Creation museum pushes 'true history'

[ed316]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Creation museum pushes 'true history'
By Matthew Wells
BBC News, Kentucky



A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the Creation Museum.
But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
"We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.
"The museum is right under that archway there," said Mark Looy, vice president for ministry relations, standing in the foyer next to an animatronics dinosaur that is munching on a synthetic plant.
Playful dinosaurs
The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.


Everybody who works at the museum has to sign on to the belief that the living Earth was created in six 24-hour days - rejecting the convention most scientists view as fact, that life evolved slowly over millions of years.
To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex.
"You go to some of the major museums and dinosaurs are their teaching icon," said Mr Looy.
"We're going to turn that on its head, and use dinosaurs to show that the Bible presents the true history of the world. We have people, and dinosaurs, together."
There is no mention of dinosaurs anywhere in the Bible, but for every sceptic, there is a committed Christian eager to listen and proselytise.
Alongside the nearly completed museum are the offices and warehousing of Answers in Genesis, which resemble any other medium-sized business complex in the vicinity.
Much of the material is given away free for educational purposes, but the weeks ahead of Christmas are the busiest of the year, as the gift orders pile up.
Even though the complex warren of exhibition rooms is a work in progress, enthusiastic visitors are already appearing.
Qualified staff
Colorado-based Dr Michael Sherwin was touring around with his family:
"I'm a pathologist... When I was studying genetics, it just seemed to me that if I consider one single cell to contain all the information I have to form me - I just don't see how that could evolve."


Answers in Genesis prides itself on having many qualified scientists on staff, including Dr Georgia Purdom, a molecular geneticist by training, from one of Ohio's main universities.
She is concerned that many Christians do not accept the literal truth of the creation:
"It's foundational. If you can't believe Genesis, then why believe any other part of the Bible?
"You can't pick and choose, you can't say this part is right, and this part is wrong," she said, halfway through supervising an online tutorial in her office.
Australian-born Ken Ham, is the president of the whole organisation, whose vision has driven the museum project.
He must be one of the very few evangelicals in the US to display a signed photograph of the cricketer Steve Waugh in his office, but touring through the labyrinth of rooms, it is clear what galvanises him most.
Intelligent design
He gives very lukewarm praise to the so-called intelligent design movement, which he sees as giving in to the temptations of evolutionary thinking.
But his attitude towards committed atheist scientists is surprisingly respectful:
"Everyone starts from presuppositions. For example, Richard Dawkins says there is no God: that's his starting point
"He'll admit that he has an a priori assumption of materialism, and we're saying we have an a priori assumption of the Bible."
The sophistication of the animatronics, artwork and modelling, would do justice to the most cutting edge theme park, and the main designer has a distinguished pedigree in Hollywood.
As a born again Christian, he was keen to offer his services, said Mr Ham.


Although professional construction workers are still on site, the cost of the project would probably be in the region of $100m (£50m), if the voluntary effort had been accounted for, he added.
With polls consistently showing that about 40% of Americans believe God created man in his present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years, the museum could focus its efforts entirely on the converted.
Two-thirds of the US population lives within six hours' drive of Cincinnati, but Mr Ham has bigger ambitions for tackling agnostics further afield.
"We're thinking globally... We've already had indications from people in the United Kingdom and across other parts of Europe, that they're going to be coming here.
"What the Bible would reveal to us, no other book gives an account of the history of the Universe as this one does," he added.
Despite adopting the structure and technology of the most extravagant science museum, it remains that none of it is remotely plausible without first accepting Genesis. Without taking that leap and rejecting centuries of scientific reasoning, it all resembles just another Disney-style magic kingdom.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm

[Freedom06]

Don't get me started....


To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Oh please... :backhand:


Everybody who works at the museum has to sign on to the belief that the living Earth was created in six 24-hour days -

:roll:

Twats

[kosse]

Even though I disagree with these people on a lot things it would be interesting to visit this museum.

[ed316]

They are free to build whatever they want and believe just don't try to force it on me. That's the way I see it.

[Freedom06]

They are free to build whatever they want and believe just don't try to force it on me. That's the way I see it.

I guess you are right, but it's just part of a larger agenda to get this stuff 'legitamised' and taught in schools as 'fact'... teaching kids this stuff is doing them a disservice, they aren't old enough to know better.

[Mr.Flint]

Thats going to be a fun freak show, attendants and visitors included

[AllAmerican]

Oh, lord. Here we go.

When are people going to learn that fundamentalists of any kind are just straight up bad. I mean, to each his own, but don't bull-sh*t me and make me the bad guy just cause i'm different or have different perspectives on things.
btw...
Science=Ultimate Religion!

[Hunterhr]

the belief that the living Earth was created in six 24-hour days

At least it's plausible. I get more than that done during finals week.

[Hellfish]

They are free to build whatever they want and believe just don't try to force it on me. That's the way I see it.

Word. The man speaks the truth. I wouldn't mind visiting it, though.

[annihilation]

"We have a planetarium to our left,"

I would love to see how this looks.......

[kosse]

I would love to see how this looks.......
roflrofl

Me too. Someone go there ASAP and take some pictures. p-)

[ed316]

Word. The man speaks the truth. I wouldn't mind visiting it, though.

Same here.

[Sniffit]

To try and make a belief like this legit by building a museum for it should be illeagal.


With polls consistently showing that about 40% of Americans believe God created man in his present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years, the museum could focus its efforts entirely on the converted.

This just show that the US government need to put more effort into teaching kids science from an early age.

[ed316]

To try and make a belief like this legit by building a museum for it should be illeagal.


Why illegal? Seems like some non-religious people are doing the same as some fundamentalist; being intolerant.



This just show that the US government need to put more effort into teaching kids science from an early age.


Curriculum is regulated by the state not federal government.

I agree we need to teach kids more science..and math....and english.....and more PE because they are fat.

..........................

[ElHombre]

"We're going to turn that on its head, and use dinosaurs to show that the Bible presents the true history of the world. We have people, and dinosaurs, together."

THE STUPID!!! IT BURNSSS!!!

[Lazy Lob]

Gobsmacked.............

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/2006/11/17/pictures-of-construction-work/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/photoalbum.aspx

[Freedom06]

I think its that time again:


http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/desktop_diversions/images/dilbert_demons_800x600.jpg

[Sniffit]

Originally Posted by Sniffit
To try and make a belief like this legit by building a museum for it should be illeagal.


Why illegal? Seems like some non-religious people are doing the same as some fundamentalist; being intolerant.


It doesn't really have anything to do with being intolerant as being liberal. Kids should not be the targets of political or religous propaganda since they will have a hard time protecting them selfs against it. Teach kids what is accepted as the most likely theory/fact by the scientific comunity. Then when they grow up they can chose to belive what they want. Building a museum to teach unscientific theories as fact should not be alowed since it will make it easier for fundamentalist parents to affect their kids by giving their view a touch of legitimacy(sp?) that it does not deserve.

[ed316]

It doesn't really have anything to do with being intolerant as being liberal. Kids should not be the targets of political or religous propaganda since they will have a hard time protecting them selfs against it. Teach kids what is accepted as the most likely theory/fact by the scientific comunity. Then when they grow up they can chose to belive what they want. Building a museum to teach unscientific theories as fact should not be alowed since it will make it easier for fundamentalist parents to affect their kids by giving their view a touch of legitimacy(sp?) that it does not deserve.

No one is forcing anyone to go to this mueseum when it opens. If parents what thier kids to belive in Genesis and the bible that's there perogative. Churches teach creationism. Should they be illegal? As long as there is no public money going to this, I don't care. Making people's beliefs illegal is just as bad as forcing your views on someone.

BTW I'm not Christian.

[Sniffit]

No one is forcing anyone to go to this mueseum when it opens. If parents what thier kids to belive in Genesis and the bible that's there perogative.


Making people's beliefs illegal is just as bad as forcing your views on someone.

So you don't think that those two statements are contradicting eachother?
First you say that parents should be alowed to force their views on their kids and then you say that you shouldn't force your views on anyone.

How is a child going to protect itself against it's religous parents?

Btw. no i do not think that religon should be illeagal. Kids should be taught about most major religons and sects in school. Then when they get old enough to make a decision for themselfs they can decide what they want to belive in. If they are agnostic or atheist they will still find the information they got very useful since it's the key to understand much bout hte past and todays society.

[ed316]

So you don't think that those two statements are contradicting eachother?
First you say that parents should be alowed to force their views on their kids and then you say that you shouldn't force your views on anyone.

So you are saying parents shouldn't be allowed to raise thier kids? It's the governments job? So we should take kids away from their parents and raised them as the state or you see fit?




How is a child going to protect itself against it's religous parents?


Who are you to say what's wrong or right when a parent teach his kid about religion. How about if you had a kid and I taught him something that doen't agree with your view?

Btw. no i do not think that religon should be illeagal. Kids should be taught about most major religons and sects in school. Then when they get old enough to make a decision for themselfs they can decide what they want to belive in. If they are agnostic or atheist they will still find the information they got very useful since it's the key to understand much bout hte past and todays society.


But yet you said this building should be illegal? Isn't that contradicting?

This is a mueseum. Not some state sanction school. When I was in school religion wasn't even taught. When kids get older that's waht they do. Decide for themselves.



.........................

[Belrick]

She is concerned that many Christians do not accept the literal truth of the creation:
"It's foundational. If you can't believe Genesis, then why believe any other part of the Bible?

This part of the of the article is %100 factually true. The question is then why are there so many guilible fools out there who actually believe this religion cr@p even though they know parts are down out right lies.

[Sniffit]

So you don't think that those two statements are contradicting eachother?
First you say that parents should be alowed to force their views on their kids and then you say that you shouldn't force your views on anyone.


So you are saying parents shouldn't be allowed to raise thier kids? It's the governments job? So we should take kids away from their parents and raised them as the state or you see fit?

Ofcourse they are to raise their kids, show them love and compassion, teach them right and wrong. But indoctrinating the kids into a religon or political view is wrong since the kid will have a hard time to understand it all. That is why you can't vote until you are 18, you will most likly not be able to have accumulated enough life experience and/or knowlege to make a sensible choice according to your own will before then. It is the same with religon.

I say again, how is a child going to protect itself against propaganda from it's religous parents?



Who are you to say what's wrong or right when a parent teach his kid about religion. How about if you had a kid and I taught him something that doen't agree with your view?

Like what? As long as you keep religon and politics out of it I won't care. Actually that's not true, you can teach him about religon and/or politics as long as you don't put any value/bias into what you teach him/her. To clarify, please teach my kid, just keep to the facts and keep your opinion out of it.


Btw. no i do not think that religon should be illeagal. Kids should be taught about most major religons and sects in school. Then when they get old enough to make a decision for themselfs they can decide what they want to belive in. If they are agnostic or atheist they will still find the information they got very useful since it's the key to understand much bout the past and todays society.


This is a mueseum. Not some state sanction school. When I was in school religion wasn't even taught. When kids get older that's waht they do. Decide for themselves.

So you were never taught about hinduism, islam, christianity and so forth? That's a major oversight on the schools part in my opinion. The problem with deciding for themselfs is that if they ahve brought up from they were born in a religous family that went to church every sunday, was baptised at birth, went to a confirmation camp as a teenager and so on. It can be very hard to brake that connection with your upbringing and it can make you a beliver just because you don't know anything else. This is especially true in cases of kids brought up in religous sects such as jehovas witnesses and such.

[Sniffit]

Oh and ed316 please don't write inside the quote it makes it harder to reply.

[Count Lippe]

holy crap! some judge better tell them not to call that freakshow a museum!:cantbeli:

[ed316]

Ofcourse they are to raise their kids, show them love and compassion, teach them right and wrong. But indoctrinating the kids into a religon or political view is wrong since the kid will have a hard time to understand it all. That is why you can't vote until you are 18, you will most likly not be able to have accumulated enough life experience and/or knowlege to make a sensible choice according to your own will before then. It is the same with religon.

I say again, how is a child going to protect itself against propaganda from it's religous parents?


Basically you are saying parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids. The state should decide. parents have kids but the state or someone else will raise them.

What makes a parent who wants to raise thier kid religiously different from a parent who doesn't want to raise thier kid in a non religious household? Who's right? All comes down to parent's right.

Sufferage and rreligious "indoctrination are two dofferent thing.



Like what? As long as you keep religon and politics out of it I won't care. Actually that's not true, you can teach him about religon and/or politics as long as you don't put any value/bias into what you teach him/her. To clarify, please teach my kid, just keep to the facts and keep your opinion out of it.


Vs a secular bias? So I'm not allowed to teach my own children in my own house what I like? Who decides? Raising your kid in a religous enviroment is not some political thing.



So you were never taught about hinduism, islam, christianity and so forth? That's a major oversight on the schools part in my opinion. The problem with deciding for themselfs is that if they ahve brought up from they were born in a religous family that went to church every sunday, was baptised at birth, went to a confirmation camp as a teenager and so on. It can be very hard to brake that connection with your upbringing and it can make you a beliver just because you don't know anything else. This is especially true in cases of kids brought up in religous sects such as jehovas witnesses and such.

Not a big thing when I went to school.

Some of my family members are Christian but I'm a Buddhist because I chose it. You think when a kid becomes an adult he can't decide for himself? I have friends who grew up in a religious family. Some are still while others are not. It's their choice when they become an adult. Being brought up in with religion doesn't make you a bad person or a mindless zombie.

[annihilation]

So you were never taught about hinduism, islam, christianity and so forth? That's a major oversight on the schools part in my opinion.

As long as it is taugh in the same class that teachs about the greek, roman and egyptian gods and stories thats fine with me.

[Sniffit]

Basically you are saying parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids. The state should decide. parents have kids but the state or someone else will raise them.

What makes a parent who wants to raise thier kid religiously different from a parent who doesn't want to raise thier kid in a non religious household? Who's right? All comes down to parent's right.

Sufferage and rreligious "indoctrination are two dofferent thing.


No I say that parents should not be alowed to impose their beliefs on their kids. To me it is not about the parents right but the kids right to grow up without being the target of religous or political propaganda. Religon is something for each person to decided on for themselfs. It has nothing to do with imposing restrictions on the parents but everything to do with the liberty to grow up with a free and open mind unaffected by religous or political preachings.





As long as you keep religon and politics out of it I won't care. Actually that's not true, you can teach him about religon and/or politics as long as you don't put any value/bias into what you teach him/her. To clarify, please teach my kid, just keep to the facts and keep your opinion out of it.
Vs a secular bias? So I'm not allowed to teach my own children in my own house what I like? Who decides? Raising your kid in a religous enviroment is not some political thing.

Everything is political. Maybe not on the micro level in each family but on a grand scale everything is about politics and power. It has always been like that. No you should not be allowed to teach your kids what ever you want. It is simply wrong to impose an extremist view of things on your kid. The kid is not your property to do what you will with, it's a human being and has the right to be taught unbiased scientific facts.




Some of my family members are Christian but I'm a Buddhist because I chose it. You think when a kid becomes an adult he can't decide for himself? I have friends who grew up in a religious family. Some are still while others are not. It's their choice when they become an adult. Being brought up in with religion doesn't make you a bad person or a mindless zombie.

I did not mean that people being brought up in a religous home were mindless zombies. What I mean is that you make it harder for them to find religon in their own way and you have to draw the line somewhere. I'd rather see all kids go through their childhood and teens without having to follow the religous beliefs of their parents then see a few suffer from religous extremism.

[ed316]

Well, I see you don't believe in parents having rights, religious or not. No use of going further. Cheers.

[Sniffit]

Well, I see you don't believe in parents having rights, religious or not. No use of going further. Cheers.

Of course parents have rights, but they should not have the right to teach their kids what ever they feel like. I am quite sure that most people who think that parents should be alowed to raise their kids to belive in the bible would have a problem with someone rasing their kid to become a nazi for instance.

[ed316]

Of course parents have rights, but they should not have the right to teach their kids what ever they feel like. I am quite sure that most people who think that parents should be alowed to raise their kids to belive in the bible would have a problem with someone rasing their kid to become a nazi for instance.

Contradiction. . Oh I don't know where you are from but in America it's not a crime to be religious or a Nazi. It's call freedom which you seem to want to take away.

[Hunterhr]

Of course parents have rights, but they should not have the right to teach their kids what ever they feel like.

Obviously the government would do a much better job.

I was raised in a religious family, went to church as a little kid and all that. Then I grew up and holy cow, made choices for myself.

[Sniffit]

Contradiction. . Oh I don't know where you are from but in America it's not a crime to be religious or a Nazi. It's call freedom which you seem to want to take away.

I am from Sweden and it's not a crime here either. No, I don't care if you are religous or a nazi, but you shouldn't force that opinion on a kid no matter if it is yours or anothers. It is about the freedom of the kid. The kid has just as much right to religous and political freedom as every other citizen.

[ElHombre]

I was raised in a religious family, went to church as a little kid and all that. Then I grew up and holy cow, made choices for myself.

You reached the Age of Reason.

[Hunterhr]

You reached the Age of Reason.

My choice was to continue practicing my religion. Feel free to continue being a condescending ass though.

[sir-chimp]

I am from Sweden and it's not a crime here either. No, I don't care if you are religous or a nazi, but you shouldn't force that opinion on a kid no matter if it is yours or anothers. It is about the freedom of the kid. The kid has just as much right to religous and political freedom as every other citizen.

the hell you shouldn't force your opinion on your kid

Teaching your kid right and wrong is all about forcing your opinion on a kid

its a parents job to raise their children not f_ucking debate them

if the kid doesn't like his parents beliefs - too bad, become an emancipated minor at sixteen or suffer till you can pay your own bills.

jesus ice skating christ wtf is wrong with people

[Hellfish]

I agree with Sir Chimp (for once). Kids need to be taught, not coddled.

Kids, technically, don't have rights until they're 18 here. Until that age, according to our law, they can't handle the responsibility that comes with rights.

[evanfitz]

parents pay the bills and wipe their asses, so I think they have a say so in what they teach their children.

[praetorian6]

the hell you shouldn't force your opinion on your kid

Teaching your kid right and wrong is all about forcing your opinion on a kid

its a parents job to raise their children not f_ucking debate them

if the kid doesn't like his parents beliefs - too bad, become an emancipated minor at sixteen or suffer till you can pay your own bills.

jesus ice skating christ wtf is wrong with people

Quoted For Truth

[ElHombre]

parents pay the bills and wipe their asses, so I think they have a say so in what they teach their children.

Agreed, but parents also have the responsibility to ensure that their children become productive members of society. Proclaiming a fantasy is truth like this self-titled 'museum' is not doing those kids any favors when it comes to dealing with the actual world. They might as well include a wing dedicated to elves and flying saucers.

[dj_1911]

parents pay the bills and wipe their asses, so I think they have a say so in what they teach their children.

X2

1234567890

[dj_1911]

Agreed, but parents also have the responsibility to ensure that their children become productive members of society. Proclaiming a fantasy is truth like this self-titled 'museum' is not doing those kids any favors when it comes to dealing with the actual world. They might as well include a wing dedicated to elves and flying saucers.

I hate to tell you, but elves and flying saucers don't have a fraction of the amount of believers Christianity does. To compare them is absurd.

[Sniffit]

Kids do have the right to freedom of speech, thought and religon just like adults. Kids do not need to be taught, kids need to be given an environment that encourage them to find out things on their own, to learn.


I hate to tell you, but elves and flying saucers don't have a fraction of the amount of believers Christianity does. To compare them is absurd.

Well they have about as much scientific fact to back them up.

[dj_1911]

Well they have about as much scientific fact to back them up.

Sorry bro, but you need to do a little more research. ;-)

[IraGlacialis]

:lol: What a load of crock. This (and the whole concept of intelligent design) would be offensive to me as a Christian if I actually had a denomination, and if it weren't so ridiculus. I actually want to go see what it looks like.
Wait till the Scientologists come out with their own museum.

[Son of Damian]

the hell you shouldn't force your opinion on your kid

Teaching your kid right and wrong is all about forcing your opinion on a kid

its a parents job to raise their children not f_ucking debate them

if the kid doesn't like his parents beliefs - too bad, become an emancipated minor at sixteen or suffer till you can pay your own bills.

jesus ice skating christ wtf is wrong with people

My father tried to force his beliefs apon me, as I got older I developed my own beliefs I increasingly resented this, which lead to a lot of fighting.

He was always trying to teach me right and wrong as well. But I learned more about right and wrong when I caught him in an affiar which he continues to denie, divorced my Mom and left the three of us (I have a sister) with nothing than I ever did from his teachings.

Now that I'm 19 I pay my own bills and have nothing to do with my father, and never will, neither does my sister. Because of my fathers teachings he did nothing but ruin my life for the past 5 years.

Just because your the parent, your not always going to be right when teaching your kids

[dj_1911]

My father tried to force his beliefs apon me, as I got older I developed my own beliefs I increasingly resented this, which lead to a lot of fighting.

He was always trying to teach me right and wrong as well. But I learned more about right and wrong when I caught him in an affiar which he continues to denie, divorced my Mom and left the three of us (I have a sister) with nothing than I ever did from his teachings.

Now that I'm 19 I pay my own bills and have nothing to do with my father, and never will, neither does my sister. Because of my fathers teachings he did nothing but ruin my life for the past 5 years.

Just because your the parent, your not always going to be right when teaching your kids

So what? No offence but that sounds extremely immature. Just because your Dad did things that he shouldn't have doesn't mean parents shouldn't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. Again, no offence, but you sound like the typical teenager "I hate my parents, they suck, I'm gonna sit here and be mad at them." etc, etc ad nauseum.

[Sniffit]

Sorry bro, but you need to do a little more research. ;-)

I am sorry but I have yet to see a scientific proof of gods existance.


So what? No offence but that sounds extremely immature. Just because your Dad did things that he shouldn't have doesn't mean parents shouldn't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. Again, no offence, but you sound like the typical teenager "I hate my parents, they suck, I'm gonna sit here and be mad at them." etc, etc ad nauseum.

There's alot of difference about teaching you the difference between the fundamental idea behind right and wrong and forcing your personal values upon your kid.

Example:
Teaching right and wrong:
Right - Be polite, because if you treat others nicely they will be nice back
Wrong - Breaking the law because then you might end up in prison

Forcing your personal values upon the kid:
From the time the kid is a toddler you take him or her to the church every sunday, always repeat that the bible is right and tell the kid that inteligent design is true science.

[sir-chimp]

are you just stupid or a teenager?

[dj_1911]

are you just stupid or a teenager?

He said he's 19, so I'm guessing he's both. :)

[Sniffit]

are you just stupid or a teenager?

Who are you asking?

[sir-chimp]

the easter bunny and his twelve reindeer

[dj_1911]

the easter bunny and his twelve reindeer

Sir Chimp ftw! rofl

[LaoSexMachine]

Kids do have the right to freedom of speech, thought and religon just like adults. Kids do not need to be taught, kids need to be given an environment that encourage them to find out things on their own, to learn.


.

To learn you need guidance. Who is going to give them that do kids vote? Pay taxes? Enforce laws? Just because they are raised in a religious home doesn't make them stupid or brain dead. You can't learn with out guidance? Did you know about the birds and the bees on your own? Math? Science?

[Sniffit]

Ahh a classic one.
FYI I am not a teenager nor am I stupid, I simply have a different set of values then you.

[Sniffit]

To learn you need guidance. Who is going to give them that do kids vote? Pay taxes? Enforce laws? Just because they are raised in a religious home doesn't make them stupid or brain dead. You can't learn with out guidance? Did you know about the birds and the bees on your own? Math? Science?

I was refering to learning about life and finding their own belief if any, not things like math and science, sorry if that wasn't clear from the start.
I never said that being raised in a religous home would make anyone stupid or brain dead, I said that it was wrong based on the fact that the kids can not chose it.

[dj_1911]

Nevermind.

123456

[Sniffit]

Are you sure? :roll:

eh dude, that was Son of Damian, not I.

[dj_1911]

eh dude, that was Son of Damian, not I.

Eh, nevermind. My bad.

[Kilgor]

I wonder how the bible thumpers get around carbon dating fossils to be millions of years old ?

Bloody science!!!

[redflash]

...in heart of Middle America... not surprised.
keep it that way, soon, America will be the next religious extremist state.

[sir-chimp]

I thought we were

christians
jews
republicans
oh
my

christians
jews
republicans
oh
my

christians
jews
republicans
oh
my

[sir-chimp]

Ahh a classic one.
FYI I am not a teenager nor am I stupid, I simply have a different set of values then you.

yes I value intelligence

you obviously value shinny objects and your belly button lint collection

[dj_1911]

I wonder how the bible thumpers get around carbon dating fossils to be millions of years old ?

Bloody science!!!

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php


Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Bloody facts!

[Aerosoul]

It's a museum. No one's forcing anything on anyone. Don't be worried about someone's beliefs until that happens.

[redflash]

I wonder how the bible thumpers get around carbon dating fossils to be millions of years old ?

Bloody science!!!god was busy creating real life on other planets.p-)

heard that from a guy in my psychology class. still i hope hes kidding.

[annihilation]

god was busy creating real life on other planets.p-)

heard that from a guy in my psychology class. still i hope hes kidding.


lol

Well the bible doesn't say that the days were back to back.

[La8pv]

It's a museum. No one's forcing anything on anyone. Don't be worried about someone's beliefs until that happens.

its not just about forcing. If 40% of the american population believes that the earth is less than 10000 years old, you should be a bit worried. What else do they believe without one shred of evidence? That the end is near? Jesus is coming back within 50 years? (yeah they do)
Just because you are too dumb to understand the theory of evolution doesnt make it wrong. ("but hey, its only a theory!" As much as the one about gravitation) (u know, the one that explains why your stuff falls to the ground when you drop them instead of just flying away)

[LaoSexMachine]

its not just about forcing. If 40% of the american population believes that the earth is less than 10000 years old, you should be a bit worried. What else do they believe without one shred of evidence? That the end is near? Jesus is coming back within 50 years? (yeah they do)
Just because you are too dumb to understand the theory of evolution doesnt make it wrong. ("but hey, its only a theory!" As much as the one about gravitation) (u know, the one that explains why your stuff falls to the ground when you drop them instead of just flying away)

Links pls?

[La8pv]

Links pls?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4540_not_just_in_kansas_anymore_5_5_2000.asp

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

[LaoSexMachine]

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4540_not_just_in_kansas_anymore_5_5_2000.asp

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm


First link


Reprinted with permission of SCIENCE. SCIENCE Volume 288 5 May 2000 page 813

May 5, 2000

Second link


Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:

[La8pv]

your point is?

[Zoomie]

So did anyone hear that science has just determined the saddest song in history (http://musicnews.virgin.net/Virgin/Lifestyle/Music/virginMusicNewsDetail/0,13556,1767253_music,00.html)? :roll:

[LaoSexMachine]

your point is?

One more month till 2007.

[La8pv]

One more month till 2007.

and in 2007 jesus returns?

[dangerclose]

not surprised.
keep it that way, soon, America will be the next religious extremist state.



I hope so we can start cutting your heads off.

[LaoSexMachine]

and in 2007 jesus returns?

Typical intolerant non believer. I too am a Buddhist.

[La8pv]

Typical intolerant non believer. I too am a Buddhist.

Typical incoherent answer from a believer.

[LaoSexMachine]

Typical incoherent answer from a believer.

Of what? Creationism? Or tolerance. Seems like you lack that.

[sir-chimp]

Of what? Creationism? Or tolerance. Seems like you lack that.

sadly the majority of those who like to view themselves as sophisticates are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet

[LaoSexMachine]

sadly the majority of those who like to view themselves as sophisticates are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet

QFT. .

[redflash]

I hope so we can start cutting your heads off.
then you violated one of your commandment, thou shall not kill. you fail, son.p-)

(http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html)

[La8pv]

sadly the majority of those who like to view themselves as sophisticates are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet

Im not intolerant. I have the same respect for everone. I really dont care if you believe in allah, hathor, atlas, hades, thor, zeus, isis, apollo, elegua, abassi, rainbow-snake, chantico, morrigan, balor, qi-lin, poseidon, satan, baal, jesus, unicorns, and other myhilogical creatures there are no evidence for. But the moment you openly declare that something is the way it is because of your superstition i wont respect that. science and reason are good tools. Not faith and superstition.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

[dangerclose]

then you violated one of your commandment, thou shall not kill. you fail, son.p-)

(http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html)




It's thou shall not murder. A police officer who kills an armed robber in a shootout is not breaking a commandment.


Anyways, it's no coincidence that the most Christian nation in the history of the world is also the most successful. Don't hate.

[ElHombre]

Anyways, it's no coincidence that the most Christian nation in the history of the world is also the most successful. Don't hate.

Are you talking about the Vatican, or the nation which kept fellow human beings as property for a few centuries?

[La8pv]

sadly the majority of those who like to view themselves as sophisticates are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet

Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

What to believe?

[nagant_m44]

I wonder how the bible thumpers get around carbon dating fossils to be millions of years old ?

Bloody science!!!

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) method that uses the naturally occurring isotope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope) carbon-14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14) to determine the age of carbonaceous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonaceous) materials up to about 60,000 years (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/rdc/2001/00000043/00000002/art00008). Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present)" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

[sir-chimp]

Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

What to believe?



lol .

[LaoSexMachine]

Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

What to believe?

It's about tolerance. Which you seem to lack. Free will to believe or not.

[sir-chimp]

It's about tolerance. Which you seem to lack. Free will to believe or not.

Its like he set out to prove my post exactly right, only he is not bright enough to realize it

[La8pv]

It's about tolerance. Which you seem to lack. Free will to believe or not.

keep on preaching. You dont want free speech? So its okay for people to believe that gay people should be executed, the earth is flat, the earth is 10.000 years old, keeping slaves is ok, its ok to rape, its ok to murder etc. as long as they just believe?
If you just say you believe in god i propably wont debate you, but the moment you wonder in the realms of science and topics that has to do with some kind of logic i will challenge you about it. Because i hate ignorance. and i dont belive that mankind will survive religious lunacy.

[La8pv]

Its like he set out to prove my post exactly right, only he is not bright enough to realize it

Its just that im too bright to believe in fairy tales.

[LaoSexMachine]

keep on preaching. You dont want free speech? So its okay for people to believe that gay people should be executed, the earth is flat, the earth is 10.000 years old, keeping slaves is ok, its ok to rape, its ok to murder etc. as long as they just believe?
If you just say you believe in god i propably wont debate you, but the moment you wonder in the realms of science and topics that has to do with some kind of logic i will challenge you about it. Because i hate ignorance. and i dont belive that mankind will survive religious lunacy.

What century do you live in? It's 2006 man. Get with the program. I'm preaching? What about your hate? So blind to your "truth" that you think you know it all?

[Zoomie]

If you just say you believe in god i propably wont debate you, but the moment you wonder in the realms of science and topics that has to do with some kind of logic i will challenge you about it. Because i hate ignorance. and i dont belive that mankind will survive religious lunacy.
LOL....I bet you'd be singing the same tune back in any day when it was accepted as scientific fact that the world was flat, that the universe orbited the earth, or that eugenics is a science.

[sir-chimp]

Its just that im too bright to believe in fairy tales.

well thats good to know

[Zoomie]

Its just that im too bright to believe in fairy tales.

But not enlightened enough to know proper grammar and punctuation? :cantbeli:

[La8pv]

But not enlightened enough to know proper grammar and punctuation? :cantbeli:

Olen liian viisas uskomaan satuihin. (finnish)

Jeg er for smart til å tro på eventyr. (norwegian)

English is not my mother language.

I would prefer norwegian or finnish as im more fluent in those, but the language used in this board is english. If you want to debate in my mother tongue (norwegian or finnish) i wont hazzle you about punctuation.

[La8pv]

LOL....I bet you'd be singing the same tune back in any day when it was accepted as scientific fact that the world was flat, that the universe orbited the earth, or that eugenics is a science.

You could be right. Because your church would have burned my ass on a stake if i had said otherwise.

[Zoomie]

You could be right. Because your church would have burned my ass on a stake if i had said otherwise.

Ummm...I don't recall making any reference to any church. :roll: Besides, I don't think it would have been just the church that would of wanted to burn you at the stake, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if it was the whole village as well.

[ArmyJonHall]

What I find most disturbing about this whole debacle is the fact that an Australian is at the head of this thing.

The best counter-argument I could make about this whole thing is to point people towards Jay Pinkertons Back of the Bible (http://jaypinkerton.cracked.com/backofthebible.html) series of articles, in which he points out the fundamental flaws of the Bible while making you piss your pants with laughter.


Once you wade past the shallow end of the New Testament into the back half of the Old Testament, get ready: it turns out God's a ****ing lunatic, and He loves the taste of your blood. Old Testament God ain't letting Himself get nailed to any crosses like some pussy; OT God wouldn't spit on your balls if they were on fire.

[Thor]

The most disturbing thing is that these numbnuts add their own chapters to the Bible. That's an insult to all believers. And their theories are just so immensely stupid, they should at least have hired someone that could have come up with something better.


Jeg er for smart til å tro på eventyr.
Spelling, again.

Albert Einstein was a believer and he was pretty good at spelling.

[La8pv]

Ummm...I don't recall making any reference to any church. :roll: Besides, I don't think it would have been just the church that would of wanted to burn you at the stake, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if it was the whole village as well.

propably them too. Because the church had "educated" them. The same way many churches educate today.
Its funny how religious people preach about tolerance when religion is the cause for so much suffering through history. Its hard to believe someone when you know their "good book" tells that your ass will fry in hell for ever for not sucking up to the god allmighty,

[La8pv]

The most disturbing thing is that these numbnuts add their own chapters to the Bible. That's an insult to all believers. And their theories are just so immensely stupid, they should at least have hired someone that could have come up with something better.


Spelling, again.

Albert Einstein was a believer and he was pretty good at spelling.
What was wrong with the spelling?

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." - A. Einstein

[Thor]

What was wrong with the spelling?
Looked like something written by a 4-year-old, but then I saw that you were norwegian. I apologise.


My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
x2

[redflash]

It's thou shall not murder. A police officer who kills an armed robber in a shootout is not breaking a commandment.


Anyways, it's no coincidence that the most Christian nation in the history of the world is also the most successful. Don't hate.
most successful? very interesting, bring me more evidences then

[Sir Zach of R.]

What was wrong with the spelling?

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." - A. Einstein

Good quote. Listen I don't care if you rant about how much you hate Christians until the day you die, just don't lump all Christians into one big group. I'm a protestant Christian and these people DO NOT represent my beliefs.

[Thor]

most successful? very interesting, bring me more evidences then
More precisely, protestant.

[name already taken]

I read the book that was plagiated by Dan Brown in his "Da Vinci code".
It was so good that I read it twice. It's a 600 pages book. And I plan to read it once more.
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Blood-Grail-Michael-Baigent/dp/0440136482
Taking a look in the index shows an intrigue that's been going on for a couple thousands years
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0440136482/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-5346453-6763359#reader-link

It was written by Michael_Baigent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baigent) who has a degree in comparative religion, the book was a huge bestseller and has been the subject of a BBC series.


And my point is, I've never been a believer at all. And it is the first time I find something showing me how much right I was not to believe the kool aid being served to all the good people. Man, does it it open the eyes on how much political all this has been and how much one must be careful about the interests powerful institutions have taken over the centuries about these events.

What "facts" we've got are the ways powerful, big and old institutions, competing between each other, have made them for specific interests of their own. Deliberately.

While reading this book, I was glad to have the proof nobody needs to believe anything he doesn't understand. Beause what is inunderstandable has probably been placed there by an institution leader who didn't understand either but who needed to do it for special interests. Many documented examples of this abound along the book.

Biiiiiiig relief. :)

[rb132]

Typical intolerant non believer. I too am a Buddhist.


wouldnt this site qualify as wrong livelihood or wrong action/wrong view? :)

[Sniffit]

This is sad, the thread started of as very good with a decent and quite intresting debate and then it all turned into some pie throwing contest.

Why can't we just, for once keep an intresting thread clean of inflaming attacks on people? Why can't we just respect eachothers views and opinions?

I don't mind if you post your opinion about anything, just try to write it in a way as not to insult people. Back it with valid arguments and when you are out of those, instead of throwing insults around you just keep reading in scilence and when you read something that you can debate yet again, do so.

I never once attacked religon as such, I said that I thought that everyone had the right to be thaught religiously unbiased science. I also stated that I am so strongly in favour of religous freedom that I think that kids should have that right too.

With this I want to bring the thread back on it's topic. So can we please continue discussing the museum, freedom of religon and what effect this might have on american views of science vs. religon. Do not let another intresting thread turn into a flamewar just because you do not agree with what others think.

[rb132]

i feel sad

[toki]

I agree with Sir Chimp (for once). Kids need to be taught, not coddled.

Kids, technically, don't have rights until they're 18 here. Until that age, according to our law, they can't handle the responsibility that comes with rights.
Kids here have the RIGHT with 14 years old, NOT to be educated in a religious believe they didn't choose for themselves. Yeah technically you can shut your parents up. Forcing one into a religious belief with 14 is as unlawful as beating your kid. And the parents are not allowed to force you into a religious school etc. (nothing to do with compulsory education). I recall that you had to subscribe in school if you wanted religious ed and the parents were not asked. That's also the reason obligational religious ed ends with 14. That's one of the very few concrete rights you have before you're 18. Along with drinking when you're 16 lol. And it's the only thing a 14 year old can subscribe (if you don't count the laws referring to divorce of the parents.) That age you can't even subscribe a contract of purchase. It's innefective, when your parents disagree. And the dealer has to take back everything. Just to show how singular this right is!

So since we're talking about religion this is important. It's not the same everywhere.

[Freedom06]

wouldnt this site qualify as wrong livelihood or wrong action/wrong view? :)

Yes and to read it is to suffer.

People seem to fail to realise the distinction between people having religious beliefs (what is wrong with that?-nothing) and spending millions of dollars on a fancy high-tech 'museum' (with the aim on going global) specifically to try and push an idea (that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old) that can be proved to be wrong, and with the eventual aim of putting faith beliefs on par with rational scientific thought in the classroom. Do you in the US really want a situation where that occurs-where beliefs that have no evidence (or at least none that stands up to scrutiny and peer review) are given equal weight to established scientific facts?

What's next, will 'miracles' be taught as part of Physics class-will Moses parting the Red Sea be taught in History lessons? Will 'The Flood' be taught in Geology lessons? This is not just a museum, it is part of a movement with a clear political agenda to get Genesis taught on an equal level with Science in Science Class! If it weren't for this agenda it would be harmless and comical.

[Thor]

This is sad, the thread started of as very good with a decent and quite intresting debate and then it all turned into some pie throwing contest.

Why can't we just, for once keep an intresting thread clean of inflaming attacks on people? Why can't we just respect eachothers views and opinions?

I don't mind if you post your opinion about anything, just try to write it in a way as not to insult people. Back it with valid arguments and when you are out of those, instead of throwing insults around you just keep reading in scilence and when you read something that you can debate yet again, do so.

I never once attacked religon as such, I said that I thought that everyone had the right to be thaught religiously unbiased science. I also stated that I am so strongly in favour of religous freedom that I think that kids should have that right too.

With this I want to bring the thread back on it's topic. So can we please continue discussing the museum, freedom of religon and what effect this might have on american views of science vs. religon. Do not let another intresting thread turn into a flamewar just because you do not agree with what others think.
You're out bicycling!

You wanted to throw them in jail... That's scary.

[vrb]

I've just had a look at the website.

Nice people.

a) one who is dead in trespasses and sin—a non-Christian

b) When Christians marry non-Christians, it negates the spiritual (not the physical) oneness in marriage, resulting in negative consequences for the couple and their children.

[dj_1911]

You could be right. Because your church would have burned my ass on a stake if i had said otherwise.

Christians != Catholics

Evangelicals don't burn people's asses at the stake. ;-)

[rb132]

Christians != Catholics

Evangelicals don't burn people's asses at the stake. ;-)


the christian reconstructionists would if they could get away with it



they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

[dj_1911]

the christian reconstructionists would if they could get away with it



they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

That's the Old Testament. Things are different since the New Testament. Do a little research on the the Law, and the New Covenant.

[rb132]

That's the Old Testament. Things are different since the New Testament. Do a little research on the the Law, and the New Covenant.


but jesus never condemns the old testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

even the new testament has stuff like:

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


....i still dont know what to make of these things

[dj_1911]

but jesus never condemns the old testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

even the new testament has stuff like:

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


....i still dont know what to make of these things

You left out the first part of Mark 7:10 "For Moses said..." Jesus was talking about something Moses said in the Old Testament.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of baondage." Galatians 5:1

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" Matthew 5:42-47

[Sniffit]

Originally Posted by Sniffit
This is sad, the thread started of as very good with a decent and quite intresting debate and then it all turned into some pie throwing contest.

Why can't we just, for once keep an intresting thread clean of inflaming attacks on people? Why can't we just respect eachothers views and opinions?

I don't mind if you post your opinion about anything, just try to write it in a way as not to insult people. Back it with valid arguments and when you are out of those, instead of throwing insults around you just keep reading in scilence and when you read something that you can debate yet again, do so.

I never once attacked religon as such, I said that I thought that everyone had the right to be thaught religiously unbiased science. I also stated that I am so strongly in favour of religous freedom that I think that kids should have that right too.

With this I want to bring the thread back on it's topic. So can we please continue discussing the museum, freedom of religon and what effect this might have on american views of science vs. religon. Do not let another intresting thread turn into a flamewar just because you do not agree with what others think.

You're out bicycling!

You wanted to throw them in jail... That's scary.

Why would I be "ute och cyckla"? You really have to use some kinde of argument to support that statement.

Who did I want to throw in jail and why? As far as I know I have not sugested that we should throw anyone in jail, atleast not here in this thread.

[dj_1911]

In John chapter 8, there's a story about an adulterous woman that was brought before Jesus.

"They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

"But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground."

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

[martinexsquaddie]

persoanlly I think its a bbc agenda to make americans look even more stupid in the eyes of the world. you really ought to ban the export of the likes of judge judy and the rest they do your national standing no good what so ever.
my 3 year old would love the museum as he likes dinosaurs not sure how long I'd last before being asked to leave though as somethings are beyond mockery

[rb132]

In John chapter 8, there's a story about an adulterous woman that was brought before Jesus.

"They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

"But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground."

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

the bible also say this about women too though:

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

[Sir Zach of R.]

the bible also say this about women too though:

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Totally out of context. You've failed to understand what this passage is about. It speaks of the enemies of Israel gathering in sight of the Lord to destroy Jerusalem, and upon this the Lord conquers and repels Israel's enemies. If you had continued on to Zechariah 14:3, it would have said:

"Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle."

[Sir Zach of R.]

This is Zechariah 14 in its entirety.



Zechariah 14

The LORD Comes and Reigns


1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake [a (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Zechariah+14&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=20&Submit.y=10#fen-NIV-23074a)] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

6 On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime—a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.

8 On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea [b (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Zechariah+14&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=20&Submit.y=10#fen-NIV-23077b)] and half to the western sea, [c (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Zechariah+14&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=20&Submit.y=10#fen-NIV-23077c)] in summer and in winter.

9 The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name.

10 The whole land, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become like the Arabah. But Jerusalem will be raised up and remain in its place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11 It will be inhabited; never again will it be destroyed. Jerusalem will be secure.

12 This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. 13 On that day men will be stricken by the LORD with great panic. Each man will seize the hand of another, and they will attack each other. 14 Judah too will fight at Jerusalem. The wealth of all the surrounding nations will be collected—great quantities of gold and silver and clothing. 15 A similar plague will strike the horses and mules, the camels and donkeys, and all the animals in those camps.

16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The LORD [d (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Zechariah+14&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=20&Submit.y=10#fen-NIV-23087d)] will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 On that dayHOLY TO THE LORD will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite [e (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Zechariah+14&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=20&Submit.y=10#fen-NIV-23090e)] in the house of the LORD Almighty.

[dj_1911]

the bible also say this about women too though:

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

What? The Bible merely says that it's going to happen. It's not condoning it. It's merely stating what will occur. In fact, it's talking about the enemies of the Lord. It goes on to say that the Lord will fight for them. C'mon man, you're really reaching. :cantbeli:

Edit: Sir Zach got it.

[rb132]

What? The Bible merely says that it's going to happen. It's not condoning it. It's merely stating what will occur. In fact, it's talking about the enemies of the Lord. It goes on to say that the Lord will fight for them. C'mon man, you're really reaching. :cantbeli:

Edit: Sir Zach got it.


that whole passage is terrorfying..........does this mean the LORD will be carrying out the ravaging of women and retribution of the enemies of Jerusalem? or those who do the lord's work? The Lord sounds like one violent character, no matter what context you put it in.


Im not trying to deliberatly upset any christians here, i just want to know.

[Kaapeli]

Psalms
137:8 O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated!
How blessed will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us!

137:9 How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!

Numbers 31
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Joshua 6
6:16 The seventh time around, the priests blew the horns and Joshua said to the people, "Now shout, for the LORD has given you the city

6:17 and everything in it. It is under the LORD'S ban. Only the harlot Rahab and all who are in the house with her are to be spared, because she hid the messengers we sent.

6:21 They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and asses.

Now is their God telling them to do this stuff or are they just making it up as they go? Is the Bible the word of God or not?

[Sir Zach of R.]

that whole passage is terrorfying..........does this mean the LORD will be carrying out the ravaging of women and retribution of the enemies of Jerusalem? or those who do the lord's work? The Lord sounds like one violent character, no matter what context you put it in.


Im not trying to deliberatly upset any christians here, i just want to know.

No, you are trying to upset Christians. You purposely took that passage and completely mis-interpreted it to your specific agenda and left out important parts of the message to fit what you were trying to say. Same goes for the passages you cited earlier.

And no, the passage does not represent actions taken by the Lord or the Lord's people. It's quite simple to understand, really.

[kosse]

No, you are trying to upset Christians. You purposely took that passage and completely mis-interpreted it to your specific agenda and left out important parts of the message to fit what you were trying to say. Same goes for the passages you cited earlier.

And no, the passage does not represent actions taken by the Lord or the Lord's people. It's quite simple to understand, really.
If some non-muslim geniuses would just remember this when they are intepreting Koran for their political or religious agendas. :roll:

[Sir Zach of R.]

If some non-muslim geniuses would just remember this when they are intepreting Koran for their political or religious agendas. :roll:

I said nothing about Muslims. Care to cite some examples considering it's apparently on your mind?

[Zoomie]

Let the cherry picking of bible verses begin and also start the countdown towards a lock!

[kosse]

I said nothing about Muslims. Care to cite some examples considering it's apparently on your mind?
I wasn't referring to you or anyone else in this topic. Just to those "articles" sometimes posted from fundie websites that interpret Koran by taking excerpts out of context. It's same as this.

Carry on.

[Durandal]

I would love to see how this looks.......

I've posted pictures o fit before, several months back in the Spring. Its just SOuth of me...woooo boy.

The Museum
http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/images2006/museum_panorama.jpg

Exhibits
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/P1020673.JPG

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/Dino-dig-8-30-06-0151.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/P1020222.JPG

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/1m1.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/Ken-constr--11-16-06-06.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/Norma-Ham-n-ark-9-25-2006-0.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/Steel-for-windows-9-25-2006.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/17m5.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/november06%20108.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/Dec%2006%20033.jpg

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/pictures/Picture%203.JPG

[dangerclose]

Psalms
137:8 O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated!
How blessed will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us!

137:9 How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!

Numbers 31
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Joshua 6
6:16 The seventh time around, the priests blew the horns and Joshua said to the people, "Now shout, for the LORD has given you the city

6:17 and everything in it. It is under the LORD'S ban. Only the harlot Rahab and all who are in the house with her are to be spared, because she hid the messengers we sent.

6:21 They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and asses.

Now is their God telling them to do this stuff or are they just making it up as they go? Is the Bible the word of God or not?


How many women and children were killed by God in the flood? Every one of them but one family. God metes out His judgement as He sees fit. But of course you're more just than He is.

[sir-chimp]

Cool pics, I would like to see that in person

[La8pv]

How many women and children were killed by God in the flood? Every one of them but one family. God metes out His judgement as He sees fit. But of course you're more just than He is.


that is one nice god.rofl

[rb132]

No, you are trying to upset Christians. You purposely took that passage and completely mis-interpreted it to your specific agenda and left out important parts of the message to fit what you were trying to say. Same goes for the passages you cited earlier.

And no, the passage does not represent actions taken by the Lord or the Lord's people. It's quite simple to understand, really.


Thats funny because your book quite understandably upsets OTHERS who come across such passages.

What is somebody who comes across such passages meant to think??

How can any reasonable person conclude anything other than the creator of your book is a vengeful, violent, child abusing war mongerer after coming across such things?

[dangerclose]

Thats funny because your book quite understandably upsets OTHERS who come across such passages.

What is somebody who comes across such passages meant to think??

How can any reasonable person conclude anything other than the creator of your book is a vengeful, violent, child abusing war mongerer after coming across such things?


You should be upset.


tick .. tick .. tick ...

The old adage - if you're right, no consequences either way when it's all said and done and we're all rotting in our graves. If the bible's right ... you're in trouble.

[rb132]

You should be upset.


tick .. tick .. tick ...

The old adage - if you're right, no consequences either way when it's all said and done and we're all rotting in our graves. If the bible's right ... you're in trouble.

the infamous veiled threat of 'if jesus actually comes back your in trouble/if there is a hell you could end up there'

thats how the church recruits its followers and how its teachings spread like a virus: through fear (if you dont believe what we say this might happen)
Ive got friends that believe in god for this very reason, if they dont 'believe' they think they will end up in hell.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many christians think their fate will be decided through what they think, not how they act.

[Durandal]

Zip it dude, you are being a jackass, just as much as those Christians who think we should all believe in Jesus.

[dangerclose]

the infamous veiled threat of 'if jesus actually comes back your in trouble/if there is a hell you could end up there'

thats how the church recruits its followers and how its teachings spread like a virus: through fear (if you dont believe what we say this might happen)
Ive got friends that believe in god for this very reason, if they dont 'believe' they think they will end up in hell.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many christians think their fate will be decided through what they think, not how they act.


It's not a veiled threat. It all comes down to whether it's true or not. You know the absolute, objective truth that what you and I believe has absolutely no bearing upon?

[IronFinn]

You should be upset.


tick .. tick .. tick ...

The old adage - if you're right, no consequences either way when it's all said and done and we're all rotting in our graves. If the bible's right ... you're in trouble.

Interesting debate. However, I have a small question, what happens to those who do not believe in god and there truly would be a christian god? If one uses his/hers free will and doesn´t obey then what the god do about it? Is the free will just a gian rubber band which will pull you back to the supernatural being to be judged?

[dangerclose]

Interesting debate. However, I have a small question, what happens to those who do not believe in god and there truly would be a christian god? If one uses his/hers free will and doesn´t obey then what the god do about it? Is the free will just a gian rubber band which will pull you back to the supernatural being to be judged?


Free will is exactly that. But it isn't free of consequence. Just because there is a guaranteed outcome if I make one choice over another doesn't mean I don't have the free choice.

And for those who don't believe in God and reject the only way for us to be saved - through Christ. Then they in effect will get their wish, an eternity separated from Him.

[perdurabo]

The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
could they provide any sensible data about this why 10k? why not 3k? 1 000 000? gazilion years?

here are methods archaeology uses to date artefacts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optically_Stimulated_Luminescence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_spin_resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodology_%28archaeology%29

check out dates from upper river Omo, Olduvai valley, West Turkana, Kobi-Fora etc... i wish those well educated ppl working for this museum good luck trying to show physics and chemistry is wrongp-)

[La8pv]

Free will is exactly that. But it isn't free of consequence. Just because there is a guaranteed outcome if I make one choice over another doesn't mean I don't have the free choice.

And for those who don't believe in God and reject the only way for us to be saved - through Christ. Then they in effect will get their wish, an eternity separated from Him.

nice little god you have there.

[dangerclose]

could they provide any sensible data about this why 10k? why not 3k? 1 000 000? gazilion years?

check out dates from upper river Omo, Olduvai valley, West Turkana, Kobi-Fora etc... i wish those well educated ppl working for this museum good luck trying to show physics and chemistry is wrongp-)


Have you ever wondered how evolutionists arrive at their numbers for the age of the earth and the beginning of life on it? The evolutionist may present you with these numbers as if those figures have been arrived at by sound, unshakable scientific means. In truth, these incredible dates are for the most part arbitrary. Evolutionists emphatically state that the world originated from a cosmic explosion 4.6 billion years ago. They will also say that a clearly distinct ancestor of man appeared on the evolutionary scale about 4.5 million years ago. In fact, there are no scientific measures, equations, or accurate dating methods that can tell one how old the earth really is, or when man first appeared.

This chapter reveals the various means employed by paleontologists and paleoanthropologists (those who study ancient fossils) in dating fossil remains. The latter half of this chapter will analyze these methods in order to determine their reliability. One will see from this analysis that he can dismiss any thoughts that the study of evolution is an exact science by looking no further than their dating methods.

Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)
Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949. Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation. These neutrons enter the earth’s atmosphere and react with nitrogen. This reaction results in carbon 14. Carbon 14 is a “heavy” carbon isotope because it contains fourteen neutrons in its nucleus instead of the more common load of twelve. The two additional neutrons make carbon 14 unstable and causes it to decay at a gradual rate. As the carbon 14 decays, neutrons leave the nucleus and emit a radioactive particle which theoretically can be measured to determine the rate of decay.

How does one apply this to an artifact he wishes to date? Plants and animals digest carbon (CO2) while they are living. When plants and animals die they no longer take in carbon. The carbon that is present begins to decay supposedly at a steady rate when an animal or plant dies. By measuring the rate of carbon decay through neutron emissions, one can theoretically determine how long ago death occurred.16

How Reliable is Radiocarbon Dating for Determining the Age of Ancient Fossils?
Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the American Museum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote:

Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level — that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 — has remained constant in the earth’s atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is not valid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.17

Shortly after Libby developed his carbon 14 dating method, Egyptologists, who applied his method to well-established historical material, said that “his dates did not square with the historically derived dynastic chronology.”18 Dr. Stuart Piggott, a British archaeologist, excavating near Durington Walls in England, received a radiocarbon date for his site. The radiocarbon test on a piece of charcoal suggested that Piggott’s site was 1000 years older than it actually was. Conclusive data from the site proved that the radiocarbon test was grossly in error. Piggott said of radiocarbon dating that it was “archaeologically unacceptable.”19

In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.20 In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.

One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?

Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.21 Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient “primitive man” goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.

Potassium-Argon Dating
Potassium-Argon dating is similar to radiocarbon dating in principle. Instead of measuring radioactive emissions, this method measures the decay of potassium (K-40) into argon gas (A-40). The K-40 method determines the ratio of potassium to argon in rocks. Theoretically, argon remains fairly constant through time, but potassium decays. Therefore, the level of potassium to argon determines the age. Theoretically, older samples will have lower potassium levels. Older samples will also have higher argon levels.22 Even paleontologists admit that potassium-argon dating is only useful for dating a limited variety of minerals.

How Reliable is Potassium-Argon Dating?
First of all, the rate at which potassium decays in rock samples has never been accurately determined. Another difficulty is that argon is often more unstable than potassium. Geologist G.W. Wetherill admits “the two principal problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay.”

On occasion, even the paleoanthropologist has to undermine the accuracy of a potassium-argon dated artifact when the date for that item does not coincide with what he believes to be true about human evolution. For example, paleoanthropologist Alberto Angela, made the following statement when a potassium-argon date for an artifact did not support his previously held notion: “Of course, there may be uncertainties about the dating and interpretation of fossils (and, in fact, there are divergences)”. In this statement, Angela has made some incredible and profound admissions. In the first place, he is saying that potassium-argon dating is an unreliable or an “uncertain” dating method. In the second place, in a display of honesty not often found among evolutionists, Angela admits that his, as well as any other paleoanthropologist’s, interpretation of the fossil record can be often uncertain.

That is not the kind of honesty you will find among anthropologists in the university classroom. They present their interpretation of the fossil record as if it were irrefutable and undeniable evidence for evolution. In truth, the evolutionists know their interpretation of the fossil record may not be the correct one. This will be dealt with more in subsequent chapters.

Uranium Dating
Uranium in rocks decays, forming helium and lead. Theoretically, the age of a rock can be determined by measuring its lead content.25 If there is a significant amount of lead within a rock, it supposedly implies that a great deal of uranium decay has taken place and the rock is very old. The evolutionists used this method to determine an extreme age for the earth (4.6 billion years old). It is also the reason paleoanthropologists believe that certain fossils, essential to evolution theory, are millions of years old.

What are the problems with uranium dating and all radioactive dating methods? All of the radioactive dating methods are unreliable in determining the age of the earth, fossils, and the strata in which fossils are found. Radiocarbon, potassium-argon, and the even less-proven uranium and radio-calcium methods depend too much on nonfluctuating radioactive conditions through time. (It has already been noted that radioactive conditions have fluctuated through time.) Additionally, Doctors John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris have suggested that a world-wide flood would cause rapid decay in radioactive elements causing those elements to appear older than their actual age.

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford


http://www.giftofeternallife.org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/toc.shtml

[Freedom06]

^Let's not run through that old chestnut again shall we...

www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=87720&highlight=Kansas+evolution

Please for the love of god no more cut and pastes from anti-evolution websites... go read some science books instead.

[kosse]

About being saved..

How about people who believe in wrong god but lead good lifes? How do you know Christian God is the right one? Why doesn't God speak to all those muslims and tell them they are wrong? What makes christian god stronger than muslim god? How do you know which religion to pick? How about those people who have never heard of christianity somewhere in the darkest Africa?

[Durandal]

nice little god you have there.

Ignore him. Most Christians think this is all bunk anyways. That God considers all this silliness and that their time on Earth they should be spent doing...that's it. This "accept Jesus or be damned" is nonsense.

[Durandal]

I was wondering when some loon was going to bust out the "Brett A. Rutherford" card...

:roll:

The Earth is flat and there was no Holocaust either. woot

Lunatics of the world unite!

[rb132]

Free will is exactly that. But it isn't free of consequence. Just because there is a guaranteed outcome if I make one choice over another doesn't mean I don't have the free choice.

And for those who don't believe in God and reject the only way for us to be saved - through Christ. Then they in effect will get their wish, an eternity separated from Him.

how do you know this though? you cant be sure what happens after we all die because the only evidence we have of what happens after death is a few peices of research on reincarnation, near death experiences and annecodotal reports of people recalling previous lives while under hypnotherapy. You just believe this is what will happen to people because thats what youve been told, you have no good reason to believe it- youve taken it on blind faith.

The bible's theory of how the universe came to be has been well and truly debunked by science. The suggestion that our only genetic precursors were two people who were made from dirt and lived in a garden with a talking snake is just weird.

[dangerclose]

About being saved..

How about people who believe in wrong god but lead good lifes?


The bible says that we've all sinned and fallen short of God's perfect standard (Romans 3:23) and that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23) both a physical death and a spiritual one. Christians don't lead "good enough" lives - no one does nor can.


How do you know Christian God is the right one?

The empty tomb. The apostle Paul wrote: "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching and your faith is in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14) Jesus' claims to being the Son of God and the only way to God the Father were validated by His resurrection. All of Christianity hinges on the resurrection. If Jesus was not risen from the dead then he was a liar or a madman and then his disciples willingly died martyr's deaths proclaiming he was risen while knowing it was a lie.

[dangerclose]

The bible's theory of how the universe came to be has been well and truly debunked by science. The suggestion that our only genetic precursors were two people who were made from dirt and lived in a garden with a talking snake is just weird.




Debunked or still a theory? Be careful. The bible's account of creation doesn't claim to be a theory - evolution still has to.

[Raptus_regaliter]

Debunked or still a theory? Be careful. The bibleaccount of creation doesnt claim to be a theory - evolution still has to.

No it doesnt claim to be a theory; a theory must have some degree of plausability to qualify. Its depiction is more along the lines of the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

[rb132]

Debunked or still a theory? Be careful. The bible's account of creation doesn't claim to be a theory - evolution still has to.

science has evidence which explains its theories, christanity does not.


how can you be so sure of something with absoultly no evidence to support it AND when its in contradiction to a great deal of evidence?


where was god when the jews were being exterminated? where was god when all the children were swept away in the boxing day tsunami? where was god to save those during hurricane katrina? why did he not help these people? either he is powerless or he does not care is the only conclusion anyone could reach.

[kosse]

The bible says that we've all sinned and fallen short of God's perfect standard (Romans 3:23) and that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23) both a physical death and a spiritual one. Christians don't lead "good enough" lives - no one does nor can.

Ok so we all are sinners..does that mean that you can't get to the heaven if you have been raised into a wrong religion?


The empty tomb. The apostle Paul wrote: "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching and your faith is in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14) Jesus' claims to being the Son of God and the only way to God the Father were validated by His resurrection. All of Christianity hinges on the resurrection. If Jesus was not risen from the dead then he was a liar or a madman and then his disciples willingly died martyr's deaths proclaiming he was risen while knowing it was a lie.
How about if you have never heard of the empty tomb? How are you suppose to know? I bet most of the people who are born in non-Christian areas of the 3rd world will never hear about it. And even if they know about it they are told a similar story from Koran so how do you tell which is the real one?

[dangerclose]

science has evidence which explains its theories, christanity does not.


how can you be so sure of something with absoultly no evidence to support it AND when its in contradiction to a great deal of evidence?

Scientific theories have been proven false. And there has been evidence that corroborates the Bible, archaelogical among others and then there's fulfilled prophecy (the bible says something is going to happen and hundreds and or thousands of years later it literally does)


where was god when the jews were being exterminated? where was god when all the children were swept away in the boxing day tsunami? where was god to save those during hurricane katrina? why did he not help these people? either he is powerless or he does not care is the only conclusion anyone could reach.

Where do you get the idea that we are guaranteed a single day of life on this earth? Our next heartbeat is not a certainty. Where was God when so and so was killed by a drunk driver yesterday? - one of thousands or when the store clerk was shot and killed in a robbery. This is a fallen world and we're all guaranteed to die one day. And as far as the Holocaust - read the story of Corrie Ten Boom and her family to see where God was when the Jews were being exterminated. The question is where was God when all of mankind was lost and doomed for their sins? He was hanging on the cross at Calvalry.

[Raptus_regaliter]

I love it that when people find a single piece of scientific evidence that under some remote interpretation supports a biblical \"theory\", they tout it as proof positive, while at the same time rejecting 99.99% of scientific evidence that says its a load of dung. Insert PRICELESS ad here.

[DaGreatRV]

I remember this, it been here a few weeks back. :roll:


[backontopic]


I wonder how they convinced themselves about this bullsh*t? We all know that if you support a view of the world, you have to give arguments that convince yourselfe that that view is fairly accurate. Or else, why would you believe it?:|
I would really like to know how they argued this to themselves.

It all comes down to the major downside of religion, its inflexible. :)
You can't change a religion, because it says that it is telling the ultimate truth, that would mean that if they changed the teaching they weren't telling the ultimate truth before. :) Get the contradiction.:)
They are just trying to desperatly bend their ideas by mixing proven fact bits with their own fantasies. (a bit like holywood movies:))

Were I come from we have a saying: "Iets recht praten wat krom is."
Wich means something like "Trying to talk straight something that is crooked."
That was the expression that came to mind when reading this topic.

I wouldn't say ban that exposition, freedom of speach blabla. I think it is the parents responsibility to give their children some commen sence, so that they can use it when they see/hear something like this.


BTW, I was raised roman-catholic, but I have a tendency to think/argue/reason, so I came to the conclusion that is best for me to be non-religious. :) My parents arn't very actively religious, but they thought that it was the right thing to do, I don't resent them but the fact that they did still anoys me. If I one day have to raise my kid, I wouldn't make it religious.
In middle/high school we did learn about the other major religions in the world. Quite interresting to learn about it.

You know, even the pastor that came to elementry school(catholic) answerd to the questions about evolution/bigbang, etc, that he supported what was proven scientifcly. You know why? Becaus he said: "The bible was written in a time when science wasn't that advanced, they just didn't as much as we do now."


BTW2, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's true. The amount of supporters doesn't contribute to the credability of a view, only evidence does.

[Freedom06]

It's really very simple. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Either you have faith, or you have reason when it comes to establishing the age of the Earth. If you have faith, you can't suddenly claim to believe in reason and look for scientific 'evidence' to support the Bible and claims that Genesis is a factual account.

It doesn't exist.

Stick to faith instead, and stop trying to imply that the science is wrong.
If you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, science can't help you.

[Raptus_regaliter]

Freedom06
Thats about as simple as it gets. Faith and knowledge cannot coexist.

[DaGreatRV]

It's really very simple. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Either you have faith, or you have reason when it comes to establishing the age of the Earth. If you have faith, you can't suddenly claim to believe in reason and look for scientific 'evidence' to support the Bible and claims that Genesis is a factual account.

It doesn't exist.

Stick to faith instead, and stop trying to imply that the science is wrong.
If you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, science can't help you.


Freedom06
Thats about as simple as it gets. Faith and knowledge cannot coexist.


x2 well put, I didn't want to be so direct about it. :oops:

[Freedom06]

Freedom06
Thats about as simple as it gets. Faith and knowledge cannot coexist.

Well, I actually wouldn't go that far. I was quite careful, in how I worded my post. The 'factual' account of the Bible and reason can't co-exist I agree, but if you take the Bible in a more metaphorical sense, or as an allegory (as not a few scientists do) then the two actually can live together, at least in my view. It's when 'creationists' and extremists try and use science as a weapon that it blows up in their faces...

[rb132]

Scientific theories have been proven false. And there has been evidence that corroborates the Bible, archaelogical among others and then there's fulfilled prophecy (the bible says something is going to happen and hundreds and or thousands of years later it literally does)

theres plenty of archealogical evidence to disprove the myths of christianity

many christians still believe the earth is only six thousand years old (the sumarians had invented glue 1000 years prior to this)

how can you possibly prove that the supposed creator of the universe gave the jewish people exclusive real estate rights in the middle east? because it says so in a book which a few billion people subscribe to?



Where do you get the idea that we are guaranteed a single day of life on this earth? Our next heartbeat is not a certainty. Where was God when so and so was killed by a drunk driver yesterday? - one of thousands or when the store clerk was shot and killed in a robbery. This is a fallen world and we're all guaranteed to die one day. And as far as the Holocaust - read the story of Corrie Ten Boom and her family to see where God was when the Jews were being exterminated. The question is where was God when all of mankind was lost and doomed for their sins? He was hanging on the cross at Calvalry.


so god is powerless after all.

[praetorian6]

This is like an introductory philosophy class argument: How can evil exist if God is supposed to be all powerful and all good?

God is supposed to have both qualities, yet it is obviously not so.

In order for evil to exist, God is either not all powerful or not all good...or both.

[Jobu]

People invented the concept of "God" so they could have a blanket answer for questions they could not figure out.

Saying "I don't know" is simply too difficult for some.

[praetorian6]

People invented the concept of "God" so they could have a blanket answer for questions they could not figure out.

Saying "I don't know" is simply too difficult for some.

QFT.

Zog: "Hey Urrgg, where does that loud sound and bright light come from when it rains?"

*both look around*

Urrgg: "Ummmm, God?"

[Kaapeli]

How many women and children were killed by God in the flood? Every one of them but one family. God metes out His judgement as He sees fit. But of course you're more just than He is.

I don't think your God needs to feel bad about "the flood" since it never happened.

[praetorian6]

Oh ya? Then what was the really big boat for, then, huh?











...the boat that held two of every animal on the planet and has never been found.

[Sir Zach of R.]

This didn't take long to turn into one big Christian bash fest. :roll:

[Firetxmi]

This didn't take long to turn into one big Christian bash fest. :roll:

And it was helped along by those:

A) rediculous enough to argue this (I am sure this debate can be proven on MP.Net)

B)Who claim that they are the only right ones and therefore the debate has to stop there

[pascalywood]

So what? No offence but that sounds extremely immature. Just because your Dad did things that he shouldn't have doesn't mean parents shouldn't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. Again, no offence, but you sound like the typical teenager "I hate my parents, they suck, I'm gonna sit here and be mad at them." etc, etc ad nauseum.

If your dad touched you and your sister when you were a kid, would you hate him? Maybe he has reasons to do so.

And btw, I do think that that so called museum is total bs. And 40% of Americans believe in creationism? WTF?!rofl

[James]

People invented the concept of "God" so they could have a blanket answer for questions they could not figure out.

Saying "I don't know" is simply too difficult for some.

I find your post insulting.


QFT.

Zog: "Hey Urrgg, where does that loud sound and bright light come from when it rains?"

*both look around*

Urrgg: "Ummmm, God?"

I find your post insulting.


I don't think your God needs to feel bad about "the flood" since it never happened.

I find your post insulting.


Oh ya? Then what was the really big boat for, then, huh?
...the boat that held two of every animal on the planet and has never been found.

Again......

You all get infractions. Praetorian, 2x for you. Oops! That puts you on a brake...

[La8pv]

here is a page that explains the flood myth:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Talkorigins is a website that answers a lot of questions for those who doesnt understand the theory of evolution.
http://talkorigins.org/

(I hope i dont get any infractions for this)

If someone is interested in an open minded debate with both atheists and believers go to one of these sites:
http://www.samharris.org/forum/
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
http://www.atheistforums.com/index.php

They have a very high level of tolerance. And usually they are nice to believers as long as they behave and are open to reason and scientific evidence. So if you go there dont use arguments like; "teh bible is true because the bibel says so".
If you go there with an open mind maybe you will learn something.

[LaoSexMachine]

Wow, non religious people doing the same thing as fanatics. Being intolerant. Oh well, guess I'm stupid and close minded believing in the Buddha's teaching.

[digrar]

This one has gone far enough.