Stop what you're doing and laugh at the U.S.

[DarkCrusade]

I guess that's one way of putting it.  Basically, word of God overrides word of man.  Once science contradicts the Bible, it's time to dig deeper and find alternate explanations.

Humans wrote the bible, not God. If the Pope somehow did, that's something else.

I doubt it.

@DC: Statistics my ass, if anything is fallible as all hell it's logic.

How can you deny all achievements science made, because you have a - in the "best" case - heterosexual friend who once was gay? What other cases are there? 1) He's gay and is pretending; 2) He's plain bisexual; 3) He's bisexual but denies he loves men, too.

As for the dinosaur bit, I believe that there is evidence that they coexisted with humans, as well as evidence that they may still be around today.

Can you show the evidence to us or is it hidden inside the bible itself?

[demoniac93]

@Mittsu: The Bible was written by fallible men, who were inspired by an infallible God. You see, we can translate it the wrong way, but it was written the exact way it was supposed to.

@DC: I didn't deny anything, I do thank scientists for inventing toasters, and shampoos, and drugs and vaccinations of all sorts, etc etc, you name it. But I don't agree with the opinion that says God doesn't exist. Or the opinion (Or as you call it "fact") that being gay or ceasing to be gay is not a free choice.

I'm sure the man was GAY because at some point he was blackmailed by some people about it, people who had pictures of him actually fornicating with another man, pictures that sadly found their way to my eyes by some mistake or chance.

[Mittsu]

@Mittsu: The Bible was written by fallible men, who were inspired by an infallible God. You see, we can translate it the wrong way, but it was written the exact way it was supposed to.

you didn't understand; how do you know if those men didn't lie (or we just delusional) about being inspired by god?

[demoniac93]

@Mittsu: The Bible was written by fallible men, who were inspired by an infallible God. You see, we can translate it the wrong way, but it was written the exact way it was supposed to.

you didn't understand; how do you know if those men didn't lie (or we just delusional) about being inspired by god?

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

[DarkCrusade]

@DC: I didn't deny anything, I do thank scientists for inventing toasters, and shampoos, and drugs and vaccinations of all sorts, etc etc, you name it. But I don't agree with the opinion that says God doesn't exist. Or the opinion (Or as you call it "fact") that being gay or ceasing to be gay is not a free choice.

You got me all wrong... I was stating that you're ignoring all the evidence that led to the conclusion that men and women can't choose to be gay or lesbian. You don't "turn" gay. You have no influence, and your environment only a little. If you're living in an environment that actually hates homosexual people, they'll just say they aren't gay and live their life with a slight gut feeling telling them there could be something they don't know yet about themselves, because they never had a chance to think about themselves like that. It's the picture of homosexuality that exists in your brain. Now go and tell me this man never had problems like that after you stated his past which is really shocking.

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

All members of radical groups would die for the sake of the aims of their religion or their organisation. The past has taught us that, and the present isn't different either. Just take the christian population of Rome during the reign of Nero as an example. Or the devotion of the wandering missionaries. Take anything. That's how it is..

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Humans wrote the bible, not God. If the Pope somehow did, that's something else.

Perhaps, but we believe they wrote it through divine inspiration.

Can you show the evidence to us or is it hidden inside the bible itself?

The Bible mentions dinosaurs (or at least, one dinosaur), but that wasn't what I was referring to.  The major points in support of modern dinosaurs are as follows:
1) Consistent cryptid sightings that strongly resemble dinosaurs (do a page text search for "dinosaur" here and check out the links).
2) Ancient depictions of dinosaurs that were made well before fossils were dug up or reconstructed to base the depictions on.
3) Fossils with soft tissue present that cast doubt on the actual age of fossils.

[croat1gamer]

What if that is just a representation of someones imagination?

[demoniac93]

@DC: I didn't deny anything, I do thank scientists for inventing toasters, and shampoos, and drugs and vaccinations of all sorts, etc etc, you name it. But I don't agree with the opinion that says God doesn't exist. Or the opinion (Or as you call it "fact") that being gay or ceasing to be gay is not a free choice.

You got me all wrong... I was stating that you're ignoring all the evidence that led to the conclusion that men and women can't choose to be gay or lesbian. You don't "turn" gay. You have no influence, and your environment only a little. If you're living in an environment that actually hates homosexual people, they'll just say they aren't gay and live their life with a slight gut feeling telling them there could be something they don't know yet about themselves, because they never had a chance to think about themselves like that. It's the picture of homosexuality that exists in your brain. Now go and tell me this man never had problems like that after you stated his past which is really shocking.

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

All members of radical groups would die for the sake of the aims of their religion or their organisation. The past has taught us that, and the present isn't different either. Just take the christian population of Rome during the reign of Nero as an example. Or the devotion of the wandering missionaries. Take anything. That's how it is..

Look, you make a good point but you're not getting the major picture: The man is HAPPY, he is fully satisfied in his sex life, because he realized it was a taboo, just another kind of rush that could easily be replaced by what is actually the "natural" craving of the male body, and that would be a female body.
He refused to suppress the nature of his sexual orientation even under the pressure of direct threats, in a society that does not tolerate homosexuality. Now can you actually try and tell me that it's bodily just bodily chemistry or a "phase"?

Well exactly, I can honestly say that I never heard of a scientist that WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY (Excuse the caps, I'm just not that much into using bold and italicized) died for his beliefs, or his theories to be more exact.
Also, these people die for the ideal that all people deserve well, not just their own.
The Crusades were a confused message being made by a confused church, that's another thing.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

To be fair, DarkCrusade was talking about other religious radicals, not scientists.  As in, "The fact that Christians died violent deaths doesn't make it the one true religion, because other people with other belief systems also died violent deaths."

Heck, there was a monk who set himself on fire as a form of protest.  He wasn't doing it for God or for a religion; he was doing it for a personal moral belief.  Dying violently for a belief doesn't necessarily make it the right one.

[Mittsu]

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

yeah, my avatar

[Mangled*]

What is science for you? Where do you draw the line, the distinction between 'this science is true' and 'this science is not true'? Is it just based off if something aligns itself with your personal beliefs or not?

I guess that's one way of putting it.  Basically, word of God overrides word of man.  Once science contradicts the Bible, it's time to dig deeper and find alternate explanations.

*Chicago plummer's voice* Well there's your problem.

Like others have pointed out, the hole in this is that the Bible is the word of man. It's written by men. You and I both know that man has the ability to lie and decieve. When you say you have faith in God, really you mean you have faith in the men who wrote the word of God, faith that they were telling the truth. That isn't any different to a Muslim's faith in the writers of the Quran or a Jew's faith in the writers of the Torah or a Scientologist's faith in L. Ron Hubbard's writings or a Hindu's faith in the writers of the Sruti.

Every piece of scripture of every religion is written by men and claims to be divine. None of them have anything more than that.

I mean, if we summarize what you said... it sounds like sheer mental delusion:

Basically, what I personally believe overrides what can be determined through evidence.  Once something that can be determined through evidence contradicts what I personally believe, it's time to dig deeper and find alternate explanations.

Moving on..

Well exactly, I can honestly say that I never heard of a scientist that WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY (Excuse the caps, I'm just not that much into using bold and italicized) died for his beliefs, or his theories to be more exact.

Galileo was imprisoned for life by the Catholic church for defending his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He died whilst imprisoned.

Scientists have only ever died defending their theories at the hands of religious zealots. Meanwhile religious have only died for their beliefs when engaging in spiritual war.

[demoniac93]

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

yeah, my avatar

Not moral belief, but also religious belief, except he set himself on fire expecting karma to pay him back.
Christian martyrs die expecting nothing in exchange from God.

@Mangled: Let's not forget that at some point Galileo backed down from his claims about his findings and started spreading them in secret. I see no sacrifice there.

[Mittsu]

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

yeah, my avatar

Not moral belief, but also religious belief, except he set himself on fire expecting karma to pay him back.
Christian martyrs die expecting nothing in exchange from God.

except of the paradise in heaven

[demoniac93]

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

yeah, my avatar

Not moral belief, but also religious belief, except he set himself on fire expecting karma to pay him back.
Christian martyrs die expecting nothing in exchange from God.

except of the paradise in heaven

Nope, nobody knows for certain if he'll go to heaven or hell, only God does.
A person might sin even just during his last breath, there are no givens in the Catholic point of view.

[Mangled*]

@Mangled: Let's not forget that at some point Galileo backed down from his claims about his findings and started spreading them in secret. I see no sacrifice there.

He was persecuted by the Catholic church for telling the truth. He could have easily been killed for what he was doing.

Oh I see, ignore all the negative aspects and so long as he wasn't killed then he didn't sacrifice anything. Maybe if he was killed then his theories would have been covered up by the Catholic church. I'm pretty sure the Catholic church would still like to cover up the fact that they persecuted Galileo. They seem pretty set on covering up anything that's controversial like molestation, so it's not a huge surprise.

Oh no, I'm being unfair... All of the priests who rape children aren't really Catholic at all... they just happen to be rapists who are Catholic priests. Coincidence. Quick! Cover it up and then blame secularism for the Nazi's!

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

What is science for you? Where do you draw the line, the distinction between 'this science is true' and 'this science is not true'? Is it just based off if something aligns itself with your personal beliefs or not?

I guess that's one way of putting it.  Basically, word of God overrides word of man.  Once science contradicts the Bible, it's time to dig deeper and find alternate explanations.

*Chicago plumber's voice* Well there's your problem.

Like others have pointed out, the hole in this is that the Bible is the word of man. It's written by men. You and I both know that man has the ability to lie and decieve. When you say you have faith in God, really you mean you have faith in the men who wrote the word of God, faith that they were telling the truth. That isn't any different to a Muslim's faith in the writers of the Quran or a Jew's faith in the writers of the Torah or a Scientologist's faith in L. Ron Hubbard's writings or a Hindu's faith in the writers of the Sruti.

Every piece of scripture of every religion is written by men and claims to be divine. None of them have anything more than that.

Well, as I've said before, there's more to it than that.  It's probably more accurate to say that the Bible describes my relationship with God, rather than that my relationship with God is just what I call my personal interpretation of the Bible.  I'm sure there are plenty of belief systems where people have some nebulous belief in a "god" or some sort, and they generally accept that he created the world or whatever.  Christianity is different.  Christians can and do have a personal relationship with God: something that's absent in every other religion.

Christianity isn't something I've read or memorized; it's something I've EXPERIENCED.  As someone outside of the religion, you can't possibly understand what that's like (insert old analogy about inability to explain color to blind people), but let me assure you, it's something that's very real.

I mean, if we summarize what you said... it sounds like sheer mental delusion:

Basically, what I personally believe overrides what can be determined through evidence.  Once something that can be determined through evidence contradicts what I personally believe, it's time to dig deeper and find alternate explanations.

The problem with this reinterpretation is that it treats science as infallible, which it's been proven time and again to not be.  Unlike the Bible, science is constantly fluctuating and changing.  It's not at all uncommon for new discoveries to invalidate old ones, and it's not at all unreasonable for me believe that this could happen yet again.  Evidence is only given meaning through the explanations we apply to it; it means nothing on its own.  If those explanations change, the meaning of the evidence changes as well.

Nope, nobody knows for certain if he'll go to heaven or hell, only God does.

1 John 5:13 seems to disagree with you:

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[Mittsu]

Look at how they died: Some were skinned alive and thrown out into the sea, some were crucified, some were stoned, one thrown down the temple.
Do you honestly believe that a man can face a death as horrible as any of those for something he imagined/made up?
Do you think a person would actually go against their instinct to survive and give themselves up for death?

yeah, my avatar

Not moral belief, but also religious belief, except he set himself on fire expecting karma to pay him back.
Christian martyrs die expecting nothing in exchange from God.

except of the paradise in heaven

Nope, nobody knows for certain if he'll go to heaven or hell, only God does.
A person might sin even just during his last breath, there are no givens in the Catholic point of view.

being crusified or stoned for defending the god's name may help the case, dont you think?

[DarkCrusade]

Oh God.. this will be a long post.. I feel it.. Anyway, first things first:

Perhaps, but we believe they wrote it through divine inspiration.

The point is that you believe it. There is no direct evidence of any influence by God other than that they claim he had. There's no value in believing for science, and it's not any different for me.

The Bible mentions dinosaurs (or at least, one dinosaur), but that wasn't what I was referring to [...]

Which part?

1) Consistent cryptid sightings that strongly resemble dinosaurs (do a page text search for "dinosaur" here and check out the links).
2) Ancient depictions of dinosaurs that were made well before fossils were dug up or reconstructed to base the depictions on.
3) Fossils with soft tissue present that cast doubt on the actual age of fossils.

1) I know why "mainstream science" consider the "evidence" for the animals and plants on that website as insufficient. There are animals which are well known among us like the British big cat. Others have no picture, so there is no evidence they ever existed. Others have drawings or "photographs" of them. Nothing which would make evidence for them sufficient.

2) Genesis Park is a creationist website. Half of the stuff is made up, a quarter could be made up (can't check it, so I'm not sure), the rest is just plain non-evident. People believed in dragons. The cause was that they feared snakes for their bites and poison, and what's worse than a snake? A bigger snake. What's even worse? If it has legs to move faster, wings to fly, fire to burn cities to their grounds and maybe even cybernuclear weapons which can kill Chuck Norris. Sorry, I'm making fun of this website. As it is absolutly made by people who share the same belief with you, there's no reason in taking it into account.

3) I don't know why you've posted that one. Someone made a theory that the soft tissue wouldn't be preserved that long and they got proved wrong. What's the matter?

Look, you make a good point but you're not getting the major picture: The man is HAPPY, he is fully satisfied in his sex life, because he realized it was a taboo, just another kind of rush that could easily be replaced by what is actually the "natural" craving of the male body, and that would be a female body.
He refused to suppress the nature of his sexual orientation even under the pressure of direct threats, in a society that does not tolerate homosexuality. Now can you actually try and tell me that it's bodily just bodily chemistry or a "phase"?

Honestly, your friend's not much of an argument here. Why?

1) We don't know him. You don't have to bring evidence he exists (which would be ridiculous), but he's just one person.
2) As stated above, he's just one single person different from the rest. That's neither scientific evidence nor statistically justifiable.

Just look for something else. This won't make a difference in this debate.

Well exactly, I can honestly say that I never heard of a scientist that WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY (Excuse the caps, I'm just not that much into using bold and italicized) died for his beliefs, or his theories to be more exact.
Also, these people die for the ideal that all people deserve well, not just their own.
The Crusades were a confused message being made by a confused church, that's another thing.

I believe there are a lot of scientists (maybe not a lot, but quite a few) who are devoted to their work. Many of them aren't well payed, but they love their job and risk their life to find out new stuff, or give up their life for work. I hope I don't need to give you examples, because there's a ton of good ones.

The Crusades.. why did you bring that one up? I actually wrote a skilled work about this subject and how they changed Europe. Basically, they are indeed a religious mass movement. But there were far less men who fought for their religion than those that just looked either for adventure, power, land or money. What's the confused message? Jerusalem was taken by the Saracens, and Jerusalem is the city for the catholic church. Unfortunatly, it's the same for the muslims. The church wasn't confused either. By leading a war they had not to lead due to the values they should represent they obtained power and decreased the imperator's influence and power. Seen from today, the Crusades marked the downfall of the catholic church. But back then, it was the time in which the church had the most influence.

He was persecuted by the Catholic church for telling the truth. He could have easily been killed for what he was doing.

That's the exact idea of a martyr.

Honestly, if he would've stood up for himself we would have lost so much. How ignorant can you be, demoniac?

[iDante]

Wow there's a lot here to respond to. Starting at the top.

The Bible mentions dinosaurs (or at least, one dinosaur), but that wasn't what I was referring to.

You may be referring to the "behemoth" described in 40 Job. Obviously if it moves its tail like a cedar and its bones are as strong as brass it's a dinosaur, right? He drinks up a whole river, that's gotta be a dinosaur! No.
Scientists found an entire group of animals now extinct that creationists didn't like. Instead of saying "we might have been wrong," they said "no we were actually right all along, our book says so," then they point to a few lines that describe a big generic animal. Wonderful logic there.

1) Consistent cryptid sightings that strongly resemble dinosaurs (do a page text search for "dinosaur" here and check out the links).

From the very top of what you linked.

Their presumptive existence has often been derived from anecdotal or other evidence, considered insufficient by mainstream science.

Just because some bimbo says they saw bigfoot doesn't mean dinosaurs walk the Earth.

2) Ancient depictions of dinosaurs that were made well before fossils were dug up or reconstructed to base the depictions on.

Giant horrific beasts have always been a major part of mythology, that doesn't mean they were real at the time. This as an argument could be extended to: Chinese art features dragons, therefore dragons were real in China. Job describes a dragon, OMG DRAGONS ARE REAL.

3) Fossils with soft tissue present that cast doubt on the actual age of fossils.

Oh hey that's pretty interesting. Too bad it's wrong and the only people that believe it now are YECs

The problem with this reinterpretation is that it treats science as infallible, which it's been proven time and again to not be.  Unlike the Bible, science is constantly fluctuating and changing.  It's not at all uncommon for new discoveries to invalidate old ones, and it's not at all unreasonable for me believe that this could happen yet again.  Evidence is only given meaning through the explanations we apply to it; it means nothing on its own.  If those explanations change, the meaning of the evidence changes as well.

You're right about science being ever-changing. Unfortunately, when performed rigorously, it does not "invalidate" itself, rather it goes deeper into itself. When Galileo rolled balls down a ramp he noted that the distance they rolled was proportional to the square of the time they took. If we do this same experiment now, we'll find the same thing, only now we can do it to more precision. When Darwin found that all life on Earth was evolved over millions of years, he backed it up with tons of evidence. In the 50s, the discovery of DNA actually scientifically proved evolution by showing that all animals on the Earth were descended from a common ancestor. This discovery definitely changed the theory of evolution. All of a sudden scientists knew exactly how random variations in DNA recombination caused slight mutations in the organisms. When they found out more about biology, its central theory, that of evolution, was understood BETTER.
Good science does that.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Perhaps, but we believe they wrote it through divine inspiration.

The point is that you believe it. There is no direct evidence of any influence by God other than that they claim he had. There's no value in believing for science, and it's not any different for me.

Just so I'm clear on where we stand, what exactly would you consider "direct evidence of any influence by God"? That's important.

The Bible mentions dinosaurs (or at least, one dinosaur), but that wasn't what I was referring to [...]

Which part?

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.  Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.  He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.  His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.  He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Obviously it doesn't use the term "dinosaur" because the word didn't exist at the time of translation.  However, those verses provide a pretty decent description of a sauropod; what other animal eats grass and has a tail that moves "like a cedar"?

]2) Genesis Park is a creationist website. Half of the stuff is made up, a quarter could be made up (can't check it, so I'm not sure)

Are you saying you didn't actual visit the site? The reason I linked to that page in particular (rather than some of the other, more dubious ones) was because of the abundance of actual photographs of pottery, carvings, drawings, etc. on it, all depicting dinosaurs.  IIRC, there are examples of stegosauruses from Asia, Africa, and the Americas, created hundreds of years apart by independent cultures, yet showing the same striking resemblance to each other AND modern reconstructions of stegosauruses.  There are more cases than just that one, obviously, but it was the one that stood out most to me.

3) I don't know why you've posted that one. Someone made a theory that the soft tissue wouldn't be preserved that long and they got proved wrong. What's the matter?

Well, "the matter" is that's the wrong way of looking at it.  I limited my example to the dinosaur fossils, since that was the most relevant, but there are plenty of instances of human tools and remains being found in rock layers that are supposedly millions of years old.  The point I'm trying to make is that dating methods are suspect, and that it's actually feasible for dinosaurs to have been around a lot more recently than scientific consensus allows for.