Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 01-23-2002, 07:58 PM

in that case obviously he likes Evolutionists.
Why would a perfect loving God want to fool people and cause literal faith in his word to waver?

The only reason can be he wants to please the Evolutionists.
so any time the theory says such and such an animal ought to have existed, He gets busy creating its fossil remains and planting it in the proper strata.

See, He likes us better than Creationists!

Quetzal · 01-23-2002, 10:29 PM

You're absolutely correct! What's more, he actively hates Creationists, and here's why:

Quote:

Revelation of Their True Allegiance!
From Adrian Lawler of Dublin:
To have a bunch of Devil worshipers come out and attack the Bible would be tactically unsound, as that would be what any Christian would expect and Christians would dismiss their work out of hand. What is really needed is some idiotic dupes used in their place. Enter the Creationists--Satan's unwitting allies. They set about attempting to destroy science and the scientific method using the Bible as a shield. In defense of science, the scientists themselves set about their own counterattack, and obviously turned their well-educated and powerful minds to the Bible, producing contradictions aplenty. And they've pretty much torn it apart. So Satan's little helpers (the creationists), who believe the Bible is completely accurate, have actually been the authors of its DESTRUCTION. That doesn't at all sound like any Christian religion I've ever heard of. What religion purposefully puts its own literature up to be shredded? Therefore, because it's the Bible in the line of destruction, I believe that the creationists don't actually worship the Trinity. They actually worship the devil, because it would be his dream to see the Bible go up in flames--and isn't it going very well for him?

Well done, Creationists.

From <a href="http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacadamy/riggins/things.htm" target="_blank">this site</a>.

donotworry · 01-24-2002, 09:13 PM

That, is a pretty funny quote! I laugh whenever I see one of those. You guys are fun. Man, I should have all of you over for my super bowl party...that would be a good time. "Hey, atheist man! Pass the chips please."

No, seriously, this quote is just silly. You can't disprove the Bible. I would like to see some proof.

Some guidlines for siting examples:
1. Please stay within context (in other words, dont' be stupid)
2. Don't use something as silly as a.) Flat Earth (poetic) b.) The temptation of Jesus (it's called supernatural power. God has it, as does Satan)

I guess that it is for now.

Daggah · 01-24-2002, 09:28 PM

donotworry, the burden of proof is not on us. It's on you.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 01-24-2002, 09:34 PM

Noah was told to take 7 of each clean animal into the ark, and two of each unclean animal.

The laws governing which animals were clean and unclean were not handed down until MOSES.

Do I win there?

Explain Leviticys 11:6--"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideh not the hoof; he is unclean to you."
Oh, guess what? Rabbits DON'T CHEW CUD!

Couple 11:21 and 11:22 together, and apparently, insects have 4 legs. Pick up joe average ant, and you can count 6 legs. Has Satan decieved us since Leviticus was written, just to piss God off?

Lev 15:19-24:
"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

15:24
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean."

Got that? Have sex with a menstruating woman, and you will be unclean for 7 days, right?

Lev 20:18
"And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."
Which is it?

What about Onan? Wasn't he supposed to have sex with his borthers wife and impregante her, after his brother died?

Lev 20:21:
"And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless."

Which is it?

Must I go on further?

CodeMason · 01-24-2002, 09:43 PM

donotworry: That's just silly. You can't disprove the Quran. I would like to see some proof.

Since both the Bible and the Quran both "can't be disproved", according to you, they must for some reason both be true. But both mutually exclude eachother (each claiming its own prophet is the One True and everyone else is wrong), so thus like the particle and antiparticle, they destroy eachother, leaving nothing but a cloud of gamma radiation.

Therefore, by your own logic, I disproved the Bible.

faded_Glory · 01-25-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CodeMason:
...leaving nothing but a cloud of gamma radiation.

Wasn't that a puff of logic?

fG

lpetrich · 01-25-2002, 03:13 PM

Actually, hinduwoman's hypothesis was expounded on in great detail in a big book, Omphalos, published in 1857 by a certain Philip Gosse. PG was an amateur natural historian, and he wrote several books on that subject. However, he was a convert to the Plymouth Brethren, a very fundamentalist sort of sect.

But by the early 19th cy., geological research had gone far enough to enable assemblage of a picture of the Earth having great age -- much greater than the ~6000 years that one would get from adding up the begots in the Bible. Yet Philip Gosse came up with an interesting reconciliation. He considered the question of whether Adam and Eve, that legendary first couple, had had navels, since they had not been born in the usual way. Thus, the title of his book was the Greek word for "navel".

PG decided that the logical way for God to create the Earth was with the appearance of great age, and he did an encyclopedic survey of seeming evidence of such age, such as pebbles inside of rocks, tooth wear, tree rings, and even coprolites, fossil excrement.

However, nobody liked the book; one reviewer stating that he could not "believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie." Which is why I like to call the hypothesis "divine fraudulence".

It would be interesting to consider what form an updated version of Omphalos would take; such a book would cover:

Radioisotope dating of rocks.
Evidence of Continental Drift / Plate Tectonics, including evidence of earlier supercontinents and continent breakups and collisions.
Evidence of evolution, such as family trees from the better-preserved parts of the fossil record, and also molecular evidence, including an approximate "molecular clock".
The distances of distant stars and galaxies.
Evidence of stellar evolution, such as stars in clusters sharing ages which can be from several million to several billion years.
Evidence of stellar nucleosynthesis, such as younger stars having more heavy elements than older ones.
Evidence of quasars shining in the Universe's first few billion years, and then burning out.
Evidence of the Big Bang.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Pantera · 01-25-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:
<strong>Explain Leviticys 11:6--"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideh not the hoof; he is unclean to you."
Oh, guess what? Rabbits DON'T CHEW CUD!</strong>

The best answer to that one I've ever heard was posted on these boards a couple of weeks ago.

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
For all you know, rabits did chew their cud at one time.

Hmmm... would ruminants to lagomorpha constitute macroevolution?

Coragyps · 01-25-2002, 04:54 PM

Hmm.. cudiphage to coprophage ... I think I'll stick with grits and fried eggs, thanks.

01-23-2002, 07:58 PM	#1
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	If God did create fossils in that case obviously he likes Evolutionists. Why would a perfect loving God want to fool people and cause literal faith in his word to waver? The only reason can be he wants to please the Evolutionists. so any time the theory says such and such an animal ought to have existed, He gets busy creating its fossil remains and planting it in the proper strata. See, He likes us better than Creationists!

01-25-2002, 03:13 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Actually, hinduwoman's hypothesis was expounded on in great detail in a big book, Omphalos, published in 1857 by a certain Philip Gosse. PG was an amateur natural historian, and he wrote several books on that subject. However, he was a convert to the Plymouth Brethren, a very fundamentalist sort of sect. But by the early 19th cy., geological research had gone far enough to enable assemblage of a picture of the Earth having great age -- much greater than the ~6000 years that one would get from adding up the begots in the Bible. Yet Philip Gosse came up with an interesting reconciliation. He considered the question of whether Adam and Eve, that legendary first couple, had had navels, since they had not been born in the usual way. Thus, the title of his book was the Greek word for "navel". PG decided that the logical way for God to create the Earth was with the appearance of great age, and he did an encyclopedic survey of seeming evidence of such age, such as pebbles inside of rocks, tooth wear, tree rings, and even coprolites, fossil excrement. However, nobody liked the book; one reviewer stating that he could not "believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie." Which is why I like to call the hypothesis "divine fraudulence". It would be interesting to consider what form an updated version of Omphalos would take; such a book would cover: Radioisotope dating of rocks. Evidence of Continental Drift / Plate Tectonics, including evidence of earlier supercontinents and continent breakups and collisions. Evidence of evolution, such as family trees from the better-preserved parts of the fossil record, and also molecular evidence, including an approximate "molecular clock". The distances of distant stars and galaxies. Evidence of stellar evolution, such as stars in clusters sharing ages which can be from several million to several billion years. Evidence of stellar nucleosynthesis, such as younger stars having more heavy elements than older ones. Evidence of quasars shining in the Universe's first few billion years, and then burning out. Evidence of the Big Bang. [ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2002, 09:13 PM	#3
donotworry Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 17	That, is a pretty funny quote! I laugh whenever I see one of those. You guys are fun. Man, I should have all of you over for my super bowl party...that would be a good time. "Hey, atheist man! Pass the chips please." No, seriously, this quote is just silly. You can't disprove the Bible. I would like to see some proof. Some guidlines for siting examples: 1. Please stay within context (in other words, dont' be stupid) 2. Don't use something as silly as a.) Flat Earth (poetic) b.) The temptation of Jesus (it's called supernatural power. God has it, as does Satan) I guess that it is for now.

01-24-2002, 09:28 PM	#4
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	donotworry, the burden of proof is not on us. It's on you.

01-24-2002, 09:34 PM	#5
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Noah was told to take 7 of each clean animal into the ark, and two of each unclean animal. The laws governing which animals were clean and unclean were not handed down until MOSES. Do I win there? Explain Leviticys 11:6--"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideh not the hoof; he is unclean to you." Oh, guess what? Rabbits DON'T CHEW CUD! Couple 11:21 and 11:22 together, and apparently, insects have 4 legs. Pick up joe average ant, and you can count 6 legs. Has Satan decieved us since Leviticus was written, just to piss God off? Lev 15:19-24: "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. 15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean." Got that? Have sex with a menstruating woman, and you will be unclean for 7 days, right? Lev 20:18 "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Which is it? What about Onan? Wasn't he supposed to have sex with his borthers wife and impregante her, after his brother died? Lev 20:21: "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." Which is it? Must I go on further?

01-24-2002, 09:43 PM	#6
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	donotworry: That's just silly. You can't disprove the Quran. I would like to see some proof. Since both the Bible and the Quran both "can't be disproved", according to you, they must for some reason both be true. But both mutually exclude eachother (each claiming its own prophet is the One True and everyone else is wrong), so thus like the particle and antiparticle, they destroy eachother, leaving nothing but a cloud of gamma radiation. Therefore, by your own logic, I disproved the Bible.

01-25-2002, 04:54 PM	#10
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Hmm.. cudiphage to coprophage ... I think I'll stick with grits and fried eggs, thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.