Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just checked all of Not Ready's posts in this thread, and I didn't see an answer to the question. It's a question that can be answered in one word: Do you believe that there were humans living on the planet at the same time that dinosaurs were? Yes or no?

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstood what I meant about NotReady's answer in another post applying to your question. Nevermind. As for your question, I already answered this in another thread. I said that although I might be answering out of ignorance, I do not believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time as man. I also said that that is off the subject of the thread, as it is off the subject here also.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is the reason


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know when God first created man. I don't know the date God created trex. I don't know the date God created the universe. I don't know the date God created earth. The Bible doesn't give a date. Man gives a date. Man gives more than one date. Man gives the dates based on unprovable assumptions. Man may be right. Man may be wrong. I don't know.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I said that although I might be answering out of ignorance, I do not believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time as man. I also said that that is off the subject of the thread, as it is off the subject here also.

[/ QUOTE ]

d00d didn't u ever c jurassic park?

omg christians r dumb

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
omg christians r dumb

[/ QUOTE ]

Whereas you are the genius troll who maintains that "experienced" pot smokers do not suffer impairment in ability to drive when stoned as do drunks. Lay off the weed before posting.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

txag, please answer my question. If the Bible is true, word for word, then who found Jesus' tomb empty?

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Man gives more than one date. Man gives the dates based on unprovable assumptions. Man may be right. Man may be wrong. I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how you replaced "science" with "Man". And how you think the bible is a source of pre-historic and scientific knowledge. Why don't you go research the difference between a "theory" and a hypothesis in science. It's pathetic to see a fellow christian resort to such mealy-mouthed evasions so as not to face the question squarely as not whether the bible is true, but is his own interpretation and that of his denomination is true. This should be a matter of both intellectual and spiritual integrity.

I know this sounds harsh and I have been sarcastic in the past. But our Saviour said yes when He meant yes and no when He meant No, and never evaded except on purpose so as not to enlighten those with closed minds and hearts. Science is merely an explanation of how God's creation works, and there should be no conflict between true biblical interpretations and true science. If there is, especially when it would take a parlay for multiple scientific theories to be wrong in order to make your specific biblical interpretations right, then how can you persist in such interpretations when there are other christian denominations without such conflicts?

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, debating Noah's ark?

ok, here's my argument. *ahem*

You.

Can't.

Fit.

Every.

Species.

On.

One.

[censored].

BOAT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../arksize13.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't take this the wrong way... but, if you believe that, you're a looney.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, debating Noah's ark?

ok, here's my argument. *ahem*

You.

Can't.

Fit.

Every.

Species.

On.

One.

[censored].

BOAT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../arksize13.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't take this the wrong way... but, if you believe that, you're a looney.

[/ QUOTE ]
I noticed you didn't attack the substance of the argument. Calling me a name doesn't make it any more or less true.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

your specific biblical interpretations right


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? You hate Protestants so much you seldom make any sense when talking to them.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[/ QUOTE ]I noticed you didn't attack the substance of the argument. Calling me a name doesn't make it any more or less true. [ QUOTE ]


I don't think you're going to get many challenges with this one because most people here think that the argument is too dumb to discuss.

I won't act surprised when people don't seriously debate my argument that a pink zebra who lives behind the moon controls my breakfast cravings.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
omg christians r dumb

[/ QUOTE ]

Whereas you are the genius troll who maintains that "experienced" pot smokers do not suffer impairment in ability to drive when stoned as do drunks. Lay off the weed before posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. You are actually giving him a hard time because he claimed it is easier to drive when you are very stoned than when you are drunk?

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are telling me, however, that it was impossible to build the ark based on the technology of Noah's time, you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to tell me that this amazing feat of engineering was possible without divine intervention?

If yes, I won't dignify your answer with a response.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I'm not saying that divine intervention didn't occur. I've never said anything different. What I maintain is that the description of the account in the Bible is true.

As for the engineering of the ark, this group of Korean naval architects disagree with you.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
You hate Protestants so much you seldom make any sense when talking to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my previous post again. I bet no one else here had trouble understanding it including non-believers. I don't hate protestants but only evasive and untruthful assertions to allow one to maintain a flawed biblical interpretation. Such assertions are maintaining that various scientific theories are less accurate than they really are, and saying "I don't know" just because the bible is not primarily a scientific and historical tract so you can mindlessly parrot an answer, instead of using your God-given intellect and God-given science to help arrive at a correct interpretation, instead of one your great-great-grandfather held.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, debating Noah's ark?

ok, here's my argument. *ahem*

You.

Can't.

Fit.

Every.

Species.

On.

One.

[censored].

BOAT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../arksize13.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't take this the wrong way... but, if you believe that, you're a looney.

[/ QUOTE ]
I noticed you didn't attack the substance of the argument. Calling me a name doesn't make it any more or less true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're observant. But I guess this means you took it the wrong way. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

evasive and untruthful assertions to allow one to maintain a flawed biblical interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be specific.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
txa, I've got a question regarding the ark. Did the flood indeed cover the entire earth, so that all humans and land based mammals now living descend from those on the ark?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, BluffThis. Common belief is that it did indeed cover the whole Earth, but there is also a convincing Biblical argument that it was a local flood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes sure! And Noah had to go an fetch all the animals specific from each continent, right? Kangaroos from Australia, kiwis from New Zealand, penguins from antartica, bisons from the americas, etc. So, did he build smaller arks to go and fetch them all? Not forgetting that he had to go and put them back in their proper places after the flood, unles they were going to skip and hop and swim all the way there as good homing pigeons.

No records of those travels of Noah's either and that would have been an achievement that was only technologically possible in the 19th century and I am sure more worthy of records than many other trivia contained in the bible.

Common, people, I am sorry but I will now refrain from making comments/replies to any one who claims that the bible if literally true. The absordutity of the position is so grotesque, that I feel there is no chance for those people. They will lead their life, blind to reality, stiffled by their narrow morality, in cuckoo's land.

Good luck.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

evasive and untruthful assertions to allow one to maintain a flawed biblical interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at your post above about "Man" having certain answers that might be right or wrong, and about "unprovable" assumptions. My point is that it is YOU who need to be specific if you think there is evidence enough that certain scientific theories are wrong and not make vague artful dodger-esque statments so that the conflicts between your biblical interpretations and science not be made more manifest and thus their implications for your holding a specific interpretation forced to be dealt with.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

not make vague artful dodger-esque


[/ QUOTE ]

My goal in life isn't to please you concerning what I believe or not about science. If you have something specific, go ahead.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Would such a fabrication be so demanding as the God of the Bible?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. The God of the Bible is absolutely the LAST God any sinner in his right mind would invent. The fact that people don't get this is proof of their bias and lack of knowledge of Christianity.

What God did DS invent? What God did Islam invent? What God did Mormonism invent? But an honest Christian will tell you that he can never take his salvation for granted and it's theoretically possible he is still under the wrath of the God he "invented"? Most of us aren't that stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it an assumption that a believer is the creator of this possible fabrication? Why couldn't it be someone who wanted to create a religion that they could take advantage of? Much like a parent who tells "ghost" stories to keep their children well behaved.

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it an assumption that a believer is the creator of this possible fabrication? Why couldn't it be someone who wanted to create a religion that they could take advantage of?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which someone are you referring to? The Bible is made up of 66 books by (can't remember the exact number) of writers covering 1500 years or so. Who's the inventor and what advantage did he get?

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whereas you are the genius troll who maintains that "experienced" pot smokers do not suffer impairment in ability to drive when stoned as do drunks. Lay off the weed before posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making an ad hominem argument. You are also once again ignoring objective evidence in favor of your unsubstantiated beliefs.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc...20808%20939.htm

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas you are the genius troll who maintains that "experienced" pot smokers do not suffer impairment in ability to drive when stoned as do drunks. Lay off the weed before posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making an ad hominem argument. You are also once again ignoring objective evidence in favor of your unsubstantiated beliefs.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc...20808%20939.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

purnell,

Had I not assumed that Bluff did not equate the two levels of impairment, I would have corrected him already, purnell. There is some impairment to driving while stoned, although no where near the degree that alcohol impairs driving. (Many of us here could have told the DOT that and saved us taxpayers who knows how many $$$ with this study.)

If Bluff equates the levels of impairment then he does stand corrected.

RJT

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

I was under the impression that he was equating the two. It is clear that THC intoxication impairs one's ability to safely drive a car in traffic, and if the poster to whom Bluff was referring believes that it doesn't, he is also ignoring the evidence.