Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[thesummerqueen]

Here you go Shell. Caffeine and not crying helps clarity.

[Shell B]

I love it.

[teblin]

Who created our bodies?

We evolved over millions of years, fool.

No god needed.

Shit...a quick trip to the doctors will convince you that these bodies are anything but "intelligently designed".

After sin came into the world, corruption came with it. Though, even after the curse people still lived for a thousand years. It's only in this post flood environment that we have reduced life spans and healing capabilities, due to the reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere and the increased exposure to UV radiation.

This just shows how religion has to twist and turn, becoming less and less like its original state, just to avoid being cast into oblivion by the ever-growing tide of evidence disproving it.

[Undeceived]

Who created our bodies?

We evolved over millions of years, fool.

No god needed.

Shit...a quick trip to the doctors will convince you that these bodies are anything but "intelligently designed".

After sin came into the world, corruption came with it. Though, even after the curse people still lived for a thousand years. It's only in this post flood environment that we have reduced life spans and healing capabilities, due to the reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere and the increased exposure to UV radiation.

This just shows how religion has to twist and turn, becoming less and less like its original state, just to avoid being cast into oblivion by the ever-growing tide of evidence disproving it.

Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Hypothetically, if the earth were young K-Ar and other long half-life methods would be grossly out of proportion. This is evidenced by rocks from recent volcanoes we know to be young, but date anywhere from millions to billions of years. Science supports both creationism and evolution depending on your beginning assumption. Minus dating, what other evidence disproves creationism?

[teblin]

The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

To quote Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins on debating a creationist:

"The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist."

[Minimalist]

Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Real scientists know that C-14 is useful only to about 50,000 years ago.

Idiots like you cut and paste horseshit from creationist assholes and pretend that you have some fucking clue what you are talking about.

Go blow jesus out your ass, moron.

[thesummerqueen]

I gave you a meme for that.

[Minimalist]

Some times plain English works best.

[chi pan]

The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

To quote Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins on debating a creationist:

"The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist."

Ok I'm going to interject just for this. Fossils aren't proof of evolution. The bone structure isn't enough information to explain what the organism looked like and we have to imagine it. As for the similarities between organisms, that can't be used as evidence because that's why he theory was developed in the first place. You can't say Darwin thought of evolution because he noticed similarities between organisms and then loop that around to say its evidence. And what does the geographic distribution prove? That animals move. That's it. And we don't have record of organisms changing over time. We have different animals and imagination of transition. Apes into humans? The chimpanzee has 1.6 percent genetic differentlces which doesn't seam like a lot. But that is calculated 48 million nucleotides. A change of 3 is fatal.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The conversation did not start with the burden of proof that he was perfect it started YOU saying its not possible because it contradicts the very definition. That's it. I answered the question and that's all I'm obligated to do.

More sophistry.


A philosphical question does not preclude the provision of physical proof,unless one happens to be a neo platonist. I reject the notion that truth can be revealed by reason alone,I demand evidence.

The statement there is god is a metaphysical question. Never the less,to accept the truth of the proposition I demand evidence. That a question may be unprovable or unfalsifiable is not my problem.

The claim that Jesus was perfect in his actions is in fact provable by observation. It is also falsifiable by observation of ONE imperfect act. I can think of one beauty off hand: His behaviour towards the money lenders was so wrong I've long though it was a later inclusion by some REALLY ignorant gentile. Be happy to explain it to you. Oh, I've also discussed this with a Rabbi at an on-line yeshiva.


Bored now,but my fault entirely. I should know better than to try to have a rational discussion with a presuppositional apologist. It's like playing chess with a pigeon;it knocks over the pieces,craps on the board and starts cooing in victory.