Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-18-2013, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Scripture means only one thing. It is the duty of the reader to learn how to interpret it correctly.
I have to tell you. I place very few expectations on an omnipotent supreme being. But high on the list would be the capacity to deliver a single volume of unambiguous prose that didn't require "interpretation."

The Judeo-Christo-Islamic god was not quite up to that particular task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2013, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The hard cold facts are, laws must first start out as a hypothesis, then graduating to theory, before becomming accepted as a law.
Wrong.

Laws of nature are completely and excruciatingly empirical. They require neither hypothesis nor theory. Hypotheses and theories are often developed in an attempt to explain those laws, but the laws come first.

You've never done a second of actual science in any point of your life, have you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Do you think Newton's laws of gravitational forces sprang into existence without first having formed the hypothesis, then a theory about the force labeled gravity?
Of course. Newton made no effort whatsoever to explain gravity and offered neither hypothesis nor theory regarding it. He simply came up with an equation that explained the observations.

Pure empiricism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
All what stuff about black people? There is nothing in the Bible about "black people."
And yet, the great Biblical debate of the 19th century was how best to Biblically defend the enslavement of blacks.

The opposing camps were the Biblical Monogenists (those who insisted that blacks were human beings, but that slavery was their punishment as part of the Curse of Hamm) and the Biblical Polygenists (those who believed that blacks were not even human beings, but instead were beasts of the field created on day six of creation week).

Neither of them ever considered that slavery might be wrong since... well... the Bible is completely cool with slavery. Even the New Testament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Besides, the Mormons also use a Book called "The Book of Mormon," written by Joseph Smith (who is their "prophet," if I remember correctly). I have no idea what might be in there, but whatever it is, it is not part of the Gospel of Christ, or the Old Testament Scriptures. The final Revelation was given long before, as recorded in the Bible. Anything else is heresey.
One man's heresy is another man's revelation. Whichever of them is right still worships an incompetent god who seemingly can't manage to get his ideas across.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,401,836 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
I have to tell you. I place very few expectations on an omnipotent supreme being. But high on the list would be the capacity to deliver a single volume of unambiguous prose that didn't require "interpretation."

The Judeo-Christo-Islamic god was not quite up to that particular task.
To paraphrase an omnipotent liberal, you'll have to read it and find out what's in it before you pass on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,061,236 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
To paraphrase an omnipotent liberal, you'll have to read it and find out what's in it before you pass on it.
You are aware aren't you that non believers generally know the bible far better than believers do...Mostly because many of us are former Christians, and in our struggle to stay with our faith we investigated the bible pretty thoroughly....

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,627 posts, read 26,311,930 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey View Post
Science is ever changing.

Science is self correcting.

When was the last time the bible was changed due to 'oops, we were wrong' issues?


"Self-correcting"?

How can the same people who were wrong the first time be trusted to be factually accurate when they directly contradict what they previously assured us was correct?

Sorry kiddo, but you don't get to tell me something came from nothing without redefining "nothing" to include something capable of creating something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 12:53 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,293,396 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"Self-correcting"?

How can the same people who were wrong the first time be trusted to be factually accurate when they directly contradict what they previously assured us was correct?

Sorry kiddo, but you don't get to tell me something came from nothing without redefining "nothing" to include something capable of creating something.
Nobody ever said something came from nothing. There's no such thing as nothing.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 12:54 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,293,396 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:

You are aware aren't you that non believers generally know the bible far
better than believers do...Mostly because many of us are former Christians, and
in our struggle to stay with our faith we investigated the bible pretty
thoroughly....
There's absolutely no doubt about that. Not only did most of us investigate the bible pretty thoroughly, but other religions, as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 12:57 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,355,673 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter View Post
/snip

So the creationist cannot justify removing the exploring nature of science and say well you cannot reproduce evolution or put it into a container like a bottle of pills so don't teach it, thats not right.
Actually yes, we can.

Have you not heard of Dr Richard Lenski's 25 year long mutation-based speciation experiment with e-coli? Over 50,000 generations now....

Richard Lenski

Last edited by Ceist; 11-19-2013 at 01:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 01:00 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,355,673 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Why don't you honestly address a point, rather than injecting mindless drivel?

The first false suggestion you try to pass off is that there is ONE definition of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth, which explains why you'd promote such distortions. The truth is, evolutionists can't even agree on one concise definition. We have the foundational Darwinian theory which has been tweeked, altered, molded, updated, as evolution science itself has "evolved"

But to be clear AND honest (something that I would thank you to do for a change), I am referring to the most widely accepted premise for which most evolutionists agree, that being that modern evolutionists theory DOES NOT even attempt to explain the "origin of life". That this matter is a seperate issue ... "abiogenesis". Do you agree or disagree? It's a very simple question.

If you disagree, then do provide the evidence, or a link to the science which defines the origin of life in evolutionary terms. If however you do agree that evolution does not even attempt to address origin of life, then it can't claim to disprove "creation", because that is what creation addresses ... the origin of life.

This is so simple and basic, even you should have no problem understanding the point.
Like I said, why not try educating yourself on the topic. Or are you trying to make your posts look foolish on purpose?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top