BF2S Forums for you catholics,jews w/e if u believe in god read this

and by the way the gun isn't science its a invention.

ok

herrr_smity wrote:

and by the way the gun isn't science its a invention.

Really. How do you say?

herrr_smity wrote:

i guess i dug myself a hole here

Ah. Yes you have. I don't hold it against you, though. You're one of the few with enough dignity to concede a point lost in an online argument (a.k.a., special olympics of debate).

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 11:23:48)

Erkut.hv wrote:

So, in reality, science has actually killed more people than religion. Science has allowed religious fanatics to come up with more efficient ways of killing people. if it weren't for science, religious people would have to kill the old fashioned way.

Twisted logic, I know.

But nukes still can't match the sword in global hours or kills.

Marconius wrote:

...no one has ever killed in the name of science.

...and you learned your scientific history where? And no, I'm not calling all scientists moustache-twirling, monocled maniacs in white lab coats (any more than I'd call all religious people murderous fanatics).

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 11:31:23)

dubbs wrote:

Yet, our current history says that the Romans ruled all of the known world during their time.  Asia had a large population during the same time, but the Romans did not rule that area, but we still say that they ruled the world during their time.

Whose time? Noah's? During Genesis?! Good lord...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 11:40:50)

herrr_smity wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

and by the way the gun isn't science its a invention.

Really. How do you say?

as i see it it was made for another purpose then usage in a firearm

Guns were made for a purpose other than being a firearm?

afewje wrote:

But God or no God what is the harm in following some of its rules? thats how i see it. At least if their is a God u tryed and if their isnt then w/e u stil lived ur life.

If there isn't a god, then you might as well do what you can to improve life for coming generations, even if through a humble role. And if there is a God, whatever God is won't appreciate people being nice merely for the sake of winning brownie points.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Really. How do you say?

as i see it it was made for another purpose then usage in a firearm

Guns were made for a purpose other than being a firearm?

i seem to have forgotten a word. gunpowder was not made for the purpose of being used in a firearm

Erkut.hv wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If there isn't a god, then you might as well do what you can to improve life for coming generations, even if through a humble role.

Why? I'll be dead. I'll give less than a shit what anyone does with this crap planet after I am gone. Selfish? Damn right, it's my life. When it ends, I'll have no reason to care about any of you.

well said

On a similar note, if people believe in God, and Satan, wouldn't that make Satan a God as well?  If Satan has the power to influence us negatively, and God positively, wouldn't they both be God-like?  So then there would be two Gods, one positive and one negative.  Which ties quite nicely into the whole Eastern Ying-Yang concept, giving it a face and name instead of positive and negative energy.  Isn't it interesting how cultures all across the globe have similar concepts about the human mind and body?

dubbs wrote:

It takes just as much faith to believe that there is not a god.  Also, there story of Noah is accounted in multiple societies, so it is believed that the flood did occur.  Archeologist (sp?) are finding more and more fact that there was a large flood.  We do not know how much land the flood covered, but it did at least cover a large area of land.

I don't doubt the fact that there may have been a flood.  My point was simply that the Bible states that it covered the entire Earth.  Whether their little area of their existence is all they knew doesn't matter.  It says the whole Earth was covered, and geological evidence clearly shows that all of the Earth was in fact not covered. 

dubbs wrote:

What evidence does Genesis have agaist it?  I do not mean theories, I mean physical evidence?

You're joking right?  If there is, in my opinion, any one area of the Bible that is most easily discreted, it is Genesis.  By the time line laid out by Genesis, the Earth and everything on it is only ~7K years old.  We have carbon dated human remains that are far older than that.  We have plant and animal fossils that are millions of years old.  We know that dinosaurs were here long before man, ruled for 100's of millions of years, died off and were gone for about 65 million years before the first humanoids began to appear.  Given the Earth's age, and the timeline during which humanoids have existed (about 1 million years), Genesis seems to neglect 99.9% of the Earth, and the Earth's plant/animal inhabitants.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Interesting!  I was gathering evidence and lo and behold I found 2 opposing arguments.  One for you side and one for my side.  And I discovered there are scientist on both sides as well.  And what a coincidence that the scientist opposing your viewpoints have been picked up by Christian sites.  Imagine that.  But in your case, forbidding me to post those links makes for an easy debate.

There may be scientists on both sides, but only one side is unbiased. Do universities have any motivation to disprove religious ideas? No. Do christians have any motivation to prove their beliefs are based on something other than faith? Big yes.

I too have read evidence for both sides (not so much on the issue of a global flood) but certainly on the issue of intelligent design. The advocates of intelligent design may be scientists, and they may be intelligent, but they started under the assumption that God created life, and then went about finding evidence to support that. On the other hand, the rest of the scientific community started with the assumption that life existed, somehow and went about finding likely explanations. God, however, is not a likely explanation. If you can find a university (one that is not religious I might add) or reputable scientific organization (such as the discovery institute) to back up these theories then I would be a little more convinced.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

My friend had faith in all chairs until he became 330 lbs and sat in a plastic one and it folded after 15 minutes of stress.

Does this have a point? Next you're going to tell me you had faith in the sun until it was cloudy one day. And if your friends faith in solid, tangible objects was misplaced, what does that say about your faith in God? Has god every talked or interacted with you? (If yes, I suggest seeing a medical professional).

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Read my intro.  The Earth is still changing today.  Plate tectonics states the plates haven't stopped moving and thus the Himalayas, for example, are still rising.  A global flood could have helped move the plates at a very fast rate.  There is a hypothesis that the water erupted from underground and pushed the plates apart as well as fell from the atmosphere.

If you are not aware of the implications of several billion tons of rock moving quickly enough to cause the kinds of changes you describe, you should read up on it. You have not addressed the other issues either, such as the timeline laid out in the bible which has this all happening on an impossible timeline. (Or the freshwater fish surviving a global saltwater environment. Or the species on isolated islands. Or the logistics of fitting several million different species onboard a single wooden ship. Or... well, I think you get the point).

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

But how did it get here?  To say it existed and we existed after the fact so now I don't have to contemplate how the universe got there in the first place is circular logic.  Did it self create?

The fact is that we may never know how the universe came into existence, and almost certainly not in our lifetime. But simply because we do not know how something occurred does not mean God did it.

I would also point out that there are several theories as to the creation of the universe put forth by the top minds in the physics field, but the concepts are so far above my level of comprehension that I'm not going to try and explain them.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_dung_bomb stated micro evolution.  From a single cell to the eyes we have today is quite a leap.  The eyes of those fish are no longer used but they're still there in an undeveloped state with a flap over them.  Kind of like my dark skin white skin explanation.  Do you need light to see in the dark?  Most certainly! 

If all was dark since the beginning would we have working eyes, sockets but no eyes, or nothing there at all?

And yet the fossil record remains silent.

Yes it is a big leap. One that took a couple billion years. Now think how quickly an organism can reproduce, and put that in terms of generations. How many generations have come and gone in the history of life on Earth? I would calculate it, but I think my computer would run out of zeroes first. The point? Going from a single celled organism to humans is a huge leap, but it had more than enough time to work itself out.

Besides which, God created all the cosmos with a thought, but it took 13-15 billion years to get around to humans? Seems pretty inefficient.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

This kind of logic kept the world flat for thousands of years. 

"Hey sailor what did you see?"

"I looked out and saw the edge of the world on the horizon.  Saw some monsters too."

"Why he must be correct because he has a boat and sails it daily.  He is an expert in his field.  It's a fact!"


I would assume his employer reviewed his references and confirmed his degree.  But this day and age you never know.  Look at GA Tech's old football coach... he lied about his degree but still worked for GA Tech because no one verified it.  In other words, they took his word on it because hey, why would he lie?  Oh yeah, money.

Ever hear of scientist falsifing data to continue to receive funding?  It happens more often than you think.  And what happens if the funders want a specific outcome.  Take MS for instance.  They hired a firm to review IE and then gave a press conference about how good IE is.

I won't dispute there are instances of scientists falsifying evidence for personal gain. But when almost every scientist is coming up with the same explanation? Are they all in some sort of global conspiracy to fool the common man? Or are they just coming up with the best possible explanation?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Now that's a conundrum!  I think you have missquoted the theory.  If there are no positive changes and no negative changes then all would remain the same.  In the mutations, is DNA lost?  Can you name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations?

I think I can answer this by requoting myself: "The 'errors' caused by random mutation either cause the survivability of an organism to increase (leading to more offspring, and the perpetuation of that error)" or in other words causes that change to become more common, as it increases survivability. "or more likely it decreases the chances of survival (leading to the organisms death, and the extinction of that genetic line)" In other words eliminates or reduces negative changes, because they reduce survivability. I'm not sure how I can make that any simpler...

As for the second part of that, can you name a single unambiguous instance of the formation of a new species by Divine Will? I thought not.

neoburn_1035 wrote:

That is the thing as the earth was a very different landscape millons of years ago at the earth creation.

I think you mean billions of years, and I've already addressed this. If the flood had happened billions of years ago when it would have been plausible, there wouldnt have been people around to write about it

erkut.hv wrote:

Why? I'll be dead. I'll give less than a shit what anyone does with this crap planet after I am gone. Selfish? Damn right, it's my life. When it ends, I'll have no reason to care about any of you.

jord wrote:

wow your like me.Thats why i don't give a flying fuck about global warming or running out of natural resources.Unless it affects me i dont care.I plan on living until im about 55 maybe 60 after that theres not much to do,shit sex,cant really play sports,start going deaf,kids in the street laughing at you.

I'm not sure what to say to this. Other than I'm sad that people like you exist.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Interesting!  I was gathering evidence and lo and behold I found 2 opposing arguments.  One for you side and one for my side.  And I discovered there are scientist on both sides as well.  And what a coincidence that the scientist opposing your viewpoints have been picked up by Christian sites.  Imagine that.  But in your case, forbidding me to post those links makes for an easy debate.

There may be scientists on both sides, but only one side is unbiased. Do universities have any motivation to disprove religious ideas? No. Do christians have any motivation to prove their beliefs are based on something other than faith? Big yes.

I too have read evidence for both sides (not so much on the issue of a global flood) but certainly on the issue of intelligent design. The advocates of intelligent design may be scientists, and they may be intelligent, but they started under the assumption that God created life, and then went about finding evidence to support that. On the other hand, the rest of the scientific community started with the assumption that life existed, somehow and went about finding likely explanations. God, however, is not a likely explanation. If you can find a university (one that is not religious I might add) or reputable scientific organization (such as the discovery institute) to back up these theories then I would be a little more convinced.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

My friend had faith in all chairs until he became 330 lbs and sat in a plastic one and it folded after 15 minutes of stress.

Does this have a point? Next you're going to tell me you had faith in the sun until it was cloudy one day. And if your friends faith in solid, tangible objects was misplaced, what does that say about your faith in God? Has god every talked or interacted with you? (If yes, I suggest seeing a medical professional).

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Read my intro.  The Earth is still changing today.  Plate tectonics states the plates haven't stopped moving and thus the Himalayas, for example, are still rising.  A global flood could have helped move the plates at a very fast rate.  There is a hypothesis that the water erupted from underground and pushed the plates apart as well as fell from the atmosphere.

If you are not aware of the implications of several billion tons of rock moving quickly enough to cause the kinds of changes you describe, you should read up on it. You have not addressed the other issues either, such as the timeline laid out in the bible which has this all happening on an impossible timeline. (Or the freshwater fish surviving a global saltwater environment. Or the species on isolated islands. Or the logistics of fitting several million different species onboard a single wooden ship. Or... well, I think you get the point).

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

But how did it get here?  To say it existed and we existed after the fact so now I don't have to contemplate how the universe got there in the first place is circular logic.  Did it self create?

The fact is that we may never know how the universe came into existence, and almost certainly not in our lifetime. But simply because we do not know how something occurred does not mean God did it.

I would also point out that there are several theories as to the creation of the universe put forth by the top minds in the physics field, but the concepts are so far above my level of comprehension that I'm not going to try and explain them.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_dung_bomb stated micro evolution.  From a single cell to the eyes we have today is quite a leap.  The eyes of those fish are no longer used but they're still there in an undeveloped state with a flap over them.  Kind of like my dark skin white skin explanation.  Do you need light to see in the dark?  Most certainly! 

If all was dark since the beginning would we have working eyes, sockets but no eyes, or nothing there at all?

And yet the fossil record remains silent.

Yes it is a big leap. One that took a couple billion years. Now think how quickly an organism can reproduce, and put that in terms of generations. How many generations have come and gone in the history of life on Earth? I would calculate it, but I think my computer would run out of zeroes first. The point? Going from a single celled organism to humans is a huge leap, but it had more than enough time to work itself out.

Besides which, God created all the cosmos with a thought, but it took 13-15 billion years to get around to humans? Seems pretty inefficient.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

This kind of logic kept the world flat for thousands of years. 

"Hey sailor what did you see?"

"I looked out and saw the edge of the world on the horizon.  Saw some monsters too."

"Why he must be correct because he has a boat and sails it daily.  He is an expert in his field.  It's a fact!"


I would assume his employer reviewed his references and confirmed his degree.  But this day and age you never know.  Look at GA Tech's old football coach... he lied about his degree but still worked for GA Tech because no one verified it.  In other words, they took his word on it because hey, why would he lie?  Oh yeah, money.

Ever hear of scientist falsifing data to continue to receive funding?  It happens more often than you think.  And what happens if the funders want a specific outcome.  Take MS for instance.  They hired a firm to review IE and then gave a press conference about how good IE is.

I won't dispute there are instances of scientists falsifying evidence for personal gain. But when almost every scientist is coming up with the same explanation? Are they all in some sort of global conspiracy to fool the common man? Or are they just coming up with the best possible explanation?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Now that's a conundrum!  I think you have missquoted the theory.  If there are no positive changes and no negative changes then all would remain the same.  In the mutations, is DNA lost?  Can you name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations?

I think I can answer this by requoting myself: "The 'errors' caused by random mutation either cause the survivability of an organism to increase (leading to more offspring, and the perpetuation of that error)" or in other words causes that change to become more common, as it increases survivability. "or more likely it decreases the chances of survival (leading to the organisms death, and the extinction of that genetic line)" In other words eliminates or reduces negative changes, because they reduce survivability. I'm not sure how I can make that any simpler...

As for the second part of that, can you name a single unambiguous instance of the formation of a new species by Divine Will? I thought not.

neoburn_1035 wrote:

That is the thing as the earth was a very different landscape millons of years ago at the earth creation.

I think you mean billions of years, and I've already addressed this. If the flood had happened billions of years ago when it would have been plausible, there wouldnt have been people around to write about it

erkut.hv wrote:

Why? I'll be dead. I'll give less than a shit what anyone does with this crap planet after I am gone. Selfish? Damn right, it's my life. When it ends, I'll have no reason to care about any of you.

jord wrote:

wow your like me.Thats why i don't give a flying fuck about global warming or running out of natural resources.Unless it affects me i dont care.I plan on living until im about 55 maybe 60 after that theres not much to do,shit sex,cant really play sports,start going deaf,kids in the street laughing at you.

I'm not sure what to say to this. Other than I'm sad that people like you exist.

wow it bothers you that people have differant opinions than you.Theres is proboly over a million people maybe more who dont give a shit about global warming.It doesnt bother me that in 100 years or whenever the water might rise abit i wont be there.You shouldnt really care either.If a stranger dies i wouldnt cry infact i ewouldnt think about it.So if you die in  the next week or next month i woulndnt give a fuck,infact i'd be glad.Also i cant understand how you have that much time to reply to everyone.You must have alot of spare time to waste or be a really fast typer.

Last edited by jord (2006-03-24 14:06:47)