This board is going to Hell.

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
227
63
Re: i read the ol testament once

Originally posted by WinMac:

Originally posted by THEbearbull:



to play football it basically sucks no girls in the dorm the dorms suck ass an even if your 21 you can get in trouble for drinking

Do you notice a lot of tapping feet in the bathrooms?

no doubt about it. them big boyz gotta scratch that itch somehow
 

PhilHartman

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
9,957
2
36
"This board is literally going to Hell.",says a man that worships a false and admittedly flawed concept of god.

This post is obviously a cry for help from Hounded. He knows he's gone down the wrong path and that he unwittingly worships satan. He wants us to help him.
 

fsu1jreed

HR Legend
Apr 1, 2002
47,865
4,384
113
eek.gif






lurk.gif
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by PhilHartman:
"This board is literally going to Hell.",says a man that worships a false and admittedly flawed concept of god.
Admittedly? No.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
"This post is obviously a cry for help from Hounded. He knows he's gone down the wrong path and that he unwittingly worships satan. He wants us to help him.

Obviously? No.
 

castichawk24

HR Heisman
Mar 14, 2006
9,781
88
48
Originally posted by SalAunese:
Originally posted by castichawk24:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by castichawk24:
roll.gif
i'm sure that you know that you're a good person, because you talk to god about it. we got it already though... you think you are better than us because you believe in god. i think i'm more rational than you because i don't. good night.
I don't think I'm better than you. I'm saying God is a better judge of what is good than you. And I would plainly declare you're not one iota more rational than I am.

This post was edited on 10/2 10:35 PM by HoundedHawk

and yet you believe that...

someone lived in a fish?
someone parted a sea?
mary was a virgin, but yet had JC?
JC rose from the dead?
Noah was 900+ years old?
a male and female of every species gathered at one post on the earth and all hopped on one boat together? even the animals that weren't indigenous to that part of the earth?


there is not one thing that i think is true that is irrational as any of these things. not even close.

The bible was not meant to be literally translated..I had no idea a book of parables was to be treated as a factual history book.

whatever is convenient.
 

castichawk24

HR Heisman
Mar 14, 2006
9,781
88
48
Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Many non-Christians have made up their minds about Christianity based upon hearsay information. Many non-Christians would be truly surprised if they would only study the evidence for themselves. I suspect that most people don't actually reject Jesus as much as they reject a false image of Jesus.

Most non-Christians have not rejected Christianity on intellectual grounds. Most people never take the time to take a detailed look at the evidence. However, some of Christianity's greatest champions were former skeptics who sought to discredit Christianity and were compelled to believe once they had viewed the evidence. If you will only examine the evidence for yourself, you will be surprised at what you will find.


roll.gif
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by castichawk24:

Originally posted by SalAunese:

Originally posted by castichawk24:


Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by castichawk24:
roll.gif
i'm sure that you know that you're a good person, because you talk to god about it. we got it already though... you think you are better than us because you believe in god. i think i'm more rational than you because i don't. good night.
I don't think I'm better than you. I'm saying God is a better judge of what is good than you. And I would plainly declare you're not one iota more rational than I am.


This post was edited on 10/2 10:35 PM by HoundedHawk

and yet you believe that...

someone lived in a fish?
someone parted a sea?
mary was a virgin, but yet had JC?
JC rose from the dead?
Noah was 900+ years old?
a male and female of every species gathered at one post on the earth and all hopped on one boat together? even the animals that weren't indigenous to that part of the earth?


there is not one thing that i think is true that is irrational as any of these things. not even close.

The bible was not meant to be literally translated..I had no idea a book of parables was to be treated as a factual history book.

whatever is convenient.

Does this mean God isn't very good with words? But wait, he is all knowing, he should be able to put it in plain English for everyone right?
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by castichawk24:

Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Many non-Christians have made up their minds about Christianity based upon hearsay information. Many non-Christians would be truly surprised if they would only study the evidence for themselves. I suspect that most people don't actually reject Jesus as much as they reject a false image of Jesus.

Most non-Christians have not rejected Christianity on intellectual grounds. Most people never take the time to take a detailed look at the evidence. However, some of Christianity's greatest champions were former skeptics who sought to discredit Christianity and were compelled to believe once they had viewed the evidence. If you will only examine the evidence for yourself, you will be surprised at what you will find.


roll.gif

I'm still waiting for his evidence that can refute the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory, and all other scientific theories that contradict the Bible. Me thinks he has none.
 

PhilHartman

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
9,957
2
36
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Originally posted by castichawk24:

Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Many non-Christians have made up their minds about Christianity based upon hearsay information. Many non-Christians would be truly surprised if they would only study the evidence for themselves. I suspect that most people don't actually reject Jesus as much as they reject a false image of Jesus.

Most non-Christians have not rejected Christianity on intellectual grounds. Most people never take the time to take a detailed look at the evidence. However, some of Christianity's greatest champions were former skeptics who sought to discredit Christianity and were compelled to believe once they had viewed the evidence. If you will only examine the evidence for yourself, you will be surprised at what you will find.


roll.gif

I'm still waiting for his evidence that can refute the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory, and all other scientific theories that contradict the Bible. Me thinks he has none.

In Satan all kinds of self delusion are possible. Hounded is serving as proof of that.
 

overeasy

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 28, 2004
15,559
4,027
113
A mistake being made by many in this thread is not acknowledging that Hounded's views and postings do not represent all, or I would contend even most, serious and faithful Christian values.
This post was edited on 10/3 5:08 PM by overeasy
 

RobertIngersoll

HR Legend
Dec 11, 2002
15,918
0
36
Originally posted by overeasy:
A mistake being made by many in this thread is not acknowledging that Hounded's views and postings do not represent all, or I would contend even most, serious and faithful Christian values.

This post was edited on 10/3 5:08 PM by overeasy

True. But he has given more thought to the subject than the vast majority of Christians.
 

jrotten666

HR MVP
Oct 7, 2006
1,599
0
36
Originally posted by overeasy:
A mistake being made by many in this thread is not acknowledging that Hounded's views and postings do not represent all, or I would contend even most, serious and faithful Christian values.

This post was edited on 10/3 5:08 PM by overeasy

I don't agree with this. If the Bible and Christianity are true, then I think Hounded and a couple others on this board do represent Christianity. And I'm honestly not just saying that because it helps Atheism. Hounded's dinosaur posts certainly don't win him a lot of converts.

Hounded does know the Bible and he probably does follow it as much as a himan being could. The divorce issue would be a prime example of this. Hounded has a Biblically based view on divorce. It is at least grounded in something, which is the Bible. Now I'm not agreeing that the Bible is truth, but it certainly is more than just saying "I'm a Christian, but I don'treally follow the doctrines as laid out in the Bible".

And a lot of Christians don't even read the Bible and a lot of the ones that do probably don't follow its teachings very close. I have no doubt that Hounded has deep faith, more than most on this board who label themselves Christian.

Think about it. If the Bible is truth, then Hounded's first post on this thread was pretty much on target.
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
And what exactly is this evidence that supports any of the bibles claims about the universe and its creation or the appearance of life on Earth?

I've made up my mind on Christianity because of its obvious problems in explaining the universe and its obvious problems with simple logic.
This post was edited on 10/2 10:50 PM by iowahawkeyes1986


---------------------------------------------------------------------------



The observable data coming in from the study of astronomy has lead astronomers to believe that the universe had a point of origin. Astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that the universe seemed to be expanding in every direction. This led George Gamow to trace the process back to where the universe was compressed into a primordial atom. The atom exploded creating the present universe. This theory is popularly know as the "Big-Bang Theory." Support for the big-bang theory is supportrd by:

1. An omnidirectional background radiation in the universe discovered in 1965.
2. A "red shift" of light is coming from stars which may mean that the galaxies are rushing outward from a center point.
3. Albert Einstein's extension of his theory of reality led him to conclude that the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating.

However, several problems exist with the Big-bang theory. Many astrophysicists do not hold to this theory. Why? Explosions produce disorder, not order. How could such an explosion, which is driving the galaxies apart, "fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?"

Furthermore, such an explosion cannot explain why all planets and moons do not rotate in the same direction. Six of the 63 moons, along with Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons which rotate both directions.

The universe does not resemble the chaotic remains of an explosion. Rather, the universe is a marvel of orderiness. Planet earth exisits in a most incredible part of the cosmos which is conducive to life. Earth itself is enveloped with an innumerable group of miraclous coincidences which make life possible. For all conditions for life to be possible to have been caused by chance assaults one's common sense. It is difficult to examine our amazing universe and not conclude that there was a Designer.
This post was edited on 10/3 7:50 PM by Coach4ever
This post was edited on 10/3 7:51 PM by Coach4ever
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
Originally posted by The BiGHEAD:

Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Many non-Christians have made up their minds about Christianity based upon hearsay information. Many non-Christians would be truly surprised if they would only study the evidence for themselves. I suspect that most people don't actually reject Jesus as much as they reject a false image of Jesus.

Most non-Christians have not rejected Christianity on intellectual grounds. Most people never take the time to take a detailed look at the evidence. However, some of Christianity's greatest champions were former skeptics who sought to discredit Christianity and were compelled to believe once they had viewed the evidence. If you will only examine the evidence for yourself, you will be surprised at what you will find.

Please share some of this evidence.

According to evolution, humans are the most recent arrival in evolutionary history. Evolutionists hold that man evolved from the apes by way of a pre-human form called "hominids." Since this theory has been put forth, scientists have been looking for fossil evidence of ape-men. This assumption has spawned many unscientific approaches which have claimed their fossil ape was the missing link which has led to a series of frauds in the scientific community.

There have been may fossils of true humans and true apes but none of ape-humans. Evolutuionists, eager to fill in the genealogical vacuum, have often prematurely publicized evidence which later had to be retracted. The follwing lists the major evidence which has been touted as the missing link then dismissed.

1. 1891--Java Man
2. 1900--Neanderthal Man
3. 1912--Piltdown Man
4. 1922--Nebraska Man
5. 1928--Peking Man
6. 1932--Ramapithecus
7. 1972--Australopithecines

The common belief of ape-human ancestors does not stem from solid evidence but imaginative depictions of artists. Imaginative reconstruction from scarce information can be best attributed to a preconditioned evolutionart bias. Thus, the facts do not support the fictitious attempts to find ape-humans, but support the biblical evidence that humans were created by God.
 

specimen24

HR MVP
Jul 6, 2004
2,051
0
36
im neither pro nor anti-religion, but people like hounded tend to give me a violent shove in the anti direction.
 

jbincr

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Sep 19, 2003
7,510
1,716
113
Originally posted by Coach4ever:
The common belief of ape-human ancestors does not stem from solid evidence but imaginative depictions of artists. Imaginative reconstruction from scarce information can be best attributed to a preconditioned evolutionart bias. Thus, the facts do not support the fictitious attempts to find ape-humans, but support the biblical evidence that humans were created by God.
Attacking evolution doesn't prove the biblical story. In fact, if science is wrong, who's to say that one religion's creation story is any more likely than any others? The Pastafarian's creation myth has a lot going for it, IMHO.
cool.gif
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by castichawk24:


Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Many non-Christians have made up their minds about Christianity based upon hearsay information. Many non-Christians would be truly surprised if they would only study the evidence for themselves. I suspect that most people don't actually reject Jesus as much as they reject a false image of Jesus.

Most non-Christians have not rejected Christianity on intellectual grounds. Most people never take the time to take a detailed look at the evidence. However, some of Christianity's greatest champions were former skeptics who sought to discredit Christianity and were compelled to believe once they had viewed the evidence. If you will only examine the evidence for yourself, you will be surprised at what you will find.


roll.gif

I'm still waiting for his evidence that can refute the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory, and all other scientific theories that contradict the Bible. Me thinks he has none.

Palentology is the scientific study of fossils. The fossil record has often been cited as one of the main evidences for evolution. According to the general theory of evolution, the basic progression of life was as such:

1. Non-living matter
2. Protozoans
3. Metazoan Invertebrates
4. Vertibrate fishes
5. Amphibians
6. Reptiles
7. Birds
8. Fur-bearing quadrupeds
9. Apes
10 Man

In Darwin's day a cell was thought to be very simple, but with the advent of powerful microscopes, we know that the likelihood of evolution of single to multiple-cell organisms has been vastly overestimated. If evolution were true, one would expect to find transitional sequences from one species to another, but the mile deep fossil graveyard around the world, there are huge gaps in the fossil record. No transitional fossils have been found. Where are the millions of creatures that should be part-reptile, part-bird, part-ape, and part-human? The term "missing link" is deceiving because for evolution to be true , there should not be one inter-mediate link but thousands; consequently, the reason no such forms can be found is because such creatures never existed.

The geological record does not reveal the gradual evolution of organisms but sudden appearance of fully developed forms of life. The fossil record indicates that millions of plants and animals have lived and died on the earth. The fossil records does not support the evolution of life over many ages but the destruction of life in one age.

A century ago evolutionists promised that these gaps would be filled, but the gap remains. The study of fossilization has revealed billions and billions of fossil preserved in an abnormal way. Massive fossil graveyards have been uncovered that contain various animals from different climatic areas buried together. Such large scale fossilization does not occur today. When animals die they do not fossilize, they decompose.

The spectacular examples of fossilization point to a worldwide, hydraulic, aqueous cataclysm. This is consistent with the destruction described by the Genesis flood. This flood explains why fossils from one supposed evolutionary age are found mixed in with fossils from another age.

Evidence in the fossil record is embarrassing to the theory of evolution. The fossil record indicates that creation has occurred.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Coach4ever:
And what exactly is this evidence that supports any of the bibles claims about the universe and its creation or the appearance of life on Earth? I've made up my mind on Christianity because of its obvious problems in explaining the universe and its obvious problems with simple logic. This post was edited on 10/2 10:50 PM by iowahawkeyes1986 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The observable data coming in from the study of astronomy has lead astronomers to believe that the universe had a point of origin. Astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that the universe seemed to be expanding in every direction. This led George Gamow to trace the process back to where the universe was compressed into a primordial atom. The atom exploded creating the present universe. This theory is popularly know as the "Big-Bang Theory." Support for the big-bang theory is supportrd by:

1. An omnidirectional background radiation in the universe discovered in 1965.
2. A "red shift" of light is coming from stars which may mean that the galaxies are rushing outward from a center point.
3. Albert Einstein's extension of his theory of reality led him to conclude that the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating.

However, several problems exist with the Big-bang theory. Many astrophysicists do not hold to this theory. Why? Explosions produce disorder, not order. How could such an explosion, which is driving the galaxies apart, "fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?"

Furthermore, such an explosion cannot explain why all planets and moons do not rotate in the same direction. Six of the 63 moons, along with Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons which rotate both directions.

The universe does not resemble the chaotic remains of an explosion. Rather, the universe is a marvel of orderiness. Planet earth exisits in a most incredible part of the cosmos which is conducive to life. Earth itself is enveloped with an innumerable group of miraclous coincidences which make life possible. For all conditions for life to be possible to have been caused by chance assaults one's common sense. It is difficult to examine our amazing universe and not conclude that there was a Designer.

This post was edited on 10/3 7:50 PM by Coach4ever

This post was edited on 10/3 7:51 PM by Coach4ever



roll.gif


You have no idea how you just took somewhat accurate information and turned it into crap.

But a few points,

A) the universe coming from a single point does not = god in any way shape or form. If you are going to argue the universe needs a creator(which quantum mechanics SAYS IT DOES NOT), then why don't you extend this need for a creator to the creator himself. Oh wait, you don't you just say "it just exists" which is just a cop out.

B)The Big Bang has nothing to do with the rotation of planets. We can explain the rotations of many planets of moons very easily. Uranus spins on its side. Why? Because back a billion+ years ago, it was struck by a large object probably about Earth size and blown on its side. Earth got it's moon via a collision with a planet the size of Mars. How do we know this? The rocks on the moon are very similar to Earth. And Earths gravity is not strong enough to just capture an object the size of the moon on a fly by. Only an impact can result in our moon. This is further verified by the fact the moon is MOVING AWAY from us and it will continue to do so until it flies off all together. See there are perfectly logical explanations for all of this. Yet you turn a blind eye to them because you favor your idiotic delusion based on pseudo-science rather than real science.


C)Nothing banged in the big bang contrary to popular belief.

D)Just because Earth exists in a place for life now doesn't mean it always has. The solar system formed right next to a supernova star btw, which went supernova shortly after the Earth formed. We know this because the asteroids in our solar system contain a certain element only found after recent supernova explosions. The sun will continue to expand and Earth will no longer be hospitable to life in about a billion years. Also, there are several supernova candidates around us that could, if oriented in the proper direction, kill all life on Earth. So much for your order and and the idea of there not being Chaos. If such an event were to occur you wouldn't know about it til you were on the ground being fried to death by cosmic radiation. This doesn't even get into black holes or any other cosmic oddities that have even more bizarre features.

Overall, your post resembles that of an fool who isn't anywhere close to understanding any mainstream science let alone Astronomy or Physics. I would know, I've been study those exact subjects for a while now. I would love for you to present this information to any leading astronomer or physicist in the world. You'd probably kill them from laughter.

What a joke. Don't we have science education in this country. damn people.
This post was edited on 10/3 8:46 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Coach4ever:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by castichawk24:



Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Many non-Christians have made up their minds about Christianity based upon hearsay information. Many non-Christians would be truly surprised if they would only study the evidence for themselves. I suspect that most people don't actually reject Jesus as much as they reject a false image of Jesus.

Most non-Christians have not rejected Christianity on intellectual grounds. Most people never take the time to take a detailed look at the evidence. However, some of Christianity's greatest champions were former skeptics who sought to discredit Christianity and were compelled to believe once they had viewed the evidence. If you will only examine the evidence for yourself, you will be surprised at what you will find.


roll.gif

I'm still waiting for his evidence that can refute the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory, and all other scientific theories that contradict the Bible. Me thinks he has none.

Palentology is the scientific study of fossils. The fossil record has often been cited as one of the main evidences for evolution. According to the general theory of evolution, the basic progression of life was as such:

1. Non-living matter
2. Protozoans
3. Metazoan Invertebrates
4. Vertibrate fishes
5. Amphibians
6. Reptiles
7. Birds
8. Fur-bearing quadrupeds
9. Apes
10 Man

In Darwin's day a cell was thought to be very simple, but with the advent of powerful microscopes, we know that the likelihood of evolution of single to multiple-cell organisms has been vastly overestimated. If evolution were true, one would expect to find transitional sequences from one species to another, but the mile deep fossil graveyard around the world, there are huge gaps in the fossil record. No transitional fossils have been found. Where are the millions of creatures that should be part-reptile, part-bird, part-ape, and part-human? The term "missing link" is deceiving because for evolution to be true , there should not be one inter-mediate link but thousands; consequently, the reason no such forms can be found is because such creatures never existed.

The geological record does not reveal the gradual evolution of organisms but sudden appearance of fully developed forms of life. The fossil record indicates that millions of plants and animals have lived and died on the earth. The fossil records does not support the evolution of life over many ages but the destruction of life in one age.

A century ago evolutionists promised that these gaps would be filled, but the gap remains. The study of fossilization has revealed billions and billions of fossil preserved in an abnormal way. Massive fossil graveyards have been uncovered that contain various animals from different climatic areas buried together. Such large scale fossilization does not occur today. When animals die they do not fossilize, they decompose.

The spectacular examples of fossilization point to a worldwide, hydraulic, aqueous cataclysm. This is consistent with the destruction described by the Genesis flood. This flood explains why fossils from one supposed evolutionary age are found mixed in with fossils from another age.

Evidence in the fossil record is embarrassing to the theory of evolution. The fossil record indicates that creation has occurred.

roll.gif



Why do I even bother? Btw, did you type any of this yourself, or did you just copy and paste while forgetting to cite your source? From your post, it looks like you haven't even studied evolution, let alone the fossil record. But then again, I doubt thats your writing. Probably some idiot from the "Discovery Institute"

roll.gif

This post was edited on 10/3 8:44 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
iowahawkeyes1986----Here is a quote for you.

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he about to conquer the highest peaks; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries"---Dr. Robert Jastrow (Founder of NASA's Institute for Space Studies
 

Hollow Ed

HR All-American
Apr 13, 2006
2,554
0
36
Originally posted by Coach4ever:
The common belief of ape-human ancestors does not stem from solid evidence but imaginative depictions of artists. Imaginative reconstruction from scarce information can be best attributed to a preconditioned evolutionart bias.
"Evolutionart." Great word.

Being persuaded into believing false evolutionary theory by imaginative artistic depictions (as opposed to evidence) is a great, um, theory.

Were there evolutionists before there was evolutionart?
 

RobertIngersoll

HR Legend
Dec 11, 2002
15,918
0
36
(here's a hint, Coach)

GCMI: Of your science books which is your favorite?

DR. JASTROW: The Enchanted Loom, the story of how the brain evolved by strictly Darwinian mechanisms. That this should happen out of inanimate matter is extraordinary, a fascinating story. And it has implications for intelligent life in the universe also.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Coach4ever:
iowahawkeyes1986----Here is a quote for you.

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he about to conquer the highest peaks; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries"---Dr. Robert Jastrow (Founder of NASA's Institute for Space Studies

LOL as if that changes any thing. Thats one mans opinion based on nothing factual which is something you religious types have no problem with. Hell, your explanations for the Big Bang theory or evolution have been nothing but a joke. Creationism isn't science no matter how much you try to make it. And whats worse, you still haven't even approached Quantum Theory and its implications on the universe and how it began, but I'm betting thats to far out of your scope of knowledge.
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
I am glad that I have you laughing so much. It is interesting you call me religious. What prompted that comment? Would you agree that creationism is a theory just like evolution is a theory?
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
A theory? Yes. A scientific theory? No. Big difference. Evolution has observable testable evidence and it attempts to explain something through logical arguments. Creationism has no observable or testable evidence and thus it doesn't use logical arguments to arrive at it's conclusions. Instead, it starts with a conclusion and then finds anything to support it instead of the other way around.

If you could make creationism fit any of those categories it would be taken more seriously. But the problem is you can't.
This post was edited on 10/3 9:40 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
A theory? Yes. A scientific theory? No. Big difference. Evolution has observable testable evidence and it attempts to explain something through logical arguments. Creationism has no observable or testable evidence and thus it doesn't use logical arguments to arrive at it's conclusions. Instead, it starts with a conclusion and then finds anything to support it instead of the other way around.

If you could make creationism fit any of those categories it would be taken more seriously. But the problem is you can't.

This post was edited on 10/3 9:40 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

Evolution is testable? What has evolved in the fossil records?
 

Hawkstrat

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2004
20,169
889
113
Originally posted by Coach4ever:
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
A theory? Yes. A scientific theory? No. Big difference. Evolution has observable testable evidence and it attempts to explain something through logical arguments. Creationism has no observable or testable evidence and thus it doesn't use logical arguments to arrive at it's conclusions. Instead, it starts with a conclusion and then finds anything to support it instead of the other way around.

If you could make creationism fit any of those categories it would be taken more seriously. But the problem is you can't.

This post was edited on 10/3 9:40 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

Evolution is testable? What has evolved in the fossil records?
No, Evolution is testicle.
 

MarionHawkeye

HR All-State
Jan 13, 2003
845
0
16
Hounded - I would say that most reportedly atheistic or agnostic people that are posting in the religious threads are, for the most part, simply baiting you. [Exceptions are iowahawkeyes1986 and jrotten, who clearly have a man crush on Carl Sagan and some serious anger issues against believers, respectively.] I think there's possibly a glimmer of hope for people like HollowEd, but he's going to have to get over the "prove it to me without a doubt" idea to have any chance.

People either accept all of the history, tradition, and faith built up over 2,000 years or they don't. There's a lot of documented cases that support the existence of God, but if I were to start citing them the "non believers" would simply choose to belittle / not believe them. "Show me the facts!!! Show me the mathematics equations that prove without a doubt that God exists."

As if it were all a big scam.....
rolleyes.gif


Can someone prove to me that God doesn't exist? Let's hear it. Quantum mechanics or whatever, what kicked off the whole cycle of events that led to where we are today?
 

overeasy

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 28, 2004
15,559
4,027
113
Originally posted by jrotten666:

Originally posted by overeasy:
A mistake being made by many in this thread is not acknowledging that Hounded's views and postings do not represent all, or I would contend even most, serious and faithful Christian values.


This post was edited on 10/3 5:08 PM by overeasy

I don't agree with this. If the Bible and Christianity are true, then I think Hounded and a couple others on this board do represent Christianity. And I'm honestly not just saying that because it helps Atheism. Hounded's dinosaur posts certainly don't win him a lot of converts.

Hounded does know the Bible and he probably does follow it as much as a himan being could. The divorce issue would be a prime example of this. Hounded has a Biblically based view on divorce. It is at least grounded in something, which is the Bible. Now I'm not agreeing that the Bible is truth, but it certainly is more than just saying "I'm a Christian, but I don'treally follow the doctrines as laid out in the Bible".

And a lot of Christians don't even read the Bible and a lot of the ones that do probably don't follow its teachings very close. I have no doubt that Hounded has deep faith, more than most on this board who label themselves Christian.

Think about it. If the Bible is truth, then Hounded's first post on this thread was pretty much on target.
Please allow me to point out to you and Robert that I didn't say "most Christians," I said "serious and faithful Christians." I do not believe that Hounded's literal views are shared by most Christian theologians, main-stream protestant Christian leaders, Roman Catholic leadership, the Orthodox Church leadership, etc. His views are certainly widespread, but they are often at odds with the preponderance of theological thought. Evangelicals and literalists do NOT have a corner on God's truth. Nobody does. But some people will gladly lead you to believe that they do.

I admire Hounded's deep faith and his fidelity to that faith. But that doesn't mean his interpretations of scripture are, if you'll excuse the term, gospel.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Coach4ever:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
A theory? Yes. A scientific theory? No. Big difference. Evolution has observable testable evidence and it attempts to explain something through logical arguments. Creationism has no observable or testable evidence and thus it doesn't use logical arguments to arrive at it's conclusions. Instead, it starts with a conclusion and then finds anything to support it instead of the other way around.

If you could make creationism fit any of those categories it would be taken more seriously. But the problem is you can't.


This post was edited on 10/3 9:40 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

Evolution is testable? What has evolved in the fossil records?

Galapagos.

Why don't you just look up evolution on wiki, you'll find plenty of good stuff.
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by Coach4ever:
And what exactly is this evidence that supports any of the bibles claims about the universe and its creation or the appearance of life on Earth? I've made up my mind on Christianity because of its obvious problems in explaining the universe and its obvious problems with simple logic. This post was edited on 10/2 10:50 PM by iowahawkeyes1986 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The observable data coming in from the study of astronomy has lead astronomers to believe that the universe had a point of origin. Astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that the universe seemed to be expanding in every direction. This led George Gamow to trace the process back to where the universe was compressed into a primordial atom. The atom exploded creating the present universe. This theory is popularly know as the "Big-Bang Theory." Support for the big-bang theory is supportrd by:

1. An omnidirectional background radiation in the universe discovered in 1965.
2. A "red shift" of light is coming from stars which may mean that the galaxies are rushing outward from a center point.
3. Albert Einstein's extension of his theory of reality led him to conclude that the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating.

However, several problems exist with the Big-bang theory. Many astrophysicists do not hold to this theory. Why? Explosions produce disorder, not order. How could such an explosion, which is driving the galaxies apart, "fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?"

Furthermore, such an explosion cannot explain why all planets and moons do not rotate in the same direction. Six of the 63 moons, along with Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons which rotate both directions.

The universe does not resemble the chaotic remains of an explosion. Rather, the universe is a marvel of orderiness. Planet earth exisits in a most incredible part of the cosmos which is conducive to life. Earth itself is enveloped with an innumerable group of miraclous coincidences which make life possible. For all conditions for life to be possible to have been caused by chance assaults one's common sense. It is difficult to examine our amazing universe and not conclude that there was a Designer.


This post was edited on 10/3 7:50 PM by Coach4ever


This post was edited on 10/3 7:51 PM by Coach4ever



roll.gif


You have no idea how you just took somewhat accurate information and turned it into crap.

But a few points,

A) the universe coming from a single point does not = god in any way shape or form. If you are going to argue the universe needs a creator(which quantum mechanics SAYS IT DOES NOT), then why don't you extend this need for a creator to the creator himself. Oh wait, you don't you just say "it just exists" which is just a cop out.

B)The Big Bang has nothing to do with the rotation of planets. We can explain the rotations of many planets of moons very easily. Uranus spins on its side. Why? Because back a billion+ years ago, it was struck by a large object probably about Earth size and blown on its side. Earth got it's moon via a collision with a planet the size of Mars. How do we know this? The rocks on the moon are very similar to Earth. And Earths gravity is not strong enough to just capture an object the size of the moon on a fly by. Only an impact can result in our moon. This is further verified by the fact the moon is MOVING AWAY from us and it will continue to do so until it flies off all together. See there are perfectly logical explanations for all of this. Yet you turn a blind eye to them because you favor your idiotic delusion based on pseudo-science rather than real science.


C)Nothing banged in the big bang contrary to popular belief.

D)Just because Earth exists in a place for life now doesn't mean it always has. The solar system formed right next to a supernova star btw, which went supernova shortly after the Earth formed. We know this because the asteroids in our solar system contain a certain element only found after recent supernova explosions. The sun will continue to expand and Earth will no longer be hospitable to life in about a billion years. Also, there are several supernova candidates around us that could, if oriented in the proper direction, kill all life on Earth. So much for your order and and the idea of there not being Chaos. If such an event were to occur you wouldn't know about it til you were on the ground being fried to death by cosmic radiation. This doesn't even get into black holes or any other cosmic oddities that have even more bizarre features.

Overall, your post resembles that of an fool who isn't anywhere close to understanding any mainstream science let alone Astronomy or Physics. I would know, I've been study those exact subjects for a while now. I would love for you to present this information to any leading astronomer or physicist in the world. You'd probably kill them from laughter.

What a joke. Don't we have science education in this country. damn people.

This post was edited on 10/3 8:46 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

A)Nor does it rule God out of it. If quantum physics says it doesn't, then, enlighten me on what quantum physics has created that is living.

B)I know the Big Bang has nothing to do with the rotation of the plants. It has to do with the creation of the universe. I was using that as an exapmle of the bang (explosion or whatever) that defies what usually happens after a explosion (chaos not order). If a large object struck these moons to make them spin the opposite way 1 Billion years ago, who was here to witness/record this event?

C)See above

D) Supernova, asteroids, certain elements and this is why our solar system was created? There are supernovas that are great candidates for frying us if they were oriented in the right direction. What could be the reason that they haven't fried us yet?
 

Coach4ever

HR All-American
Feb 3, 2004
2,606
0
36
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by Coach4ever:


Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
A theory? Yes. A scientific theory? No. Big difference. Evolution has observable testable evidence and it attempts to explain something through logical arguments. Creationism has no observable or testable evidence and thus it doesn't use logical arguments to arrive at it's conclusions. Instead, it starts with a conclusion and then finds anything to support it instead of the other way around.

If you could make creationism fit any of those categories it would be taken more seriously. But the problem is you can't.



This post was edited on 10/3 9:40 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

Evolution is testable? What has evolved in the fossil records?

Galapagos.

Why don't you just look up evolution on wiki, you'll find plenty of good stuff.

laugh.gif
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"People either accept all of the history, tradition, and faith built up over 2,000 years or they don't. There's a lot of documented cases that support the existence of God, but if I were to start citing them the "non believers" would simply choose to belittle / not believe them. "Show me the facts!!! Show me the mathematics equations that prove without a doubt that God exists."

As if it were all a big scam..... "


LOL I'm sure you think there are documented and supported cased.

"Can someone prove to me that God doesn't exist?"

You are the one asserting there is something that exists thus the burden of proof is on you to prove it does exist. Otherwise, we might all just as well say unicorns and fairies and all other mythical creatures exist. Prove to me they don't somewhere in the universe.

"Quantum mechanics or whatever, what kicked off the whole cycle of events that led to where we are today?"

Whats funny is you assume that the universe needs a creation, something to kick it off in your words, but you don't apply that same concept for god. So basically you say "the universe can't just exist or come from nothing," but then you say "god can just exist." You change your logic just to suit your own needs. Logically you should continue on and say there is a higher god that created the god that created us, an infinite regression.

If you want to understand Quantum Mechanics, you are going to have to read up on it on your own. There is no way I could go through all the details of why such and such a thing happens or what laws apply and why. A good book to read is "In Search of Shrodingers Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality" by John Gibbin. It gives a good look at how bizarre the universe really is.
 

MarionHawkeye

HR All-State
Jan 13, 2003
845
0
16
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


LOL as if that changes any thing. Thats one mans opinion based on nothing factual which is something you religious types have no problem with. Hell, your explanations for the Big Bang theory or evolution have been nothing but a joke. Creationism isn't science no matter how much you try to make it. And whats worse, you still haven't even approached Quantum Theory and its implications on the universe and how it began, but I'm betting thats to far out of your scope of knowledge.

Sorry, my first post in this thread was made without seeing the last few posts from yourself on this subject....

So you've listed some of the details regarding why you do not believe in God. But these are all still theories, right? What in your studies indicates that this "just happened" without any other action to kick it all off? That thought makes no sense to me BTW....

Last time I posted on the subject, you didn't take my comments seriously on one of many artifacts from the time of Jesus Christ (the Shroud of Turin.) I'm willing to listen to your arguments on the subject...are you willing to consider some of mine? Or are you going to immediately discount them as false / fake? If you do, it sounds like you are just willing to listen to facts that fit your story...