24 Forum Posts by "jonjon123"
ya it's dificult to make certain arguments on this subject because at a point you kind of have to realize you are dealing with Gods logic and at a point we will have to understand that we in fact couldn't understand god's logic if he does exist.
oh well i've had fun talking to yall peace out im gonna take a nap
think about it geographically.
jeeez
most of the conflicts in the prophecies were over palestine so it is litteraly between the north(syria) and the south (egypt)
oh and why don't you provide those innacurate prophecies that your so eager to talk about because i have never seen them. and i have seen many accurate prophecies.
i don't know much about this nylon eating stuff but it seems that it's a little bit controversial from what i found i think i might have even read something about this in a book a long time ago.
this site claims that they can provide problems with the nylon eaters idea. again i know very little about this but here is the site.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i 3/bacteria.asp
as for the prophecies there are just so many so i'll have to choose a few. they are very specific.
Daniel 11:1-2:
"In the first year of Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a
protection for him. And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to
arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as he
becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of
Greece."
[Darius the Mede was viceroy in Babylon during the reign of Cyrus II (a.k.a. Cyrus the
Great, who ruled from c.550-530 BC; Note: the dates provided here and following represent a
period of monarchial reign, not the ruler's actual life-span). The three kings which succeed
Cyrus were Cambyses II (530-521 BC), Smerdis (521 BC) and Darius I (521-485 BC), son of
Hystaspes. The fourth king, Xerxes (486-465 BC), excelling in wealth and power, launched an
elaborate campaign against Greece.]
king of north = syrian kings
king of south = egyptian kings
"Now in those times many will rise up against the king of the South; the
violent ones among your people will also lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they will fall down. Then the king of the North will come, cast up a siege ramp and capture a well-fortified city; and the forces of the South will not stand their ground, not even their choicest troops, for there will be no strength to make a stand. But he who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will be able to withstand him; he will also stay for a time in the Beautiful Land, with destruction in his hand."
[Egypt rose up in rebellion against Ptolemy IV, a rebellion which continued well into the
reign of his successor, Ptolemy V (205-181 BC), and during the latter's reign Antiochus III
and Philip V (221-179) of Macedon agreed to divide up Ptolemaic interests abroad. Thus "many" rose up against the king of the South, though the rebellion was eventually suppressed ("they fell down"). The king of the North, as mentioned a moment ago, returned and routed the king of South, in whom there was "no strength to make a stand." The Beautiful Land refers to Palestine which finally came under Seleucid rule after more than a century of Ptolemaic supremacy.]
oh right, my friend was telling me about an argumant against evolution he' been looking into.
he claimed that two animals that were supposed to have split evolutionary long ago yet the have certain similarstructures like eyes. so they would have both had to independently evolve eyes.
the christian idea of creationism is that all creatures were created within six days. after the "fall" all creatures began to genetically deteriorate. i am going to jump over a large chunk of time to the flood where noah loaded all the land vertabrates in an ark. the ark landed in mt. Ararat which is perfect for reproductive isolation. so after a lot of information losing speciatian you get the diversity of species we see today.
when i say information losing speciation i'm refering to the fact that all whitnessed speciation has been information negative whether it's beneficial or not it will not lead to evolution. so think twice before bringing up darwins finches.
as for evidence towards a divine creator you can look to the old testiment for oddly specific prophecies about the outcome of groups of people. they are so amazing that the obvious explanation is that they were made after the events that they foretold. BUT, the dead sea scrolls that were found confirmed the age of the old testimant.
actualy how about you offer me the so called proof of evolution.
With creationists winning? Evolutionists are the ones with real proof!
Creationists find their proof from some random-stupid-creationist-proof generator.
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha your among the most pompous people i have ever seen.
now i most definately offer proof, and while i'm at it i can poke a few good sized wholes in evolution.
now that so called evidence was pretty stupid which makes me angry because there is just so much good evidence against evolution.
that guy makes creationists look stupid.
At 5/26/07 12:11 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 5/25/07 06:13 PM, fahrenheit wrote:
Radiation is the basis for radiometric dating, Gravity is the force through which we can determine the age of the universe. BOTH contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps more subtly, but it's still there.
I'm sorry but no. no offense but i would just figure that everyone is aware of this argument. when god created adam did he create a fedis? obviously not, he created adam with age already "built in" why couldn't he do the same for the earth. are you saying that he could only create a brand spank'n new earth still molted and gooey.
Evolution on the other hand explains how things came to be, while the church says otherwise. Which is why some people dont believe in evolution.
there is also evidence that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth with one another. i cant quote this evidence right now but if you give me an hour then i'll get right on that
The Catholic Church is behind both Evolution and the Big Bang universe (avoiding the No Boundary Proposal for the moment, lol). Only the most fundamentalist churches actively deny evolution.
from my experience going to church i'd really have to say that most don't believe in evolution. my word trumps yours because i go to church.
Your right, but its about ignorance on science. They may or may not be ignorant in general, only in the scientific area.
it is not ignorance. by chance do you do what an S-curve graph is. it' one of the most basic concepts in biology to graph the growth of a population. when some one makes one of these humans they typically do so to find a carying capacity. but i know two scientists who used it to graph an approximate start of humans. the got about 5,000 B.C. this just about what the bible says.
You're naive if you think they'll only be ignorant about a single subject. I also would consider them unfit for the presidency if they were ignorant about the military, world affairs, economics, social sciences, infrasturcture, etc, etc, etc. But this is the only one they admitted on TV (later equivocation or not, which I don't believe for a second).
No, the argument is whether or not that person becomes less intelligent or less likely to be a good leader because of his beliefs.Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The belief doesn't cause the intelligence (or lack thereof), the intelligence causes the belief.
Evolution isnt as obvious as that, which is why so many people dont believe in it.It's as obvious as any other scientific field. Individual or public ignorance and stupidity notwithstanding.
how on earth could you make such an idiodic statement there is plenty of evidence against evolution.
Christians dont deny facts, they deny evolution or science.
we deny evolution not science. the bible has a lot of interesting things in it about science.
for instance:
Job states, in speaking of God, that "He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). That, of course, is a well-known fact today. The earth is literally "hanging upon nothing." But we must remember that this was not the concept of Job's day. Men in Job's time felt the earth was possibly suspended on the backs of four elephants, which stood on the back of a giant turtle! Or, they felt that the earth was suspended upon the shoulders of a supernaturally strong man!
Dot dot dot
If you show a literal christian a chart that says amusment park accidents have been increasing since 1985 they arent going to respond "no they arent".Maybe not, but social sciences show that kids taught to protect themselves during sex are far less likely to get STDs, they deny doing that is good for their kids (ignoraing (root of ignorance) the fact that abstinecne-onry education doesn't lower underage sexual activity at all.
it would be hard to find a christian who says unprotected sex is better than protected. all they say is that waiting 'till marriage is safer and all around better. that isn't ignorance that is just a different and justified oppinion.
Fundamentalists are actively and deliberately ignorant of MANY things. This is not a quality of a person suitible for the presidency.
again that is a completely unfair oppinion.
The qualities I list and a literalist stance are mutually exclusive.
Your right, which is why I wouldnt vote for a person where their lack of belief in evolution is the only thing I knew about him. But thats not the case, just because your ignorant to the science community does not mean your ignorant to everything.
i must sound like a broken record but lack of beleif in evolution is not ignorance.
Thinking this'll be the ONLY thing they're going to ignore is, quite frankly, stupid.
ignore what? arguments can be made on either side of evolution.
i personaly know many scintists who do not accept.
I mean, if I hit you in the face (with a chair, say), would you not flinch if I picked up a lamp and came towards you?Are you saying a literal christian wouldnt?
that analagy was entertining but unfortunately it doesn't aply. people think that if you follow the bible exactly you'll end up trying to purge non believers. the bible actually says you should not do that.
Again, metaphor. We've hit them again and again and again with evolutionary proof, and yet they never flinch.
argh... if you put me through anymore stress i will start coughing up blood. arguments can be made either way. it really sounds like you got information off one extreemly one-sided web site
Its a well though theory, but it isnt finished. Its the most likely scenario, but we dont know everything about evolution yet, which is why its still a theory.
thank you. oh my god finally a voice of reason
Um, you're showing the same ignorance of what a theory is as Memorize. Theory is the highest level of truth a scientific idea can attain. It will always be a theory.
The findings go against religion, not the theory.
there are still major unknowns in the theory of evolution.
...
Tell me, what, exactly, is the difference between the theory and what the theory predicts?
Once again, literal christians arent against the theory of the relativity. Only its findings.
care to elaborate
Gay marriage, sex education, stem cell research, funding for science education, funding for scientific research... do I need to continue?
in theory you should care about a leaders standings on those topics not his religion
his religion may effect his standings however it also may not. so you should just care how hes stands on specific issues.
So do I, we have to look at the idea that even though a president wouldnt change his mind about evolution he might change his mind about not going to war, or dealing out more money to education and public security.Why would he change his mind about one thing and not another? Why would you assume he would be completely reasonable about all other subjects? It's like expecting a different shape of object to fall up.
why would you assume that because he does not believe in what you beleive in that he would be completely incompetant
Oh, and I would just like to point this out. Heres a poll taken by CBS in 2005, it shows that "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. "Then 51% of the American population is wrong. Apparently ignorance isn't just for the minority any more.
are you happy now! when i read your retarted statement i jammed my fist into the monitor. i had to buy a new one. i expect you to pay for the damages. oh plus the medical bill.
your logic in this situation is basically since you know everthing anyone who dissagrees with you is wrong...
how could i have been so naive?
Well I'm sorry but your describing it wrong, thats not what energy is. What your doing is abstracting both of the arguments to the point at which they're equivalent, problem is you've abstracted them to the point that they no long correctly describe them selfs. Its a type of logical fallacy, who's nomenclature I can't recall; It's an invalid comparison.
yeah if you boil down two ideas then at a point they will become so general that they comply
peace out for i while.
i'll be back when i know more
Being 14 is no excuse for being ignorant
i didn't mean for that to be an excuse
but seriously, i'm gonna come back in eight years and start this over. untill then i think im going to stick to talking stupid people .
At 4/21/07 09:11 PM, Alx-xlA wrote: Sorry, but I missed something...
P.S. If the Grand Canyon was created by a flood, why does it have a sharp bend in it?
the material was deposited by the flood and while the material was still "gooey" or not yet hardened a river cut those nice curves and bends.
At 4/23/07 05:08 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:At 4/23/07 04:25 PM, jonjon123 wrote: if you interperate the bible literally you will find some interesting thingsYes, thats its inconsistent with the world.
you know what your talking about in the realm of physics obviously. and i am only a child so i will stop arguing with you on that subject.
however i must disagree with you strongly about this. you can find many scriptures that if interperated literally turn out to be true.
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing"
this suggests the concept of space, and the earth basically just floating. we know this know but in that time it was beleived that the earth was on a large pedistal.
"it is he who sits upon the circle of the earth"
in hebrew circle means literally with roundness or spherical. people of that time believed that the earth was flat.
a man named fountain noticed in a bible scripture that it mentioned "paths of the sea" he was the first to discover currents.
in genesis it says that "the world was finished and all the host of them" on its own that isn't too interesting but the choice of words in hebrew is interesting. the word he used for finished actually means never to be done again. this is the first law of thermodynamics. please don' t get on my back about that, we've established you know more about that than me.
on several occasions in the bible it says that the eath is "wearing out". this is basically entropy. again don't bother me about the definition, i am only 14. what i am sayin is that basically this is true.
in the old testament god commands that circumcision be preformed on the eighth day of the newborns life. this is because this is when their vitamin K is the highest providing optimum blood clotting.
in the bible it says that "through her seed and thine seed" a baby is born. this suggests that both male and female are required for birth. back then it was beleived that the woman had no part in it. in fact writers back then suggested that the woman could be replaced by warm mud.... nasty
At 4/23/07 12:40 AM, SolInvictus wrote:At 4/22/07 10:07 PM, jonjon123 wrote: people think that taking religion to the extreem is bad but hitler took science to the extreem and that didn't turn out to hot.bet you didn't know Hitler was a creationist.
he wasn't a creationist it is common knowledge that he used evolution to justify mass Geneside
creationism and the beleif of evolution are conflicting beliefs
At 4/22/07 11:14 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:At 4/22/07 09:58 PM, jonjon123 wrote:yes it even says that in the bible.The bible is not a sciences text, don't try to use it as one. Trying to do so simply soils, and defaces the message that its trying to teach you.
"the world will unwind like an old garment"
if you interperate the bible literally you will find some interesting things
the second law of thermodynamics,or entropy, says that everything is going from organized to dissorganised. energy is also going from usable to un-usable. for the big bang and evolution to be true things wold have had to have "wound up" rather than "wound down" which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.No that's not what the second law says. It a common explanation for describing the second law, but it's not the second law. All the second law requires is that globe entropy must increase in a closed system the local entropy of a system can do what ever the hell it likes as the local entropy of a closed system is open with in the system. Our solar system is not close because it's part of a larger system, namely the universe, as such the local entropy of its components (earth) don't have to increase. Energy from the sun is constantly being released and exhausted out into the black beyond. Additionally there is still some debate as to weather the universe is open or not.
look, my main point was the fact that the world is in fact "winding down" if you don't beleive me you are in serios denial.
the sun is winding down as well
what i mean is things will run out. once you burn a fuel it isn't retreivable
OK, and Hitler was also a creationist, so what's your point?
he most deffinately was not a creationist because he used evilution to justify mass geneside
he beleived he was the next step in evolution
The Big Bang Theory is that the universe is expanding will soon reach a point where it will retract.
no one really understands the forces of gravity. the fact that steven hawking made that assumption is something that i find very funny. steven hawking is litteraly wrong most of the time. he once tried to prove that cause and effect aren't related. he failed
by definition effect is something that has a cause.
The argument against this is thats not what the second law says or states. The whole, universe becoming more disorganized, or breaking down is a simple explanation for a very complex idea; that of entropy. The second law requires the total entropy of a closed system to increase, but it says nothing of an open system. Earth and its biosphere are open systems, so this argument doesn't apply, its also possible that the universe is an open system (Note, the universe being an open system isn't the same as the universe being open.), but that's neither here nor there.
As an aside any one who brings up the second law of thermodynamics as evidence against evolution is ether being purposefully deceptive, or completely ignorant of thermodynamics, and physics. Ether one dose not look good for the person making the claim.
the universe would go through entropy unless an outside force was acting on it. or are you suggesting in this universe there is an effect without a cause.
your breaking laws of physics. and here i thought that our arguments had to make sense.
At 4/21/07 10:12 AM, benguam wrote: well i reckon that religions fine unless you take it to the extreme, like sacrificing goats because the people in the bible do. as long as religion doesn't get in the way of clear thinking science its fine by me
people think that taking religion to the extreem is bad but hitler took science to the extreem and that didn't turn out to hot.
he used "embreology", a practice that is still in use today to supposidly "proveing" evolution.
At 4/22/07 02:22 AM, charly13243 wrote: I recently heard that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution because the universe is breaking down slowly and evolution claims the opposite. It seems to make sense, but it also seems to be too easy an excuse to dismiss the theory of evolution.
What is the argument against this common argument?
yes it even says that in the bible.
"the world will unwind like an old garment"
the second law of thermodynamics,or entropy, says that everything is going from organized to dissorganised. energy is also going from usable to un-usable. for the big bang and evolution to be true things wold have had to have "wound up" rather than "wound down" which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
At 4/19/07 04:54 PM, Drakim wrote:At 4/19/07 04:33 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: god exists why would the bible lie?Because the Bible was written to control people? Or it was mistranslated, or manipulated over the ages to benefit some ruler? Or it is an old joke that got carried away? The possibilities are endless.
There are several versions of Holy Scripture, like the Torah and the Old Testament, which is basically the same (if I have my facts right), yet slightly different. So, one of them has to be the one that was changed from the divine truth, or both of them. How do you know which is right?
Furthermore, there is the Mormon Bible, and the Koran. And a lot of more holy scripture. How do you know that these are wrong and the Bible is right?
I'm not arguing that the Bible is automatically false, but, I'm arguing that taking it as true without any question is directly ignorant. You should take nothing without question.
this reminds me of what i was saying earlier. a man named Ivin Panin discovered a code in the bible or "divine spell check" i highly dought that the writers of the bible were smart enough to incorperate this code.
i see what you are saying though. the bible has been used to manipulate people but the simple solution is learn about the bible youself. don't trust what a random guy tells you about how to interprate the bible.
not even me. well..... actually OBEY ME
At 4/19/07 03:49 PM, freddorfman wrote: god created science the religious people who say only the bible is right dont get me wrong i belive in jeseus and science but god just told us some stuff in the bibile but he left the rest for us to discover
like i said earlier if you interprate the bible litterally you will find some interesting stuff. my father is a scientist at nasa and we talk about this stuff a lot.
i have no problem with science at all in fact i love physics. but there are a couple of findings that were disproven and are still showing up in my bio text book.
for instance the list of organs in humans that aren't used is an argument for evolution. however they severely need to update the list. my bio teacher got really pissed when i brought it up.
the appendix is mainly the most debatable organ. i have from a reliable source, a doctor who i believe knows what he is doing, that the appendix does in fact have a purpose. not a big one but none the less it has a purpose.
the man who discovered the code was ivan panin
here are some sites
www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin.html
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/102/
what is starting to bother me is that people have gained the idea that christians only follow by blind faith. This bothers me because i enjoy leayrning about the bible and in fact if you interprate the bible litteraly you will learn some cool stuff.
in genesis it sufggests people lived for hundreds of years. recently they have found records of kings living for hundreds of years.
the bible also suggests that "God reached out and placed the world on nothing." this assumption is in fact correct and wasn't learned but centuries after the formation of the bible.
the bible also maps the water cycle correctly and suggests that water "rises of the earth" or evaperation. it seems basic to you but back then it was un heard of.
there was a sailor a long time ago who was a christian. he was very ill. his son would read the bible to him in hopes he would recover. he did and he remembered a a passage about "paths and forces beneath the sea." he dicovered currents.
one day there was a cristian who was fluent in many languages.he had a bible in the original language. he also knew that in that language they would use letters to represent numbers. he one day noticed a code and decided to basically devote his life to learn more about this code. the code was enourmous and consisted of prime numbers but mostly seven. he developed a hypothesis that this was God's divine "spell check" a scientific organisation repoted his fings as overwhelming support of the idea that the bible is the word of god.
proof is on the site, please go-
www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evi dence/Science_in_the_Bible.htm
