- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Towshab @ Feb. 01 2008,11:24) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 31 2008,16:40) acertainchap, the point was that Piltdown Man was a fraud that lasted for decades and this shows how easily people even in the scientific community can be deceived. Makes you wonder at the things that people believe today.
I'm sorry, I just could not let this one go.Can anyone not see the total irony in the above quoted statement?[/b
Such as believing that Yeshua is the messiah and then reneging?Tow you are so confident of your belief, but so are Evolutionists. There is an arrogance that comes from those who are self appointed and think they are wise.
But the God of the universe does hand people over to delusions so as to believe lies, if they push in that direction. He is just respecting their free will to choose of course.
Your attack on Yeshua the messiah of God is because you do not understand scripture, nor do you have it in you to love the truth because he is the truth.
If you reject the son, then you have rejected the Father.
No amount of convincing yourself of your own argument changes anything in reality. The truth remains despite your wayward ways.
But that is the path that you have chosen and I respect that. I am not here to push you away from that path, but only to defend the truth regarding the son of God.
Quote (acertainchap @ Feb. 01 2008,05:48) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 31 2008,08:48) Wow what a gift. People could come to you for questions like “Is there life on other planets” and you could answer and we wouldn't need to spend all that money to find the answer and in turn the money could be spent helping the poor and that.
OK, now that we all know you have this gift, lets put it to the test. PS, you are not allowed to look it up on Google or Wikipedia, or any website for that mater.
Here is the first question:
Was Piltdown Man a myth/lie or fact?
Was Java Man a gibbon, man, or a missing link?Thanks.
He can look it up on google if he wants to. After all, who's stopping him from doing it? Evolution is false, t8, you make it sound like it's true by your two questions.
You see the creationists' problem. Because they do not have a proper theory of Creation by Divine Finger Pointing, and they do not do any original research, their “argument” is really evolution or nothing. Science demands that you put up or shut up. If evolution is wrong, then what? The usual creationist answer is silence, or special pleadings. Fundamentalist christianity makes no intellectual demands at all, which is why zealots' comments on this subject are so fundamentally irrelevant. It is just a shame they have to spend so much money telling lies to so many gullible Americans.Because the scientific truth will always out, while there are as many versions of creationism as there are creationists, Sir Walter Scott's “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” has never been more apt.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 01 2008,04:41) Hi Stu,
Jesus Christ was less famous than Julius but his revelations about his and our God are very extensive and you should research them as your life derives from that God and your future is very much in His hands.
Thank you very much for your kind prostelytising, and I shall treat your words with the attention they deserve.Stuart
Hi t8
Quote the point was that Piltdown Man was a fraud that lasted for decades and this shows how easily people even in the scientific community can be deceived. Makes you wonder at the things that people believe today.
In 1912 the range of analytical techniques available was very limited. Today the Piltdown fraud would not last past its carbon dating, a technique not developed until 3 years before Piltdown was finally agreed as a fraud.More from the Wikipedia article, that you omitted: “From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that “deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together.” In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.”
So you have scientists who were skeptical from the start, with some honestly but skeptically willing to suspend their judgement until better evidence could support their claims. You also have the theory of evolution making a prediction, and being demonstrated correct (again). Thousands of times more people in the world believe in the literal truth of Noah and his arc than have ever heard of Piltdown Man. The flood is a fraudulent claim that has been perpetuated for thousands of years. Even though it has been debunked as a myth by science, it is still believed to be literally true by some. I’d rather have science doing the talking if it is credibility that you are after.
Your use of this example is typical of the pattern of a creationist. You pick on the outlying point (ignoring the 8000-odd hominid fossils that are not fraudulent) and make that single lie your only example of scientific credibility.
Quote {Dawson’s} initial motivations may well have lain along the lines of gaining further fame and notoriety in his native Surrey, but it is clear that his increasingly successful early frauds may well have emboldened him to pull off the master stroke that would have landed him his most cherished goal, that of a fellowship in the prestigious Royal Society. It was an ambition that ultimately went unfulfilled.
So the scientists of the Royal Society were not duped at all.Quote In addition to that, Java Man is dubious as the man who discovered it namely Dubois (no pun intended) found a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth and there is doubt as to whether all these bones represent the same species.
There is no doubt that the leg bone is from a modern human, the teeth orangutan and the scull cap is homo erectus. Would you believe me if I said I get no joy at all from watching fundamentalist christians here making arguments that have been advised against by fundamentalist christians at Answers in Genesis? The list of arguments they thing you should not make gets longer by the year.The creationist fraud has lasted decades. You should be critical that science has not put a stop to it by now. By the way, no pun achieved, either.
Quote The whole point about these ape men is that imagination plays a big part.
If you mean the artists’ impressions of extinct hominid species then you are right. If you mean the fact of our descent with modification from common ape ancestors, then you are wrong. Which did you mean?Quote Using scant evidence, they put bones together and claim them to be a bridge between man and the ancestor of apes.
The fossil evidence based on changes in morphology over time almost exactly fits the independent DNA evidence. Of course evidence and reality are flexible concepts to a fundamentalist christian. If the fossils and the DNA do not fit their book as well, then the fossils and DNA are wrong. On this basis they are in great danger of being smote by Zeus.Quote It's like the Trinity Doctrine. You start with the doctrine and then make things fit the doctrine, instead of taking the evidence and asking what does this mean.
Hey! That’s just what I was saying above! Freaky!Stuart
Hi Stu,
You said
“The start of life is very difficult to explain.”
How odd it is that someone so gifted in myth detection should believe in progressive creation but without God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 01 2008,19:52) Hi Stu,
You said
“The start of life is very difficult to explain.”
How odd it is that someone so gifted in myth detection should believe in progressive creation but without God.
I don't believe in progressive creation. I have no idea what it is.Stuart
Hi t8
Quote I actually agree with you here Stu to some degree. Many a good man has been led astray by religion. That is why I personally do not seek and promote religion rather truth itself.
I am glad to see you promote truth itself. How do you know what ‘truth itself’ is? The rest of us can model truth, sometimes quite well, but we can’t know absolutely that we have it. Once again, do you know everything?Quote That said, you could also say that people who do not believe in a judgement have less to lose in their own mind for doing evil as they do not believe in a judgement and therefore it ultimately doesn't matter how they live their lives because we all cease to exist after our short lives.
Yes I see. My life is a hollow sham without the threat of an eternal poker up the backside. O despair.
You need to read more Kantian ethics , t8.Quote My dad who is an atheist once said “imagine if no one believed in God, there would be much more crime in the world”. He simply recognized the fact that knowing that there is a judgement and that our lives will be reviewed would obviously help foster living a better life for those who believed. Such a belief doesn't guarantee that a person will live a better life, but it has certainly had an impact. ****************************************************
Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less numerous in the prison population (0.21%)
Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8) has the lowest murder rate while the United States (the most Christian nation in the G-8) has the highest.
Louisiana, with America's highest church attendance rate, has twice the national average murder rate.
*****************************************************
Of course the first statistic does not say how many converted to christianity having committed a crime as an atheist, but even allowing for that the proportion is still overwhelmingly against the claim made above.
Quote I am sure we all know or have heard of someone who led a life of crime and changed when they believed in God.
Actually I don’t know one. I don’t think I know anyone who knows one. Do you know one? Obviously such anecdotes go against the overwhelming statistical trend.Quote People who are serious about their belief in a righteous God have an extra reason to help people in need, live better lives, even pay taxes,.
No, they have less reason. Their taxes go to fund socially progressive programmes that typically conservative evangelicals would prefer not to be funded. You can argue whether living in the ethically stunted world of fundamental belief constitutes a better life. In helping other people, the non-believer has no other agenda. If he wants to help, then it is because he wants to help. If a believer wants to help, what is the motive? Genuine help with no strings? More heaven club card points? A chance to prostelytise? The latter is openly the motive for many christian aid organisations. A fundamentalist offering to help is compromised by his beliefs. What if the person in need is revealed as a satan-worshipper and you literally believe that you should not associate with such people? What if you are a JW and you are the only person in a position to offer a blood transfusion in an emergency? What if that person is asking for your help with a biology essay that needs to accurately describe the origins of species? What help are you then?Quote Of course then there are religions that encourage killing/murder. That is certainly almost more dangerous than atheism as there are rewards for killing, such as getting virgins in heaven. Atheism doesn't reward murderers, but doesn't rule it out if you look at the pure doctrine regarding survival of the fittest. Murder/s can lead inheritance of the victims ecosystem.
Please can you name the religions that you think encourage killing/murder. You imply islam, but I would like to know if you include christianity as well.‘Almost more dangerous than atheism’. What is the actually danger of simply not believing as you do? Do you feel threatened by it? Is it the patently absurd idea widely expressed here that everything that does not agree with your interpretation is ‘evil’?
Stuart
Hi Stu,
So all religions are the same?
Do you think all worship the same God?We have never promoted religion as you seem to know it.
Religion is defined in James as something rather more useful.
We are not worshippers of icons and human leaders and teachers.Such is the way of natural man who elevates philosophers and scientists.
The measurers have become the heroes while the Creator is mocked and shunned.I have to support Stuart in one thing, people on this site tend to label as decieved by demons, etc., opposing points of view. I am not an Islamist and disagree on many points with the faith, but they do not teach murder, just because a small percentage of fanatics twist the Koran (as we see many people do with the Bible) does not mean that the faith professes such. The most commonly misused concept within Islam is Jihad or holy war which is meant chiefly to be an internal struggle with inner evil not an external religous or political conflict. Remember the God of Islam is the same God for Christian and Jews and while they don't consider Jesus the son of God they do view him as a great prophet. All feature the God of Abraham and Moses. My point here being we should be wary at throwing stones at others beliefs especially when we do not know or understand them. This is not saying we accept those beliefs ourself or stop trying to convince others for their own sakes of what we believe to be the truth, but we should respect other travelers on the path to truth.
As far as athiests are concerned they do not believe in God, and at death they see neither reward or punishment (correct me if I am wrong Stuart) but an end. This does not mean they have no sense of morality, do we as Christians only behave morally because we want reward or are fearful of punishment? I sincerely hope not. Now you may believe that athiests as such will not be saved in an afterlife but you can not simply assert they are inclined to be bad or immoral because of their lack of belief.
Hi cato,
The attacks on our God, His Son and His sacred writings by mocking unbelievers continue.
We do not go to their sites to do such profane things.
Why do they need to do so here?Nick,
You may not do such but I've seen many Christians on other sites doing this. I know of one Jewish site that has many Christians posting, and many of those posts are insulting towards Jews and nothing short of proselytizing. I also see Christians posting on atheist sites and newsgroups.
You have one option left to you if this frustrates you and others on here: you can change the rules where only Christians can post on the board. There are many boards out there like that. You then must go on to define “Christian” because different Christians have different ideas of what a Christian is.
Hi KJ,
It is just a distraction.
And we do learn valuable things.
It has become seemingly more deliberate.
Which means we must be being more annoying to their god.Hi Nick
Quote So all religions are the same?
I actually think they might be. Perhaps the most significant distinction would be between those that require belief in supernatural beings and those that have a pantheistic type of ‘god is everything but not one thing’ notion. You could quite fairly divide the world into two major camps, with people like myself lined up against the far boundary of the pantheists (or whatever better name there is for them). I think the tendency to religious belief will turn out to be an expression of one version of a gene or gene combination, that is common throughout the world.Do you think all atheists have the same philosophy?
Quote Do you think all worship the same God?
No. I don’t think any two people worship the same god. Actually thinking back to the genetic link, maybe identical twins do.Quote We have never promoted religion as you seem to know it.
Most of the time I am answering points you or other christians make, and quite often you do not deny my descriptions. The nature of religion is that no matter how I characterise it, it will fit no one perfectly. I guess I do tend to highlight the worst aspects of the different expressions of faith. I must have picked up the habit of lumping together all people of a particular religious view from somewhere…could it be here?Quote Religion is defined in James as something rather more useful.
We are not worshippers of icons and human leaders and teachers.
Well I don’t worship such things either. Why would anyone worship anything? It is an immature idea, not even a child-like one.Quote Such is the way of natural man who elevates philosophers and scientists.
The measurers have become the heroes while the Creator is mocked and shunned.
The creator portrayed in the bible should be locked up. I wonder if an omnipotent being can create a prison from which he cannot escape. If he is omniscient, does he already know that it is an impossible paradox, and therefore he cannot be omnipotent?How are philosophers ‘measurers’?
Stuart
Quote As far as athiests are concerned they do not believe in God, and at death they see neither reward or punishment (correct me if I am wrong Stuart) but an end. This does not mean they have no sense of morality, do we as Christians only behave morally because we want reward or are fearful of punishment? I sincerely hope not. Now you may believe that athiests as such will not be saved in an afterlife but you can not simply assert they are inclined to be bad or immoral because of their lack of belief. You write with intelligence, balance and consideration, Cato. Are you sure this forum is the right place for you?!
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 02 2008,19:49) Hi Stu,
That makes me wonder why you stay?
I suppose I should take that as a compliment…um, thanks!Stuart
It would be a really dull forum if we all thought alike, there would be nothing to discuss. If Stuart were to leave a good number of you would have nothing to respond or post to. So it is good on an intellectual basis. As far as a Christian aspect, did Jesus only concern himself with the faithful, I don't think so. Without the Stuarts all we are doing is preaching to the choir.
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 04 2008,07:13) It would be a really dull forum if we all thought alike, there would be nothing to discuss. If Stuart were to leave a good number of you would have nothing to respond or post to. So it is good on an intellectual basis. As far as a Christian aspect, did Jesus only concern himself with the faithful, I don't think so. Without the Stuarts all we are doing is preaching to the choir.
Dull That would be wonderful. That is what the millenium is going to be, only truth will be taught by Jesus and the elect. The Highway of Holiness will not permit Stuarts. So you might as well get used to preaching to the Choir.Quote (seek and you will find @ Feb. 04 2008,07:22) Quote (Cato @ Feb. 04 2008,07:13) It would be a really dull forum if we all thought alike, there would be nothing to discuss. If Stuart were to leave a good number of you would have nothing to respond or post to. So it is good on an intellectual basis. As far as a Christian aspect, did Jesus only concern himself with the faithful, I don't think so. Without the Stuarts all we are doing is preaching to the choir.
Dull That would be wonderful. That is what the millenium is going to be, only truth will be taught by Jesus and the elect. The Highway of Holiness will not permit Stuarts. So you might as well get used to preaching to the Choir.
So heaven will be a perfectly dull place where there is no interesting discussion of ideas? I'm glad to be hell-bound then!Who is the elect?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
