Creation Muesum

[TheRocketSurgeon]

There is a reason why I've never started a thread, on this forum. I know that no matter how much evidence is presented, people can't/refuse to see it.

This is proven where in a particular thread, where a prominent member of this forum claimed Denmark had a secular government (which it does not), and plenty of members here agreed with that position. Upon being present proof that Denmark in fact had a state sponsored religion, to this day they refuse to acknowledge that evidence and continue to insist that Denmark has a secular government.

If people here can't accept that which is easily proven (secularism is pretty much black and white, either you have a state sponsored religion or you don't), how are people going to accept an explanation of spiritual matters?

I will address this though.

The reason Sarai/Sarah was still lovely is because they were only middle-aged. She might've been past likely childbearing age, but certainly not "old" except by modern standards. You should know that. According to your mythology, Abram/Abraham lived to be 175, so being 90 would be roughly 52% of his total lifespan, or roughly equivalent to my age, now (I am 39, with an average life-expectancy of 76 years, putting me at 52% of my total lifespan).

90 years old is 90 years old, there is no relativity involved here a year is a year. Abraham lived as long as he did for the reason I explained.

The bible states that they were old and "well stricken in age" so much so that Sarah thought that her having a child was a joke and she laughed.

Genesis 18
10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

A middle-aged man is not well-stricken with age. You used yourself as an example making a comparison with Abraham. Do you consider yourself to be well stricken with age?

No one denies that Denmark has an official state religion-- for fuck's sake, their national flag is a cross!-- or that state (Christian) religion is, historically, heavily-entrenched in European governments; what that means in modern, practical terms is exactly zilch, since the people  are overwhelmingly secular and their government is run by secular principles... kind of in contrast to this nation, where our nation is ostensibly secular but demonstrably religious in its government operations, based largely on the fact that most of our voters are religious.

Average life expectancy in the Bronze and Iron ages was 26, though of course this average is brought down by childhood deaths, so I'll go with the figure listed for the Paleolithic era, which states "Based on the data from recent hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at age 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total age 54)". Since Abram and Sarai were "magic people" who got to live longer due to the blessings of God--and you're right, it doesn't say that they were made young again, only that she conceived after menopause--it's not a stretch to think that they aged more slowly than normally, even if they were well beyond what was considered "extremely old" in their own time. 

Here is Helen Mirren, who is 70 and quite, quite bangable: 

---

---

Here is Jaclyn Smith, who is 70 and quite, quite bangable:

---

---

Here is Olivia Newton-John, aged 67, and quite, quite bangable:

---

---

And Jane Seymour, aged 64... seeing a pattern, yet?

---

---

Even if we take all the details of this story at face-value, for the purpose of discussion, all that I see in that story is a miracle of making a woman who had gone through menopause and was considered too old in general to have children (which, at that point in history, would be roughly 38-40, at most, given the healthcare standards of the time and the "uterus abuse" from complete lack of birth control, back then, when women were typically married by age 14) give birth to a child after being barren all her life. That's all most Christians teach about the story; the rest you're injecting onto the story after-the-fact, to suit your preconceptions (no pun intended). 

If you actually read the beginning story, you'll find that Abraham is described as being in shockingly good shape, for 99 years old, and Sarah equally so, for 90... when the three men (one of whom is The LORD) arrive at their tents, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, making sure things are prepared for their divine guests. By the medical standards of the day (or today), they should have been bedridden and barely able to move around. Clearly, then, the story is describing people who aged slowly or otherwise preserved their youth well into a later span of years than would be expected. You can say that God miraculously made them younger after their encounter, even though that's not in the story, or you can realize that the story has them being both old and sprightly at the same time... which is good, since the very next thing the story has them do is travel over to Kadesh, through the Negev, and over to visit Abimelec in Gerar. At no point does the story mention their miraculous reverse-aging, which seems an odd omission since it's a story about miracles.

[Cato]

No one denies that Denmark has an official state religion-- for fuck's sake, their national flag is a cross!-- or that state (Christian) religion is, historically, heavily-entrenched in European governments; what that means in modern, practical terms is exactly zilch, since the people  are overwhelmingly secular and their government is run by secular principles... kind of in contrast to this nation, where our nation is ostensibly secular but demonstrably religious in its government operations, based largely on the fact that most of our voters are religious.

Huggy has been thoroughly throttled with his Denmark bullshit several times before on these forums. You're wasting your time; he doesn't have the capacity to understand.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm sure he has the intellectual capacity to understand. He may be many forms of willfully blind and possibly dishonest, but dumb he is not.

That just makes it worse.

[Huggy Bear]

No one denies that Denmark has an official state religion-- for fuck's sake, their national flag is a cross!-- or that state (Christian) religion is, historically, heavily-entrenched in European governments; what that means in modern, practical terms is exactly zilch, since the people  are overwhelmingly secular and their government is run by secular principles... kind of in contrast to this nation, where our nation is ostensibly secular but demonstrably religious in its government operations, based largely on the fact that most of our voters are religious.

We were talking specifically about the government of Denmark. As for the population, at best you could argue that they are A-religious. How can they be secular when 83% of the population are members of the church and support the church financially?

Anyway that comment wasn't aimed at you, you weren't around for this particular episode, this basically sums it up.

---

Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.

Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.

You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?

Your own quote (in bold for clarity)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid835049

Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

so according to YOU, secularism prevents a state mandated religion.
This link is taken from your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion.

Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Let me briefly summarize what the State-church system implies:

• According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”

•  Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.” Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”

Denmark, then, from one point of view is clearly a Christian country—as are by the same standards the other Scandinavian countries.

This amalgamates into what I for want of a better label would label a secularised Lutheranism as a dominant cosmology in Denmark. Although Denmark (and Sweden) is a country in which most of the citizens by tradition belong to the State church, Christianity as a religion does not characterize the life of any large segment of the population.

Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.

You're contradicting yourself dude.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse....

---

Average life expectancy in the Bronze and Iron ages was 26, though of course this average is brought down by childhood deaths, so I'll go with the figure listed for the Paleolithic era, which states "Based on the data from recent hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at age 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total age 54)". Since Abram and Sarai were "magic people" who got to live longer due to the blessings of God--and you're right, it doesn't say that they were made young again, only that she conceived after menopause--it's not a stretch to think that they aged more slowly than normally, even if they were well beyond what was considered "extremely old" in their own time. 

Here is Helen Mirren, who is 70 and quite, quite bangable: 

---

---

Here is Jaclyn Smith, who is 70 and quite, quite bangable:

---

---

Here is Olivia Newton-John, aged 67, and quite, quite bangable:

---

---

And Jane Seymour, aged 64... seeing a pattern, yet?

---

---

The pattern I see is plastic surgery...  

On a more serious note, none of the women are in their 90's, which was the issue.

Even if we take all the details of this story at face-value, for the purpose of discussion, all that I see in that story is a miracle of making a woman who had gone through menopause and was considered too old in general to have children (which, at that point in history, would be roughly 38-40, at most, given the healthcare standards of the time and the "uterus abuse" from complete lack of birth control, back then, when women were typically married by age 14) give birth to a child after being barren all her life. That's all most Christians teach about the story; the rest you're injecting onto the story after-the-fact, to suit your preconceptions (no pun intended). 

If you actually read the beginning story, you'll find that Abraham is described as being in shockingly good shape, for 99 years old, and Sarah equally so, for 90... when the three men (one of whom is The LORD) arrive at their tents, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, making sure things are prepared for their divine guests. By the medical standards of the day (or today), they should have been bedridden and barely able to move around. Clearly, then, the story is describing people who aged slowly or otherwise preserved their youth well into a later span of years than would be expected. You can say that God miraculously made them younger after their encounter, even though that's not in the story, or you can realize that the story has them being both old and sprightly at the same time... which is good, since the very next thing the story has them do is travel over to Kadesh, through the Negev, and over to visit Abimelec in Gerar. At no point does the story mention their miraculous reverse-aging, which seems an odd omission since it's a story about miracles.

*emphasis mine*
Abraham was a very rich man, with a huge number of servants....


As I said before, there is a point where we will have to just agree to disagree.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The pattern I see is plastic surgery...  

That was the correct answer! 

Bob, tell our contestant what he's won!

A neeeeeeewwwwww caaaaaaaaaaarrrrr!

[Mermaid]

God never intended for us to reproduce sexually?

...so we would have just divided like amoebae? If God intended that, why did he make Adam have a penis and Eve a vagina? How do you explain the hard fact that humans share the majority of our DNA with other mammals and have THE EXACT SAME BODY PARTS?

[dyresand]

God never intended for us to reproduce sexually?

...so we would have just divided like amoebae? If God intended that, why did he make Adam have a penis and Eve a vagina? How do you explain the hard fact that humans share the majority of our DNA with other mammals and have THE EXACT SAME BODY PARTS?

You see a long long time ago... *overly long convoluted story* and that's why we cannot mate with other animals
because it won't work.

[Mermaid]

God never intended for us to reproduce sexually?

...so we would have just divided like amoebae? If God intended that, why did he make Adam have a penis and Eve a vagina? How do you explain the hard fact that humans share the majority of our DNA with other mammals and have THE EXACT SAME BODY PARTS?

You see a long long time ago... *overly long convoluted story* and that's why we cannot mate with other animals
because it won't work.

I see it as more like this:

[robvalue]

If god had just made exactly how many people he had wanted in the first place, and didn't make them die, then there would have been no need for reproduction at all.

[SteelCurtain]

It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition.

We haven't regressed. You moved on prematurely. The rest of us are here, sitting, waiting patiently for you to produce some science that supports creation.

What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory? 

I have no issue with this on its own. Go ahead, cherry pick scripture and ignore the iffy parts all you want. If you want to make up a way that frogs rain from the sky or that the Nile's waters turn to blood or that a man can live inside of a fish, by all means, go ahead. Laws of physics be damned!! I do, however, take issue when you try to call this action science. Again, when you start with the axiom that the Bible is infallible and that any discrepancy between the two (work and word) is by definition a flaw in the evidence or your interpretation rather than a flaw in the word, you are not doing science. You are intellectually masturbating.

Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?

Not a priori. Show me some of this science. I'll let it stand on its own merits. I have asked politely for some of this creationist science multiple times, but you are loath to produce it.