If one more person asks me...

• jmog

  gorocks99;1016373 wrote:So, fallible in terms of fantastical events, but not (necessarily?) in teachings? I'm asking because I have a hard time reconciling the rape/slave/"women's place" parts of the bible that many Christians choose not to follow with the parts they do.
  
  Seems to me if people believe the teachings are infallible, then they should all be followed, but if they believe certain parts are fallible, how is it to people to know which? I keep coming back to "political and social convenience" as the reason why, which doesn't jive with my concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent deity.

  Please feel free to elaborate on the "rape/slave/woman's place parts" because I'd love that discussion .
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1016479 wrote:Show me the poll that says that more people in this country think that violence is more acceptable for children to see than the human body.

  Strawman, I was talking about decency in general. You would find most moral conservatives don't like the violence either.
• jmog

  gorocks99;1016284 wrote:I believe one can look at evolution without the hypothesis of abiogensis, just as one can look at the gravity without knowing scientifically how gravity began.
  
  And as long as this has turned into an atheist/theist discussion, I am curious to know if most theists (particularly "conservative" Christians) believe the Bible is infallible, or fallible, and why? I'm actually curious to discuss, not to bash or be derogatory/instigatory.

  Fine, without abiogenesis, tell me how the first living thing got there. If you say alien implantation (a pretty well accepted theory by many evolutionists now, whether an accident by meteor or deliberate), then my next question is how did the first alien life start.
  
  It has been mathematically and scientifically shown that the probability of the "primordial soup" idea of amino acids eventually coming together to make the first living cell is impossible. This is especially truer now than ever as we learn more and more about how complicated a living cell really is.
  
  So again, I ask, where did the first life come from...
• LJ

  

  power i;1016806 wrote:Lol. Nothing like starting a post and coming back the next day and thinking, dang, 6 pages, that was a good one. Only to open it and find that the responses have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

  So, you ready for Christmas?
• 4cards

  

  power i;1016806 wrote:Lol. Nothing like starting a post and coming back the next day and thinking, dang, 6 pages, that was a good one. Only to open it and find that the responses have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

  ...nice thread trouble maker! I hope you have a very Merry Christmas, & here's you present from me!
  
  
• gorocks99

  

  jmog;1016828 wrote:Fine, without abiogenesis, tell me how the first living thing got there. If you say alien implantation (a pretty well accepted theory by many evolutionists now, whether an accident by meteor or deliberate), then my next question is how did the first alien life start.
  
  It has been mathematically and scientifically shown that the probability of the "primordial soup" idea of amino acids eventually coming together to make the first living cell is impossible. This is especially truer now than ever as we learn more and more about how complicated a living cell really is.
  
  So again, I ask, where did the first life come from...

  Ok, so now this is an abiogenesis debate and not an evolutionary one. I would say we don't know vast swaths of knowledge, scientifically, around potential "life starting" scenarios, or are just starting to learn about them (in the last 50 years) including primordial soup/electrical energy/panspermia/deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Your response is to say an omnipotent/omnipresent/life-giving deity started it all, my response is to say there should be a more "scientific" reason than a sky wizard worth pursuing. And that's fine to have those different views btw, it doesn't upset me or make me hate you or creationists. I do however think it's worth pursuing and we should, as curious and rational beings, not just accept the answer creationists provide.
  
  I would ask you, if God created the universe, where did God come from? If God came from nothing, is it possible that the universe came from nothing?
• tcarrier32

  

  jmog;1016821 wrote:The difference is so obvious it isn't funny. We can currently observe the effects of gravity, we just don't fully understand it.
  
  One can not observe evolution, which is why it is still more debated than gravitational theory. Also, not all gravitational theory is theory, there are parts of it that are "laws", or facts in science terms.

  evolution can be observed, just not in ways that satisfy everyone's needs. there was a recent study done on the variation of bacteria over 50,000 generations.
  
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
  
• password

  

  jmog;1016823 wrote:You are 100% false to say that not ONE kid cares about Christ on Christmas.

  Yes I may have overstated my numbers, but I would think it would be about 85% or more are more interested and excited about the gifts and not religion on Christmas. You don't hear about kids getting all excited on the last day of school before the Christmas break because they are going to celebrate Christ birthday, they are excited because they will be getting a break from school and getting to open presents on Christmas morning. Unfortunately this year may be a bad year for a bunch of kids, because of parents being out of work and not having money to buy the kids gifts, but they will be just as excited on Christmas morning as the kids who are getting gifts to open because they are celebrating Christ birthday and that is all they care about.
• power i

  

  Thanks 4cards!! I will be leaving more than cookies for that Santa!
  
  Very funny, LJ!
  
  The receptionist here at work has asked every freaking patient who has walked through the door this morning "are you ready for Christmas?" If she keeps it up, she's dead by lunch.
• Tiernan

  Finished shopping last night...so I guess I'm ready for Christmas. How about you?
• Sonofanump

  power i;1016878 wrote:The receptionist here at work has asked every freaking patient who has walked through the door this morning "are you ready for Christmas?" If she keeps it up, she's dead by lunch.

  Gonna off her with novicane?
• jmog

  tcarrier32;1016843 wrote:evolution can be observed, just not in ways that satisfy everyone's needs. there was a recent study done on the variation of bacteria over 50,000 generations.
  
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
  

  That study describes micro-evolution, a species mutating/changing traits over many generations. It does not describe macro-evolution, actually changing the type of life form from say bacteria to an ameoba.
  
  Micro-evolution is not only accepted by even the most conservative scientists, but it is observable (obviously by the link). This is why it is so accepted.
  Macro-evolution is not fully accepted by all scientists.
• power i

  

  Sonofanump;1016900 wrote:Gonna off her with novicane?

  No drugs, I work for a Chiropractor. I will break her neck with my bare hands.
• justcompete

  sleeper;1015976 wrote:Not me personally, that's disgusting. But if people of my religion want to, why not? We'll get away with it just like the Christians and Catholics.

  So now you are saying Catholics are not Christians. Glad to see you are so well informed. Also, why are you capitalizing Catholics & Christians?
  Your a joke, a large majority of Religious people do NOT impose their beliefs on others and I am quite sure you do not know the beliefs 95% of the people you meet. Yet you want to deem everyone idiots. You have a lot of class.
• gorocks99

  

  Let me be the first to say ... happy holidays to you all!
  
  
  
  But really, in spite of everything being discussed, this is a great time of year and I do wish you all the best, regardless of affiliation.
• sleeper

  

  justcompete;1016952 wrote:So now you are saying Catholics are not Christians. Glad to see you are so well informed. Also, why are you capitalizing Catholics & Christians?
  Your a joke, a large majority of Religious people do NOT impose their beliefs on others and I am quite sure you do not know the beliefs 95% of the people you meet. Yet you want to deem everyone idiots. You have a lot of class.

  Look man, I'll admit ignorance that I don't know the difference between Catholics, Christians, Scientologists, Jews, Blacks, etc. I don't care about class as that's all a matter of perspective and I certainly don't care about you.
  
  Enjoy!
• rmolin73

  

  So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.
  
  Enjoy
• LJ

  

  rmolin73;1017024 wrote:So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.
  
  Enjoy

  
  uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
  
  
  
• Pick6

  

  rmolin73;1017024 wrote:So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.
  
  Enjoy

  lulz
• Heretic

  

  power i;1016950 wrote:No drugs, I work for a Chiropractor. I will break her neck with my bare hands.

  rmolin73;1017024 wrote:So now jews and blacks are a religion? I see that OSU degree is paying off.
  
  Enjoy

  So far the best two posts in this thread. For completely different reasons.
• thavoice

  password;1016866 wrote:Yes I may have overstated my numbers, but I would think it would be about 85% or more are more interested and excited about the gifts and not religion on Christmas. You don't hear about kids getting all excited on the last day of school before the Christmas break because they are going to celebrate Christ birthday, they are excited because they will be getting a break from school and getting to open presents on Christmas morning. Unfortunately this year may be a bad year for a bunch of kids, because of parents being out of work and not having money to buy the kids gifts, but they will be just as excited on Christmas morning as the kids who are getting gifts to open because they are celebrating Christ birthday and that is all they care about.

  I think you are off on that % as well. I would say probalby 99% are more interested in the gifts.
• SnotBubbles

  

  THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CHRISTMAS!!!
  
  
• password

  

  SnotBubbles;1017166 wrote:THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CHRISTMAS!!!
  
  

  
  I fixed it for you, no thanks are needed.
• SnotBubbles

  

  password;1017184 wrote:I fixed it for you, no thanks are needed.

  Thanks.
• tcarrier32

  

  jmog;1016914 wrote:That study describes micro-evolution, a species mutating/changing traits over many generations. It does not describe macro-evolution, actually changing the type of life form from say bacteria to an ameoba.
  
  Micro-evolution is not only accepted by even the most conservative scientists, but it is observable (obviously by the link). This is why it is so accepted.
  Macro-evolution is not fully accepted by all scientists.

  The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
  Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

  here are the three of the six cited studies. i don't expect you to read them, or to have read them. my point being that your opinion "as a scientist" is met with overwhelming disagreement. you might not be wrong, abiogenesis is something to still be dealt with, however there has never been a supernatural explanation needed before. unlikely one is needed in this instance.
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16701238
  [URL="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209"]http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209
  [URL="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409766"]http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409766
  
  
  [/URL][/URL]