Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Lavindathar]

Well, fair enough, it wasn't very subtle, but Luvian should of asked him to not repost in this thread the first time. We've had 20 pages of it being fine, and he's trolling to get it locked because "he's strong of faith and doesnt believe in these posts as its a waste of time".

Why can't a mod just ask him not to come back in the thread, so the other people who've posted can carry on?

I just don't like people who do this.

If this thread gets locked, it'll be a disaster. The first thread on IW in a very long time that has actually made the site busy...or we could lock it, and go back to the recent days when we had 4 posts a day in General Discussion. So moderators, please for the sake of everyone on the boards, ask him to leave.

[Luvian]

Lavindathar. It take two persons to have an argument and Chewbacca hasn't resorted to personal attacks, as opposed to you. Do you want this thread locked?

Chewbacca is as welcome as any of us to share his opinion, provided he's willing to listen to other's opinions.

This goes for everyone. You want us to listen to your opinion? I'm much more interested in my opinion than I am in yours. If you want me to listen to yours you have to be polite and listen to me too. It's a trade.

If you're not interested in trading for our opinions we're not interested in yours.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I really see no harm here. He's really quite cute! ...and harmless




Edit: huh, it's the missing link! Oh no, what have I done....

[Lavindathar]

Was hardly a personal attack, just me saying that I think hes trollnig.

You yourself have said he seems to be doing the same.

Anyway, the posts have been deleted now so it all makes no sense, ill check back in the morning and go back on topic.

[Cerek]

Well Blast! I go to class and miss all the excitement.

In the meantime I do want to give credit to everyone for being so civil. And especially want to thank Luvian for giving us a chance to prove we can actually discuss a topic like adults.

Honostly, when was the last time an actual discussion thread went 23 pages?

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I was at the hospital, visiting one of our seniors from church. I don't quite know what happened either..

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Stratos "Biblical contradictions, True or Not?" is a minefiled I don't want to wander into. I personally think there are verses that contradict each other, and Biblical literalists sometimes use fairly tortured logic to show that it aint so. More than that, I wont say. ETA: I'm sure Yorick have something to add here.

In my 29 years of regularly reading the Bible, I have not found a contradiction, and the only error that's been proven is one or two COPYISTS errors, which are picked up by the bible's own internal cross-referencing.

Originally Posted by dplax I'm not referring to contradictions. I'm referring to different people being able to make different interpretations of the Bible (or other holy book) or parts of it. The two concepts are close, but not the same.

They are indeed very different.

Part of the power of the bible is that it can hold simultaneous truths, one of which will speak louder to a particular person than another. Christianity is a relationship, and as such, children of the same parent will have different experiences of who their father was.

What they agree on, you would say are "core truths" ie. their Dad was a man, who smacked them, who worked hard, who had a lot of integrity etc.

Similarly, though Christians may interpret parts of the Bible in different ways, on the CORE TRUTHS there is remarkable consistency throughout history, and even today.

Here's an example of those core beliefs from the most widely used creed in the Christian Church:


THE NICENE CREED

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son).
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Lavindathar But Oh wait, there is the Turin Shroud...

I used to scoff at the Turin shroud and doubted it's authenticity. I don't need a shroud for my faith, and so never really looked into it.

But this year, I listened to a talk from a Scientist about the shroud and was quite blown away. In short, it's like a polaroid of what would appear to be the resurrection. The image of Jesus caused by enough radiation from a small bomb, burning the negative image of him on the cloth. What would have caused a small nuclear bomb's worth of radiation to emanate from his bones?

The impact of the shroud on portrait art as far away as India within a few years of it's public display in Antioch? is seen, as people painted "the Face of God" (under their god's name, but copying Jesus' face) with the hope it would heal them.

It's fascinating.

There is a carbon dating issue though, as the date picked up were when repairs were sewn into the cloth in the middle ages after is was burned in a fire, not when it was actually made.

Modern science though, has picked up the radiation element involved in it's creation.

Anyway, I was a shroud-sceptic, and this Scientists talk literally bowled me over.

He put it, that he as a Scientist needed more proof. He held up Thomas as an example of a disciple that needed more proof, and what did Jesus do? Jesus gave him the opportunity to have that desire met, after which Thomas is one of the first to call Jesus "God" (not just 'son of God'), which Jesus then acknowledges.

Doubt leads to stronger faith.

So anyway, that's my shroud story.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Jaradu That's my point, our ancestors didn't survive. Humans and primates are all that remain from the humanoid, bi-pedal branch of the tree of evolution our ancestors forged.

Apes are not bipedal. That was my point. How does a human develop bipedalism, when Apes do not have the spine, nor pelvis, nor legs, nor foot arches required to be bipedal?

It's not that they didn't evolve. Everything's always mutating/adapting, the question is, are the mutations advantageous or detrimental in the dog-eat-dog natural world?

And yet as I said, mutations don't reproduce, and the DNA code aggressively seeks to return to it's intended coding.

Well, it's hardly survival of the fittest from day one. Humans require a longer period of infanthood 'helplessness' than other animals in order to hone the advanced thought and cognitive processes that separate us from other species. And it's not like we can't afford to sacrifice strength for this ability when the species has evolved to protect the young.

Oh come on that's a stretch. Having a more independent, healthy and vigorous baby is a far better thing. Human babies are a liability that take one healthy food gatherer out of the equation to care for it. The weaker species - humans - prospered, while the stronger one didn't?

I mean, Apes use tools, are social, highly intelligent. Why did the evidently superior species come close to extinction? Our intelligence? What allowed our intelligence to develop if we'd be dead without it?

So somehow, these physically inferior ape-humans (with weaker and more dependent babies, and half the population hamstrung with pregnancy or baby caring duties) survived long enough to develop superior intelligence that meant they prospered more than the apes...

Man, I just don't buy it.

We know a lot about the eye. In fact, we don't even have to look at fossils to see how the eye evolved, the different stages exist in animals today where the eye simply wasn't required to advance any further. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-LcQZHg1M

I'll watch the videos and get back to you. Thanks for posting bro.

Sorry, I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here. If you're saying a tiger and a dog shouldn't be able to breed, then yes, you'd be quite right, they can't.

Why not if they're from the same common ancestor? At what point did the gene lock kick in and why?

The gene lock prevents new species from breeding. It seems to me, another indication of nature seeking to return to original design.

The reason the world isn't teeming with dwarfs is because of recessive and dominant genes. If it was advantageous to be a dwarf in the natural world, you'd probably see a few more.

The point is, Dwarfs have trouble reproducing. What has being advantageous got to do with it? If it were advantageous, would they suddenly be able to reproduce? how does that work? Does God just switch on the reproduction button if he knows a species will survive?

The point is, "if" doesn't matter. We KNOW Dwarves have a hard time reproducing because of dominant and recessive genes, yes. Not because of their survivability.

So, whose genes were dominant and whose were recessive in Apes vs Humans?

Mutation is like radioactive decay. It's more or less random. That's like saying that ten years ago the winning lottery numbers were so and so, yet since then those exact numbers have never been repeated. Oh well, it still happened.

C'mon, it's supposed to have happened regularly enough to take us from a single cell into complex beings like Whales, and yet humans have never recorded them?

And there are cases of reproducible mutations, I believe in the areas of fruit flies, mice, and viruses.

Bro, these are WITHIN THE SPECIES. I mentioned Horses and Dogs as human bred examples of the same thing. Micro-evolution is not in dispute. I'm talking about new species. Reproducible mutational jumps necessary for evolution to have occurred.

In science, "theory" is the highest level of truth you can assign something, unlike the everyday bastardisation of the word which just means "idea" or "guess".

What's wrong with an idea or a guess? Either is as valid as a theory, as yes, they mean the same thing. You're talking to a professional creative, to whom "idea's" are currency!

Hunting fish in a river? Those who can submerge themselves for longer - or even those who can submerge themselves at all - would end up with more fish.

The point being Jaradu, is that the Ape nose can't block water, making submerging fatal. How do you try submerging, if your nose doesn't allow it?

If humans ever did develop wings, you're right, it wouldn't happen "one day". With all major evolutionary steps, we're talking millions of years. And it wouldn't happen by jumping off cliffs, either, but thanks for the strawman nonetheless. Wanting to fly doesn't mean you will mutate to fly. Giraffes weren't jumping up, trying to reach higher leaves, then lo and behold, their kids had longer necks. There are several possible explanations for how/why the wing evolved. - Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. - Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. - Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. That's the way, here's the how.

Bro, at some point, no matter how far away, "one day" is all that would separate a humanity without wings, to a human born with wings.

The point remains, that reaching up to something you cannot reach, jumping off a cliff you cannot fly off, diving into water that will drown you, breathing air that will dry out your gils and kill you makes evolution completely illogical to me.

I studied it in school, I've had it explained, people for years have been presenting their arguments, and all I see are extreme twists in logic trying to make an insane concept somehow palatable.

I cannot accept evolution on the most basic level in the core of my being.

Ditto with the talking snake, dude.

And yet apes can sign language with humans, and Parrots (see National Geographic) have been known to amalgamate words to communicate with humans.

I have no idea whether the snake was symbolic or actual, or whether Eve heard her own words in her head while the snake coiled invitingly in the tree, who knows? The point of the story is bigger than the details. Either way, it sure seems less crazy to me than evolution.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha But it's not occurring from nothing, the scientist is using "something" to make it. And there is a higher power (than the cell being made at least), indeed an intelligent force at work, namely the scientist.

Very good point FSA.

One thing I'll point out, is that the odds of life spontaneously developing are like tossing a coin, and having it land on it's side. OR winning the lottery 20 times in a row. Theoretical probabilities, not one's we'd likely see.

Now, what would happen if someone won the lottery 20 times in a row?

We'd presume the lottery was rigged!

HEY! Life starting was rigged! Someone was behind it fuddling the numbers!