Jump to content

MY questions to extremest in fundamentalism...


bull912000
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I stated before, bring forth these so called "mountains of evidence."

 

 

 

I am actually disappointed. I was looking forward to a good post from you.

 

And yes, as always when I say your "interpretation" is a view common amongst the internet, you tell me it's not true and give me a wiki link. Thanks for the laugh.

 

 

 

Actually the wikipedia was an afterthought. I'd generally consider the English school syllabus a more authorative body but since they both agree it's irrelevant really I suppose. It's you who seem to be going against the status quo of what a fundamentalist is, so there's no need to get irrate about it when people can't follow.

 

 

 

To be honest, you're posing the hypothesis of God (specifically the validity of the Bible) so the burden of proof lies with you, but i'm always up for a debate, so i'll go back to some of your original claims.

 

 

 

You said that God might have destroyed the dinosaurs as a precursor to Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Since God is omniscient, didn't he see that coming? So why did he bother making dinosaurs in the first place? Why did he kill the dinosaurs but not equally dangerous predators, or diseases etc. Need I go on?

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[hide]Actually, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, and we will prove it by doing the following three things:

 

 

 

violet ball Examining the BibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s text and the related scientific facts.

 

violet ball Explaining the accuracy of the Bible.

 

violet ball Exploring what we are taught in school and through the media.

 

The BibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Text

 

 

 

The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, [email protected] (yes, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s spelled correctlyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a day or two on this, I'm a little busy with tests and papers. I have issues with that info, but give me time.

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated before, bring forth these so called "mountains of evidence."

 

 

 

I am actually disappointed. I was looking forward to a good post from you.

 

And yes, as always when I say your "interpretation" is a view common amongst the internet, you tell me it's not true and give me a wiki link. Thanks for the laugh.

 

 

 

You do realise the whole evolution vs. creation 'debate' is a facade, don't you? It's a non-contest because according to science, the supernatural isn't debatable. What we can know, see and test is and so far everything points to evolution. Nature suggests things like evolution happened and miracles can't (I'm not saying the supernatural is impossible, that's removed from the realm of science, which is what I'm getting at). It's typical of fundamentalists/literalists to always ask for more evidence, more proof, more convincing arguments when it's all evident in nature and there's plenty of evidence out there if you want to look for it. I'll research evidence for you if you genuinely want but I need to know if you'll take your head out of the fishbowl and look at this hypothetically. Sorry for assuming you're not open, I don't like to do it, but many fundamentalists/literalists are not.

 

 

 

What would you think of this view:

 

Your scale there is a bit misleading. Humans have roughly 30,000 genes. 98% of that is 29,400. 600 different. Comparative DNA is pretty damning evidence. Either it happened as science explains or god made us think it did (or is telling us that it did). #-o

 

 

 

Added to that, there's comparative anatomy and embryology and the fossil record each of which suggest it happened. Again, either it did or god made it seem that way (or is telling us that it did). Added to that, microevolution is factual and there aren't exactly any barriers that I know of which would prevent macroevolution (if you know of any, click the link in my sig and tell us).

 

 

 

Setting aside any supernatural occurance, nature almost certainly suggests evolution. It's not really that far fetched when you look at it hypothetically

 

 

 

I'm curious as to the holes in my argument and I'll dig up some other evidences later if you really want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warrior, in this thread I am defending Fundamentalism and Creation. Not debating evolution, in any way.

 

 

 

There are dozens of topics in this forum on evolution, challenge me there. The OP asked that we stick to the topics specified: Creation and Miracles. Evolution is an entirely different debate.

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide]
Those are some broad questions

 

I believe in God and Christ also.

 

The Bible doesn't give specific dates and times on when the earth was created. It just states..in the beginning..God created the heavens (first) and the earth.

 

It goes on to tell us about the history of man.

 

I read it every now and again...but what about dinosaurs? The bible doesn't mention them..but they did indeed exist. So apparently the earth was created many moons before 6000 years ago. (just my opinion)

 

 

 

And miracles, yes I believe they once happened...but I don't believe that they happen in today's times..I dunno..just my opinion. Well maybe I should say, if it is according to God's will..then I believe in that miracle. :)

 

 

 

Dinosaurs would be among the beasts of the fields mentioned in Genesis. For all we know, God began his shift towards preparing Earth for Man millions of years ago, clearing out predators that would present a drastic challenge for Man to survive amongst. He would have known that Man would eat the fruit, and therefore be expelled from Eden and have to face predators.

 

 

 

Oh please.

 

 

 

Excellent argument. And I'd thought this topic was going to diminish into some anti-Fundamentalist topic.

 

 

 

And I am serious on both counts. His questions are addressed to me, not you.

 

 

 

That's the kind of redundant logic that allow Christians to attribute any single natural event to a simple "God did it" and then rational people can't disprove that.

 

 

 

The fact is, the fossil record and the theory of evolution does not fit with the fundamentalist view of the Bible. But when you try and reconcile Genesis with it by saying "well, maybe God did this then God did that" then you're missing the point and trying to save an argument that's already on thin ice with the trump card of "God did it".

 

 

 

That's without even attacking the obvious flaws.

 

 

 

As I stated before, and for the last time:

 

 

 

DO NOT CONFUSE LITERALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM!!!1 Keep in mind by these terms I am referring to Christianity alone.

 

 

 

*Ahem*, now back on the subject.

 

 

 

Fundamentalism is the belief that God is supreme and that all of the miracles in the Bible are true. By definition, we are the folks that believe "God did it." Fundamentalist scholars do not doubt the fossil record or the existance of Dinosaurs. As I stated in a nother thread, I can literally walk to a museum 5 minutes away and touch a Tricerotops. We believe in the Creation and that the Bible is true. However, we acknowledge that the Bible is often written in figurative language, and must be deciphered to know what is meant figuratively and what is literal.

 

 

 

Literalism are the hardcore extremist righ-wing "Jesus Camp" nuts who believe in a Young Earth and that every last word of the Bible is true.

 

 

 

Let's compare a Fundamentalist and Literalist view of a Biblical prophecy:

 

 

 

In the Revalation of John, John's dream prophecizes a beast with 6 heads coming out of the depths of the Earth. The AntiChrist.

 

 

 

Fundamentalists believe that the prophecy will come true. We believe that the Beast will be a man with very high charisma and will fulfill the prophecies of the End Times.

 

 

 

Literalist believe that the prophecy will come true. They believe that a giant beast will come from the Earth and lead us. Literally.

 

 

 

 

 

And tell me why exactly the fossil record does not fit in with the "Fundamentalist" view? What exactly is the Fundamentalist view? Chances are, you will probably give me a Literalist view, because that's what you have been trained to think us Fundamentalists as.

 

 

 

I've already demonstrated my abilities to fight you in other threads Assassin. Please bring it on. I have just as vast a field of resources to use to prove my point as you do.

 

 

 

PS: God did it.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I will concede that your interpretation of what a fundamentalist is is different to mine and the entire English school's syllabus' (and indeed, Wikipedia's), so a lot of my points are as you said, irrelevant. Clearly, there are variations on the actual definition of the word fundamentalist, yours might be applicable to you but not everyone else who can equally consider themselves fundamentalists.

 

 

 

However, the fact remains that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible does not fit with the mountains of scientific evidence against miracles, creation or indeed the supposed necessity for a creator.

 

 

 

Sorry, Bari, I just interpreted that part as to evolution, which asserts no necessity for a creator. To assassin: did I interpret that correctly? Anyway I'm not going to press it, I'll lay off the debate if you don't want to do it here.

 

 

 

Edit: The part in bold in my previous post probably still applies, if you were aiming to debate creation and mircales with science, although you probably already know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assassin can, however, debate me on Dinosaurs since that related both to Genesis and Miracles. But all the stuff about cells needs and complexity needs to go somewhere else.

Untitled.png

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the fact remains that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible does not fit with the mountains of scientific evidence against miracles, creation or indeed the supposed necessity for a creator.

 

 

 

Sorry, Bari, I just interpreted that part as to evolution, which asserts no necessity for a creator. To assassin: did I interpret that correctly? Anyway I'm not going to press it, I'll lay off the debate if you don't want to do it here.

 

 

 

Edit: The part in bold in my previous post probably still applies, if you were aiming to debate creation and mircales with science, although you probably already know this.

 

 

 

Well I wasn't specifically mentioning evolution, but I suppose that definitely has a part to play in it.

 

 

 

But the topic isn't really on evolution, and since Bari isn't saying that evolution is wrong there's no reason to debate it. :XD:

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the fact remains that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible does not fit with the mountains of scientific evidence against miracles, creation or indeed the supposed necessity for a creator.

 

 

 

Sorry, Bari, I just interpreted that part as to evolution, which asserts no necessity for a creator. To assassin: did I interpret that correctly? Anyway I'm not going to press it, I'll lay off the debate if you don't want to do it here.

 

 

 

Edit: The part in bold in my previous post probably still applies, if you were aiming to debate creation and mircales with science, although you probably already know this.

 

 

 

Well I wasn't specifically mentioning evolution, but I suppose that definitely has a part to play in it.

 

 

 

But the topic isn't really on evolution, and since Bari isn't saying that evolution is wrong there's no reason to debate it. :XD:

 

 

 

Fair enough. Sorry about that, I was kind of continuing in the same vein as my discussion with magekillr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.