huh.

Unfortunately it's a fairly standard fundamentalist riposte. If I'm speaking for Stan then Stan has got serious problems maintaining any
credibility

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

quote:

Let me decode.
Your fellow xian believes you are the mouthpiece of the devil.
Nice huh.

Unfortunately it's a fairly standard fundamentalist riposte. If I'm speaking for Stan then Stan has got serious problems maintaining any
credibility

Just be happy you are not in Spain in the 1500s, otherwise you'd be tied to a pole and Woolfie and his thugs would be starting a bonfire right below your feet.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:


So if you disbelieve creation, you disbelieve the flood, you disbelieve Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea....blah blah, blah.... then how do you decide to believe the resurrection? Or even the crucifixion?
And then if you don't believe that, then what are you doing imagining that you're a Christian?

That's why I believe that Genesis is actually true.

Psychiatry 001. Beautiful.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Do you think I'd fare any better as an atheist?

Did I mention I'm joining a convent?

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
the motivation for posting it is self-evident to anyone with a smidge of psychological insight!

is it?

anyway. enough bickering.



can't we all just agree to poke fun at red jooles?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Why do theists feel it necessary to argue with evolution and insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Because the theory of evolution is manifestly so full of holes and self inconsistencies, is "supported" by some pretty dodgy "science", and is, statistically speaking, so unlikely, as to be utterly impossible.
That's why I feel it necessary to argue with evolution.

If you believe in God, and believe that He is The all powerful being, then I don't see a problem with supposing that He could have created the universe in six days, if that was what He wanted to do. Supposing then, that He could do it, but didn't, then why do you suppose that He said He did?
So if you disbelieve creation, you disbelieve the flood, you disbelieve Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea....blah blah, blah.... then how do you decide to believe the resurrection? Or even the crucifixion?
And then if you don't believe that, then what are you doing imagining that you're a Christian?

That's why I believe that Genesis is actually true.

Occasionally, just occasionally, this place throws up some gems. This is one of the sparkliest of all time. This post beautifully highlights the stupidity of the fundamentalist who will *never* figure out the simple mechanism of evolution, yet who goes on to drive a nuclear horse and cart through the 'thinking' Christian's position. It's difficult who to feel more sorry for: the fundy who is trapped into believing Genesis through fear of undermining the rest of his faith because he is unable to exercise the sophistry of thought that gets the modern Christian around this inconvenient truth, or the modern Christian who uses sophistry so often that he has lost any critical thinking skills he might otherwise be expected to possess.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Mr Woolf:

I know exactly where you're coming from..but..why do questions about the truth of Genesis and the Flood have any bearing on the resurrection ?

The bible was not dictated in its entirety by God to man - that was never a part of Christian tradition.It has always been assumed to have a human element of interpretation. Genesis and the gospels are completely different kinds of books written hundreds of years apart by different people for different purposes. The early Christian councils considered that both were "divinely inspired" but that doesn't mean that Genesis has to be approached as historical truth. Mythology is not the disparaging category that it is often considered on this forum. The textual evidence is that Genesis was repeatedly revised over tens to hundreds of years by at least 3, possibly 5 or more Jewish authors to incorporate what they saw as "spiritual truths". Mythology, allegory and apocalyptic were common writing styles within the cultural context. What is there to suggest that they were trying to document geological and biological fact ? Even if they were, the state of human knowledge at the time was completely inadequate to hold the concept of evolution and what we have is what you might expect for the period.

You presumably also accept the general scholarly view that Mark was the first Gospel, written around the time of the fall of Jerusalem, and that the other gospels are based on Mark? - so there is, in effect, only the one story with later embellishments added by the various communities of the Jesus religion? You presumably also accept that Paul had a purely non-earthly Jesus in mind when he was setting up his proto-religion?

quote:

Evolution is no threat to Christian belief - try the director of the human genome project -Francis Collins ( sorry, can't remember the title right now).

Evolution takes a baseball bat to your Christian god and knocks him right out of the theistic park into the deistic scrubland over yonder. You can only believe in theism and evolution in the same way as you can hold the two thoughts "I like hamburgers" and "I don't like hamburgers" in your head at the same time. You can *think* you're believing two contradictory beliefs at the same time, but you're not. The clue's in the word 'contradictory'.

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:
Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

Not only that: There is plenty of paleontological and molecular evidence. But also: THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Go on then, Milan:
Tell us what the molecules tell us.

There IS another explanation, actually.

In fact, I think that it was one of the early supporters of the ToE who said something like the theory was pretty preposterous and couldn't logically explain how we got where we are today, but that he believed it anyway, because the alternative was to believe in God, which he apparently couldn't bring himself to do.

So that makes sense.

Ha, ha. Yes, and Darwin recanted in his deathbed.

Whatever.
So what do the molecules tell us about evolution?

I've said before that these forums are not the place to obtain an education in the sciences. And neither are crazy religious websites such as Answeringenesis and the like. If you want to know about evolution, there are many books that can give you a very good introduction to the subject.

That, of course, if you are really interested in educating yourself, instead of spouting puerile stupidities as you always do.

Sorry, I fully understand what the ToE is about, and what it imagines itself to be based upon: I just disagree with it.
My point was that "molecules" don't tell us Jack $hit about evolution.
Never have. Never will.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Why do theists feel it necessary to argue with evolution and insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Because the theory of evolution is manifestly so full of holes and self inconsistencies, is "supported" by some pretty dodgy "science", and is, statistically speaking, so unlikely, as to be utterly impossible.
That's why I feel it necessary to argue with evolution.

If you believe in God, and believe that He is The all powerful being, then I don't see a problem with supposing that He could have created the universe in six days, if that was what He wanted to do. Supposing then, that He could do it, but didn't, then why do you suppose that He said He did?
So if you disbelieve creation, you disbelieve the flood, you disbelieve Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea....blah blah, blah.... then how do you decide to believe the resurrection? Or even the crucifixion?
And then if you don't believe that, then what are you doing imagining that you're a Christian?

That's why I believe that Genesis is actually true.

Occasionally, just occasionally, this place throws up some gems. This is one of the sparkliest of all time. This post beautifully highlights the stupidity of the fundamentalist who will *never* figure out the simple mechanism of evolution, yet who goes on to drive a nuclear horse and cart through the 'thinking' Christian's position. It's difficult who to feel more sorry for: the fundy who is trapped into believing Genesis through fear of undermining the rest of his faith because he is unable to exercise the sophistry of thought that gets the modern Christian around this inconvenient truth, or the modern Christian who uses sophistry so often that he has lost any critical thinking skills he might otherwise be expected to possess.

But you err in believing that we are all here as a result of a series of happy accidents.
I don't believe that for myself, and all of the remarks about stupidity and whatever you guys spout, to my mind, apply in equal measures to yourselves, if you believe in such unlikely cr@p.
But us sitting at our computers telling each other that we're complete and utter morons since time began or some such will soon get boring.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Do you think I'd fare any better as an atheist?

Did I mention I'm joining a convent?

Wild!
Which one?!
I could really go for a nun!

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry, I fully understand what the ToE is about, and what it imagines itself to be based upon: I just disagree with it.
My point was that "molecules" don't tell us Jack $hit about evolution.
Never have. Never will.

Some people know no shame, it would appear. The most obvious use of your favourite search engine will turn up many facts to the contrary of your assertion, thus showing that (a) it is a non-truth, and (b) that your understanding of ToE is as (i) shallow as we expected and (ii) not as deep as you'd have yourself believe.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Sorry, I fully understand what the ToE is about, and what it imagines itself to be based upon: I just disagree with it.
My point was that "molecules" don't tell us Jack $hit about evolution.
Never have. Never will.

Some people know no shame, it would appear. The most obvious use of your favourite search engine will turn up many facts to the contrary of your assertion, thus showing that (a) it is a non-truth, and (b) that your understanding of ToE is as (i) shallow as we expected and (ii) not as deep as you'd have yourself believe.

Right, like carbon dioxide molecules "evolved" from carbon, yeah?
See where you're coming from, S&M.

Well done for demonstrating point (b) so eloquently.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Luis: How about our little bargain? Joliet has posted a thread that is quite plainly prejudiced and sociopathic but I havn't heard a protest from you yet

Sociopathic, really? So by saying this you are really stating that I am

"a person, with a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."

This is from the dictionary definition of sociopathic behaviour. A slanderous accusation without doubt. So much for the christian tenet of not judging others. Is this the action of someone MizD calls a gent - to cast conjectured insults and make false and unprovable accusations.

I clearly stated why I started this thread. I included your name because you clearly had decided to refuse to answer my critisisms of your silly and illogical arguments.

Let's recap:

I quoted some biblical verses to you and asked you to explain (since they go contrary to what you claimed) them. Rather, than answer the questions put to you, you went off on a rant about me being unfair and you only wishing to have a dialectic on the subject. As I pointed out a dialectic is a debate of logical arguments made to establish which are true. By not presenting logical arguments (I explained why your arguments were illogical) you were lying and being dishonest. You didn't even reply to this. So not only did you refuse to answer the original questions you then refused to acknowledge that your defence was itself erroneous.

Is it sociopathic to call a spade a spade. Try addressing the questions put to you and stop trying to hide behind some inane made-up arguments about my psychological motivation or condition. But then total invention really is part of the theist argument, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Thanks Luis - and I agree, I am very happy for this thread to be left on the forum. It does me no harm and the motivation for posting it is self-evident to anyone with a smidge of psychological insight!

Well then obviously that is a smidge less than you possess given the conclusion without any evidence you have decided to conjure. To understand my reason for starting this thread one only need read what I have stated. Of course you can, as you have, invent other motivation - doesn't make your fantasies true though.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

Fossils dear boy...fossils!!

What: Those fossils formed during the great flood?
What do they prove?

If that were the case then all fossils would be found in one layer/strata. However, that is not the case. Try again Woolfy!

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Because the theory of evolution is manifestly so full of holes and self inconsistencies,....

so is the bible yet you choose to believe that

Joliet:

I called your posting sociopathic (the evidence is there for all to see). I have never met you so cannot possibly comment on whether you are sociopathic. However, if you handle your real-life relationships the same way you do discussions on this forum then you might have some problems. Not presenting logical arguments is not tantamount to lying/dishonesty - an accusation you fling around with aggressive abandon on this forum. There are several reasons why I have not answered your posts adequately:
1/ I have had little time to contribute to this forum recently.
2/ You give little encouragement to people to get involved in debate with you - it simply isn't very enjoyable
3/ All you appear to be interested in is aggressively asserting your own point of view.
Having witnessed your recent exchange with Milan K I realise that it is not just me who you have singled out for this kind of attention although you do seem to have an african killer bee in your bonnet about theism.
You won't influence anybody with your opinions unless you can put them across with some empathy and humanity - go on, give it a try, you might be surprised by the results

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Having witnessed your recent exchange with Milan K I realise that it is not just me who you have singled out for this kind of attention

He just likes arguing with the gloves off. So do I sometimes. I had a great row with Joobs a year or so back. I am still kind to kittens and small children though.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
I am still kind to kittens and small children though.

No you're not!
You kill kittens and then tell the kids that they have an eternity of blackness in prospect.
I remeber, cos you told me.

it wasn't quite like that...

i didn't kill any kittens: the cat was 22 years old when she died. and i let the kids believe what they needed to in that moment.

see. thats why i'm half way to being a saint nun already.

Whatever.