Discuss Religion Here

[Buzz]

there is a carving of a stegasauros in Cambodia, the temple is in Angor Wat, and is 800 years old, who ever carved that temple, saw a stegasauros 800 years ago,


Dogs originate from wolves from the egyptians, it was the egyptians that kept wolve cubs, most of the dog breeds we have today were bred since the industrial revolution in europe


there was actually 7 of each, only the unclean animals went in two by two, remember they went in by their kinds, eg 7 wolves went in, and today we hundreds of breeds of dogs, which are the same kind as a wolve
Before the flood though, there was no eating of meat, only plant life, this was a command from God, only after the flood does God say animals can be used for meat and the fear of man will be in the animals

[Hatchman]

the logistics on the ark look a bit flakey

Was Noah really one of the first incarnations of the the Dr and the Tardis like like a big wooden boat, not a Police Phone Box?
Yeah, that's gotta be it.

[dc68]

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014...-anti-islamic/


Any of you dicks defending Islam can read this and see if it changes your opinion.

[Iain]

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014...-anti-islamic/


Any of you dicks defending Islam can read this and see if it changes your opinion.

It's not real Dave.

[dc68]

Pakistan today?

[magman]

reading stuff like that, you realise while in some countries the world is progressing in some places, and in others it is rapidly deteriorating back to uncivilized dark ages. This radical islam, then also in africa where farms are taken without compensation from people cause they white, infants are raped cause a witch doctor told them it cures diseases, homo sexuals are persecuted all over africa. Definitly going backwards in some of these countries

[Iain]

Pakistan today?

Pretty sure it's satire. The line under the article is - telling it like it almost never is.

[Lagerlover]

the logistics on the ark look a bit flakey

How did it fit the whales on?

[Daves]

Pretty sure it's satire. The line under the article is - telling it like it almost never is.

It does appear to be Satire, but it is hard to tell because the CII has come out with plenty of similar stuff. They are a joke, but unfortunately a real political joke with some standing. The only positive in their existence is they seem to be causing a build up of a fairly significant push back to radical fundamentalism in Pakistan.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...s/1092492.html

Have said that, we see some pretty silly fundamentalism escued by the Vatican and other western religion HOs from time to time.

[markTHEblake]

And yet another wave of victims get sucked into the Blake black hole of despair.
An observable (and therefore scientific) phenomenon, my favourite part is where he accuses someone else of obfuscating to avoid answering.

Another outstanding contribution from Peter.

Blakey claims wins in arguments by being the last one that could be bothered to continue discussing it.

I claim nuthing! Anyone that needs to claim they win an argument, is because they haven't.

the logistics on the ark look a bit flakey

Why? Using those dimensions the Ark has the same capacity as over 500 railway cars that carry over 200 sheep each, thats over 100,000 animals capacity, and most animals are much smaller than that.
The number of animals quoted there are grossly overexaggerated and no insect storage required.

How did it fit the whales on?

How did they walk up the ramp?

Last time I looked in the National Geographic (for the articles) i read that Whales were pretty good swimmers.

[Webster]

You is well crazy Blake if you believe in the ark myth.....

[markTHEblake]

Evolution is a theory, not an absolute fact and is taught as such.

Thank you Stephen J Gould

However it is the only theory to account for the history of life on the planet supported by plausible evidence and there is nothing currently to supplant it.

“Facts do not ‘speak for themselves’; they are read in the light of theory"
Stephen J Gould again.

The "General Theory of Evolution(GTE)" is presupposed by the scientist and he interprets those facts according to his theory... that is Science. Of course there is nothing to supplant it, if you maintain your presuppositions about the unknown and unobserved past over anyones else different presuppositional view.

Finding absolute proof tracing every step of a several billion year process is incredibly complicated and isn't possible (yet).

There isn't proof of any step yet, only assumptions, despite Darwin claiming that innumerable interim forms would be discovered in the fossil record (and he remained puzzled why they were not evident during his own life time)

Fossils tell us about numerous small changes over time.

A fossil only tells us that it was a creature that once lived and is now dead, nothing else.

Steven Stanley, paleontologist "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another'"

Stephen J Gould "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology"

Genetic testing of different species points to common ancestry.

Yes, but they are still the same animal, ie dogs/dogs,. cats/cats, horses/horses.

Actually dog ancestors are wolves and before that a long line of other carnivorous mammals stretching back millions of years.

Clearly when I say dogs & dogs its a generalisation. Canines are still Canines.

Todays dogs are not evolved from Wolves in the sense of your argument for the GTE, they are just the result of many generations of artificial inbreeding. Dogs are also a great example of GTE in reverse. For example one feature of a Rotweiller is very short fur coat. All that means he has lost the genetic capability of growing longer fur which was a trait of his ancestor. You might like to call that a beneficial mutation but its still a genetic loss not a gain.

For evolution to work they way you want it, beneficial mutations have to be a genetic gain.

It doesn't try to. Dinosaurs were not mammals.

oh but in your story of how life began they must have had a common ancestor.

Semantics aside, believing natural selection but not evolution isn't an argument I've encountered before.

I don't believe natural selection, I already told you that. It is observed, it is repeated, it is tested, it just "is", its not something to be believed, it's science.

Examples of this are Darwins finches, which are still finches. They are not examples that prove pond scum evolved into people.

Logically it means that all life currently present on the planet has always existed in its present form and must have always been here

.

Logically yes as kinds, but now we see many different variations of kinds, all the different dogs and cats for example have a common ancestor each, which would be immediately recognisable to anybody as a dog or a cat.

Given the number of species which have become extinct over the last few billion years, the planet must have been pretty crowded in the early days.

No, in any case there are already some researchers claiming that Darwins tree of life is upside down, in other words devolution.

Evolution doesn't claim monkeys evolved into humans, they just share a common ancestry.

Evolutions absolutely does claim monkeys evolved into men. There is nothing wrong with using the word monkey to describe this simian common ancestor despite the fact that doing so makes most evolutionists choke on their soup.

‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’
evolutionary paleontologist George G. Simpson

It's encouraging that you're not claiming evolution is false. The lack of evidence to contradict evolutionary theory is one of its greatest strengths.

As SJ Gould says, evidence is the result of interpreting the facts according to the theory. Unless the evolutionist plays devils advocate and looks at the facts through someone elses glasses he is not going to see anything different.

Again, it's a theory, not a fact. That doesn't make it unscientific though.

I never said thats why its not scientific.

Anyway, as entertaining as this has been, my head is now sore from banging on this particular brick wall, so I'm done.

You still haven't provided a single piece of 'evidence' proving pond scum to people evolution that has been scientifically tested and proven. The General Theory of Evolution still belongs in the religion class.

[markTHEblake]

You is well crazy Blake if you believe in the ark myth.....

One does not have to believe or disbelieve the Ark account to consider the logistics of housing a certain number of creatures inside a container of a known size, and combine that with an understanding of Taxonomy.

[magman]

If a muslim women had to go to a private course, in the traditional muslim clothes they wear, could they get turned away for not wearing proper golfing attire, and then hold a club for discriminating against a religion?

[3Puttpete]

If they can't wear pants and a shirt, they're not playing golf

[Lagerlover]

If they can't wear pants and a shirt, they're not playing golf

So, all I need is pants and a shirt to play golf?

[3Puttpete]

And a hat

[coalesce]

How did it fit the whales on?

They swam behind

[Lagerlover]

They swam behind

On a leash?

[Daves]

On a leash?

Harpooned?

[Lagerlover]

[Marto65]

So, all I need is pants and a shirt to play golf?

Use some underpants ... and some deodorant too.. maybe some shoes and socks ... and clubs, you'll need some clubs.

[Lagerlover]

Use some underpants ... and some deodorant too.. maybe some shoes and socks ... and clubs, you'll need some clubs.

All too hard really.

[Captain Nemo]

This is my only post here.
Im Roman Catholic, straight from the Vatican.
Thats all i have to say.
Carry on.

[markTHEblake]

Umm. The Pope can't have, ummm, you know, relations?