• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

futzman

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2005
527
18
71
✟771.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Libertarian

Huh? I would NEVER harp on grammer, I assure you! I was a C student in English and grammer and personally had little use for it until I realized some people mistakenly equate intelligence with proper grammer. Since then, I've tried to learn from my best friend who is an expert in English grammer and linguistics. Besides, is that the best you can do is criticize me for making a typo ("believe" versus "belief")?

Richard (still wondering about those 4400 genera of brachiopods apparently God doesn't care much for...)
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
dad said:
No, not at all. The world is physical only, and seperate from the spiritual world now.

So there is nothing spiritual in this world, according to the brand of science you've invented.

We have a spirit, and a physical body, but they will not go beyond death together, unless He merges them!

Which He has no reason to do. The physical body housing a soul seems to be a pretty good system.

They dwell together, but are seperate.

Together, but separate.

And I suppose they have no connection to each other? What then do you say about the reports of demonic posession? Is there any veracity to that? And if so, doesn't that show a pretty stong physical/spiritual connection?

Angels and spirits live in the spirit world, but can visist here, and interact, do miracles, etc.

In mythology, certainly. As well as in reports as reliable as the average Elvis sighting.

So don't hand me your thin line about what is 'theologically wrong'. You know not of what you speak!

Well, I'm not denying the existence of the soul... Well, actually, I am, but at least I'm consistent about it.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My apologies, it was on another thread I just posted someone was harping on that. (Nightson vbmenu_register("postmenu_17250641", true); ). Guess I took a cheap shot in anger at the wrong party.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,363
7,214
61
✟176,857.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
dad said:
This bat thing people raise a lot, as if they have a point of some kind!
Yes, the bible is not inerrant
Please tell us now, how God is in error calling them a bird?
Because they're not birds.
Precisely what is it that makes them something else?
The fact that they're mammals.

Can you prove that God did not make them on the day He made birds
No, but that's not a problem since being made on the same day as birds does not make them birds.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Caphi said:
...just...wow. I've heard stories about "dad", but I really never imagined that it was this bad. You almost beat John's "Time Warp Jesus" theories, dad. Incredible.

Check out the "Billions and Billions" thread for pure Comedy Platinum--or should I say comedy sapphire?

You'll get the joke soon enough; then you'll wish you hadn't.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This bat thing people raise a lot, as if they have a point of some kind!



Yes, the bible is not inerrant
Right, silly as it may be, I think you may be right, that could be their attempted point! Thanks.
Because they're not birds
I say they are.
The fact that they're mammals.
Yes, amazing, isn't it how He made a bird that also is a mammal. The question remains, what is it exactly that makes a bat not a bird, or never having been one!?
On the sixth day mammals were made. On the fifth day, the birds, a day before.
"Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
....And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. "
After all, aren't whales mammals? But were not they made on the day of the fish? Seems pretty simple, they fly or swim, and only an evoisticly tinged method of catagorization says any different? Saying they are mammals just don't do it, do you have some reason we should say it is (or was not) not a bird?

No, but that's not a problem since being made on the same day as birds does not make them birds.
In the bible, it seems, that is precisely what it makes them. If you disagree, exactly why not?
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
dad said:
Right, silly as it may be, I think you may be right, that could be their attempted point! Thanks.

Why is it silly not to believe that the entire Bible is fully true?

I say they are.

Then bring it up when you are in control of taxonomy. Bats are placental, warm-blooded, furry creatures. Birds, by definition, are animals which are feathered, warm-blooded, egg-laying, and beaked. Therefore, bats cannot be include in the set of birds.

Yes, amazing, isn't it how He made a bird that also is a mammal. The question remains, what is it exactly that makes a bat not a bird, or never having been one!?

I already told you. Mammals and birds are mutually exclusive sets, and bats belong to the mammal set.


The bible is not proof or evidence.


Definitions. Fishes are scaly, gilled, watergoing, coldblooded animals. Birds are feathered, beaked, egg-laying mammals. Mammals are furry, placental, and warm-blooded. Dolphins and whales are mammals, and so are bats. None of them are birds or fishes.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
dad said:
Why is it silly to believe it is?


Because it's an obviously mythical account that goes against both common sense and science.

Whose definition


The generally accepted one based on logic, evidence, and observations.



Adam's day? What in the world are you talking about? Bats are just rodents that evolved wings out of their forepaws. Angels don't exist. Your king, if he existed, didn't grow feathers, at least not literally. Dinosaurs were, according to old orthodox, reptiles, a class which has cold blood and scaly, dry skin (birds are feathered and warmblooded), though recent theories suggest that they may have had feathers too. The platypus is in its own unique class, but since it fits all of the mammalian categories (a placenta and fur), it is considered a mammal.

Don't try to redefine science based on your precious book. It won't work.



I disbelieve the Bible because evidence tells me that many of the assertions the Bible makes or implies are either false, metaphorical, or are based on archaic beliefs that themselves have been either disproved or modified. It's not that the Bible is wrong or right in its entirety, merely that it SHOULD NOT on any account be taken as an authoritative treatise on history, science, or anything else except its own subject matter, christianity.

So, catfish have scales, and sharks? Of course fish are watergoing, I think we can agree on that much, however! Who says fish must have a certain blood temperature? Who says that temperature was the same in the garden of eden? You?


A minor point. The terms, warmblooded and coldblooded, do not refer literally to the temperature of the blood. They refer to whether or not an animal can regulate its own internal temperature. As humans, we can keep our insides warmer or cooler than the environment on our own power. Reptiles cannot. They bask in the day to keep themselves hot, and retreat to homes to prevent cooling down.

And, when I said "fish" I meant traditional fish, phylum Osteicthes. Sharks are not quite fish in the same way as, say, tuna, but rather belong to phylum Chondroicthyes, a group of watergoing, gilled, coldblooded creatures that have skeletons formed entirely out of cartilage which also includes rays and skates.

And lastly, please stop applying the arguments I supply to the literal account of Genesis, since that story is not actually true.



Kindly stop using arguments based on "Adam's day" and the "Garden of Eden." If you do, you are beginning your arguments on false premises. Whales and dolphins (grouped, by the way, as "cetaceans") are mammals, since they fit all the criteria for mammal and few for fish. Fish is not defined as anything that lives in the water. A fish (traditional fish, not shark or ray) is a coldblooded, bony, scaled creature with gills. A cetacean has a placenta, hair, and an endothermic system. The only reason a whale can't support itself on land is a) they are not equipped to get food on land, since they have evolved for an oceanic lifestyle, and b) the larger whales tend to collapse under the weight of their own skeleton, a skeleton ideally suited for water but too bulky and heavy for land.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This bat thing people raise a lot, as if they have a point of some kind!



Yes, the bible is not inerrant
Right, silly as it may be, I think you may be right, that could be their attempted point! Thanks.
Because they're not birds
I say they are.
Why is it silly to believe it is?





Because it's an obviously mythical account that goes against both common sense and science.
No, not at all, you have been misinformed. The bible fits hand in glove with science! Where many have had it wrong, was thinking that the past was as now, rather than the merged spiritual/physical world it was.
The generally accepted one based on logic, evidence, and observations.
Based on evolutionary preconceptions. True, it has been widespread, time to nip that puppy, however.
Adam's day? What in the world are you talking about? Bats are just rodents that evolved wings out of their forepaws.
So say you. Can you prove it? No, The world was created in a week, in Adam's day. Whales never came from some rodent like creature, etc. This is nonsense. Now if you had some proof that bats evolved, I would be interested in that. If this was the case, then it was hyper evolution, which was easy in the merged universe, but so far, you havn't demonstrated a thing, but reciting evo party lines.
Dinosaurs were, according to old orthodox, reptiles, a class which has cold blood and scaly, dry skin (birds are feathered and warmblooded), though recent theories suggest that they may have had feathers too.
Let us know when you make up your mind on that one.
The platypus is in its own unique class, but since it fits all of the mammalian categories (a placenta and fur), it is considered a mammal.
Ha. I thought God may have made that weird thing for a reason! If it can be considered both, so can a bat! Period!
Don't try to redefine science based on your precious book. It won't work.
Don't kid yourself, it is already written in the stars. And the definition is in on science falsely so called. It is speculations of our future or past, based on the BELIEF that only the physical universe existed or will exist then.
I disbelieve the Bible because evidence tells me that many of the assertions the Bible makes or implies are either false, metaphorical, or are based on archaic beliefs that themselves have been either disproved or modified.
Well, this archaic belief of yours needs to be modified.
So, catfish have scales, and sharks? Of course fish are watergoing, I think we can agree on that much, however! Who says fish must have a certain blood temperature? Who says that temperature was the same in the garden of eden? You?





A minor point.
Hey, I was only responding to YOUR definitions here. Minor as they may be.
They refer to whether or not an animal can regulate its own internal temperature
So we determine when God made something by whether He made it to regulate it's own temperature or not? On a certain day of creation, only those who could regulate their own temperature were made? Do you realize how silly this sounds?
Yeah, right, blah blah, 64 dollar word, blah blah, if, except, but, blah blah, God was wrong blah blah...
And lastly, please stop applying the arguments I supply to the literal account of Genesis, since that story is not actually true.
Despite your desperate proclamation, I have to say, it actually is God's honest truth!
Kindly stop using arguments based on "Adam's day" and the "Garden of Eden." If you do, you are beginning your arguments on false premises.
Kindly stop asking me to deny a truth you cannot disprove.
Right, in other word, like any other fish, it will die, as it was not designed for land! So sharks are not fish, at least traditional fish, as are not rays, or dolphins or whales, blah blah. Basically the only real fish sre those evolution dreams evolved out of each other! Preposterous. If God says it is a fish, it isn't, because it just isn't "traditional" boo hoo.
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
Let me make this very simple for you. God does not exist. The world was formed over the course of millions of years, not six days. The Garden of Eden was a subterranean environment, and Adam and Eve were sulfur-eating bacteria. I don't have time for your spiritual nonsense. If you want to believe that there's some kind of spiritual patch for the world, and that eventually God will come and apply it and all the laws of physics are going to change, just to believe that your book is true, fine. I would personally rather believe that my common sense tells me the truth and that the Bible is wrong, rather than inventing wild theories about splits, merges, and spiritual realms just to believe the Bible is right. Ockham's Razor.
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
63
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
dad said:
say they are.
And you're wrong.

dad said:
No, not at all, you have been misinformed. The bible fits hand in glove with science! Where many have had it wrong, was thinking that the past was as now, rather than the merged spiritual/physical world it was.
The bible does not fit 'hand in glove' with science. It may fit with your own created 'spiriscience', but since that's just 'science except where it conflicts with the bible', that's hardly surprising.

dad said:
Based on evolutionary preconceptions. True, it has been widespread, time to nip that puppy, however.
You are aware that classifications - including of the bat as a mammal, not a bird, whales as mammals, not fish, etc., date to way before evolutionary theory, aren't you? Oops, looks like your statement is simply false.

Prove it? Certainly. Not to you, because you have many times stated that you will not accept any evidence, of anything, that contradicts the bible. But prove it to rational people who are prepared to accept evidence? Sure. It's been done, many times.

dad said:
Ha. I thought God may have made that weird thing for a reason! If it can be considered both, so can a bat! Period!
A bat can be considered a bird, as is evidenced by the fact that you do so. However, such a consideration is wrong; the bat is not a bird.

dad said:
Don't kid yourself, it is already written in the stars. And the definition is in on science falsely so called. It is speculations of our future or past, based on the BELIEF that only the physical universe existed or will exist then.
We've been through this before. You cannot evidence in any way that science is what the bible calls "science falsely so called". You merely call it that because science conflicts with your interpretation of your religious text.

dad said:
Well, this archaic belief of yours needs to be modified.
Irony meter explosion.

dad said:
So we determine when God made something by whether He made it to regulate it's own temperature or not?
No, we determine what kind of an animal something is by a number of factors, one of which is whether it can regulate its own body temperature.

dad said:
On a certain day of creation, only those who could regulate their own temperature were made? Do you realize how silly this sounds?
When you try to accomodate ancient myths with science, yes, those myths sure sound silly.

dad said:
Yeah, right, blah blah, 64 dollar word, blah blah, if, except, but, blah blah, God was wrong blah blah...
How can anyone respond to drivel like this?

dad said:
Despite your desperate proclamation, I have to say, it actually is God's honest truth!
I doubt you would know truth if it bit you.

dad said:
Kindly stop asking me to deny a truth you cannot disprove.
Yet again you reveal your complete ignorance of science.

More drivel, attempting to blame animal classification on evolution, despite the fact that animal classification predates evolution.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
63
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
dad said:
Easy to say, but in leui of proof, why flap your jaws?]
There is ample proof - just no proof that will satisfy you, because you're trapped in your box of biblical literalism.

dad said:
But it does, and you have nothing to say otherwise! Yap yap, if you got something out with it man!
No, it does not, as is evidenced in this thread alone.

Yes, all classifications. I've no idea what 'evoistic' or 'evoisms' mean, although I suspect that they mean 'science that contradicts my interpretation of the bible'.

How did my granny and her spawn (that is, my parents and their siblings) get into it?

dad said:
Really, since I said that so many times, please clip a few and show us how this is true?
Consult any textbook on biology. And learn.

dad said:
Quit getting irrational here, and reverting to science falsely so called, which is belief only that today's physical only was all that existed in the past!
Why do you continue to make this lie? Science does not hold the believe that today's physical only was all that existed in the past.

 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
63
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
None of it requires the belief that there was never anything else. Why do you continue to make these lies?

dad said:
Your granny is right, she sure ain't mine, neither did this first lifeform spawn me
Of course my granny isn't yours. She wasn't the first lifeform, either. What are you babbling about?

dad said:
No, of course not, science falsely so called, however does! By belief that there was no spiritual and physical at work then, but only the physical. This they do, in dating. Why pretend otherwise, and provide empty yapping?
There is no 'science falsely so called' - that's your invention to mean 'science that contradicts my religious beliefs'. You cannot provide any evidence to support your claims.

And for the sake of everyone's sanity, learn how to post correctly. Youv'e been asked this repeatedly - it makes your posts even harder to understand than they should be.]
 
Upvote 0