Jump to content

Handsome Rob

TGO Benefactor
  • Posts

    2,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20
  • Feedback

    100%

Everything posted by Handsome Rob

  1. The difference being that historical accounts of battles etc... were written at the time, by observers & witnesses. The bible was written a long time after the fact (no pun intended!) History regularly discredits accounts that are later proven to be second or third hand.
  2. Could you please tell me which ones? No proof exists that any of them are true.
  3. That would be petrification, not fossilization. Petrification takes place when minerals are completely deposited on the outside of an object & take the form of the object they surround. Fossilization is a process of lithification & remineralisation by the surrounding minerals Not really. That's like pouring concrete over something & calling it a fossil. Once again, Mt St. Helens remains are petrified, not fossilized. the remains were covered in hot volcanic ash & molten lava which hardened upon cooling, leaving mineral covered remains.
  4. When's the new season of Dexter start?
  5. Oh dear. You'd done so well with your previous post. One more time and this is just for trigem; Just because Science can't yet fully explain someting, doesn't automatically indicate the presence of a God's hand in it's creation.
  6. I just pulled a story off the top of my head, I'm not trying to make any comparisons other than that both are stories that may, or may not, be fictional. Star Wars was probably a bad example, because the author is still alive & can deny it's truth. Possibly a better story would've been Dante's Divine Comedy. Believeable if you're in that frame of mind, but in reality, just a story. Who's to say though, that 1500 years from now Star Wars can't be the basis for a World Religion? It tells the story of good prevailing against evil, so it does have some basic moral teachings for us all & no-one will be alive to prove it's origins as a fictional movie.
  7. Hey, I'm just using what you give me. You said that Adam & Eve could've lived for billions of years before they ate of the tree of knowledge. I assume that you understand your own standpoint & I'm debating with the statements that you offer up. I don't need to understand what I'm arguing against. If I understood it I could either agree or disagree. As I don't understand, I'm questioning on my way to understanding. Incedentally I have read the Bible (And the Tora & Koran, by the way) However, I read all 3 from the standpoint of someone reading a book. I didn't read them to particularly understand & absorb the teachings, more to understand the thinking behind blind belief. Just bfore we go any further, I'd ik to point out that I do not believe. That said, I do respect the right to belief. I know how it can enrich & enlighten the lives of believers & can comfort in a a way that nothing else can. I do not wish to belittle the beliefs of others, I just wish to understand the reasonings behind those beliefs. If I have come across as insulting to anyone's beliefs, I humbly apologise.
  8. "Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level & beat you with experience"
  9. Cite your proof. If you read it simply as fictional story, it's a fantastically entertaining read.
  10. So then we have to believe that a long time ago, people had a life expectancy of (possibly) billions of years? That single fact, for me, throws the entire argument out of the water. I don't think I have made any definately false statements, but I do think you've made at least one that is incomprehensibly odd, that being the possible age of Adam & Eve being in the billions of years & the fact they may have been superhuman is unimportant. If they existed at all, which I firmly believe is a long shot at best & as likely as Princess Leah & Luke Skywalker.
  11. I think the point I have been trying to make is that Religion, all Religion as based on books. People who believe these religons take the stories in these books and take them as the truth, as absurd as some of them may be. I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that people can believe these stories to be true & yet dismiss other stories (Let's say, Star Wars) to be fictional. Star Wars is set 'Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away' Therefore it's unproveable & probably (although not defintely) made up. The Bible was written long ago, in a country far away, buy an unknown person. How is it any more plausible than Star Wars? The physics behind the creation of the Universe is, admittedly, sketchy but it is plausible & large amounts of it are proveable. The entire theory of creationism teeters on the acceptance of the bible as being ultimately true, implausible as it may be.
  12. So, the bible's true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?
  13. Now that I can believe
  14. Yeah, but only by a couple of days, if the bible is to be believed. It takes thousands of years for fossilization to occur. According to the bible, the world isn't old enough for fossils to have formed.
  15. I'm sorry but I'm obviously missing something. Can you explain how the quoted passage explains the existence of fossiis?
  16. It's an issue because if the Bible is true, fossils cannot exist.
  17. To fill, nourish or make complete again. Your argument illustrates my point perfectly. You're quoting a book that may not be true, as though it were a factual, historical account.
  18. Mememememememememe!
  19. Not a clue chief. If the Bible's true, why do we have fossils?
  20. Give it chance to warm up chief........
  21. I'm not trying to discount Science in any way, shape or form. I completely believe the Theory of Evolution to be true, because, as you say, it can indeed be measured & observed. I know the expansion rate of the universe can be measured & if a sphere is expanding in every possible direction it can, at a constant rate, as has been proved, then it stands to reason that the expansion must have started at a singular point. My opinion of Creationism Theory is that it is inherently flawed because it based on a book that has absolutely no actual proveability. My point was that the inflamed opinions that I see so frequently are from peple who believe that both of these theories are absolute truths, and that maybe folks ought to think about things with a clear & logical mind before screaming at each other that they MUST be right (Because the Bible or Theoretical Science says so) I highlighted the word 'Theoretical' simply to illustrate the point that whilst Evolution & the Birth of the Universe are both proveable, neither can be experimentally repeated, which in the scientific community is the definition of Science Fact. It can only ever, honestly, be considered Theory because of that one simple reason.
  22. Feeling argumentative today Daniel? Or maybe just inflammatory?
  23. Just bfore this blows up beyond all comprehension (again) I'd just like to point out that Stephen Hawking is a THEORETICAL physicist. He devises possible THEORIES based on what little evidence is available to him. He neither poses nor presents his theories as fact. Can all the creationists please remeber this. He never (& to the best of my knowledge, no other Theoretical Physicist has either) claims any of his ideas to be impirical truths. The argument of creation vs. Big Bang/evolution will never be more than an argument between to theroetical possibilities. One based on Scientific principals that cannot be proven, the other based on a book that could easily be a work of fiction.
  24. Who is she & where do I get one?
  25. This'll make you do something childish in yer under britches then......

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.