REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A debate about debates

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8201
PAGE 4 of 4

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:48 AM

KANEMAN


"You may not want to talk about molecules like prions, viruses, or opsins; or simple forms of life like bacteria. But they show how change occurs"

Now you are being evasive. I am posting about species evolution, a species becoming another, with an entirely different chromosomal count. You have not given any scientific proof that this is possible(never mind plausible). Focusing on segmental changes and tiny genetic variations while glossing over how rare, non-positive, and non-reproductive they are in complex organisms, all while using that as proof of evolution(not adaption or natural selection) is facetious at best. So, what I think you are really saying is: I can't give any actual scientific proof for evolution, I can't debate the statistical probabilities involved, therefore I must call kaneman a troll. Only problem is most on this board would agree that I am a troll. What does that have to do with your inability to pad your opinion with scientific proof and statistical probabilities? Or your ability to stay on topic and not be purposefully evasive?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 4:29 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
I do not confuse natural selection and adaption with evolution, it is an error many a man makes. But you, genius, are smarter than that. Thank god

That's right, we are, which is how we know that Natural Selection was the mechanism put forward by Darwin to explain how Micro Evolution (note the Evolution word there) worked, which is the simple facet you seem to miss even when it's pointed out to you too the point of beating it around your head numerous times .
Quote:

Only problem is most on this board would agree that I am a troll. What does that have to do with your inability to pad your opinion with scientific proof and statistical probabilities? Or your ability to stay on topic and not be purposefully evasive?
You are talking to yourself again, better see to that.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:27 AM

KANEMAN


Citz,
Sushhhhh! Just when I was thinking better of you. What do I get? A Shitizen sighting. Complete with a well thought out post full of hostility, ridicule, and belittling hatred. God I have missed you. Where have you been, you degenerate? Still frequent the local gay bar? I can see you haven't forgotten how to talk out of your a*s. I find it to be an amazing talent you posses. How do the four fingers you keep in your as*hole not get in the way? Truly amazing...Truly......

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:31 AM

CITIZEN


Good to hear you missed me sweetheart, but as I keep telling you, all the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna make me gay, I'm sorry, but I just don't think of you that way.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Please don't feed the trolls.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:44 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Good to hear you missed me sweetheart, but as I keep telling you, all the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna make me gay, I'm sorry, but I just don't think of you that way.

Sure

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:46 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Please don't feed the trolls.


I try not to but Citz keeps responding to me. I find it hard to ignore him.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey Citizen,

glad to see you around and humorous as always !
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
You are talking to yourself again, better see to that.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:49 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Signym: Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate.


Absolutely. And the same is true vice versa. People out there have used the science of archaeology to proof that the ten commandments we have are not the ones which came down from the mountain, because various hebrew kings appended things to the commandments. And you could say to someone "I don't follow these commandments, and here's why" but you can't say "You can't follow these commandments because they aren't exactly moses', because science says so, so the religion *must* change." Because religion doesn't work like that. Science does, sure. And if it were a science, it would have to chance, and now the historical sciences will record that moses' tablets were later appended, but religion works as a mass psychology thing, the people collectively believe those rules are the will of god, so those are the rules, and science's position that they change is less important.

Quote:

Antimason: but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair.


No one is saying this. This is the sixth time I've said this. I just can't help but feel that the religious are not listening intentionally, to fulfill some fantasy to perpetuate the situation.

Religion is free to say we have a religious belief that the creator created this. They are not free to say "our faith is not a religion but it is a science which competely openly on a level field with evolution" which is what ID creationism says.

And no, it is not. It's not a science, and it does not compete with evolution, science does not work like that. One is scientific undisputed fact, with a zero point zero percent chance of being overturned (please face this fact). The other is a cockamamie fantasy constructed by people who really have nothing to do with jesus, and is in no way necessary for your religion to be correct. There shouldn't even be a conflict between the two.

I notice the concession you're looking for, but the anti-evolution position is not a bargaining chip. It has no value at all, in any way.

If you want to build an argument for your theologic position, do so on its merits.

As a religious person, I do enter into that debate, and also as a historian.

Antimason, if you say "all gods are fallen angels according to my religion" then I don't argue. But when you say "all religions are a warped form of my religion," which you have said before, then I argue because that is factually incorrect, because religions spread across the earth as a historical fact. the egyption faith, the mayan faith and hinduism all predate your faith. Moses came down from the mountain in 1440BC and before that, there was no judaism. The borrowing by moses of the sumerian creation myth, and re-attributing that creation to yhwh proves no union or continuity. You're belief that yhwh is the creator is descended from that belief, first believed by moses in 1440bc, and no earlier.

Furthermore: There is no historical link the shows an out-of-israel sort of dispersion of religions. Hinduism appears to be descended from euro-paganism, and it's possible that babylon is descended from it, egyptian religions evolved locally, as did the mayans, and those evolutions can be traced locally.

Faiths change. It's a historical fact everyone has accepted. You're not medieval because faiths change, they evolve. self-flogging based christianity did not spread as rapidly as charity-based christianity, and an evolution occured. Chances are you're not catholic at all. Your religion evolves. You're religion believes in the evolution of itself. It believes that no chrisitanity is correct, superior to its antecedent, because it has the words of jesus, which are superior, turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye.

My religion evolves too. Once taoism was just the search for the way. There was much mysticism, before Lao Tse, no one had found the way. Now we have a guide. There is some disagreement of course, but generally speaking.

Just throwing some TNT on the fire.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


7%

Well said

Just some nitpicky points.

1. Not 4000+ years. Moses: 1440BC, OT completed 300BC. Genesis maybe in it's original sumerian form 4000+ years.

Quote:

you're one dog away from the Son of Sam.


I had to quote this because I thought it was quoteable. I think no one else has ever said it. I don't know if it's true, but antimason, normally a sane individual, is gearing up for a battle with a force more powerful than he can defeat, or should. I wonder sometimes if Yhwh isn't actually satan, and El really god. But his inferred claim that, essentially, religion gets to be the science of god doesn't hold.


Genesis

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Nothing here about Odin, or even pantheons. Try again.

No one but Signy read the sign.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:19 AM

ANTIMASON


well.. thats not completely true DT; it illudes to it in so many ways.

besides the scattered references in the bible, i think this is where the book of Enoch, which was found among the dead sea scrolls, helps to shed some light on what the Israelites believed to have happened during the pre-flood period. Enoch was written during what is called the intertestamental period, which is about 400bc-ad, so it is fairly removed from the flood, but there is little doubt that these were the general beliefs passed down through jewish customs, and was also central to the early christians(since it speaks heavily about the "day of the Lord" or the coming judgement(Jesus' return)

Enoch was the 7th generation of Seth prior to the flood, when the fallen angles were busy corrupting man; Gen 5:21 says
Quote:

"altogether Enoch lived 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, becase God took him away"
( now they are making a distinction by 'took him away' rather then died, since Enoch was considered a prophet). other references to Enoch say
Quote:

"by faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. for before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God" Heb. 11:5
which kind of implies that Enoch was considered a credible source

now this is relevant because the book of Enoch deals almost specifically with Gen. 6(fallen angles) and the coming of the messiah. the bible doesnt really devote itself to what happened prior to the flood, but clearly its an underlying theme, and there is no denying it

2 Peter
Quote:

"for if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment"


Jude 1:6 says
Quote:

"and the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abondonded their own home, these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chaings for judgment on the Great Day"


both these quotes are referring to Gen. 6, when the 'Sons of God', or the angels, left their domain(the heavens) and came unto the daughters of man and had offspring by them, called the nephilim, or "fallen ones".

Numbers 13:28-33, when the Israelites were reporting about their exploration of Canaan (the tribe which inhabited their promised land) says this
Quote:

"the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. we even saw the descendants of Anak there. (31)but the men who had gone up with him said "we cant attack those people; they are stronger then we are." and they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. they said "the land we explored devours those living in it. all the people we saw there are of great size. we saw the Nephilim there(the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them"


this is a direct reference to the descendants of the fallen angels, and notice how they are affiliated with the Canaanites(which is where the bohemian grove moch sacrifice to Molech is derived from). these people worshipped these beings as gods... now this was also after the flood, as Gen 6 says
Quote:

"their were nephilim on the earth in those days; and also afterward, when the Sons of God came into the daughters of men and had offspring by them".


now Enoch goes into greater detail 1 Enoch 7

Quote:

"It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. 2And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children."


Quote:

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, 4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. 6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.


it goes on to say that these beings taught man weaponry and other knowledge.. this is the same story the sumerians tell, but from a different perspective

chapter 9
Quote:

. And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another:..."Bring our cause before the Most High.".' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords' .... Thou seest all things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azâzêl hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn: And Semjâzâ, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are wrought on the earth.
.

without quoting too much more.. i think ive made my case DT that the bible does make this claim, and that clearly it shares a number of similarities with other polytheistic cultures of the time, but from the perspective of the creator God and his followers

Quote:

heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons.









NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:17 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Antimason, if you say "all gods are fallen angels according to my religion" then I don't argue. But when you say "all religions are a warped form of my religion," which you have said before, then I argue because that is factually incorrect, because religions spread across the earth as a historical fact.



DT- i never said that specifically, although i may have implied that

look i fully understand these multi-deity beliefs pre-date my own.. but think about this for a second: we all share the fallen angelic thesis, although it is described through the lens of each individual culture. but judeo-christians maintain that their is a most high creator God, which created even these beings, who sent the flood to established a covenant with Noah and Abraham to displace this angelic influence, and to bring the belief in Yahweh back into focus; this was among civilizations which were heavily envolved in occult god worship. while the Sumerians cuniform tablets may pre-date the bible, Genesis and the book of Enoch are describing the same events.. only from the perspective of the creator, whos influence had been weakened by the intervention of these beings.

the bibles distinction is that it makes an attempt to provide the backdrop for the angelic intervention, claiming that God created even the angels(or Annunaki to the Sumerians). now the sumerians claim that it was these gods who created man; both share many of the same stories, but the polytheists have no explanation for Jesus, his claims to be the son of the Creator,(or manifest)and his ressurection and plan for redemption of mankind from our fallen state. if you take the accounts of Jesus into consideration, he supports the creator God thesis along with the angelic intervention. IMO, at this point* i believe this to be the more complete picture.. color me biased

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:36 PM

DREAMTROVE


Antimason,

I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is a possibility to deliberately misinterpret the text, but this is more than that, it's also taking the textual perspective and using it as the basis for a historical account to say that religions essentially spread from israel and mutated, which we know historically to not be the case.

Quote:

we all share the fallen angelic thesis, although it is described through the lens of each individual culture.


Not so. My faith has no fallen angel, no angel, and no God.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the original hebrew creation myth was El-centric, and that Jesus was an outlander who worshipped El, who he addresses in the text by name. As not a servant of Yhwh, he has a very different picture of divinity, with peace and forgiveness, instead of vengeance, jealousy and war.

The original god of the heavens is not Yhwh, but rather that would be El, the high one, god of the heavens, who married the god of the sea, and became god of rain.

Yhwh was born in his earliest myths in a cave of fire inside of or under Mt. Sinai, also known as he who shall not be named, the nameless one, and Yahoveha the God of War.

It's possible, from a christian perspective that their is a fundemental inconsistancy here, and that historically, I think this is caused by Paul, and his crowd, who forced the merger of Yhwh+Jesus and of OT+NT to try to bring conversion to the jews, but instead infected his new religion with Yhwh, God of War.

The religion is split into warring factions because such is the will of God. As God of war he would thrive on conflict, and would deliberately split his followers and pit them against one another. Nothing seems more natural for a God of war.

But the adoption of the creator title could be seen as totally malicious, and deceptive. Yhwh is the creator according to the cult of Yhwh, because Yhwh says that it is so. But an objective read of his book shows Yhwh to be basically evil, maybe evil without restriction or reservation. When taken that the original genesis creation myth, from a historical perspective was most certainly not written about Yhwh, that assigning the proper perspective, Yhwh becomes the deity who claims to be God but isn't. Thus Yhwh worship becomes its own worst nightmare, the worship of its own Satan.

It would be a paralyzing thought if it were my faith, and I can see why you would balk at the concept. But you also should seriously consider the possibility that what I say is true, just as an objective outside perspective on the development of things in the christian faith. I think that such a development would go a long way to explain the schitzophrenic nature of the christian character, loving of peace and thirsting for war. If it were my faith, I'd want to be very sure that the God that I was worshipping was the God of Jesus Christ, and not a horned creature which lived in a fiery pit. Just a thought.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:09 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

posted by DreamTrove-

I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is a possibility to deliberately misinterpret the text,



regarding the fallen angels and their hybrid offspring, we have to understand what happened in Eden to caus our fall from the heavens into a sinful mortal state. the book of Enoch and its contents just further emphasizes the post-eden invasion of these angels and the aftermath(which was the flood-recorded also by the epic of gilgamesh)

Quote:

but this is more than that, it's also taking the textual perspective and using it as the basis for a historical account to say that religions essentially spread from israel and mutated, which we know historically to not be the case.


well hold on..im not saying that at all. what is believed is Abraham is influenced to leave Haran (or Ur), in what is roughly accepted as 2000bc(neo-sumerian period). at this time he is living in the region of the babylonians and canaanites, cultures centered on 'pagan' fallen angelic worship. Abraham is selected by YHWY because he believes in a creator, perfect and unseen, not these ego-central deities with human-esque frailties which had presented themselves to man since the Seth and Cain bloodlines.

Quote:

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the original hebrew creation myth was El-centric, and that Jesus was an outlander who worshipped El, who he addresses in the text by name. As not a servant of Yhwh, he has a very different picture of divinity, with peace and forgiveness, instead of vengeance, jealousy and war.


im not sure.. i dont see why Jesus woudlnt tell his disciples this, rather then quote OT verses and honor prophets like Elijah and Moses, or identify with himself as sitting at the right hand side of the Creator. now Lucifer is considered the angel of light, the prince of this world and god of this age, and was a present physical being.. it could be possible that it was these kinds of angelic influences coupled with our sinful nature and free will that allowed for a deception of the israelites, but i dont know. quote me the verses you find questionable and lets go through it

Quote:

The original god of the heavens is not Yhwh, but rather that would be El, the high one, god of the heavens, who married the god of the sea, and became god of rain. Yhwh was born in his earliest myths in a cave of fire inside of or under Mt. Sinai, also known as he who shall not be named, the nameless one, and Yahoveha the God of War.


so you dont believe YHWY to be the Creator God, but a lesser god(Or rather an 'angel')? quote me the scriptures and we'll scrutinize them

Quote:

It's possible, from a christian perspective that their is a fundemental inconsistancy here, and that historically, I think this is caused by Paul, and his crowd, who forced the merger of Yhwh+Jesus and of OT+NT to try to bring conversion to the jews, but instead infected his new religion with Yhwh, God of War.


well heres the thing.. the jews of the pharisee sect who killed Jesus, by his own words were of the synogogue of Satan.. much of israels history in the OT was a result of the heretical babylonian influence of the kabbala. id like to hear your references though and go through them

Quote:

The religion is split into warring factions because such is the will of God. As God of war he would thrive on conflict, and would deliberately split his followers and pit them against one another. Nothing seems more natural for a God of war.


i cant see how the Creator could be anything less than perfect, as Jesus implies..but maybe one of the deficient personalities of the various mesopotamian pantheon gods

Quote:

But the adoption of the creator title could be seen as totally malicious, and deceptive. Yhwh is the creator according to the cult of Yhwh, because Yhwh says that it is so. But an objective read of his book shows Yhwh to be basically evil, maybe evil without restriction or reservation.


i guess i need you to give me some specifics so i can see the context of the evil, and the original hebrew translations.. what sources are you using? whats the bottom line

Quote:

When taken that the original genesis creation myth, from a historical perspective was most certainly not written about Yhwh, that assigning the proper perspective, Yhwh becomes the deity who claims to be God but isn't. Thus Yhwh worship becomes its own worst nightmare, the worship of its own Satan.


so your saying that the God of the OT isnt the Creator, but is Satan..right? are you acknowledging there could be a Creator, but that he isnt represented by judeo=christianity?

Quote:

It would be a paralyzing thought if it were my faith, and I can see why you would balk at the concept. But you also should seriously consider the possibility that what I say is true, just as an objective outside perspective on the development of things in the christian faith. I think that such a development would go a long way to explain the schitzophrenic nature of the christian character, loving of peace and thirsting for war. If it were my faith, I'd want to be very sure that the God that I was worshipping was the God of Jesus Christ, and not a horned creature which lived in a fiery pit. Just a thought.


im listening to you.. i guess i wanna know your bottom line. do you think Jesus' death and ressurection as recorded in the gospels is accurate? im willing to discuss this i just need to know what specifically your basing your anaylsis on




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:18 PM

DREAMTROVE


Antimason,

You surprised me with the openminded response. Okay, I agree, we'll dig through this stuff and see what we find. Sure, of course I'm open to all sorts of possibilities, just trying to find what *is*.

I have some links to some stuff, I was doing this research a year ago or so, I need to dig this stuff up. I get that you're open to the speculation of the pre-judean world view since you keep bringing in the sumerians.

But give me a few days. I have a ton to do, and I need to find the time to find the links and the articles I read, dig through all the agenda-driven stuff for the pure research.

Thanks for taking me seriously.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:08 PM

ANTIMASON


DT- *thanks.. we're both just trying to find what is the truth. you know im not a know-it-all, i do make mistakes and am not perfect etc; but i genuinely study biblical related history, which to me includes everything of the ancient world.. since i find it all very relevant. im studying the OT some more, and the 'controversial' texts.. so im willing to put it to the test, but maybe in a religious thread, since this one was supposed to be about the in-debatable stature of 'Darwinian Evolution'..

with that in mind i think you should check this site out- KANEMAN i think you would appreciate this

Quote:

http://www.biped.info/index.html

BIPED MANIFESTO

This website has no religious leanings. It has been created as a resource to collect various writings of Darwinian Dissent and to link to similar sites to share information. The projected aims of this website - to be collectively fulfilled by any who want to be involved - are the following:

1. To teach what evolution is and what it isn't. To assist those interested in gaining an understanding of Darwinian evolution and, more specifically, to teach them to distinguish between what Darwin proposed as the science behind the evolution of forms, and what his followers, so-called neo-Darwinists, have misinterpreted in popular writings as Darwin's thesis. Read the articles and you will learn.

2. And you thought there was only Darwin vs. God? To show that there are valid scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution other than "creation," although we are not particularly opposed to that term ("if it walks like a duck"). Among other alternatives, variations and meldings of "creationism" and "evolution" that will be introduced, along with the proponents of these theories, are the following: Intelligent Design Theory, Gaia Hypothesis, Theory of Formative Causation, Vitalism, Astrogenesis, Panspermia, Ballistic Panspermia, Information Theory, Systems Theory, Extraterrestrial Seeding, Genetic Manipulation and some crossing, blending or borrowing between these theories.

3. The Catastrophic pre-history of Earth To look at the facts of Catastrophism (which Darwinists avoid because it messes up their peaceful little world as it is evolving) as a system of cyclic destruction and creation of life forms on Earth. We will discuss the bearing this has on Darwinian evolution, as many scientists come forth to admit the universe, the cellular world and the fossil record all implicate intelligent design.

These statements about Darwinian theory may surprise you:

Evolution is a Rag Hypothesis.
I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. - Charles Darwin to Asa Gray

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of species.
Darwin did not really explain the origin of new species in The Origin of Species, because he didn't know how to define species. The Origin was in fact concerned mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one species might proliferate into many. - Douglas Futuyma

Evolution is Defective.
The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. - Dr A. Fleishmann, Zoologist

Evolution is Pure Fantasy.
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet, the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. - David M. Raup, Geologist

Evolution is based on Ideology.
There is no evidence for a primeval soup… The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology. - Hubert Yockey, Information Theory

Evolution is Vague.
The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds. - Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Biologist

Evolution is a Gnostic Myth.
The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim... Evolutionism is a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. - Wolfgang Smith

Evolution is a Pseudoscience.
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Pierre Grasse, Zoologist, former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University

Evolution without intelligent direction is improbable.
Even if the whole Universe consisted of organic soup... the chance of producing merely the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be about 1 over a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it; a probability too small to imagine. - Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer, Modern Theory of Panspermia

Evolution does not explain consciousness.
The match between our intelligence and the intelligibility of the world is no accident. Nor can it properly be attributed to natural selection, which places a premium on survival and reproduction and has no stake in truth or conscious thought. Indeed, meat-puppet robots are just fine as the output of a Darwinian evolutionary process. - William Dembski, Mathematician, Intelligent Design Theory

Evolution is blind and selfish.
We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. - Richard Dawkins, Darwinist

Evolution involves Group Mind.
Using morphogenetic fields as the carrier of memory implies no absolute separation between minds. It suggests our identity is dual, like an electron that is both particle and wave. We have aspects that are unique and totally individual, yet at the same time much of our thought and behavior is shaped by, participates in, and helps to create transpersonal morphogenetic fields. Because our brains contain levels (mammalian, reptilian, etc.) that connect us to other species, that group mind includes all life. - Rupert Sheldrake, Biochemist, Theory of Formative Causation

Evolution is a Leak of Vital Force.
The process of evolution can only be described as the gradual insertion of more and more freedom into matter. ... In the amoeba, you might say that the impulse has manufactured a small leak through which free activity could be inserted into the world, and the process of evolution has been the gradual enlargement of this leak. - T.E. Hulme, Poet and Vitalist

Evolution is not Earth-Centered.
The real paradigm shift is to consider that the Universe is a life-producing nursery and that the genesis and evolution of life is not earth-centered but rather is distributed among the stars of the galaxies. - William F. Hamilton, Theory of Astrogenesis

Evolution is Blind Faith.
Evolutionary theory presents one of the most explicit examples of a priori reasoning, and even blind faith, ever seen in a supposedly scientific hypothesis. Books on evolution are full of the prior assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. The facts are then presented to fit the theory. - John Davidson, The Web of Life, Vitalist

Evolution has the Appearance of Being Impossible.
The information complexity in biological entities is very high and the probability of random mutations leading to more highly structured life forms has the appearance of being impossible. - Hubert Yockey, Physicist, Information Theory

Evolution is Not Based in Fact.
In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts. - Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles), in a letter to his brother Charles

Evolution is an Approximation.
I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. - Professor Jerome Lejeune

Evolution is not Arguable.
In China its OK to criticize Darwin but not the government, in the United States its OK to criticize the government, but not Darwin. - Dr. J.Y. Chen, Chinese Paleontologist

Evolution is Embarrassing.
I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection. - Daniel Dennett, Philosopher and Darwinist



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


Not at all. It was a thread about debates. I used evolution as an example., but there's a whole bunch of deceptive debate tactics. Send me an email at dreamtrove -at- gmail.com, and we'll talk god. i'm not really interested in the flame wars which would ensue here on the board on such a topic. I'm not really guessing, I dimly recall a holy war in the not to distant past.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL