Jump to content


Photo

And On The 6th Day, God Created Man


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Poll: Who Created the Dinosaurs?

Who Created the Dinosaurs?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Cule

Cule
  • Members
  • 762 posts

Posted 13 April 2004 - 09:21 AM

ok seriously.  This is just a question that has been running through my mind for a long time, so i have finally decided to ask the question publically.

In the bible, it says something like... God created the world in 6 days, and on the 6th day god created man.  Ok, but who created the dinosaurs 6 billion years ago?

news flash for you dude bible is not for taken seriously its "storys" are metafores ( spelling might be wrong ) a sort of guidelines to live by the "rules" of this religion.

so in other words the book is full of lies.


edit: typo

Edited by Cule, 13 April 2004 - 09:25 AM.


#32 newb

newb
  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 13 April 2004 - 04:59 PM

And on the 7th day, he created newb, and he was awesome.

:)

Westcoast


#33 Xlithan

Xlithan

    Discord Moderator

  • Members
  • 1050 posts

Posted 13 April 2004 - 07:01 PM

And on the 7th day, he created newb, and he was awesome.

:)

LOL!!

ok seriously.  This is just a question that has been running through my mind for a long time, so i have finally decided to ask the question publically.

In the bible, it says something like... God created the world in 6 days, and on the 6th day god created man.  Ok, but who created the dinosaurs 6 billion years ago?

news flash for you dude bible is not for taken seriously its "storys" are metafores ( spelling might be wrong ) a sort of guidelines to live by the "rules" of this religion.

so in other words the book is full of lies.


edit: typo


Well, rules... i don't live by rules, but that still doesnt answer my question of why christianity has caused so many deaths.


Think about this...

Christianity, caused so many deaths in the past, AND they believe in the devil...wtf is going on here? they are the ONLY religion that believes in the Devil.. doesnt that say something?

Edited by Squiggle, 13 April 2004 - 07:03 PM.


#34 Squee

Squee

    Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1810 posts

Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:49 PM

A lot of corrupt things happen when it comes to religion. Christianity is just one religion that has its "skeletons" in their closet.

In India, numerous people die on the streets. They beg and starve and people don't even give them a second glance. It's because people believe these beggers are being punished for something they did in their past lives.

Does this mean Hinduism is a "bad" religion? I really don't think so. It has simply been misinterrpretted by certain people.
Posted Image

#35 Xlithan

Xlithan

    Discord Moderator

  • Members
  • 1050 posts

Posted 13 April 2004 - 10:43 PM

and do you believe that Hinduism is a true religion? do you believe it is right? do you believe their gods exist?

#36 Silverwizard

Silverwizard
  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 12:25 AM

In the end all religions lead to God. All religiond in the end all fall into the same arch-types, it is really kinda funny if you look at all the religious texts. Next, we do believe in the Devil. The angel Lucifer did not agree with God and became Satan, he is not a god, he is simply an angel who is evil. I personally think Satan may well be a metaphor for evil. Lastly, to say that Christians are the only religion that believes in the Devil reveals your ignorance, firstly you forget Judaism (sp?) and Islam, both have the same God and Devil as we (Christians) do. Also alot of religions have a manifestation of evil of some sort. Also, Christianity was put in a charge of a society, making the corrupt weasel their way into the ranks causing the corruption and people trying to remove ideas that they did not like.

Also to Squiggle, did you know that the person who made Wicca acctually was talking out their ****. It would take years of research to recreate Wicca back to its ancient state, some of the witches who were burned were actual witches, but after the witch trials it died and was 'recreated' (see above).
Chairman of The Warriors of The Mist, The Great and Powerful Wizard

Skippy the Peanut Butter Fiend.

#37 newb

newb
  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 12:37 AM

More like, in the end, there will always be religion because of two things.

Parents and faith.

Westcoast


#38 Xlithan

Xlithan

    Discord Moderator

  • Members
  • 1050 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 01:38 AM

Wicca didn't die. i think you should stop reading the wrong "book". as for the devil, there is no such thing, do you think satanists worship the devil too? I am not religious, nor do i follow a certain path anymore, but i am strictly AGAINST christianity because i've never known small religions, or Cults, like wicca, druidry, satanism, paganism to cause pain and anger amongst anybody.

#39 Silverwizard

Silverwizard
  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 02:06 AM

The original Wicca did die, it died long ago, long long long ago, it was ressurected as a full religion and it was all crapped up. I know what I am talking about. Also, they used to cause pain when they were bigger. Christianity just stuck around as a large one, causing people to want to hate it since it is the symbol of religion to alot of people.
Chairman of The Warriors of The Mist, The Great and Powerful Wizard

Skippy the Peanut Butter Fiend.

#40 Squee

Squee

    Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1810 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 02:16 AM

and do you believe that Hinduism is a true religion? do you believe it is right? do you believe their gods exist?

I really don't think my beliefs should come into play in this. What it comes down to is extremists. It's good to be a feminist. It's good to fight for women's rights. It's bad when you start killing men in order to show "girl power."

There's always that line.

Chrstianity is not a bad religion. It doesn't tell people to go out and slaughter innocents. However, there are extremists. These extremists are the ones that cross the line.

Of course, we only hear about the extremists and never about the others. 90% of Christians aren't extremists. It's the 10% you always hear about.
Posted Image

#41 Xlithan

Xlithan

    Discord Moderator

  • Members
  • 1050 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:51 PM

woah woah woah... you've stepped beyond the line my friend...

do NOT, i repeat.... do NOT...diss...Girl Power man.. woah!

#42 Isengard

Isengard
  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:54 PM

and aliens/ufo's are probably God's bodyguards :)
*Click* *Click*:
*I'LL* *SEE* *YOU* *ON* *THE* *DARK* *SIDE* OF* *THE* *MOON*

#43 DemonSkys

DemonSkys
  • Members
  • 236 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:57 PM

what would god need aliens for Joe? he'd only need to show people a picture of your butt and all creatures near him would run :) or fall over giggling :blink:
.·:*¨¨*:·.ßëttër Ôff Å£öñë.·:*¨¨*:·.
Demonskys on Main, Demonskys/Lilly on 1a

#44 Xlithan

Xlithan

    Discord Moderator

  • Members
  • 1050 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:57 PM

and what exactly ARE ghosts, because i know ghosts exist. Derek Acorah is a great guy :)

christianity seems to have ALL the answers to life.

#45 Dc

Dc
  • Members
  • 339 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 11:51 PM

The Bible is 100% true. I am not sure about the 7 days being a long time, but it could very possibly be true. I have heard that before. Most of what i believe needs to be said has allrady been said so im going to try to keep this pretty short. The Bible is made entirely of historical events. There is no scientific facts that say that dinasours could not have lived at the same times that humans did. In fact, in the book of Job, of the Bible. there is one part, i cant recall exactly where, but Job describes what a lot of people to be as a living dinasaur. i believe that he calls what he describes "Behemoth and Laviathan".
God did wipe out most of the earths population by a flood and there are also many scientifical facts that proove that. Plus you also have to use common sence. How else would fossils of fish and other sea dwelling animals be found on mountain tops and in the middle of deserts?
But of all relgions, the one that is hardest to believe is evolution. Most people do not believe that evolution is a religion, but if you really think about it, you will relize that it is true. For somthing to be a science, it has to be proven, seen, and repeated with the same results. Evolution is none of these. Charles Darwin himself renouced evolution before his death.
here are just a few of the many proofs against evolution:

1. MOON DUST
Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.
However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.


2. MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

3. FOSSIL RECORD
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.


4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Darwin said that embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.
The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.

The yolk sac does not store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.

The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.

Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.


5. PROBABILITY
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.


6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.


7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.

2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.

4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.

5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.

6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.

7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.

8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.

9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.


8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.


9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.
Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.


10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.
But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.


Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences

Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%

Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences

Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%

Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!

11. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.


12. DINOSAURS
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.


13. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

15. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

16. WRITTEN RECORD
The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

17. THE BIBLE
Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.







and lastly, Jesus rising from the grave is also historically proven. There are so many eye witness acounts that there is no possible way that it cannot be true. Thousands of people saw him alive over a period of 40 days. unless you are suggesting that thousands of people had one large mass illusion, which is ridiculous, then he is the son of God and the only way to heaven. All you have to do is except Jesus into your heart and you can be saved and go to heaven. It is so simple. I cant believe that soo many people just deny God when it is this easy.



P.S. sry about the whole keeping it short thing.
I believe in the Triune God;God the Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit.I believe that while I was helpless and sinful, Christ died for me. Therefore, I now have the righteousness of God, old things have passed away and I am a child of God. I cannot be separated from the love of God, Christ lives in my heart by faith and therefore, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have been chosen by God and appointed to bear fruit for God. I resist the devil and he flees from me.

#46 alone

alone
  • Members
  • 2261 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 12:05 AM

You put up an impressive case, Dc. And so you should, it's something you believe in, I do apolagise for not reading it all however.

I try not believe one single thing, as believing one thing restricts growth of open thought (or so I see).

I find religion one of the most fasinating parts of society, and do try my best to learn what I can from those around me,a nd what they believe in - Unfortuantly, everything is flawed.
In a single arguement between two people, there are already three stories; The truth, person 1's account and Person two's account.
In such a case as this, there are millions upon millions of stories, and each persons will differ.

I suppose we never will know for sure how we got here, or even why - We can only decide on something to please our own mind, and not enforce it upon others.


One a lighter note:
A skating dog :) - Please don't let the dog lead you off topic.. Make another thread if you so desire!

Edited by alone, 15 April 2004 - 12:12 AM.

"Entertain yourself with my nightmares."
- AfterAll

Bunny!

#47 Bean

Bean
  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 12:21 AM

Very, VERY impressive, I give you 100000000000 points for that.

Thank you for the enlightenment, I can say I learned something on nightmist now.
Copying from one is Plagiarism
Copying From many is Research.

It's so exciting I need to poo~Deval

#48 Dc

Dc
  • Members
  • 339 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 12:24 AM

thanks, but it was not all my writing, i had help from some others.

so i cant take all the credit.

Edited by Dc, 15 April 2004 - 12:28 AM.

I believe in the Triune God;God the Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit.I believe that while I was helpless and sinful, Christ died for me. Therefore, I now have the righteousness of God, old things have passed away and I am a child of God. I cannot be separated from the love of God, Christ lives in my heart by faith and therefore, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have been chosen by God and appointed to bear fruit for God. I resist the devil and he flees from me.

#49 Squee

Squee

    Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1810 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:08 AM

I'll give you this:

You've made me take a long, hard look on my beliefs on evolution.

However, I still cannot just "accept" a notion of God. God is just as enigmatic as evolution if not more.

Does this mean I'm a bad person? I certainly hope not. I've glanced over the New Testament and some of it makes sense. I take some of what Jesus says and I apply that to myself. I try to be a good person not because I want to get past some gate in the after-life, I just do it because...well, doing good things does more for me than it does for the person I'm helping.

As far as I'm concerned, evolution and God don't make any impacts on what's going on now. Wars must be stopped, the hungry must be fed, conflicts need to be resolved, etc. etc.

I don't see a book resolving anything anytime soon. However, I do see people trying their damned hardest to solve the problems of the world. These are the people we should be modelling after instead of worrying about where we came from or what created us. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Posted Image

#50 Deval

Deval
  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:20 AM

So you insinuating that the comment 'Ignorance is bliss' is the analogy we should model our lives and future after?
"PK'ing has just become a battle of superior numbers." ~ Goldfish.

#51 JLH

JLH

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 1771 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:29 AM

i'll throw some more interesting possibilities that can't be proved or disproved:

a) men in black; the galaxy is on orion's belt (orion was the name of a cat, and a whole galaxy was in a ball hanging from the cat's collar).

B) the matrix; we're all running on some cool computer somewhere, and none of this is real, what is real?

c) does the universe have an edge, and if so, what is outside it. if the universe has no edge, what happens if you keep going in a certain direction for an infinite amount of time? (doughnut theory, you get back where you started? - it's been a while since i read some of steven hawking's work)

personally, i believe in science, and not religion. but one does wonder, if it all started with a big bang, what was there before that time, so i think there is definitely more to it. ultimately, where does the universe itself exist? has to be somewhere.
in regards to religion, i have not read the bible, but from what i have gathered, if the human race is supposed to be god's "ultimate" creation, wouldn't it be rather cynical of us to dismiss the possibility of more intelligent alien life somewhere in the universe.
one day, i hope we meet alien life forms, it will totally screw up religion something chronic, which will amuse me greatly if it happens while i'm still alive :)
Anything i post on here is subject to change at any time without notification to the board.

#52 Squee

Squee

    Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1810 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:42 AM

So you insinuating that the comment 'Ignorance is bliss' is the analogy we should model our lives and future after?

I'd hardly call what we have now bliss. Even in major cities like Toronto, we have hundreds of people starving to death every year on the streets.

What I'm saying is that there are much too many problems now. Let's start solving the problems that will have the greatest impact on others' lives instead of figuring out what happens after we die.

Of course, my way of thinking will never become popular. We have the strict athiests and then we have the strict religious peoples. It's rare to find those who are drifting somewhere in between.
Posted Image

#53 Silverwizard

Silverwizard
  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:47 AM

Very nice work Dc, very nice work. I read it all and I liked it. Sorry JLH, the thing is have you ever seen a glitch in the Matrix, sorry, I do not trust movies, I trust eyewitness accounts, ships logs, letter etc. Together those make the Holy Bible.
Chairman of The Warriors of The Mist, The Great and Powerful Wizard

Skippy the Peanut Butter Fiend.

#54 Deval

Deval
  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:54 AM

Guys, DC has just done a big copy and paste job intermittently broken up by insertions of his own opinions mentioned in the authors writing; it is however, valid.

Squee, my statement did not suggest that the current state of affairs is blissful, and after re-reading it I see no way for it to be taken that way. I was suggesting that the comment you had made prior was indicitive of the mindset mentioned in my statement.

Anyways to further the discussion and add depth to the current ideals being presented by each side of the parties, I feel both should consider the following words: 'Pants are way cool.'
"PK'ing has just become a battle of superior numbers." ~ Goldfish.

#55 Bean

Bean
  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 02:05 AM

Jeeeze deval, I just wanted to give him points is that so bad! *cries*

:)
Copying from one is Plagiarism
Copying From many is Research.

It's so exciting I need to poo~Deval

#56 newb

newb
  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 04:34 AM

It's not true and you're all gullible.

Some old guys are rolling in their graves laughing right now.

If they weren't dead anyways.

Westcoast


#57 Dc

Dc
  • Members
  • 339 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 06:10 AM

Guys, DC has just done a big copy and paste job intermittently broken up by insertions of his own opinions mentioned in the authors writing; it is however, valid.

yeah, thats what i meant when i said i didnt write it all, i jsut didnt wanna make myself sound like i was taking all the credit. i wrote the first part and last part and a little in the middle, but most of it was stuff i got off other sites. i just wanted to put the information out there.

Edited by Dc, 15 April 2004 - 06:13 AM.

I believe in the Triune God;God the Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit.I believe that while I was helpless and sinful, Christ died for me. Therefore, I now have the righteousness of God, old things have passed away and I am a child of God. I cannot be separated from the love of God, Christ lives in my heart by faith and therefore, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have been chosen by God and appointed to bear fruit for God. I resist the devil and he flees from me.

#58 Xlithan

Xlithan

    Discord Moderator

  • Members
  • 1050 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 12:27 PM

tbh i agree with JLH completely, who is to say we are not inside a computer? and this isn't real (yes, that would make nightmist non-existant, you're not REALLY addicted :) ). lol, anyway... i also agree that we are not alone. we are one TINY TINY TINY TINY planet in what could be 1 of millions of universes. NO WAY IN HELL, are we alone. it's impossible to imagine JUST US, in the whole of space. impossible. (well for me anyway).

#59 Deval

Deval
  • Members
  • 802 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 01:42 PM

I was once told I'm so well endowed that it could be classed as a galaxy of love.
"PK'ing has just become a battle of superior numbers." ~ Goldfish.

#60 JLH

JLH

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 1771 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 04:39 PM

ic, and is there a big bang theory to go with that?
Anything i post on here is subject to change at any time without notification to the board.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users