after Noah and the great flood, since there was only one male and one female for each "kind" of animal... exactly what processes must have have taken place for so much diversity to exist in the animal kingdom today?
God reallly loves all life. He made so many speecies and sub species because he's just that powrful and creative. His wise mind actively creates each specie. How else can an eye or a wing just happen mabey by accident? I don't have enough faith to take such a position, and it's pretty clear creationalism is the more accurate theory. We don't understand why he runes the lives of so many species with naturel disasters, but that's why he's God. He is out of the realm of our udnerstanding. Most likely, 99.9% of all life is exstinct because he wanted them to have a better afterlife, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Unfortunately, those who embraceded Satin won't be so fortunate.
lmao. i was patiently waiting a mockery of the grammatical catastrophe i've been witnessing here the past few days
Al Sharpton looked dumb the whole time :<
Quote from: DaHanG on November 21, 2008, 01:42:31 PMGod reallly loves all life. He made so many speecies and sub species because he's just that powrful and creative. His wise mind actively creates each specie. How else can an eye or a wing just happen mabey by accident? I don't have enough faith to take such a position, and it's pretty clear creationalism is the more accurate theory. We don't understand why he runes the lives of so many species with naturel disasters, but that's why he's God. He is out of the realm of our udnerstanding. Most likely, 99.9% of all life is exstinct because he wanted them to have a better afterlife, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Unfortunately, those who embraceded Satin won't be so fortunate.Good point. We know there is strong evidence for this theory because it is believed by maybe a billion people! So how can it not receive equal time in science class, alongside other "THEORIES" like evolution.Teach the controversy!
Praise him. ,deft
Concerning the debate, i really enjoyed it alot. I have my own opinions of how it went for both side and my own opinion on who did better in certain parts of it. And just for the record, my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here). IMO, I posted the link to that debate just out of curiosity to see just how predictable and one sided the replies from ya'll would actually be.
PS. This is exactly why i've pretty much quit posting in this thread and why I would never attempt at a debate concerning gay marriage.1. The Biased Sarcasm.2. Not everyone here but most (and I have to agree with jagermonsta to a small degree on this) seem to want to jump on the Quadz and Dahang's bandwaggon (even if they don't agree with or believe what they say) just to try to be cool or something and gang up on who soever opposses Quadz position on any givin matter.
Quote from: [BTF]DeathStalker on November 21, 2008, 07:11:07 PMConcerning the debate, i really enjoyed it alot. I have my own opinions of how it went for both side and my own opinion on who did better in certain parts of it. And just for the record, my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here). IMO, I posted the link to that debate just out of curiosity to see just how predictable and one sided the replies from ya'll would actually be.Um. I've been having fun as well.
But I'm perplexed by the following claim: "my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here)."I'm not sure what your exact point was here? Personally I both enjoy having my ideas challenged, and also enjoy attempting to defend my position with logic and rational argument based on evidence.I happen to agree with Edward Damer's 12 principles of rational debate:http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/resources/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/But notice the condemnation being "one-sided" does not appear in these principles.I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by your praise of "absolutely not one sided" opinion. For example: If I said, "I recognize the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but I ALSO believe Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution regardless of any supporting evidence" -- do I then get credit for being "absolutely not one sided" ?Just wondering what you mean...Regards,quadz
Quote from: [BTF]DeathStalker on November 20, 2008, 07:06:05 PMIt's a full hour and a half long so get ready for the long haul, but i can certainly say it is well worth the time spent to watch it.I went ahead and watched it again just now. Unfortunately, I don't think Sharpton was very much a part of the debate.He kept claiming that he didn't want to defend religion or scripture in any way, instead insisting that he was only there to argue against the title of Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great".He even went as far as to try to take Hitchens to task for writing a book entitled God Is Not Great, wherein the contents of the book were primarily focused on religious notions of god. Sharpton hammered this point over and over, to the extent that one began to wonder if he were genuinely confused, or engaging in pure sophistry. Sharpton's hang-ups about the title of Hitchens' book were inane for several reasons. First of all, the title "God Is Not Great", it should have been obvious, does indeed direct part of its meaning at a religious concept of god. After all, the title is a play on Allāhu Akbar ("God is great"). Second, Sharpton conveniently ignores the subtitle of the book, the full title being: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. So it was fairly inane for Sharpton to repeatedly blather on about how Hitchens' book was misnamed because it talks about a religious concept of god.So I wish Sharpton would have just engaged in the debate a bit more.But it was indeed interesting the way Sharpton refused to defend scripture.Sharpton's main ideas seemed to boil down to: - I have had personal experiences that have convinced me of the existence of God - My personal experiences supercede scripture, which are simply some other person's attempt to interpret their own experiences - I believe God created the universe and invested it with divine order - Without divine supervision, morality would be an arbitrary concept; "everything" would become moralIn his own words:Quote from: SharptonSharpton: Many people, in our own lives, have had experiencesthat make me believe that there is a God, and make me believethat by seeking God, and seeking the guidance of a supremebeing--is real to me. I'm not going by Moses, I'm not goingby Peter, I'm not going by the man that you said was allegedlyJesus of Nazareth. I'm talking about in people's personalexperiences, with their interaction, through their own faithin God, can say that. That you, or no one else can tell me,that did not exist. If I was only sitting up here arguing with you over scriptures, then you would have points that I wouldconsider valid to this discussion. But I'm not here to defendscriptures. I didn't write those scriptures. I lived *my* life.And in my life, the existence of God has been confirmed to *me*,in my own personal dealings. And my own faith being vindicatedand validated, that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures,whether they were right or wrong. And again, I pose the question: When you raise the issue of_morality_, if there is no supervisory being, then what do webase morality on? Is it based on who has the might at any giventime? Who's in power? What is morality based on? If there _is_no order to the universe (and therefore some being--some forcethat ordered it) then who determines what is right and wrong?What is moral and immoral? You use very religious terms interchangeably while you attack the idea of a god. There isnothing immoral, if there's nothing 'in charge'. Because,everything becomes moral, if in fact these species as we areis all there is.Sharpton's argument completely collapses on itself in the above, and I wish Hitchens had called him more directly on it.I was going to elaborate, but I see numerous bloggers made the same observation, so I'll just quote:Quotehttp://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/doing-sharpton-shuffle.htmlThe issue for Rev. Al is then where does this morality get revealed to man. If there is no right or wrong without a god how do we know what this deity says is right and wrong? Outside of religious scriptures what other source do we have?Sharpton might argue that it is the heart of each man where right and wrong is revealed. But isn’t that just another version of the scriptural problem of each man “doing what was right in his own heart”? Thus we still have no definable right or wrong merely the opinions of billions of people. If god is the only source of morality then he must reveal that morality somehow.If Sharpton dismisses scripture for the evil deeds then how can he appeal to it for the “good” morality? And if we don’t use a scripture then what is the source for this revelation?Any other source doesn’t prove a deity. In the hearts of men for morality is precisely what we would expect in a natural world without a deity. If the source is found in nature the answer is still what you would expect in a godless world. What source exists which is inherently divine and not natural?Regards,
It's a full hour and a half long so get ready for the long haul, but i can certainly say it is well worth the time spent to watch it.
Sharpton: Many people, in our own lives, have had experiencesthat make me believe that there is a God, and make me believethat by seeking God, and seeking the guidance of a supremebeing--is real to me. I'm not going by Moses, I'm not goingby Peter, I'm not going by the man that you said was allegedlyJesus of Nazareth. I'm talking about in people's personalexperiences, with their interaction, through their own faithin God, can say that. That you, or no one else can tell me,that did not exist. If I was only sitting up here arguing with you over scriptures, then you would have points that I wouldconsider valid to this discussion. But I'm not here to defendscriptures. I didn't write those scriptures. I lived *my* life.And in my life, the existence of God has been confirmed to *me*,in my own personal dealings. And my own faith being vindicatedand validated, that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures,whether they were right or wrong. And again, I pose the question: When you raise the issue of_morality_, if there is no supervisory being, then what do webase morality on? Is it based on who has the might at any giventime? Who's in power? What is morality based on? If there _is_no order to the universe (and therefore some being--some forcethat ordered it) then who determines what is right and wrong?What is moral and immoral? You use very religious terms interchangeably while you attack the idea of a god. There isnothing immoral, if there's nothing 'in charge'. Because,everything becomes moral, if in fact these species as we areis all there is.
http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/doing-sharpton-shuffle.htmlThe issue for Rev. Al is then where does this morality get revealed to man. If there is no right or wrong without a god how do we know what this deity says is right and wrong? Outside of religious scriptures what other source do we have?Sharpton might argue that it is the heart of each man where right and wrong is revealed. But isn’t that just another version of the scriptural problem of each man “doing what was right in his own heart”? Thus we still have no definable right or wrong merely the opinions of billions of people. If god is the only source of morality then he must reveal that morality somehow.If Sharpton dismisses scripture for the evil deeds then how can he appeal to it for the “good” morality? And if we don’t use a scripture then what is the source for this revelation?Any other source doesn’t prove a deity. In the hearts of men for morality is precisely what we would expect in a natural world without a deity. If the source is found in nature the answer is still what you would expect in a godless world. What source exists which is inherently divine and not natural?
Quote from: quadz on November 21, 2008, 07:37:16 PMUm. I've been having fun as well. Ahh my opalogies Quadz, I was refering to the Sharpton/Hitchens debate noit ours.
Um. I've been having fun as well.
Quote from: quadz on November 21, 2008, 07:37:16 PMI'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by your praise of "absolutely not one sided" opinion. For example: If I said, "I recognize the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but I ALSO believe Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution regardless of any supporting evidence" -- do I then get credit for being "absolutely not one sided" ?No, that would be a direct lie. You don't believe and probably and hopefully you never would believe that Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution. But we'll save that debate for another time LOL.
I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by your praise of "absolutely not one sided" opinion. For example: If I said, "I recognize the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but I ALSO believe Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution regardless of any supporting evidence" -- do I then get credit for being "absolutely not one sided" ?
But FYI, one example of the one-sidedness I was refering to was this.[...]You went to great lengths to pick out and critize everything you could find that Sharpton did wrong and how he handled the debate and all things you disagree with in what he said. But what about his positives? I see no attempt to mention any positives in areas of the debate or the way he handled certain questions or aspects of the debate.
And then there's Hitchens, I couldn't help but notice that their wasn't any critisism from your part on the way he handled the debate or in anything he said.
Quote from: [BTF]DeathStalker on November 21, 2008, 07:11:07 PMPS. This is exactly why i've pretty much quit posting in this thread and why I would never attempt at a debate concerning gay marriage.1. The Biased Sarcasm.2. Not everyone here but most (and I have to agree with jagermonsta to a small degree on this) seem to want to jump on the Quadz and Dahang's bandwaggon (even if they don't agree with or believe what they say) just to try to be cool or something and gang up on who soever opposses Quadz position on any givin matter.I had replied to your post before the P.S. was added...What I'm wondering is, does it necessarily matter if anyone "jumps on the bandwagon" ? Myself, I don't feel it's too hard (usually) to separate the core ideas being put forth by the opposition, from the rest of the noise. My ideal is to meet signal with signal, and noise with indifference. A few pages ago, for example, I was trolled by ni-ux. At first, I thought we might be about to engage in a real discussion of differing ideas, and so I tried to generate a lot of signal in my responses. When I realized he was trolling, I obviously ceased to put effort into further responses.But my point is, just because I got trolled by one person, doesn't mean I stop searching for people who actually have ideas to debate.So, I guess my question is, why should you give credence to any posts you consider to be just noise? Why not move on, and just lock on to the signal?Regards,quadz