any creationists about?
- Thread starter longlostlady
- Start date
Anomalous,
You said "Evolution" was the reason you thought "the first life" was created on earth. I just wondered why you thought that, and how you come to that conclusion.
Jan.
You said "Evolution" was the reason you thought "the first life" was created on earth. I just wondered why you thought that, and how you come to that conclusion.
Jan.
C
charles cure
Guest
Jan Ardena said:
right, you told me that you do, but since that is an impossibility, one chalks it up to another of your irrational and stubbornly maintained eccentricities.
yes, really. we werent talking about whether it was flawed and maintained its usefullness or not. i said that you cant simultaneously hold the beliefs that
the bible is both flawed and without flaw because those views are in direct conflict with each other. try paying attention to the argument here. you originally asked me how the mistranslations in the bible represented flaws, i told you, then you said well ok, that doesnt matter because the flaws dont make that much of a difference, but you never have said how you suppose that such glaring inconsistencies serve the purpose of the document as a whole. you have given nothing but opinion here, and not a highly thought of opinion i might add.
right, well that pretty much disqualifies you from being taken seriously by me any more because its ridiculous and impossible to believe both of those things in actuality.
im not trying to portray you that way, you are doing a fine job of it all on your own.
i didnt ask you what you thought, and do not desire to know what you think. i have critiqued only your argument and maybe your clear and abundant irrationality. i know what your position is only in terms of this particular discussion. i do not need to know whether you are christian, buddhist, whatever, i am looking at this as a discussion about facts and errors as they relate to the message put forth by an ancient document and whether it is flawed as a result of mistranslation. thats what i was arguing, but youwerent arguing anything back, at least not with facts or even supportable hypothesis, all you did was tell me that in your opinion, i was wrong. well so fucking what man? that doesnt mean shit in terms of a philosophical or even theological academic dicussion. thats what i was trying to have, and the only mistake i made was trying to have one with you since you clearly cannot live up to those terms.
reread my statement dumbass, i think it was clear i was saying that you hadnt defined what was acceptable TO YOU.
i know this isnt part of your response to my post, but i thought i'd answer it.
the fact that the bible was translated time and time again actually turnos out to mean that it is flawed. recently a book came out, its called Misquoting Jesus, and deals with this exact subject. and if you were to read it, i think it would lay out for you quite clearly and specifically the exact ways in which mistranslations of the original documents that provided a basis for the bible have resulted in a distortion of the original message, and therefore flaw.
maybe reading it would snap you out of your fantasy world.
Ophiolite said:
Let's say I am being dishonest, WHICH I AM NOT, how could your questions expose it?
Jan.
longlostlady
Registered Senior Member
um EXCUSE ME??? firstly i do not like people to decide upon what i assume or do not assume.
secondly i like manners used when referring to me.
and thirdly i think we've established that the bible is flawed. you yourself have accepted that it's flawed. i am not trying to make anyone appear to be a chump and i don't think that one's beliefs make one a chump. what i wanted was an explanation of why someone would subscribe to creationist beliefs, leading onto a debate upon whether their explanation could be justified.
listen i'm sorry other people have badmouthed your arguments - though unfortunately i find myself more and more inclined to agree with them - but please don't take it out on me.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Well, you are exposing it right now by perfectly matching one of the dishonest techniques I highlighted - don't answer a question, but ask another one instead, in order to avoid providing the answer.Jan Ardena said:
Well done Jan. Quite classic.
Now, if you are not afraid, would you mind answering the very simple questions.
Where do you think the first life was created?
What do you think were the first created beings?
Ophiolite said:
What makes you think I would know the answer to these questions?
And where is the dishonesty in not answering these questions?
Jan.
longlostlady,
I thought as much, but it doesn't stop you from assuming what others assume.
What? You don't like to be refered to as "she"?
So you didn't say this;
When asked how you came to the "the universe is 10,000 years old" question.
Don't you think the people who came up with this figure have any semblence of life?
Please why not?
Why pose this question on a site where creationism is mocked?
Did you think you would get a fair answer?
Why didn't you go somewhere where your question(s) would be answer perfectly?
Don't feel sorry on my account, that bad-mouthing reveals who these people are.
And finally, i'm not taking anything out on anybody, because its not personal, try and remember that.
Jan.
I thought as much, but it doesn't stop you from assuming what others assume.
longlostlady said:
What? You don't like to be refered to as "she"?
So you didn't say this;
longlostlady said:
When asked how you came to the "the universe is 10,000 years old" question.
Don't you think the people who came up with this figure have any semblence of life?
Please why not?
Why pose this question on a site where creationism is mocked?
Did you think you would get a fair answer?
Why didn't you go somewhere where your question(s) would be answer perfectly?
Don't feel sorry on my account, that bad-mouthing reveals who these people are.
And finally, i'm not taking anything out on anybody, because its not personal, try and remember that.
Jan.
charles cure,
It is not an impossiblility.
You buy a brand new coat only to find that there is loose stitching on the hem, hence the garment is flawed as it is not what you paid for.
Does that mean the garment is no longer a coat?
Lets look at the definition of "flaw" you decided to use;
Main Entry: 2flaw
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, flake, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Swedish flaga flake, flaw; akin to Old English flOh flat stone
1 a : a defect in physical structure or form b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness
2 obsolete : FRAGMENT
I'm afraid it usefullness would be affected if its "effectiveness" was somehow hindered.
For the majority of the discussion, I asked you to give evidence of your claim that the bible is prooved false, which not only included the physical state of the document, but the usefullness of it also, to which you replied (in so many words) that the bible has no point to it.
I mean....come on...how can we work with this material?
Why not? The bible is; 1) a physical document, and 2) a document with a specific meaning (even if you don't believe it).
This is what I said;
I think you should pay attention.
I explained to you in a religious context, which is just as well as we are in a "Religion" forum, and it was a religion issue.
Whoa!
Didn't see that one coming.
It would be better if you discussed some of the points, as time is really short for me at the moment.
Jan.
It is not an impossiblility.
You buy a brand new coat only to find that there is loose stitching on the hem, hence the garment is flawed as it is not what you paid for.
Does that mean the garment is no longer a coat?
Lets look at the definition of "flaw" you decided to use;
Main Entry: 2flaw
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, flake, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Swedish flaga flake, flaw; akin to Old English flOh flat stone
1 a : a defect in physical structure or form b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness
2 obsolete : FRAGMENT
I'm afraid it usefullness would be affected if its "effectiveness" was somehow hindered.
For the majority of the discussion, I asked you to give evidence of your claim that the bible is prooved false, which not only included the physical state of the document, but the usefullness of it also, to which you replied (in so many words) that the bible has no point to it.
I mean....come on...how can we work with this material?
Why not? The bible is; 1) a physical document, and 2) a document with a specific meaning (even if you don't believe it).
This is what I said;
Jan said:
I think you should pay attention.
I explained to you in a religious context, which is just as well as we are in a "Religion" forum, and it was a religion issue.
Whoa!
Didn't see that one coming.
It would be better if you discussed some of the points, as time is really short for me at the moment.
Jan.
C
charles cure
Guest
Jan Ardena said:
try saying what you mean sometime. you said you believed that the bible was flawed and not flawed. thats impossible. what you MEANT was you believe that there are technical flaws in the bible but that doesnt make it useless. those are two different thaings and you should figure that out.
Lets look at the definition of "flaw" you decided to use;
Main Entry: 2flaw
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, flake, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Swedish flaga flake, flaw; akin to Old English flOh flat stone
1 a : a defect in physical structure or form b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness
2 obsolete : FRAGMENT
I'm afraid it usefullness would be affected if its "effectiveness" was somehow hindered.
For the majority of the discussion, I asked you to give evidence of your claim that the bible is prooved false, which not only included the physical state of the document, but the usefullness of it also, to which you replied (in so many words) that the bible has no point to it.
I mean....come on...how can we work with this material?
well thats not what i said. i gave you examples of a couple of specific mistranslations that i think seriously hinder peoples ability to understand the context of the events that take place according to the bible. not understanding the context, or believing circumstances to be different than they actually were distorts a message and in this case give jesus' words more credibility than they deserve. while the underlying philosophy of some of his credo may be sound, the authority derived from the belief that he is somehow divine would be removed if some light was shed on the actual circumstances of his life that have been obfuscated by mistranslation and editing. without this authority, people would certainly not accept the underlying "moral truth" of the bible in the same way that they do now, and it would certainly be anybodys guess if these precepts would ever have been the foundation of law in many societies. so there it is, i have now laid it out for you several times, and though i doubt you will understand it any better now than you did then, at least i've done my best to spell it out simply for you and if you dont get it i'll just write you off.
ps: that was a nice co mplete oversimplification of my responses that you did up there, i'm pretty sure that anybody that reads the actual posts will see that its just more of your deflective bullshit.
no you didnt, you gave me your ill-informed opinion. you didnt site any source (outside of scripture) or even present a reasoned argument as to why what i said wasnt the case, you just said "that response doesn't invalidate the bible's core message". youre a fucking broken record.
i know you didnt see that one coming. thats because youre so convinced of the correctness of your own opinion that you cant see how ridiculous you are. its ok, we are all trying to help you open your eyes to it.
yeah, here's a summary of it for you - FUCK YOU READ IT YOURSELF. im done parsing your idiotic words and arguing pointless semantics with you when you have the intellectual ability of a 6 year old with cerebal palsy.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The manner in which you phrased the questions and the context within which they are placed are wholly consistent with and strongly imply that you believe you know the answer to these questions.Jan Ardena said:
The dishonesty lies in redirecting the flow of the debate away from areas you do not like; in implying you have answers that are in some way superior to your opponents.
And once again we see precisely demonstrated the exact scurrilous debating trick of which you stand accused. Namely, answer any question with another question.
Now answer the questions Jan. Too thick to be able to address them? To lacking in education? To devoid of any knowledge that would facilitate an answer? On you go Jan. I'm waiting, as I am sure are one or two other souls, for your repsonse. Here they are again in case you forgot:
Where do you think the first life was created?
What do you think were the first created beings?
Do you really intend to march from now until perdition proving my very point, by your refusal to answer?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Why then did you post responses on this thread?A Darn Jane said:
Did you think it would be nice to play your infantile game, yet again?
Every post you make cements in my mind the conviction that you are one of the most unpleasant people it has been my misfortune to encounter. There is a vibrant honesty about the racism of JB or Vincent, or the mild insanity of Happeh, that lies in stark contrast with your mealy mouthed, self righteous complacency.
Tell me Jan do sleep well at night?
Ophiolite,
Yes. I see your point.
Er......what am I looking for exactly?
An example would be nice.
The accusation comes from you and people who think similarly to you. I'm afraid it has no cred, in the world of reality, only in one of anger fuelled by ignorance and desparation.
Okay;
I haven't really given it much thought, but when I do, you'll be the first to know.
Jan.
Jan said:
Yes. I see your point.
Er......what am I looking for exactly?
An example would be nice.
The accusation comes from you and people who think similarly to you. I'm afraid it has no cred, in the world of reality, only in one of anger fuelled by ignorance and desparation.
Okay;
I haven't really given it much thought, but when I do, you'll be the first to know.
Jan.
charles cure,
I can see why it would appeal to you.
Jan.
I can see why it would appeal to you.
Jan.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Jan,
you have proved beyond any reasonable doubt, by your responses to my last two posts, and by your conduct in the exchange with Charles, that you are either playing a childish game, which has long since descended into the infantile, or you are monumentally thick. Is there an alternative? What do you think?
Based upon this I shall be posting after each post I happen to notice you make, a warning to other posters. This will likely take the form similar to that previously used for this purpose.
I am quite confident that this is against the forum rules, so I invite you to raise a protest, if you wish. I have not polled other members, but I suspect it should not be difficult to get a significant number to support my actions.
You said Jan: remember this isn't personal. Cretin.You have made it personal. Now be good enough to fuck off, permanently.
you have proved beyond any reasonable doubt, by your responses to my last two posts, and by your conduct in the exchange with Charles, that you are either playing a childish game, which has long since descended into the infantile, or you are monumentally thick. Is there an alternative? What do you think?
Based upon this I shall be posting after each post I happen to notice you make, a warning to other posters. This will likely take the form similar to that previously used for this purpose.
I am quite confident that this is against the forum rules, so I invite you to raise a protest, if you wish. I have not polled other members, but I suspect it should not be difficult to get a significant number to support my actions.
You said Jan: remember this isn't personal. Cretin.You have made it personal. Now be good enough to fuck off, permanently.
Anomalous said:
That's not very easy to follow, especially when time is not on your side.
Could you perhaps skip to the points to evolution being the reason why the first life was created on earth?
Thanks
Jan.