25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWell why don't you be the first?
...what absolute nonsence, when is anybody going to say something thats not stupid.
To just accept the bible, without study and research, is just lazy on your part, and is evidence of insincerety
Quite true. Yet you seem to want everyone to accept what you say without study and research. Whenever anyone asks you to back up any of your claims, you fail to do so. Since when are you the authority on mans beginnings?
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto twhitehead
Well why don't you be the first?
[b]To just accept the bible, without study and research, is just lazy on your part, and is evidence of insincerety
Quite true. Yet you seem to want everyone to accept what you say without study and research. Whenever anyone asks you to back up any of your claims, you fail to do so. Since when are you the authority on mans beginnings?[/b]
are you a christian
vishva
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzimr Zahlanzi
why is that relevant
would that influence your answer? should it?
he presented a point, discuss that point. don't argue the person
He asked no specific question, except for the the usual retaliation, of where,s your proof. ( his question was ambiguous )
Any fool can shout out (wheres your proof)
And i said that among other things, that the darwinians say everything came from nothing, and it was nonsense, so whats not crystal clear about that statement? why does the person respond by saying, well proof that everthing didnt come from nothing. ( see the stupidity in the response)
That is the response of a fool, who has not the capacity to understand what i have already said, or is not willing to except a higher truth.
Now Mr Zahlanzi, do you have a specific Question
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by barstuddMr barstudd
John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
Believing in god, has nothing to do with the bible or jesus, why do the christians think they have a monopoly on god.
People have been gazing at the skys at night, since the beginning of time, and they have appreciated a god/creator, and depending on their culture, have given this god many names.
They have even invented rituals etc, to acknowledge this creator, so believing in god is not a new thing, or exclusively a bible thing !
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuOr perhaps it is not my lack of capacity to understand, but your lack of capacity to communicate. You dismiss everything you don't like as goobly gook and wont enter into meaningful discussion on it. You apparently believe you are personally privy to 'a higher truth' but have yet to indicate why anyone should believe you.
That is the response of a fool, who has not the capacity to understand what i have already said, or is not willing to except a higher truth.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto mr twhitehead
Or perhaps it is not my lack of capacity to understand, but your lack of capacity to communicate. You dismiss everything you don't like as goobly gook and wont enter into meaningful discussion on it. You apparently believe you are personally privy to 'a higher truth' but have yet to indicate why anyone should believe you.
the only question,you have asked me, is to give proof that my comments that the christian doctrine is goobly gook/ nonsense.
But the question is a nonsensicle question because, you are asking me to prove that something that is erronious is erronious.....thats like you saying that you have fairies in your garden, and i say you dont,...and you say prove i dont (you see ) your asking me to prove that your non existant fairies are false.
You cant prove that a non existant thing, is non existant, because its non existant in the first place...get it !
So that means that the onus is on you, to prove that the christian doctrine is not goobly-gook. ( and i dont mean all of it, but most of it )
OK ....so please sir, prove its not, iam waiting!
vishva
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuGenerally any 'creator' being, any intelligence other than that of a life form or computer. It is too general a concept to define accurately. But your concept of God as far as you have articulated it on this forum, would be included.
to twhitehead
So now, to exspand on this, we must have a definition of what YOU mean by the term god, please
vishva
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuI don't recall asking for proof for anything. What I have asked for in the past is justification for some of your statements in the past, and you were not very forthcoming.
the only question,you have asked me, is to give proof that my comments that the christian doctrine is goobly gook/ nonsense.
You cant prove that a non existant thing, is non existant, because its non existant in the first place...get it !
No, I don't get it. I personally am quite convinced that I can prove the non-existence of a large number of things.
An invisible pink unicorn living in my fridge, does not exist. I consider the fact that its definition is self contradictory to be proof of its non-existence, and I consider its definitions incompatibility with my own observation to be proof of its non-existence. If they are not satisfactory proofs to you, then what do you see as the flaws?
So that means that the onus is on you, to prove that the christian doctrine is not goobly-gook. ( and i dont mean all of it, but most of it )
Well if that logic is valid, then the onus is on you, to prove that anything you say is not goobly gook, because I claim it is.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually Robbie you would need a pretty big coffee table, although I grant you that early hominid fossils are very rare. In fact, fossils per se are rather rare as it takes some pretty unusual circumstances to allow organic remains to become fossilized. Nevertheless, many fossils do exist - some of which do appear to represent very close relatives of ours. How do you account for these objects? And indeed, for the vast number of lithic artefacts which have been recovered from stratified deposits alongside them?
as you are aware my friend, the number of bones supporting a 'link', from apes to humans could fit on a medium sized coffee table, surprise surprise given the eighty or so thousand? million? squillion? of years this transition would have taken one would think that there would have been a plethora of evidence. You see what happens when your Catholi ...[text shortened]...
2.Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737