DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> just another scientific debate
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 131, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/05/2007 02:51:51 AM · #26
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

The "grays" did it.


Yup :-)
10/05/2007 06:32:54 AM · #27
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
10/30/2007 08:22:10 PM · #28
Originally posted by Matthew:

Intelligent design is not criticised and ridiculed because it is a different idea, or because it is propagated by religiously oriented people, but because it is very, very bad science.


I want to know how it is bad science personally, i mean i know of people who have been straight up evolutionist scientists, and their whole entire goal in life was to prove that Creation is wrong and that Christians are idiots. After years and years of studying, they came to the conclusion that evolution was impossible and that the only explanation was Intelligent Design. There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.
10/30/2007 08:40:15 PM · #29
Originally posted by ryand:

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.


This is not good logic.

I give you a statement:
'There were human beings on C planet 100 billion years ago'.

this statement could not be proven wrong. But it does not make it correct statement either.

10/30/2007 08:48:00 PM · #30
Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by ryand:

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.


This is not good logic.

I give you a statement:
'There were human beings on C planet 100 billion years ago'.

this statement could not be proven wrong. But it does not make it correct statement either.


My point was on the fact that nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong, with that much information, if it were inaccurate, surely someone would have been able to prove one of the inaccuracies.
10/30/2007 10:29:39 PM · #31
Originally posted by ryand:

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.


WOW. Really?

Can you prove anything in The Great Gatsby wrong? Does that mean it happened?

And which things exactly were proven correct that for so long were though inaccurate? It was my impression that the Bible was taken word for word by many people for thousands of years.

Message edited by author 2007-10-30 22:30:56.
10/30/2007 10:41:04 PM · #32
Originally posted by JBHale:

Originally posted by ryand:

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.


WOW. Really?

Can you prove anything in The Great Gatsby wrong? Does that mean it happened?

And which things exactly were proven correct that for so long were though inaccurate? It was my impression that the Bible was taken word for word by many people for thousands of years.


People didn't think that Noah's Ark was real yet in Turkey they have found a boat that is near the top of Mt. Ararat (the same spot mentioned in the Bible as the final resting spot of the ark) and it has the same dimensions as were layed out in the Bible. They have excavated a city in which the walls had fallen outward (the same way that the walls fell in the Bible at Jericho). They have also excavated many other cities that were mentioned in the Bible. Yet many people still claim that the Bible is completely inaccurate.
10/30/2007 10:49:18 PM · #33
Originally posted by JBHale:

Can you prove anything in The Great Gatsby wrong? Does that mean it happened?


Jay Gatsby never died, they put Wilson in his casket. He was a FBI agent running operations against bootleggers and returns in "The Great Gatsby 2: Jay's Revenge"

Off topic, yes. I have a website presentation at 9am that I'm not even done with and need to blow off some stress.

(My english teacher hated me)
10/30/2007 10:50:12 PM · #34
Originally posted by ryand:

Originally posted by JBHale:

Originally posted by ryand:

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.


WOW. Really?

Can you prove anything in The Great Gatsby wrong? Does that mean it happened?

And which things exactly were proven correct that for so long were though inaccurate? It was my impression that the Bible was taken word for word by many people for thousands of years.


People didn't think that Noah's Ark was real yet in Turkey they have found a boat that is near the top of Mt. Ararat (the same spot mentioned in the Bible as the final resting spot of the ark) and it has the same dimensions as were layed out in the Bible. They have excavated a city in which the walls had fallen outward (the same way that the walls fell in the Bible at Jericho). They have also excavated many other cities that were mentioned in the Bible. Yet many people still claim that the Bible is completely inaccurate.

The stories in the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally. It's not a history book and wasn't written as one. Just read the story of Noah, which you apparently know already. You can find so many contradictions and obvious exaggerations.

When you read the Bible you're supposed to take meaning from it, not try to prove each detail as factually correct. It sounds to me that you and a lot of other people have lost the true meaning of the Bible.

Message edited by author 2007-10-30 22:51:01.
10/30/2007 10:56:33 PM · #35
Originally posted by JBHale:

Originally posted by ryand:

Originally posted by JBHale:

Originally posted by ryand:

There is nothing in the Bible that has been proved wrong, and many many things that were assumed to be inaccurate have been proved.


WOW. Really?

Can you prove anything in The Great Gatsby wrong? Does that mean it happened?

And which things exactly were proven correct that for so long were though inaccurate? It was my impression that the Bible was taken word for word by many people for thousands of years.


People didn't think that Noah's Ark was real yet in Turkey they have found a boat that is near the top of Mt. Ararat (the same spot mentioned in the Bible as the final resting spot of the ark) and it has the same dimensions as were layed out in the Bible. They have excavated a city in which the walls had fallen outward (the same way that the walls fell in the Bible at Jericho). They have also excavated many other cities that were mentioned in the Bible. Yet many people still claim that the Bible is completely inaccurate.

The stories in the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally. It's not a history book and wasn't written as one. Just read the story of Noah, which you apparently know already. You can find so many contradictions and obvious exaggerations.

When you read the Bible you're supposed to take meaning from it, not try to prove each detail as factually correct. It sounds to me that you and a lot of other people have lost the true meaning of the Bible.


Small parts of the Bible are parables ( a story used to relay a message) but the Bible is completely literal, such as Noah's Ark, that is a literal story and everything in it really happened. I have two questions:

1. What are the "contradictions and obvious exaggerations" ?

2. What is the "true meaning of the Bible" ?
10/30/2007 11:23:36 PM · #36
Originally posted by ryand:


Small parts of the Bible are parables ( a story used to relay a message) but the Bible is completely literal, such as Noah's Ark, that is a literal story and everything in it really happened. I have two questions:

1. What are the "contradictions and obvious exaggerations" ?

2. What is the "true meaning of the Bible" ?


Look, I don't want this to turn into one of those yelling matches. You're completely entitled to your beliefs. All I'm saying is that, as someone who was raised Christian, the Bible is a lot more meaningful if you look for the lessons the stories teach and find how you can apply them to your life. That's your answer to question number 2.

The obvious contradictions in the story of Noah:

-"Of every clean animal, you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and it's mate"
"And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark..."

-"Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent out the raven; it went to and fro until all the waters had dried up from the earth."
"Then he sent the dove to see whether the waters had decreased from the surface of the ground. But the dove could not find a resting place for its foot, and returned to him to the ark, for there was water all over the earth."

There are contradictions because stories like the Noah were spliced together from two different original stories that had contradictory facts.

There are others, but I don't want to fight semantics with you. It's fine if you believe it is fact. You may be right, you may be wrong.

Regardless, I think you should take the Bible's lessons and not try to prove the stories as fact.
10/30/2007 11:44:01 PM · #37
Originally posted by JBHale:

Originally posted by ryand:


Small parts of the Bible are parables ( a story used to relay a message) but the Bible is completely literal, such as Noah's Ark, that is a literal story and everything in it really happened. I have two questions:

1. What are the "contradictions and obvious exaggerations" ?

2. What is the "true meaning of the Bible" ?


Look, I don't want this to turn into one of those yelling matches. You're completely entitled to your beliefs. All I'm saying is that, as someone who was raised Christian, the Bible is a lot more meaningful if you look for the lessons the stories teach and find how you can apply them to your life. That's your answer to question number 2.

The obvious contradictions in the story of Noah:

-"Of every clean animal, you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and it's mate"
"And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark..."

-"Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent out the raven; it went to and fro until all the waters had dried up from the earth."
"Then he sent the dove to see whether the waters had decreased from the surface of the ground. But the dove could not find a resting place for its foot, and returned to him to the ark, for there was water all over the earth."

There are contradictions because stories like the Noah were spliced together from two different original stories that had contradictory facts.

There are others, but I don't want to fight semantics with you. It's fine if you believe it is fact. You may be right, you may be wrong.

Regardless, I think you should take the Bible's lessons and not try to prove the stories as fact.


It doesn't look like you want me to defend my point, but i'm ready to explain these "contradictions" but i don't think that is really what you want. I think the more important point, rather than arguing over seemingly contradictory statements, is to focus on what the Bible is meant to be. God is showing us the history of his interaction with man. Before Christ's death on the cross, it shows that we cannot measure up to God. That is the reason that God sent Jesus to die on the cross. He sent Him to take on our imperfections and unrighteousness so that we can be righteous and acceptable before Him.
10/31/2007 12:16:52 AM · #38
Originally posted by ryand:


It doesn't look like you want me to defend my point, but i'm ready to explain these "contradictions" but i don't think that is really what you want. I think the more important point, rather than arguing over seemingly contradictory statements, is to focus on what the Bible is meant to be. God is showing us the history of his interaction with man. Before Christ's death on the cross, it shows that we cannot measure up to God. That is the reason that God sent Jesus to die on the cross. He sent Him to take on our imperfections and unrighteousness so that we can be righteous and acceptable before Him.


You're right. I really don't want to argue this anymore. I know that people of very strong faith will argue a point to death (not that that's a bad thing). I just want you to look at the bible not just as a lesson in humility, but also as a lesson in how to live a moral life.

It has a lot of lessons that I think people could learn from, regardless of what religion they believe in, or if they believe in God or not.

But I'm done arguing this (for now at least :P), I'm far too busy right now.
10/31/2007 12:56:54 AM · #39
Originally posted by ryand:

... the Bible is completely literal, such as Noah's Ark, that is a literal story and everything in it really happened.

What did the Tyrannosaurs eat? They can get mighty hungry after forty days ...

If Adam was the first man, and Eve was made from his rib (I thought Christians were against human cloning!), and they begat their sons Cain and Abel, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?

I've been to Jericho, and even if the walls fell there, I have a hard time believing that God stopped the Earth's rotation for twelve hours while Joshua finished the job.

At the latitude of the Middle East, objects on the surface of the Earth are moving at about 600 miles/hour -- if the Earth "stopped", Newton's Third Law of Motion would suggest that the walls might have been knocked down by flying soldier-projectiles ... unless you still think that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that God literally held "the sun still in the sky" ...
10/31/2007 12:59:11 AM · #40
Originally posted by GeneralE:


What did the Tyrannosaurs eat?


Whatever they wanted.
10/31/2007 01:10:43 AM · #41
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Whatever they wanted.

I hope you appreciate that set-up!
10/31/2007 01:13:28 AM · #42
Originally posted by GeneralE:



If Adam was the first man, and Eve was made from his rib (I thought Christians were against human cloning!), and they begat their sons Cain and Abel, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?



kinda get into incest really quick there don't ya?
10/31/2007 06:04:16 PM · #43
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ryand:

... the Bible is completely literal, such as Noah's Ark, that is a literal story and everything in it really happened.

What did the Tyrannosaurs eat? They can get mighty hungry after forty days ...

If Adam was the first man, and Eve was made from his rib (I thought Christians were against human cloning!), and they begat their sons Cain and Abel, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?

I've been to Jericho, and even if the walls fell there, I have a hard time believing that God stopped the Earth's rotation for twelve hours while Joshua finished the job.

At the latitude of the Middle East, objects on the surface of the Earth are moving at about 600 miles/hour -- if the Earth "stopped", Newton's Third Law of Motion would suggest that the walls might have been knocked down by flying soldier-projectiles ... unless you still think that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that God literally held "the sun still in the sky" ...


Honestly there is an explanation to all of those, but i dont really think that is what you are really looking for. The Bible is filled with things that appear to be "contradictions." In fact their are many that are seemingly much more obvious contradictions, but all of them have answers even if i dont know what the answers are to them. What I believe however is that God created the universe, and He made us in his image. Because He is the creator i believe He can do whatever He choses to do. He held the sun in the sky overnight one time because His people that He loved needed that and He was meeting their needs as He does for us today. I don't have to know all of the answers to believe in Him, because He is far above me and beyond my understanding. I believe in Him because I have seen Him work first-hand, and I know that He loves me and wants to have a personal relationship with me. That is why I believe what He tells me in the Bible, and that is why I want to serve and love others, because He served and loved me first.
10/31/2007 06:26:01 PM · #44
Originally posted by theSaj:


One of the basic tenants of the scientific method is that a theory must be able to be proved or disproved.

No, when a theory is proved it becomes a law. The truth is that in science we have thousands of theories - which don't happen to be provable. At least at this time with our knowledge and technology.


"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

10/31/2007 06:36:56 PM · #45
It's a shame I'm not young enough to know everything any more.
10/31/2007 07:11:57 PM · #46
Originally posted by Gordon:

It's a shame I'm not young enough to know everything any more.


You Too Huh???
11/01/2007 03:31:18 PM · #47
Originally posted by ryand:

The Bible is filled with things that appear to be "contradictions." In fact their are many that are seemingly much more obvious contradictions, but all of them have answers even if i dont know what the answers are to them.

I don’t know if I could ever describe what it mean to have “faith” more succinctly.
11/07/2007 02:33:22 PM · #48
Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by ryand:

The Bible is filled with things that appear to be "contradictions." In fact their are many that are seemingly much more obvious contradictions, but all of them have answers even if i dont know what the answers are to them.

I don’t know if I could ever describe what it mean to have “faith” more succinctly.


Nicely said. :)

I would go a step further, and call the religious use of "faith" to be a perfect example of DoubleSpeak.

The secular meaning of "faith" is a prediction about something based upon evidence. For example, I have faith in my car (being reliable), because I have experienced it starting and running for me on countless occasions. I can predict its behavior based on its proven history of performance, the evidence of its reliability.

The religious definition of "faith", however, is diametrically opposed to the secular definition. Because there is no actual evidence of God, there is no proof that any belief in him is reliable. There simply is no good reason to believe in God. Therefore, the religious use the term "faith" to describe their belief in God, despite the lack of evidence of his existence.

To me, an avowed atheist, the idea of religious faith is actually more troubling than a mere belief despite evidence. And that is because there is so much evidence that God does NOT exist. At least not any God that I would consider worthy of praise or adulation!

Why is there evil in this world? Why do children suffer illnesses and die? Etc, etc. Why doesn't God just show himself once in a while - like good old timey Gods like Zeus? Why should anybody revere a God that allows - let alone scornfully causes - human suffering?

So, to me, religious "faith" represents a willfully blithe cognitive dissonance. A decision to not be aware of the real world, to not care enough about reality to objectively discern it. A decision to accept dogma without critical thinking. A conscious decision to live in a world without reason.

Which leads to discussions about evolution with people who criticize it without knowing anything about it. Who remain faithfully ignorant of the world in which they live, and intolerant of those who do not embrace their dogma.
11/07/2007 02:58:49 PM · #49
We should go on to talk about the evolutionary advantage of religious faith then...
11/07/2007 03:09:13 PM · #50
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by ryand:

The Bible is filled with things that appear to be "contradictions." In fact their are many that are seemingly much more obvious contradictions, but all of them have answers even if i dont know what the answers are to them.

I don’t know if I could ever describe what it mean to have “faith” more succinctly.


Nicely said. :)

I would go a step further, and call the religious use of "faith" to be a perfect example of DoubleSpeak.

The secular meaning of "faith" is a prediction about something based upon evidence. For example, I have faith in my car (being reliable), because I have experienced it starting and running for me on countless occasions. I can predict its behavior based on its proven history of performance, the evidence of its reliability.

The religious definition of "faith", however, is diametrically opposed to the secular definition. Because there is no actual evidence of God, there is no proof that any belief in him is reliable. There simply is no good reason to believe in God. Therefore, the religious use the term "faith" to describe their belief in God, despite the lack of evidence of his existence.

Not diametrically opposed at all. The Christian definition of faith comes straight from Scripture:

Originally posted by Hebrews 11:1-3:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


Sounds just like the "faith" you put into your car. You are "sure" of what you "hope" for ( that is, that your car will start the next time you attempt to use it ), and certain of what you do not see ( that is, that your ignition wiring, starter, fuel pump, injectors, etc. are still fully functional, that no carbon buildup has affected your fuel injectors, etc. ).

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

To me, an avowed atheist, the idea of religious faith is actually more troubling than a mere belief despite evidence. And that is because there is so much evidence that God does NOT exist. At least not any God that I would consider worthy of praise or adulation!

Why is there evil in this world?

Because man ( and the angels ) have free will.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Why do children suffer illnesses and die?

Because of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Etc, etc. Why doesn't God just show himself once in a while - like good old timey Gods like Zeus?

1) He does show Himself - but only to believers. Those who do not believe, refuse to acknowledge that it IS Him in spite of the evidence.
2) God is not LIKE good old timey gods.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Why should anybody revere a God that allows - let alone scornfully causes - human suffering?

Loaded question - akin to "Does your wife still complain when you beat her?

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

So, to me, religious "faith" represents a willfully blithe cognitive dissonance. A decision to not be aware of the real world, to not care enough about reality to objectively discern it. A decision to accept dogma without critical thinking. A conscious decision to live in a world without reason.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to hold it.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Which leads to discussions about evolution with people who criticize it without knowing anything about it. Who remain faithfully ignorant of the world in which they live, and intolerant of those who do not embrace their dogma.

Atheists shouldn't enter into discussions with such people. On the other hand, many atheists are confident enough to enter into discussions with people who criticize (macro) Evolution that DO know something about it, who are NOT ignorant of the world in which they live, and are NOT intolerant of those who do not embrace their dogma.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 09:40:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 09:40:05 PM EDT.