Fairytale?

[AV1611VET]

Are you trying to say that Urban II didn't ask for christians to kill muslims in the holy land?

I'm saying a true Christians wouldn't march off to the Crusades.

You know those WWJD bracelets? Do you know what WWJD stands for?

Do you really think Jesus, Himself would sign up to go?

Are you trying to say that Urban II wasn't the leader of the Roman Catholic church, the most powerful church in the Mediterranean at the time?

No --- I'm not.

Are you trying to say that all of those crusaders were muslims dressed up in outfits with crosses on them?

No --- I'm saying they were dressed as wolves in sheeps' clothing.

 

[Baggins]

I've seen evolution taught as man coming from rocks, the ocean, space seeds, apes, monkeys, orangutans, and chimpanzees.

That's what will happen if you read creationist web sites instead of proper science journals.

A scientist will tell you that man shares a common ancestor with all those things that are living, that we are still apes and that figuratively he was born from the ocean. The space seed one is probably from a dodgy 1950s comic and with the rocks you are back to creationist la la land.

I've been taught there's a complete skeleton from a pig's tooth,

You claim this but I think you are making it up. That happened back in the 30s and wouldn't have been in the school curriculum when you were a boy. I doubt it has ever been in a school curriculum anyway except as an example of the self correcting nature of science.

I'm not saying you're lying, just that you are mis-remembering that one.

That isn't even the Nebraska man story you get on creationist sites.

amino acids in a laboratory from gas and electricity

,

That is demonstrably true, Miller Urey did this in the 50s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

and dinosaurs died out before man came on the scene.

As is this. I don't think I will bother posting a reference for that, not homind fossil has ever been found in rocks of Cretaceous age or earlier where we find dinosaur fossils.

Something I think the Lord brought to my attention recently, is the fact that everytime someone shows a picture of a cross-section of rocks, or fruit, or whatever --- it has to be interpreted.

Interpretation takes education and experience, I can interpret a seismic section in able to discover possible oil traps, you can't.

Interpretation is tested against the evidence.

I don't get stuff like, "See this rock? It pwns creation."

All rocks pwn biblical creation

I get stuff like, "See this rock? It's 90-million years old. Thus it pwns creation."

It does if you think the earth is 6000 years old.

Discovery magazine once pointed out that if you take a rock to the Smithsonian Institution (or anywhere), and ask them to date it; one of the first questions they ask is, "What period are you expecting?"[

And? Are you suggesting that machines that perform radio isotope dating are just empty boxes with flashing lights on the front and that every one is guessing?

Isotope dating is now an accurate dating technique for igneous rocks and metamorphic events. It has very few assumptions beyond the laws of physics not altering, and as we know from observation that he laws of physics covering radioactive decay have been the same for at least 2 billion years ( http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml see bottom of page for academic references ) that doesn't seem like a massive leap in the dark.

Your ignorance and argument from incredulity is getting wearying AV.

I know you don't want to learn anything which might unsettle that fragile construct that you label your faith, but trotting outthe same old stuff time after time is boring

 

[Baggins]

He's the official pope of choice for all atheists who want to try desperately to link the Crusades with Christianity.

Priceless.

everyone knows it was atheists who went on the crusades.

You are out doing yourself in stupidity today AV

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm saying a true Christians wouldn't march off to the Crusades.

And yet they did in droves -- your proclamations notwithstanding.

You know those WWJD bracelets? Do you know what WWJD stands for?

Do you really think Jesus, Himself would sign up to go?

Do you think He'd languish on an internet forum and argue pointless Bible trivialities with Atheists in vain attempts to prove his own cleverness?

I'm guessing you don't own one of those bracelets, AV.

 

[Baggins]

I'm saying a true Christians wouldn't march off to the Crusades.

And so we come back to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, AVs favourite and now seemingly the favourite of Inan.

They have a magical ability to ascertain whether historical figures, including Popes no less, were or were not True Christians TM.


Colour me impressed

 

[AV1611VET]

That is demonstrably true, Miller Urey did this in the 50s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

If I remember correctly, this was considered strong evidence, if not proof, of evo... er... abiogenesis.

Until it was pointed out that he had to use a trap in the loop.

Nature has no trap though, and the very processes that supposedly create the amino acids --- destroy it.

So he had to immediately isolate the amino acid as soon as it formed --- otherwise, his experiment would be a failure.

That's the explanation as I remember it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Colour me impressed

I'll color you, and Nathan, and Loudmouth as three smart individuals.

Smart enough not to answer my question.

But for the record, here it is again, so you can show your intelligence:

• Would Jesus have signed up for the Crusades?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll color you, and Nathan, and Loudmouth as three smart individuals.

Smart enough not to answer my question.

But for the record, here it is again, so you can show your intelligence:

• Would Jesus have signed up for the Crusades?

In half a heartbeat -- Read Revelation sometime.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I'll color you, and Nathan, and Loudmouth as three smart individuals.

Smart enough not to answer my question.

But for the record, here it is again, so you can show your intelligence:

• Would Jesus have signed up for the Crusades?

Jesus wouldn't have signed up for "embedded age" or tarring and feathering evolutionists either, so I'm not sure if you want to continue with this argument.

 

[thaumaturgy]

She did --- she said it was more like a job.

"Slaves" in the Old Testament were treated better than some employees are treated today.

Doesn't matter how you "candy coat" it, slavery is slavery.

One human being owning another. So would you sell your daughter to a really really nice man?

I was rather under the impression that she was supporting slavery, but I did jump to that conclusion based on justifications of the bible quote.

And I do so love people to justify how "good" the slaves of old had it.

I'd dearly love for you to back up your claim with, oh, a fact? That would be nice. But I understand you don't usually do the "fact" thing. Usually folks like you just create a magical backstory nowhere in the Bible to justify an abhorrence.

Slaves in the olden days had it so good being owned by another person.

2+2=5 (for very large values of 2)

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll color you, and Nathan, and Loudmouth as three smart individuals.

Smart enough not to answer my question.

But for the record, here it is again, so you can show your intelligence:

• Would Jesus have signed up for the Crusades?

Obviously, since Christ commanded it (see Urban II, one who speaks for Jesus).

 

[Inan3]

My original statement:

As to slavery , I see the same here, direction and protection for the treatment of the slave.

[/color]So you call treating slaves well "wisdom", which surely would indicate you must think the speaker was in support of slavery.)

My point was that God was saying "IF" they were going to have slaves then they must treat them well. The wisdom and directions were to make sure the slaves were well taken care of and to put time limits on their slavery. He wasn't telling them TO have slaves.

I'll grant maybe you didn't mean this.

Please don't take this wrong TMT but I could kiss you for this. Thank you.

But you certainly did justify the teaching from the bible.

Yes, but I also, will interpret it as it should be interpreted.

I will gladly admit that when I read someone say:

As to slavery , I see the same here, direction and protection for the treatment of the slave.

I assume they are justifying the slavery. Obviously I was wrong. Thank you

So do you feel the slavery explicitly condoned in the Bible was bad?

I personally believe that to enslave people against their will is BAD. BUT there are cultures that permit even today. Due to their poverty there are those who become slaves and think it is a good thing for them. It helps their families and as long as they are treated well it is not a problem for them. They accept it. Without looking it up there was also a time limit placed by the Lord on their term of slavery. Sometimes after their term was up they opted to stay on for life, because for them it was a much better life. I believe this eventually "evolved" into, as I said before, a job for them.

Clearly if I twisted your words I was unable to figure out your point. My apologies. Thank you

Well, considering that you pretty much accuse everyone who posts here of twisting your words, I think maybe the problem lies in how you phrase your posts.

Sometimes, when the world seem arrayed against you, it isn't the world's fault.

And we all have to admit it is also the way we hear it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying a true Christians wouldn't march off to the Crusades.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

You know those WWJD bracelets? Do you know what WWJD stands for?

I'm not the one who claimed that christians speak for Jesus. That was Inan3. Perhaps you should talk to her.

No --- I'm saying they were dressed as wolves in sheeps' clothing.

This implies that the christian part is the sheep's clothing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm saying a true Christians wouldn't march off to the Crusades.

You know those WWJD bracelets? Do you know what WWJD stands for?

Do you really think Jesus, Himself would sign up to go?
.

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34[/BIBLE]

 

[Loudmouth]

My original statement:

My point was that God was saying "IF" they were going to have slaves then they must treat them well.

That's like saying "IF you are going to cheat on your wife make sure she doesn't find out."

The wisdom and directions were to make sure the slaves were well taken care of and to put time limits on their slavery. He wasn't telling them TO have slaves.

So it wasn't wise to tell them not to have slaves?

I personally believe that to enslave people against their will is BAD.

Is it a sin?

 

[FishFace]

Comparing evolution to a "fairy tale" is comparing apples to oranges.

In a fairy tale, you know it's false ahead of time; but in evolution, you won't know you're wrong until the next generation of scientists pwns your generation of scientists.

That's science, guv. Never realised that Newton didn't know he was wrong and no-one did until Einstein proved it?

Oh, and "pwns?" Makes you sound 13 years old.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My point was that God was saying "IF" they were going to have slaves then they must treat them well.

Well, that makes sense, certainly if you are going to own a slave you would want to treat them well. Too bad God never got around to telling them NOT to have slaves. I mean he told them not to eat lobsters.

I guess dietary rules were far more important than "anti-slavery" rules.

The wisdom and directions were to make sure the slaves were well taken care of and to put time limits on their slavery. He wasn't telling them TO have slaves.

Except where rules are laid out about selling their own daughters:

[BIBLE]Exodus 21:7[/BIBLE]

You're a woman and a mom, right? Would you sell your daughters? Would you like it if you had been sold?

Yes, but I also, will interpret it as it should be interpreted.

No I suspect you'll interpret it however makes you feel comfortable. Regardless of what the whole bible says in general. Most fundamentalists end up doing that anyway.

I personally believe that to enslave people against their will is BAD. BUT there are cultures that permit even today.

God seemed to be pretty OK with it. Are you better than God? (I'm not claiming you think you are, I'm just trying to figure out why you seem to think something is bad that God seemed ok with.)

Due to their poverty there are those who become slaves and think it is a good thing for them.

I'm sure these prisoners of war were durn happy to have a nice man of their own:
[BIBLE]Numbers 31:18[/BIBLE]

It must have been a "good thing" for them compared to what Moses told to do to the OTHER folks!

It helps their families and as long as they are treated well it is not a problem for them.

Now you're veering over into "justification" mode again.

Stop it. It's making me kind of sick.

Maybe, if you pray really hard, one day you'll have a chance to see your children enslaved, even if its by really friendly people.

 

[FishFace]

Discovery magazine once pointed out that if you take a rock to the Smithsonian Institution (or anywhere), and ask them to date it; one of the first questions they ask is, "What period are you expecting?"

They do, do they? Well, if they do, it's probably so any creationist who tries to use K/Ar dating on rocks from two years ago can be told, "that won't work."

 

[thaumaturgy]

Oh, and "pwns?" Makes you sound 13 years old.

There may be a reason for that....

 

[FishFace]

Then no, he wasn't speaking for Christ.

So how do you tell whether someone's speaking for Christ?

Ah, right - if they agree with you then the are. Otherwise, they're not. Gottit.