My issues with Christianity.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

Or this. Which I already knew.

 

 

 

But yeah thanks.

 

 

 

Done yet?

 

If you had bothered to click on a previous page, you would have come across many, many replies telling you that there are two different definitions for the word theory. The one you pasted is the common usage. The one you need to learn is the scientific usage..

 

 

 

This is like the billionth time I have had to post this:

 

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

 

 

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

 

 

 

Let me repeat again:

 

There are two different kinds of definitions for THEORY

 

1)COMMON USAGE (EX: FOUND AT REFERENCE.COM)

 

2)SCIENTIFIC USAGE (EX: FOUND AT BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK GLOSSARY)

 

 

 

"THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" REFERS TO DEFINITION #2.

 

[warri0r45]

Warrior just because there's evidence out there to say that there's aspects of life in which if it were true that evolution were true they could fit in and make sense. That doesn't mean that the many variables out there which haven't been proved of evolution are discounted and therefore don't come into consideration when making the decision whether or not humans evolving from monkeys itself is fact.

 

 

 

I have no problem with other forms of evolution occurring (mutating virus etc - well whatever examples you may give) but that's no solid evidence of the theory that humans were once monkeys. No one was around there and no ones got hard evidence to state that humans evolved from monkeys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chromosome - Bundles of DNA (bound by special protiens) encompassing one's genome.

 

 

 

Genome - The genetic material of an organism. Every nucleotide which makes up all of your DNA.

 

 

 

Nucleotide - The monomer subuints which make up DNA. There are four. Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), and Cytosine ©.

 

 

 

Telomere - The end terminus of a chromosome. In vertebrates, it is comprised of the repeat sequence 'TTAGGG' which is repeated around 1000 times. Easily recognisable in the genome.

 

 

 

Centromere - The central structure of a chromosome. Comprised of segments of simple repeat DNA 171 nucleotides in length. Easily recognisable in the genome.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Explanation of the video -

 

 

 

1) Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes all have 48.

 

2) It is then hypothesised that the common ancestor we and the great apes shared had 48 chromosomes, like the other great apes currently do.

 

3) Two primate chromosomes must then have fused into one human chromosome.

 

4) Chromosome 2 fits the bill; it has two centromeres, one deactivated and the other still functional. It also has telomere sequence in it's center, where it dosen't belong (remember telomeres are only found on the terminus ends of chromosomes). These two facts clearly indicate a fusion event occured.

 

5) Human chromosome 2 is also highly similar in sequence to two chimpanzee chromosomes. This clearly indicates common ancestry between us and chimps.

 

 

 

Further reading:

 

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Just one of many examples of clear evidence for common ancestry between us and chimps. We didn't evolve from them. They are evolved creatures just like us. We share a common ancestor.

[warri0r45]

Now, eels, from the above post of mine I can only reasonably conclude one of two things:

 

 

 

1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true.

 

2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us.

 

 

 

Is this not a fair assesment?

[Adventurer]

^

 

Off-topic discussion?

 

 

 

Previous discussion

 

[hide]

[hide]

 

(1)

 

Your points 1 and 2 contradict each other, in point 1 you say that God will judge the baby by how he would act out his life if he was born.

 

Yet in point 2, you say we have free will? The free will I'm talking about is not the kind of a chose, it's the free will of weather God knows what will happen to me when I die before my birth.

 

 

 

(2) I have tried to seek God, still I haven't found him. If I'm totally honest , a part of me wishes I did believe in God, then maybe I'd feel the joy you do when worshipping him. However due to my logical mind set, I can't grasp something illogical.

 

 

 

(3) I'm talking about fairness for everyone, which is what the bible says when it claims that we all get free will, yet that child has no free will in it being born into poverty.

 

 

 

 

 

(4) My remark of being a robot was aimed at the activity of some Christians i.e. they do most things the same i.e. Follow the same rules, go the same places, socialise with same people, discriminate the same people.

 

 

 

(5)I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment, however I have heard of missionaries having trouble communicating with people in the rainforest, because of the language barrier etc.. However a part of me thinks religion will actually stabilise those parts of the world.

[/hide]

 

 

 

1. ...what? Explain please. You just shot a term out without defining it. Explain what you are thinking please.

 

 

 

2. You can't call it illogical. You don't understand it well enough to conclude that it is indeed illogical. Your mindset right now seems to be that God doesn't exist, seeing as you call it illogical. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

3. I don't quite understand what you expect of free will. Do you expect a default, 1st world setting for everybody to begin with? That child can make choices of its own, so I don't see what you're trying to say.

 

 

 

4. Also, if you're only talking about the robotic Christians that only try to act like Christians to make themselves look good, don't bunch them with the Christians that actually live for God. I've seen both, and it's totally different. The poser Christians are not really Christians.

 

 

 

5. Umm...ok. So are you saying that the rainforest guys DO have a chance to know God, or no? That was sort of a neutral comment more than anything.

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Your Last Post here

 

[hide]

 

(1) You said that the baby who will die early in his life without having the chance of making mistakes etc, will get judged by God depending on how he would of lived his life and his actions. Therefore your making the person totally lose control and God take over yet on your second point you said to me that we have free will? To which I put the former argument that yes some of us may have aspects of free will, whilst others do not. Hence saying God isn't fair on every person that he makes.

 

 

 

(2) I'm sure that having a God can't be logical it requires faith. (because you can't see God ) Yes I lost my faith, yet I'm agnostic and still open to the idea of something being out there.

 

 

 

(3) That's exactly what I'm getting at. If we all had free will then we would have to be in default setting, yet we're not and therefore there is no free will.

 

 

 

(4) I've also seen both, suppose your right in drawing the line between them, but you have to admit they act the same because they believe the same stuff, this isn't really an issue with me, but I feel that a person loses a bit of his/her uniqueness because of this.

 

 

 

(5) About the rainforest guys, I'm saying that they would be better off believing in God because maybe it would bring them up to a higher standard of living, since it would instruct some good morals onto them.

 

However whether they'd go to heaven or not is another matter.

[/hide]

 

1. I see what you're saying, and I see how you could say that because the baby didn't actually make any choices in his time, he didn't actually have free will. Very good.

 

This is one of the controversial topics in Christianity that pretty much nobody really knows for sure. I'm not a theologist, so sorry.

 

 

 

2. ...what? Faith is not illogical buddy. It's not just like a random, "Oh, I'll believe" type thing. You would know that God is spiritual from what you've learned, right? My Bible teacher, who is one of the most Christian Christians that I've met was totally ignorant about everything having to do with God. Then a person popped up in his life and taught my teacher about God through the Bible.

 

Romans 10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

 

You mentioned that you are agnostic, which the dictionary defines as "thinking that God are unknown and unknowable", and that you don't have faith. You might want to find a person who really knows his Bible and see if you can't learn. I think I understand your position right now; the Bible wasn't much to me except for "Believe Jesus and go to heaven, or go to hell" type facts.

 

 

 

3. ...there's just one problem with your complaint. We DO have free will. People, OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, have changed the world so that material conditions are NOT equal everywhere. What you're asking for is that God override all the stuff people such as the European imperialists have done is Africa for example and just turn it into a similar thing to other first world countries. Again, MAN made those conditions with FREE WILL

 

 

 

4. Could you explain the uniqueness a tad bit more? I'm confused as to what you mean exactly.

 

There's more difference to the two than you think. The poser Christians KNOW the stuff, but only pose so that they can look good (I see this a lot in private Christian schools; people try to fit in by looking good)

 

Christians live for the love of God. They could care less about how good they look to others; they live genuinely to glorify God and become godlike. I suggest that you go read Mere Christianity and The Pilgrim's Progress.

 

 

 

5. Ah, that's that poser Christianity I'm trying to explain. Christians aren't living so that they can "become good people". That's a completely different motive than what the Bible's teaching. Christians live for God. Again, I recommend those two books.

[Adventurer]

Oops, my bad.

[Guest]

 

 

 

This is like the billionth time I have had to post this: My Edit (No one cares - stop repeating your pathetic point)

 

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

 

 

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

 

 

 

 

The link I posted covers both definitions. So yeah, done yet? Are you still assuming that I didn't previously look at your quote? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

And my I also add I'm not doubting your definitions, I understand both definitions of a theory, though I'm glad we've established its got fact to it, yet its still a theory.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

And my I also add I'm not doubting your definitions, I understand both definitions of a theory, though I'm glad we've established its got fact to it, yet its still a theory.

 

I am not assuming that you didn't look at my quote (or anyone else's). I know that you post without reading.

 

 

 

In the scientific usage, a THEORY is made of FACTS. For example:

 

 

 

Fact #1: Apples drop from the tree towards the earth.

 

Fact #2: Oranges drop from the tree towards the earth.

 

Fact #3: etc, etc

 

Theory: Gravity pulls objects towards the earth.

 

 

 

That is why we say "Theory of Gravity" and not "Fact of Gravity." The FACTS are gathered from experiments. The THEORY is the sum of the facts.

 

 

 

Saying that a theory is not as good as a fact is like saying the bible is not as good as page 7 in the bible, or that Harry Potter is not as good as page 7 in Harry Potter. It doesn't make any sense. They're both the same thing. One is the whole, one is the part.

[warri0r45]

Warrior just because there's evidence out there to say that there's aspects of life in which if it were true that evolution were true they could fit in and make sense. That doesn't mean that the many variables out there which haven't been proved of evolution are discounted and therefore don't come into consideration when making the decision whether or not humans evolving from monkeys itself is fact.

 

 

 

I have no problem with other forms of evolution occurring (mutating virus etc - well whatever examples you may give) but that's no solid evidence of the theory that humans were once monkeys. No one was around there and no ones got hard evidence to state that humans evolved from monkeys.

 

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

 

 

 

Endogenous Retrovirus - The genome of a now defunct virus permanently inserted into one's genome. This occurs when a retrovirus makes its way into germ line cells (sperm or egg) and recieves a knockout mutation thereafter (to stop it's adverse effects).

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Retroviruses are unique among RNA viruses in their ability to integrate DNA copies of their genomes into the genome of the infected cell. On occasion, integration takes place in a germ-line cell, giving rise to an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), which can be inherited by the offspring of the infected host, and may eventually become fixed in the gene pool of the host population (1). The genomes of vertebrate species contain dozens to thousands of ERV sequences (2), some of which were acquired in evolutionarily recent times, whereas others derive from "ancient" times, as indicated by their identical site of integration in more than one species (1, 3, 4). Typically, ancient proviruses have sustained numerous point mutations, deletions, and insertions, rendering them incapable of expressing virus. No biologically active viruses have been associated with the ancient proviruses.

 

 

 

Despite their abundance in vertebrate genomes, and some other especially useful features described below, ERVs have rarely been exploited as phylogenetic markers (5-10). In a few instances integration site polymorphisms have served as a source of phylogenetic signal (6), or as markers for linkage analysis (11), but the usefulness of orthologous ERV nucleotide sequences has never been fully explored. Here we report the application of ancient human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) sequences to phylogenetic analysis on a time scale spanning recent primate evolution.

 

 

 

HERVs can be organized into at least a dozen distinct groups, which vary in size from one to thousands of members (1, 12). Cross-hybridization and PCR studies consistently reveal that most HERV families are also found in other primates, including apes and Old World monkeys (OWMs) (12-19). Many HERVs, including the ones used in this study, are the result of integration events that took place between 5 and 50 million years ago, as indicated by the distribution of specific proviruses at the same integration sites (or "loci") among related species. The evolution of primates has been the subject of intense study for well over a century, providing a well established phylogenetic consensus with which to compare and evaluate the performance of ERVs as phylogenetic markers.

 

 

 

 

Explanation of the quote -

 

 

 

1) There are many human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) found in the human genome.

 

2) Most of these families of HERVs are found in other primates, at the same site of integration or loci, suggesting all those who share HERVs, including humans, inherited them from our most recent common ancestor.

 

 

 

The mathematical probability of a multitude of HERVs inserting in all primates in thier precise locations and harbouring the same knockout mutations is staggering.

 

 

 

Further reading:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Another line of evidence to corroborate with the aformentioned.

 

 

 

Again, I can only reasonably conclude one of two things:

 

 

 

1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true.

 

2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us.

 

 

 

Is this not a fair assesment?

[BlueTear]

Let's see. I make a statement that goes against one's belief in evolution, which we can safely say to be the faith of millions. And look what happens. I get 5 posts within 20 minutes telling me I am nothing but wrong, and that my belief held by millions wrong by proxy.

Since when does telling someone they're wrong mean you're flaming?

[Kant]

Now, eels, from the above post of mine I can only reasonably conclude one of two things:

 

 

 

1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true.

 

2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us.

 

 

 

Is this not a fair assesment?

 

 

 

3) Scientists are desperate to disprove the need for a God because they don't want to have any accountability for how they've lived their lives so they come to hasty conclusions about common ancestry :P

[StrOwez]

^

 

Off-topic discussion?

 

 

 

Previous discussion

 

[hide]

[hide]

 

(1)

 

Your points 1 and 2 contradict each other, in point 1 you say that God will judge the baby by how he would act out his life if he was born.

 

Yet in point 2, you say we have free will? The free will I'm talking about is not the kind of a chose, it's the free will of weather God knows what will happen to me when I die before my birth.

 

 

 

(2) I have tried to seek God, still I haven't found him. If I'm totally honest , a part of me wishes I did believe in God, then maybe I'd feel the joy you do when worshipping him. However due to my logical mind set, I can't grasp something illogical.

 

 

 

(3) I'm talking about fairness for everyone, which is what the bible says when it claims that we all get free will, yet that child has no free will in it being born into poverty.

 

 

 

 

 

(4) My remark of being a robot was aimed at the activity of some Christians i.e. they do most things the same i.e. Follow the same rules, go the same places, socialise with same people, discriminate the same people.

 

 

 

(5)I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment, however I have heard of missionaries having trouble communicating with people in the rainforest, because of the language barrier etc.. However a part of me thinks religion will actually stabilise those parts of the world.

[/hide]

 

 

 

1. ...what? Explain please. You just shot a term out without defining it. Explain what you are thinking please.

 

 

 

2. You can't call it illogical. You don't understand it well enough to conclude that it is indeed illogical. Your mindset right now seems to be that God doesn't exist, seeing as you call it illogical. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

3. I don't quite understand what you expect of free will. Do you expect a default, 1st world setting for everybody to begin with? That child can make choices of its own, so I don't see what you're trying to say.

 

 

 

4. Also, if you're only talking about the robotic Christians that only try to act like Christians to make themselves look good, don't bunch them with the Christians that actually live for God. I've seen both, and it's totally different. The poser Christians are not really Christians.

 

 

 

5. Umm...ok. So are you saying that the rainforest guys DO have a chance to know God, or no? That was sort of a neutral comment more than anything.

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Your Last Post here

 

[hide]

 

(1) You said that the baby who will die early in his life without having the chance of making mistakes etc, will get judged by God depending on how he would of lived his life and his actions. Therefore your making the person totally lose control and God take over yet on your second point you said to me that we have free will? To which I put the former argument that yes some of us may have aspects of free will, whilst others do not. Hence saying God isn't fair on every person that he makes.

 

 

 

(2) I'm sure that having a God can't be logical it requires faith. (because you can't see God ) Yes I lost my faith, yet I'm agnostic and still open to the idea of something being out there.

 

 

 

(3) That's exactly what I'm getting at. If we all had free will then we would have to be in default setting, yet we're not and therefore there is no free will.

 

 

 

(4) I've also seen both, suppose your right in drawing the line between them, but you have to admit they act the same because they believe the same stuff, this isn't really an issue with me, but I feel that a person loses a bit of his/her uniqueness because of this.

 

 

 

(5) About the rainforest guys, I'm saying that they would be better off believing in God because maybe it would bring them up to a higher standard of living, since it would instruct some good morals onto them.

 

However whether they'd go to heaven or not is another matter.

[/hide]

 

1. I see what you're saying, and I see how you could say that because the baby didn't actually make any choices in his time, he didn't actually have free will. Very good.

 

This is one of the controversial topics in Christianity that pretty much nobody really knows for sure. I'm not a theologist, so sorry.

 

 

 

2. ...what? Faith is not illogical buddy. It's not just like a random, "Oh, I'll believe" type thing. You would know that God is spiritual from what you've learned, right? My Bible teacher, who is one of the most Christian Christians that I've met was totally ignorant about everything having to do with God. Then a person popped up in his life and taught my teacher about God through the Bible.

 

Romans 10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

 

You mentioned that you are agnostic, which the dictionary defines as "thinking that God are unknown and unknowable", and that you don't have faith. You might want to find a person who really knows his Bible and see if you can't learn. I think I understand your position right now; the Bible wasn't much to me except for "Believe Jesus and go to heaven, or go to hell" type facts.

 

 

 

3. ...there's just one problem with your complaint. We DO have free will. People, OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, have changed the world so that material conditions are NOT equal everywhere. What you're asking for is that God override all the stuff people such as the European imperialists have done is Africa for example and just turn it into a similar thing to other first world countries. Again, MAN made those conditions with FREE WILL

 

 

 

4. Could you explain the uniqueness a tad bit more? I'm confused as to what you mean exactly.

 

There's more difference to the two than you think. The poser Christians KNOW the stuff, but only pose so that they can look good (I see this a lot in private Christian schools; people try to fit in by looking good)

 

Christians live for the love of God. They could care less about how good they look to others; they live genuinely to glorify God and become godlike. I suggest that you go read Mere Christianity and The Pilgrim's Progress.

 

 

 

5. Ah, that's that poser Christianity I'm trying to explain. Christians aren't living so that they can "become good people". That's a completely different motive than what the Bible's teaching. Christians live for God. Again, I recommend those two books.

 

 

 

(1) Fair enough I appreciate this is a tough question , no human being would know the answer to unless God specifically tells that person. (But until he does I can't believe in him)

 

 

 

(2)I think faith (which is the believe in something supernatural) is quiet illogical, for example, I can't see God, he doesn't physically talk to me. So for me to believe in God or any other spiritual being requires me to abandon logic and concentrate on faith.(if that makes sense I may not have made it as clear as I want to)

 

 

 

(3)Your trying to disagree with my statement, but you're also supporting it. Yes WE do have free will, however the babies that are born due to our mistakes or natural disasters (i.e. babies that will die few weeks after birth) Don't have free will. Therefore it isn't fair on them. But it was the same God that made me and you, that made those babies also. Therefore you have to ask yourself why did God make those babies, if he knew they would die? You could say it's the parents choice to have the child, but the bible tells us God makes every baby. Therefore SOME people have free will, whilst other do not.

 

 

 

(4) The issue with uniqueness, well the Bible tells us that each human is unique to God in his own way. Yet I was linking that statement to the free will, 2 babies are born with AIDS and will both die in 2 weeks, now what's to make those 2 babies unique to God? Nothing, they have nothing different about them.

 

 

 

(5) I'll make sure to read those books in the near future, as I'm generally interested in the subject. The problem to none Christians about Christians is basically the message sent to his apostles by Jesus,(after his resurrection) where he instructs his followers (Christians) to preach the Gospel to all the Earth. I guess some none believers don't want that preaching.

[warri0r45]

Now, eels, from the above post of mine I can only reasonably conclude one of two things:

 

 

 

1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true.

 

2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us.

 

 

 

Is this not a fair assesment?

 

 

 

3) Scientists are desperate to disprove the need for a God because they don't want to have any accountability for how they've lived their lives so they come to hasty conclusions about common ancestry :P

 

 

 

I know you're joking but I woudn't mind if you answered my question straightly. Is this not a fair assessment? I can't know if I'm missing something if people brush by what I post either all together or by using jokes.

[baron8000]

Wow, seriously wow, when I went to sleep last night I thought this topic had finished the flaming - we'd identified that the OP wanted nothing more than a little insight into theology and perhaps a little help with some of the more difficult areas. NOT a massive argument about whether evolution is a fact, theory or whatever you care to define it as. Shame on both sides here.

[Nadril]

 

 

 

This is like the billionth time I have had to post this: My Edit (No one cares - stop repeating your pathetic point)

 

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

 

 

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

 

 

 

 

The link I posted covers both definitions. So yeah, done yet? Are you still assuming that I didn't previously look at your quote? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

And my I also add I'm not doubting your definitions, I understand both definitions of a theory, though I'm glad we've established its got fact to it, yet its still a theory.

 

 

 

I said this earlier but its 'still a theory' as much as the theory of cells is. (and if you don't believe in cells than there is no hope for you).

 

 

 

 

 

Really, paperclip is having to use a pt 32 font or something like that to even grab your attention.

[IGoddessI]

Now, eels, from the above post of mine I can only reasonably conclude one of two things:

 

 

 

1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true.

 

2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us.

 

 

 

Is this not a fair assesment?

 

 

 

3) Scientists are desperate to disprove the need for a God because they don't want to have any accountability for how they've lived their lives so they come to hasty conclusions about common ancestry :P

 

 

 

Paperclips, where are you when it counts :P

[StrOwez]

Now, eels, from the above post of mine I can only reasonably conclude one of two things:

 

 

 

1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true.

 

2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us.

 

 

 

Is this not a fair assesment?

 

 

 

3) Scientists are desperate to disprove the need for a God because they don't want to have any accountability for how they've lived their lives so they come to hasty conclusions about common ancestry :P

 

 

 

Who let this moron on the forums. Shoot him! QUICK!

Was your point in coming to this topic to post pointless insults on it?

 

 

 

If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the debate being discussed here please refrain from posting, even more please don't insult people.

[IGoddessI]

I was contributing a pointless post to a pointless thread.

 

 

 

I also edited that post over half an hour before you even replied.

[Lionheart_0]

Ok, I'm not gonna read all these pages cause it will just piss me off.

 

 

 

But This is something i found years ago. I refuse to explain what it tries to say, but basically, It explains religion:

 

 

 

 

 

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

 

 

 

John:

 

"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's [wagon] with us."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His [wagon]?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"If you kiss Hank's [wagon], He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the [cabbage] out of you."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His [wagon]."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the [wagon]?"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

 

 

 

John:

 

"Then come kiss Hank's [wagon] with us."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Do you kiss Hank's [wagon] often?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Oh yes, all the time..."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"And has He given you a million dollars?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"So why don't you just leave town now?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the [cabbage] out of you."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's [wagon], left town, and got the million dollars?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"My mother kissed Hank's [wagon] for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Haven't you talked to her since then?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"What's that got to do with Hank?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Hank has certain 'connections.'"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

 

 

 

John:

 

"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's [wagon] He'll kick the [cabbage] of you."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Then how do you kiss His [wagon]?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His [wagon]. Other times we kiss Karl's [wagon], and he passes it on."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Who's Karl?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's [wagon]. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His [wagon], and that Hank would reward you?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

 

 

 

** From the desk of Karl **

 

 

 

Kiss Hank's [wagon] and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

 

Use alcohol in moderation.

 

Kick the [cabbage] out of people who aren't like you.

 

Eat right.

 

Hank dictated this list Himself.

 

The moon is made of green cheese.

 

Everything Hank says is right.

 

Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

 

Don't use alcohol.

 

Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

 

Kiss Hank's [wagon] or He'll kick the [cabbage] out of you.

 

 

 

Me:

 

"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Hank didn't have any paper."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

 

 

 

John:

 

"Of course, Hank dictated it."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the [cabbage] out of people just because they're different?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"How do you figure that?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

 

 

 

John:

 

"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

 

 

 

John:

 

"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

 

 

 

John:

 

"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"We do?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

She blushes.

 

 

 

John:

 

"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"What if I don't have a bun?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"No relish? No Mustard?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

She looks positively stricken.

 

 

 

John:

 

He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

Sticks her fingers in her ears. "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

 

 

 

John:

 

"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"It's good! I eat it all the time."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

She faints.

 

 

 

John:

 

He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the [cabbage] out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's [wagon] for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

 

 

 

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank

[IGoddessI]

I can't wait until these pointless religious threads from either spectrum are locked.

 

 

 

This thread, as well as the other is doing nothing other than putting a line down the middle of off topic and dividing its users in to categories and labels.

 

 

 

Need proof? Look at the recent off topic threads. Where something that doesn't even involve religion is noted, it's still brought up and the divided users have their 'Christianity' and 'atheist' teams to bag each other out.

 

 

 

Enough of the religious posts already, they shouldn't even be allowed on a forum.

 

 

 

There is no end to the 'discussion' or 'debate' whatever you decide to name it, it's continuous and pointless other than to divide users on this forum and to create grudges within its users.

[Satenza]

Then ignore them.

[yomom1919]

[hide=Great Analogy]Ok, I'm not gonna read all these pages cause it will just piss me off.

 

 

 

But This is something i found years ago. I refuse to explain what it tries to say, but basically, It explains religion:

 

 

 

 

 

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

 

 

 

John:

 

"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's [wagon] with us."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His [wagon]?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"If you kiss Hank's [wagon], He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the [cabbage] out of you."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His [wagon]."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the [wagon]?"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

 

 

 

John:

 

"Then come kiss Hank's [wagon] with us."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Do you kiss Hank's [wagon] often?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Oh yes, all the time..."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"And has He given you a million dollars?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"So why don't you just leave town now?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the [cabbage] out of you."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's [wagon], left town, and got the million dollars?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"My mother kissed Hank's [wagon] for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Haven't you talked to her since then?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"What's that got to do with Hank?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Hank has certain 'connections.'"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

 

 

 

John:

 

"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's [wagon] He'll kick the [cabbage] of you."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Then how do you kiss His [wagon]?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His [wagon]. Other times we kiss Karl's [wagon], and he passes it on."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Who's Karl?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's [wagon]. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His [wagon], and that Hank would reward you?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

 

 

 

** From the desk of Karl **

 

 

 

Kiss Hank's [wagon] and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

 

Use alcohol in moderation.

 

Kick the [cabbage] out of people who aren't like you.

 

Eat right.

 

Hank dictated this list Himself.

 

The moon is made of green cheese.

 

Everything Hank says is right.

 

Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

 

Don't use alcohol.

 

Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

 

Kiss Hank's [wagon] or He'll kick the [cabbage] out of you.

 

 

 

Me:

 

"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Hank didn't have any paper."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

 

 

 

John:

 

"Of course, Hank dictated it."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the [cabbage] out of people just because they're different?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"How do you figure that?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

 

 

 

John:

 

"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

 

 

 

John:

 

"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

 

 

 

John:

 

"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"We do?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

 

 

 

John:

 

"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

She blushes.

 

 

 

John:

 

"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"What if I don't have a bun?"

 

 

 

John:

 

"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"No relish? No Mustard?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

She looks positively stricken.

 

 

 

John:

 

He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

 

 

 

Me:

 

"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

 

 

 

Mary:

 

Sticks her fingers in her ears. "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

 

 

 

John:

 

"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

 

 

 

Me:

 

"It's good! I eat it all the time."

 

 

 

Mary:

 

She faints.

 

 

 

John:

 

He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the [cabbage] out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's [wagon] for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

 

 

 

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank[/hide]

 

 

 

HA. Thats great.

 

This also relates to [i forget who said it, it's in someones sig]: "The popularity of any given religion today depends on the wars fought in the past".

 

Back then, they could just make you kiss Hanks [wagon] or else you get your head removed.

[Lionheart_0]

I can't wait until these pointless religious threads from either spectrum are locked.

 

 

 

This thread, as well as the other is doing nothing other than putting a line down the middle of off topic and dividing its users in to categories and labels.

 

 

 

Exactly, and as much as people say religion brings people together. I tears people apart, just like this. Not just because of religion being there, but because there are some who believe and some who dont, thus we get the division.

 

 

 

We should push for another religion topic ban. Lets be one big happy family again guys.

[StrOwez]

please read through the topic before making unjust assumptions, there have been some excellent, clean debate on this topic with good arguments brought forth from each side of the argument.

[Tbfgraphx14]

I have to agree with Lion heart on this one, that is exactly how my aunt and uncle are. They are the John and mary in that story :-w

[yomom1919]

please read through the topic before making unjust assumptions, there have been some excellent, clean debate on this topic with good arguments brought forth from each side of the argument.

 

 

 

I think you're forgetting that harsh bitterness underlines these arguments.

 

I support the ban. Religious topics went from mild > harsh. Starting with the abortion topic > homosexuality topic > evolution in schools topic > outright and blatant attacks on the other's views [my problem with [enter opposing party] threads].

 

If we can't handle this, I think its time to call it quits.