Question for creationist and "evolutionists"

To be Devil's Advocate for a sec (unless that term gets me a ban in which case I .. am just bein a nuisance) ..

DontTreadOnMike said:

Was Isaiah being "just poetic" when he said that God spreads out the heavens like a canvas and stretches them out like a tent to live under?

Click to expand...

Well.. sounds pretty poetic to me. Why not?

DontTreadOnMike said:

it would have blown the Israelites minds in a way that a thin canvas a few hundred miles over head never could.

Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe a little too much. It would be like Scientology dropping the "alien overlord called Xenu" story on brand new recruits, it doesn't work, there was too high a risk of them rejecting it.

Carian said:

To be Devil's Advocate for a sec (unless that term gets me a ban in which case I .. am just bein a nuisance) ..



Well.. sounds pretty poetic to me. Why not?



Yeah, maybe a little too much. It would be like Scientology dropping the "alien overlord called Xenu" story on brand new recruits, it doesn't work, there was too high a risk of them rejecting it.

Click to expand...

Well if that's the case, why would I want to have a relationship with a God who lies to me for my own good? Since the scientific age when man stopped believing all of the "poetry" about how the universe works and started using their own senses, the life expectancy has sky rocketed and standards of living have become much more humane and comfortable. If God put all of that off because he was afraid a few people wouldn't be able to handle the truth, I'm not sure he's the type of being we would want to be friends with.

DontTreadOnMike said:

...the life expectancy has sky rocketed...

Click to expand...

Man, has it ever!

34

AV1611VET said:

Man, has it ever!

34

Click to expand...

You have to be born before you can be counted as "alive," AV -- your post is using skewed data (not to mention a missing link -- no pun intended).

hardly a first, I know...

AV1611VET said:

Man, has it ever!

34

Click to expand...

There's no source in that post.

Life expectancy in the upper paleolithic era was about 33. Now it's about 67 world wide and about 78 in the united states.

Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: My link works. Where is your source? Also, are you going to continue ignoring the rest of my other post?

Nathan Poe said:

You have to be born before you can be counted as "alive," AV --

Click to expand...

Why then, if someone who is with child is murdered, is it considered a double-homicide?

AV1611VET said:

Why then, if someone who is with child is murdered, is it considered a double-homicide?

Click to expand...

Don't take offense, that's just how these statistics are calculated. Life expectancy is to measure how long people live after they are born. To measure how many people die before birth they use the Perinatal Mortality Rate. Perinatal mortality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which, incidentally is also going down thanks to science.

AV1611VET said:

Why then, if someone who is with child is murdered, is it considered a double-homicide?

Click to expand...

Depends on the age of the fetus -- I believe it varies from state to state.

However, by the time the fetus is old enough to be considered a murder victim, it's usually long past the legal limit for abortion anyway.

When your phantom link made the calculation, what age did they assign to the abortions? 0 years? -3 months? -6 months?

Nathan Poe said:

I'd love to see something besides your own say-so that supports this assertion.



(emphasis mine) so much for them being a basis for our laws -- considering we went out of the way to exclude them.



And I think you'll find that civil authority was already emforcing the six commandments (without the four strongly worded suggestions) long before the church was ever formed. The church never had a say in it.

Click to expand...

Prior to the final fall of Jerusalem the Jews could punish civil and criminal offenders under their own laws, up to the point of capital punishment, which Rome didn't allow.

Nathan Poe said:

Science and reason will continue to find new answers to age-old questions, and creationists will continue to find rationales to reject those answers in favor of comforting fables.

IOW, I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Yep. So long as there are gaps in our knowledge, people will find a way to stuff their deity in them.

sandwiches said:

Yep. So long as there are gaps in our knowledge, people will find a way to stuff their deity in them.

Click to expand...

Must be some awful-wide gaps then.

AV1611VET said:

Must be some awful-wide gaps then.

Click to expand...

Or maybe all religion ever will be is feeling blindly in the dark for the unconfirmable.

Cabal said:

Or maybe all religion ever will be is feeling blindly in the dark for the unconfirmable.

Click to expand...

There's plenty of darkness to feel around in, isn't there?

AV1611VET said:

There's plenty of darkness to feel around in, isn't there?

Click to expand...

Funny how much disparity there is for something all the adherents claim is so obvious.

AV1611VET said:

Must be some awful-wide gaps then.

Click to expand...

You're right. Most people are not very knowledgeable.

sandwiches said:

You're right. Most people are not very knowledgeable.

Click to expand...

You guys must get some kind of satisfaction in considering yourselves a cut above the general populace in the information realm; but this form of narcissism only tends to lead to a general disgust for all things sacred.

AV1611VET said:

You guys must get some kind of satisfaction in considering yourselves a cut above the general populace in the information realm; but this form of narcissism only tends to lead to a general disgust for all things sacred.

Click to expand...

If you would like to be accurate, change "form of narcissism" to "level of understanding," and "disgust" to "rejection based on the evidence."

AV1611VET said:

You guys must get some kind of satisfaction in considering yourselves a cut above the general populace in the information realm; but this form of narcissism only tends to lead to a general disgust for all things sacred.

Click to expand...

First off, I find nothing sacred. Second, nothing you find sacred disgusts me, as far as I know. Third, I'm not conceited, I'm merely convinced.

That last one is a joke but in all seriousness, get over yourself, it's not like you don't preach to us with a suffocating sanctimonious air of superiority. Unlike your godliness, however, knowledge can actually be measured.

[deleted]

AV1611VET said:

You've got the gall, sandwiches, to say I have a 'suffocating sanctimonious air of superiority'?

Right after you said this?

Look in the mirror.

Click to expand...

Speaking of which, the mirror hurts, doesn't it? Your prejudice against scientists frequently manifests itself in exactly the way sandwiches described - and you're frequently oblivious to the general level of hypocrisy with which you operate, not that it stops you acting as such when it's pointed out to you.

Jews were ignorant, [insert: stone, bronze, iron]-age, goat-herders.

Aboriginals were "primitive" -- (you probably couldn't produce an aerodynamically-designed boomerang without a computer or blueprint on your best day).

Egyptians were "ancient" -- (you probably couldn't build an airtight pyramid with the tools they used on your bestest day).

This brand of science is nothing more than Jew-hating antisemitism in disguise.

Click to expand...

It's antisemitism even after you just admitted it wasn't limited to Jews? Hilarious.

(I might as well get banned here; but I'm going to go down speaking my mind. So hurry up and quote me before I change my mind and delete this.)

Click to expand...

To my lasting regret, you can't get banned here for making fallacious remarks, otherwise you would have been out a long, long time ago.