Quote from pinoykid13 :

I can see that there is mass confusion with beliefs. through what I believe

1. there are 6000 years in world's history.
2. Darwin was right with evolution but had a wrong idea
3. the big bang theory wasn't created till 200 years after darwin's death.
4. Sabbath was changed to Sunday because of Constantine wanting to combine his forces with the christians.
5. I follow the word of God not the words of man.

1. Been proven wrong by science. Were the dinosaur fossils put there by god to confuse us?
2. How can he be right with the wrong idea? Althrough darwin was very relegious and his work caused great conflict with in himself
3. Darwin studied life, not the creation of the universe, so what this has to do with anything I don't know.
4. The bible was proberly writtern by the romans as well.
5. Have you ever heard the word of god?

Quote from pinoykid13 :

I can see that there is mass confusion with beliefs. through what I believe

1. there are 6000 years in world's history.
2. Darwin was right with evolution but had a wrong idea
3. the big bang theory wasn't created till 200 years after darwin's death.
4. Sabbath was changed to Sunday because of Constantine wanting to combine his forces with the christians.
5. I follow the word of God not the words of man.

My condolences.

It's just, you're above posts may cause a bit of a reaction with some of the old timers in here....

We'll see.



Edit: Lol, too late, and i have a feeling there's more to come, sit tight.

Quote from pinoykid13 :

I can see that there is mass confusion with beliefs. through what I believe

1. there are 6000 years in world's history.
2. Darwin was right with evolution but had a wrong idea
3. the big bang theory wasn't created till 200 years after darwin's death.
4. Sabbath was changed to Sunday because of Constantine wanting to combine his forces with the christians.
5. I follow the word of God not the words of man.

1. The world is a lot older than 6000 years. Bit over 4 billion years at last count. Do some research and you'll learn how people find stuff like that out.

2. Tell me why Darwin's idea was wrong. And tell me what he got right.

3. The Big Bang theory has NOTHING to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution is NOT an all-encompassing theory of the entire universe. It only explains the diversity of life. Stop confusing the two.

4. I didn't know that

5. As long as you're a decent, honest person it doesn't matter which set of words you follow

Quote from fragile_dog :

1. Been proven wrong by science. Where the dinosaur fossils put there by god to confuse us?
2. How can he be right with the wrong idea? Althrough darwin was very relegious and his work caused great conflict with in himself
3. Darwin studied life, not the creation of the universe, so what this has to do with anything I don't know.
4. The bible was proberly writtern by the romans as well.
5. Have you ever heard the word of god?

1.How has how many billions of years been proven right?
2.right with wrong idea because people and animals have to adapt to their environments
3.darwin did study life but those who researched after darwin's death took it out of context
4. Paul is a prophet in the Bible and he was roman
5. The word of God=Bible

Quote from Mazz4200 :

It's just, you're above posts may cause a bit of a reaction with some of the old timers in here....

We'll see.



Edit: Lol, too late, and i have a feeling there's more to come, sit tight.

i expect it

im not an old timer to religion

Quote from pinoykid13 :

I can see that there is mass confusion with beliefs. through what I believe

1. there are 6000 years in world's history.
So you reckon that a single landmass called Pangea, which existed countless millions of years before the Dinosaurs (Oh and they were around for 150 million yrs) has split up and wondered around the planet to form the present land formations in 6000 yrs?

5. I follow the word of God not the words of man.
And these words of God were written by whome?

Nope, you are going to have to come up with something called proof.

Quote from Polyracer :

Nope, you are going to have to come up with something called proof.

6000 years or about 6000 years comes from the calculations of the lives of those in the bible.

the bible wasn't written by one person. Some bibles can tell u who wrote what in them

Quote from pinoykid13 :

1.How has how many billions of years been proven right?
2.right with wrong idea because people and animals have to adapt to their environments
3.darwin did study life but those who researched after darwin's death took it out of context
4. Paul is a prophet in the Bible and he was roman
5. The word of God=Bible

1. Through the use of carbon dating technology, the layers of sediment adn rock, etc etc, theres lots of ways of proving how old something is.
2. And thats what darwin said, evolution changes a species to live in its envioment. So how was he right with wrong ideas?
3. So you know what context his research was done in yes? and those afterwards presumbly being either historians or bioligests them selves don't.
4. Meh
5. The bible has changed through translation over the years, and now proberly reads alot different in parts, so its the word of god, written down by a few hundred people, then translated over teh centries again and again and again.

Quote from Hankstar :

4. I didn't know that

That's probably because it's not entirely true

Shhh, but, it's so he could get both the Christians and the Pagen Sun worshipers 'celebrating' on the same day. Mainly for socio'economic reasons. Nothing to do with the army . Funny how it was the Pagen tradition that won out And funny how the scriptures don't endorse it.

Quote from pinoykid13 :

If God controlled us 100%, every1 would go crazy.

You may want to reconsider that statement. You imply that God wants us to go nuts.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Most are "Born Again" after they've been incarcerated.

Nope, that statistic is based on when they go in. Good thought though.

Quote from pinoykid13 :

I can see that there is mass confusion with beliefs. through what I believe

1. there are 6000 years in world's history.

So glue has been invented for longer than the world has existed. Righty ho

Quote :

3. the big bang theory wasn't created till 200 years after darwin's death.

More like 90 years (between publication of On the Origin of Species and Hubble's. One is the origins of life, the other is origins of the universe. Different issues.

Quote :

5. I follow the word of God not the words of man.

please could you Stop idle and Seemingly arbitrary capitalisation in Sentences containing the word god. i Noticed that you did not capitalise Darwin, which i Feel sure you know is a proper Noun.

I would post something intelligent, but I've run out of intelligence for today so I had to resort to being human grammar check. Come back tomorrow

Quote from fragile_dog :

1. Through the use of carbon dating technology, the layers of sediment adn rock, etc etc, theres lots of ways of proving how old something is.
2. And thats what darwin said, evolution changes a species to live in its envioment. So how was he right with wrong ideas?
3. So you know what context his research was done in yes? and those afterwards presumbly being either historians or bioligests them selves don't.
4. Meh
5. The bible has changed through translation over the years, and now proberly reads alot different in parts, so its the word of god, written down by a few hundred people, then translated over teh centries again and again and again.

1. carbon dating isn't always accurate. I have tried it at my college. U get one number then when u test again u get a whole different number.
2. darwin was right, other researchers where wrong.
3. there are many arguements concerning this, because not all historians and biologist believe the same thing.
4.
5. i agree with that. The theory that people go directly to heaven is a result of no punctuation in early times. if u look up how the bible was printed before the printing press, they were hand written, if there was one mistake the whole book had to be rewritten.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Nope, that statistic [the prison thing] is based on when they go in. Good thought though.

Wow, thats really surprised me ! I never knew ! The Duke gets a cookie, or a slice of toast

That's quite a shocking fact tbh, sad too

Quote from pinoykid13 :

1. carbon dating isn't always accurate. I have tried it at my college. U get one number then when u test again u get a whole different number.

Carbon dating is a blunt instrument. The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5500 years, it's not really effective for short periods of time, but for longer periods of time it's a better instrument.

Quote from wsinda :

You may want to reconsider that statement. You imply that God wants us to go nuts.

thats why i said IF

Quote from pinoykid13 :

1. carbon dating isn't always accurate. I have tried it at my college. U get one number then when u test again u get a whole different number.
2. darwin was right, other researchers where wrong.
3. there are many arguements concerning this, because not all historians and biologist believe the same thing.
4.
5. i agree with that. if u look up how the bible was printed before the printing press, they were hand written, if there was one mistake the whole book had to be rewritten.

1. Didn't say it was accurate, but it can date stuff to with a few centries or thousands of years, which with the age the earth is nothing.
2. Darwin was right in what way? Other researchers are wrong in what way? Science is based on theories, if you come up with a theory can show it working, then its valid, if someone comes along with a different theory thats more plausable then you where wrong, thats whats great about science, people never accept something just as, they always trying to fix it, make it stronger.
3. Yes arguments, but read what I said and answer what I asked.
So you know what context his research was done in yes?
5 (or 4 now). Which means its proberly more inaccurate then people think. What if they thought the translation was right, but really it muddled things up?

Quote from pinoykid13 :

6000 years or about 6000 years comes from the calculations of the lives of those in the bible.

the bible wasn't written by one person. Some bibles can tell u who wrote what in them

So you put all your faith in this one book?, written by some simple people who would think that a wheel is cutting edge technology?

Words that have been misstranslated and altered over the last two thousand years and bear little truth to what the original authors wrote.

No thanks I'll stick with thousands of modern books that corroborate each others principles and theory's, all of which are open to scrutiny and correction and have passed the test of actually proving what is written in them with modern knowledge and techniques

Quote from duke_toaster :

Nope, that statistic is based on when they go in. Good thought though.



So glue has been invented for longer than the world has existed. Righty ho



More like 90 years (between publication of On the Origin of Species and Hubble's. One is the origins of life, the other is origins of the universe. Different issues.



please could you Stop idle and Seemingly arbitrary capitalisation in Sentences containing the word god. i Noticed that you did not capitalise Darwin, which i Feel sure you know is a proper Noun.

I would post something intelligent, but I've run out of intelligence for today so I had to resort to being human grammar check. Come back tomorrow

i forgot to capitalise Darwin. I did that cause they are both names. I believe that God is a person. this is just a thread from someone who wanted to know about our opinions. and its like 2:30 pm in america so..... I didn't look to offend people with these statements
i wasnt sure about the 90 year thing so i threw up a number. but ur right

Quote from Polyracer :

So you put all your faith in this one book?, written by some simple people who would think that a wheel is cutting edge technology?

Words that have been misstranslated and altered over the last two thousand years and bear little truth to what the original authors wrote.

No thanks I'll stick with thousands of modern books that corroborate each others principles and theory's, all of which are open to scrutiny and correction and have passed the test of actually proving what is written in them with modern knowledge and techniques

ok thats u, i respect ur opinion. i expect that people respect mine thats y i posted

Quote from fragile_dog :

1. Didn't say it was accurate, but it can date stuff to with a few centries or thousands of years, which with the age the earth is nothing.
2. Darwin was right in what way? Other researchers are wrong in what way? Science is based on theories, if you come up with a theory can show it working, then its valid, if someone comes along with a different theory thats more plausable then you where wrong, thats whats great about science, people never accept something just as, they always trying to fix it, make it stronger.
3. Yes arguments, but read what I said and answer what I asked.
So you know what context his research was done in yes?
5 (or 4 now). Which means its proberly more inaccurate then people think. What if they thought the translation was right, but really it muddled things up?

2. i believe in natural selection. researchers try to say that people evolved from monkeys. i dont believe that personally. because science says that people are 79% dandelion and a bunch of other stuff that i can't remember cause im not ae home.
3. not 100% but i understand his main ideas
5. i think that the king james version of the bible is the most accurate version in english. for example the story of when Jesus was on the cross, 1 of the thiefs on the 2 crosses next to him said, "Lord remember me when you go to heaven." Jesus said,"I say to you, today you will be with me in heaven."

I believe that the real thing should say,"I say to you today, you will be with me in heaven."
its like this saying,

A woman without her man is nothing. versus
A woman, without her, man is nothing

Quote from pinoykid13 :

2. i believe in natural selection. researchers try to say that people evolved from monkeys. i dont believe that personally. because science says that people are 79% dandelion and a bunch of other stuff that i can't remember cause im not ae home.
3. not 100% but i understand his main ideas
5. i think that the king james version of the bible is the most accurate version in english. for example the story of when Jesus was on the cross, 1 of the thiefs on the 2 crosses next to him said, "Lord remember me when you go to heaven." Jesus said,"I say to you, today you will be with me in heaven."

I believe that the real thing should say,"I say to you today, you will be with me in heaven."
its like this saying,

A woman without her man is nothing. versus
A woman, without her, man is nothing

You believe in natural selection, but don't believe we evolved from apes? contry to all the evidence suggesting otherwise?
Still didn't answer my question to what context his research was done in, and why he was right and everyone else who built upon his theorys is wrong.
And the king james version would of been made from other translations, done on others etc etc. so it still won't be accurate, and who cares about a little bit of wrong grammer.

This is a test

A test from god?!? :P

Quote from somasleep :

It's not like Einstein (or Leibniz, Descartes, etc..) are trophies. It's just that atheists often take this very condescending you-believe-in-God-because-you-don't-understand-physics attitude.

I don't and I dislike when other people do. In my experience, the flip side is true: the pitying, condescending "you don't like God because you don't understand the bible properly" attitude is prevalent, even in my relatively secular, fundie-free country.

Quote :

I believe we are intelligent, intentional, conscious, empathic beings because we come from a source (God) who has those attributes. It's not that science hasn't explained them yet. It's that science CANNOT explain these attributes because these attributes are not the domain of science.

Wrong. You simply say/assume/wish these attributes can't be explained. You don't know they can't be and you can't know they won't be. Neither do I, but I'm not placing any stock in theories that can't even come close to reality - which is my entire point.

Quote :

There is no experiment to measure intentionality or consciousness. Science cannot answer these questions and so we can freely choose explanations which we feel make the most sense to us.

I.e. we can make them up or choose explanations that make us feel good, or smart, or smarter than other people.

As I've already stated, the absence of a natural explanation doesn't automatically mean one isn't possible. The absence of an equation/theory/concrete reason for something doesn't imply leprechauns, gods or intelligent designers did it.

There used to be a lot of things science couldn't explain, such as why we look like our parents, why the sky is blue, what the stars are made of and where they are, what exactly is sound, light, wind. Based on humanity's long, long history of assuming gods were responsible for everything that didn't yet have an explanation but later being proven conslusively wrong, I'm happy to hold out.

I'm not trying to deconvert anyone (that would be very hypocritical of me), I just want everyone to think a little bit harder about why they believe what they do, find some things out themselves and not simply assume the things they've been told are the hard truth.

That, friends, Romans, countrymen, is the very soul of science & the very reason people use it every single day to confirm or disprove theories, hypotheses and any idle thoughts on any subject. Science is not, as some seem to believe, a philosophy or dogma or some tenet to live by: it is a TOOL to be used for discovery & explanation. Science is as much a tool as a wrench, computer, pen, chainsaw or your own brain. Science is dispassionate - it's about finding what's true, about observing the world and explaining the observations. It's not about proving scientists right - history has shown that any scientists fudging their numbers or publishing bogus research quickly get shown up as frauds. Science is dispassionately about truth and is self-regulating as far as weeding out liars and cheats goes. There's no such thing as a good liar in science, the results will always give them up. This is the principle reason why "Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Design" proponents always get shown up as having nothing to contribute to scientific discussion and are viewed as hacks and wishful-thinkers by the scientific community: it's because they literally have nothing relevant to say on the subjects they're entering into, not because of their religious views.