Forums Forums - Off Topic Forum FUN




Go Back   Forums Forums - Off Topic Forum FUN > Debate Forums > Religious Debate Forum

Religious Debate Forum Warning: The posts/threads contained in this section of the forum can get heated.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:17 AM
Greatest I am Greatest I am is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Greatest I am is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_girl View Post
God's ways are not our ways, DL.
That is for sure. Man's ways are better.

That is why most of us have rejected God's laws and live by secular laws.

In fact, if anyone would try to live by God's laws, it would not take much time for the authotities to put them in jail.


You might remember that bible God only has one penalty for all sins big or small. If you believe in the traditional hell that is.
Eternal purposless torture. Cruelty just for the sake of cruelty.

Quote:
That's where faith comes in.
I can't understand why millions starve myself!..... but a child, mother, father, etc.. are often healed through prayer.. don't know why.. and it's a glorious thing when it happens..but I know it happens.
Thanks for replying to my post.


It is for sure.
I acknowledged before that the world is stranger than we know and spoke of bio feedback to deal with this type of blessing. It is from man and not a God unless you want to believe that curing a person in our well fed western culture is more important to God than the 6 million who starve elsewhere each and every year.
As I think I said, God would not be that immoral or silly.

Who would you target if you had a pocket full of miracles?
One who likely does not have a life threatening condition, or those that you know will starve to death?

Logic and reason are a bitch to have and I cannot help thinking as I do.
If God is not logical or does not use reason, then he is not worthy of man's respect.

His ways would be garbage.

Regards
DL
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:19 AM
Greatest I am Greatest I am is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Greatest I am is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_girl View Post
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Martin Luther

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Martin Luther

Regards
DL
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:22 AM
Greatest I am Greatest I am is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Greatest I am is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_girl View Post
Immortal God---Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.(Heb 13:8 KJV)
1. IMMORTAL: Not subject to death. 2. Never to be forgotten; everlasting.
Thank you for confirming that Jesus cannot die if he is God.

Regards
DL

Last edited by jim slagle; 08-20-2011 at 09:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:22 AM
Cowboy's Avatar
Cowboy Cowboy is offline
Wait for it.
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SC Kansas
Posts: 10,579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Cowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Thank you for confirming that Jesus cannot die UNLESS he is THE Son of God.

Regards
DL
Fixed it for you DL . Are you sure you read the same bible as the rest of us ?

I also dont understand what you mean by this . "That is why most of us have rejected God's laws and live by secular laws." Where do you get the term MOST from ?
__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:25 AM
Catavenger's Avatar
Catavenger Catavenger is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Wild West A.K.A Arizona
Posts: 5,188
Thanks: 3,501
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,153 Posts
Catavenger will become famous soon enoughCatavenger will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

More youtube clips *YAWN* How much of this crap are we supposed to look at? Charlie Sheen's papa in a stupid TV show talks about touching a football. I am Christian I am under a new covenant with God I can eat bacon get it? But if Jews don't want to play football that's cool unlike you snakey one I will not mock them for it. Then Sheen gets huffy because the woman won't sit down. Is the President a god that is to be worshipped by standing?
You also have a clip of Jews in a concentration camp wondering if God has broken his covenant, obviously not since 3 years after the end of WW 2 the modern (reborn) nation of Israel came into existence.
Hell is brought up as being a cruel punishment of God. Hell is Satan's domain NOT God's (although as master of creation God does allow it to exist.) Should God have let everyone non believers and outright evil people into heaven? Oh wouldn't it be great to have a heaven full of people like Hitler for all of eternity? Maybe you would like to be there but i wouldn't because of their evil it would be Hell. Indeed the main reason Hell is so horrible is because the evil people there have made it so. By the way not every Christian believes that Hell is eternal.
Just look at this earth and see all the evil people (not God) have done. However if God had stopped it mankind would gripe that he won't leave us alone.

Last edited by Catavenger; 08-21-2011 at 01:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:36 AM
pirate_girl's Avatar
pirate_girl pirate_girl is offline
Poster Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 46,362
Thanks: 10,567
Thanked 29,106 Times in 9,738 Posts
pirate_girl is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catavenger View Post
more youtube clips *YAWN*
Bumping this thread.......***yawn***

The party's over.. let's call it a day... doodley dooooooooo
__________________
Mother Superior Nana Patriot Nurse
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:59 AM
Catavenger's Avatar
Catavenger Catavenger is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Wild West A.K.A Arizona
Posts: 5,188
Thanks: 3,501
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,153 Posts
Catavenger will become famous soon enoughCatavenger will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Pirate Girl - You must of posted that while I was editing my post I actually did go and look at some of the moldy You Tube clips featuring quotes from the Bible taken completely out of context. I was not impressed.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-21-2011, 02:13 AM
pirate_girl's Avatar
pirate_girl pirate_girl is offline
Poster Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 46,362
Thanks: 10,567
Thanked 29,106 Times in 9,738 Posts
pirate_girl is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Cat, you know what?
At the end of the day.. the only thing that matters to me when it comes to God/religion and being spiritual or SCIENTIFIC.. or involved in the sciences and religion.. is if I have served HIM well.
I think I have.
No.. I know I have.
That's good enough for me.
.. this is the last post I am going to make in threads started by Greatest I am.. invited here only to stir up thought and amusement so that a few can laugh at forum members from afar.
You might not know what I mean... you'd have to have been here longer.

The End and Amen.
__________________
Mother Superior Nana Patriot Nurse
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:56 PM
Danang Sailor's Avatar
Danang Sailor Danang Sailor is offline
nullius in verba
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NE Kansas
Posts: 6,884
Thanks: 13,314
Thanked 3,813 Times in 1,707 Posts
Danang Sailor has a spectacular aura aboutDanang Sailor has a spectacular aura about
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catavenger View Post
Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism - YouTube
Kurt Wise said (according to Dawkins) "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
Dawkins then says in response " a mind like that is a disgrace to the human species." So because Kurt Wise believes what he feels to be the word of God rather than the word of Dawkins he is a "disgrace?" How arrogant of Dawkins. Myself I do not take the Bible as literally as Mr. Wise however I do not feel it is my place to condemn Kurt Wise because he does so.
This debate has gotten really silly, and unfortunately it started with this first post. If you must extract a quote, please at least
get it right.
" ... if all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an "old-Earth", I would be the first to admit it, but I would
still be a "young-Earth" creationist because that is what Holy Scripture teaches me ... " The fact that a geologist could
make such a statement is both stunning and appalling for,
in point of fact, all the evidence in the universe does point to an
old-Earth*! And please note, this is NOT "the word of Dawkins" Wild is challenging but the work and word of 99%
of the people who have worked in his chosen field (ie, geology) for over two hundred years! This may not rise to the level
of a "disgrace of humanity", but it is nonetheless indicative of intellectual poverty. However, anyone who has Wild's
background and can still make this statement is surely a disgrace to his profession.


*"Old-Earth" people are those who examine that evidence before them, most of it geological in nature, and conclude the
Earth is millions of years old. On the other hand, "young-Earth" people reckon it at only 5771 years old (current Hebrew
year) based on counting the years since Creation, figured on the stated life-spans of the major characters and then the
verifiable dates of certain undeniably historical events. Even this is faulty, as the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars
point out that God's "day" was most unlikely to be the same as our day, as the sun which divides day and night for us, was
not created until Day 4.
__________________
We're not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, yet
it's okay to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics!



Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:47 PM
Cowboy's Avatar
Cowboy Cowboy is offline
Wait for it.
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SC Kansas
Posts: 10,579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Cowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danang Sailor View Post
This debate has gotten really silly, and unfortunately it started with this first post. If you must extract a quote, please at least
get it right." ... if all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an "old-Earth", I would be the first to admit it, but I would
still be a "young-Earth" creationist because that is what Holy Scripture teaches me ... " The fact that a geologist could
make such a statement is both stunning and appalling for, in point of fact, all the evidence in the universe does point to an
old-Earth*! And please note, this is NOT "the word of Dawkins" Wild is challenging but the work and word of 99%
of the people who have worked in his chosen field (ie, geology) for over two hundred years! This may not rise to the level
of a "disgrace of humanity", but it is nonetheless indicative of intellectual poverty. However, anyone who has Wild's
background and can still make this statement is surely a disgrace to his profession.


*"Old-Earth" people are those who examine that evidence before them, most of it geological in nature, and conclude the
Earth is millions of years old. On the other hand, "young-Earth" people reckon it at only 5771 years old (current Hebrew
year) based on counting the years since Creation, figured on the stated life-spans of the major characters and then the
verifiable dates of certain undeniably historical events. Even this is faulty, as the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars
point out that God's "day" was most unlikely to be the same as our day, as the sun which divides day and night for us, was
not created until Day 4.

One question for Ya DS & I aint tryin to be a smartass . How do we know how much a year, decade or even century is , let alone wether somethin is 5 thousand or 10 million years old ?

Ok two questions because I know you have studied things far more then myself and maybe most here , only because your posts reflect that . How do YOU think we came in to exsistance?

They may be stupid questions to most, but I do have a very good reason for asking .

Anyone else is free to give their thoughts as well .
__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-21-2011, 11:00 PM
Danang Sailor's Avatar
Danang Sailor Danang Sailor is offline
nullius in verba
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NE Kansas
Posts: 6,884
Thanks: 13,314
Thanked 3,813 Times in 1,707 Posts
Danang Sailor has a spectacular aura aboutDanang Sailor has a spectacular aura about
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Cowboy,

I'm going to try a simple explanation to a complicated question; please let me know if it doesn't make sense. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, one which has a very specific rate of decay (half-life). Using this half-life as a scale we can very accurately date objects; thus we can determine how long a particular substance has existed. This is how geologists can date various rock strata, and determine they have been around for, say, 6 million years.

As to your second question, when I have a bit more time and a computer (this is being typed on my cell phone) I'll PM you and we can quietly discuss my personal thoughts on how we got here; I won't even try to do that in a public arena.
__________________
We're not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, yet
it's okay to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics!



Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-22-2011, 02:08 AM
Keltin's Avatar
Keltin Keltin is offline
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 178
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Keltin is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danang Sailor View Post
Cowboy,

I'm going to try a simple explanation to a complicated question; please let me know if it doesn't make sense. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, one which has a very specific rate of decay (half-life). Using this half-life as a scale we can very accurately date objects; thus we can determine how long a particular substance has existed. This is how geologists can date various rock strata, and determine they have been around for, say, 6 million years.

As to your second question, when I have a bit more time and a computer (this is being typed on my cell phone) I'll PM you and we can quietly discuss my personal thoughts on how we got here; I won't even try to do that in a public arena.
C14 dating is iffy at best, not a nail in the board science. A very GOOD indicator of age. But not the end-all of it. It’s effective range is only about 60k years, so we get lost when we start talking about “millions” as C14 can’t do that.

Quote:
Carbon 14 dating is based upon a number of important assumptions, but only one will be discussed here. In order to compare C14 dates meaningfully, we must assume that all organisms contained the same amount of C14 when they died. Otherwise, organisms with less C14 will appear older because there will be less C14 than expected when the sample is tested. Unfortunately, that assumption is faulty.

As Mary Hudson explained in her Aucilla River Times article two years ago, C14 is created by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere. That radiation fluctuates year to year and therefore so does the creation of C14 . That means if our branch grew at a time when relatively lower levels of C14 were in the atmosphere, it would have less C14 when it died and would show an older apparent age than it should. Conversely, if it grew at a time of abundant C14 it would appear younger than it should. This differential C14 concentration may give our branch a younger C14 age than another branch that died hundreds of years after our branch, making comparison of the two samples misleading.


http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/aucilla12_1/radio99.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating


__________________
2 + 2 = 10....in Base 4. I'm fine!!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-22-2011, 03:46 AM
Lia Lia is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With the Faeries at the bottom of the garden...
Posts: 2,212
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lia is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keltin View Post
C14 dating is iffy at best, not a nail in the board science. A very GOOD indicator of age. But not the end-all of it. It’s effective range is only about 60k years, so we get lost when we start talking about “millions” as C14 can’t do that.
No! Creationists would like this to be so, but even a quick research proves this to be wishful thinking. It may not be an 'exact science' but its not far off the mark, as shown in just two links here, and one of those links is often pro biblical.

Quote:



Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

What about the stories of ridiculous radiocarbon dates?

A number of stories are commonly circulated about a shell, or a piece of coal, or some other sample which supposedly yielded a radiocarbon date which could not possibly be correct. Such stories misrepresent the truth and do a disservice to science and public knowlege. Presented here are a few examples, exposing the truth about these stories.
Example 1: "Pennsylvanian" Coal

Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian", supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Ham et al., page 73.)
Dr. Aardsma investigated this claim and noted:
A brief look at the original reference [Vinogradov et al., page 319.]...immediately reveals that the sample was not Pennsylvanian coal at all. This is evident first of all by the fact that it is part of a date list which is broken into three parts: "geologic samples", "archaeological samples", and "fossil animals". Clearly, Pennsylvanian coal would be listed as a geologic sample, but this sample of "coal" is listed as an archaeological sample.
... In the original reference the sample is described as "scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m [river] terrace". This Radiocarbon reference must originally have been translated from Russian and it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some loss of descriptive clarity as a result. But it seems pretty clear that what is being described here is certainly not "Pennsylvanian coal". There is, in fact, no indication anywhere in the original reference that these samples were from the "Pennyslvanian"; nor is there any hint that they were expected to be "300 million years old"; these appear to be purely apocryphal embellishments to the original account. Surely, what the Russians intended to convey (and what nearly everybody would understand), is that these samples were charcoal from a not too ancient campfire. (Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)
Dr. Aardsma also noted that the date on these samples was in line with the archaeologists' expectations. The radiocarbon date, in this instance, was in no way unreasonable.
Example 2: Natural Gas

Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet 14C gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Ham et al., page 73.)
Dr. Aardsma investigated this claim also, and noted:
The original reference [Trautman and Willis, page 200.] in the second case (natural gas) immediately reveals that both Whitelaw and The Answers Book have, unfortunately, neglected several very important ">" (strictly greater than) signs. The "dates" in this case are given in the original publication as ">30,000" and ">34,000". Thus, these natural gas samples were not dated to "30,000 to 34,000 years" at all. In fact, the original reference plainly notes "infinite age as expected". (Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)
The sensitivity of the equipment used to make the radiocarbon measurements on these natural gas samples was limited to 30,000 to 34,000 years---the equipment was unable to measure back further. Here again the radiocarbon dates were as expected.
Example 3: Living clams which died 2,000 years ago?

In this example, old radiocarbon dates from living clams or snails are given as evidence which discredits the reliability of radiocarbon dating. Dr. Aardsma addressed this issue in a 1989 article:
The shells of freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.
The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment. If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone. Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon then would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.
This problem, known as the "reservoir effect", is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from the air, not the water. (Aardsma, 1989, page 2.)
Conclusion

Other such stories have been circulated, but these examples make clear the nature of such stories. The truth is that radiocarbon dating is a very effective and valuable tool in the hands of competent chronologists. As with any physical measurement, things can go wrong and mistakes can be made. But this just means that one should not hang their whole confidence on a lone radiocarbon date. In actual practice, it is the amassed evidence of multiple radiocarbon dates, generally on different materials by different investigators using different measurement apparatus, which is applied to a given chronological question. Stories of the sort above, which are obviously meant simply to discredit radiocarbon dating, are very far from the truth.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_results.php
Quote:

The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods. Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. Hovind.
Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
R1. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!
The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)
Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the
incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.
It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument. (See Figure 1).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-22-2011, 08:02 AM
Cowboy's Avatar
Cowboy Cowboy is offline
Wait for it.
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SC Kansas
Posts: 10,579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Cowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danang Sailor View Post
Cowboy,

I'm going to try a simple explanation to a complicated question; please let me know if it doesn't make sense. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, one which has a very specific rate of decay (half-life). Using this half-life as a scale we can very accurately date objects; thus we can determine how long a particular substance has existed. This is how geologists can date various rock strata, and determine they have been around for, say, 6 million years.

As to your second question, when I have a bit more time and a computer (this is being typed on my cell phone) I'll PM you and we can quietly discuss my personal thoughts on how we got here; I won't even try to do that in a public arena.
Thanks for the reply DS . You might find this article interesting . It seems even the experts cant seem to agree on how old the earth actually is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Australia.html




Tiny fossils of first known life on Earth are found on world's oldest beach in Australia










Microscopic bacteria lived 3.43bn years ago


Thats why the scientists are looking further out into the galaxys IMO, who is going to prove them wrong when they give their opinions on whats out there?

Sorry but I trust science about as much as I do politicians. But I do find it all very interesting. I just think there is far more out there then any humans peabrain can comprehend, no matter what their inteligence level is.
__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Greatest I am Greatest I am is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Greatest I am is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy View Post
Fixed it for you DL . Are you sure you read the same bible as the rest of us ?

I also dont understand what you mean by this . "That is why most of us have rejected God's laws and live by secular laws." Where do you get the term MOST from ?
People like you who pay taxes and are generally law abiding.
If you as a people were not, that border between us would be a lot tighter and stronger.

Regards
DL
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-22-2011, 02:40 PM
SShepherd's Avatar
SShepherd SShepherd is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,167
Thanks: 117
Thanked 194 Times in 114 Posts
SShepherd will become famous soon enoughSShepherd will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy View Post
Fixed it for you DL . Are you sure you read the same bible as the rest of us ?

I also dont understand what you mean by this . "That is why most of us have rejected God's laws and live by secular laws." Where do you get the term MOST from ?
atleast in the US, there are more believers than non-believers

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/am...lieve-god.aspx
__________________
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-22-2011, 02:59 PM
Cowboy's Avatar
Cowboy Cowboy is offline
Wait for it.
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SC Kansas
Posts: 10,579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Cowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by SShepherd View Post
atleast in the US, there are more believers than non-believers

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/am...lieve-god.aspx
That was my understanding as well . This sentence from the link you posted explains a lot.DUH !!!
Young Americans, Liberals, Easterners Least Likely to Believe in God
__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-23-2011, 08:59 AM
Greatest I am Greatest I am is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Greatest I am is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by SShepherd View Post
atleast in the US, there are more believers than non-believers

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/am...lieve-god.aspx
Yes. And more crime per capita than where there are fewer believers.
Strange. So much for being a believer.

Regards
DL
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:08 AM
Cowboy's Avatar
Cowboy Cowboy is offline
Wait for it.
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SC Kansas
Posts: 10,579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Cowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the roughCowboy is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: The arrogance of Dawkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Yes. And more crime per capita than where there are fewer believers.
Strange. So much for being a believer.

Regards
DL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy View Post
That was my understanding as well . This sentence from the link you posted explains a lot.DUH !!!
Young Americans, Liberals, Easterners Least Likely to Believe in God
Yea well this same list also fits those that are mostly responsible for the higher crime rates as well .
__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Arrogance Of Authority thcri Urban Legends, Snopes, Unconfirmed Emails Forum 4 03-15-2011 08:07 PM
Noted Atheist Richard Dawkins Plans to Ambush & Arrest Pope Benedict pirate_girl Political Debate Forum 44 04-11-2010 10:51 PM
Environmentalism - Arrogance in the Air PBinWA Political Debate Forum 4 01-28-2010 05:25 PM
Schumer Arrogance Tractors4u Political Debate Forum 3 12-17-2009 10:20 AM
American Arrogance or Pride? Dutch-NJ Political Debate Forum 3 05-11-2006 07:59 PM





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2002 - 2018 www.ForumsForums.com