Badmovies.org Forum

Is this an awfull lot like what happened last time someone brought up ETs?

Incest: Universally taboo, however, definition of such varies over time. Sex between parents and children is the only thing that has always been considered incest. The defintion broadened long ago to include siblings, and very, very recently to include even cousins (not universal yet).

I think that only a fairly small subset of creationists would argue that dinosaurs were not extinct by the time of Noah. I'm tempted to go too far here and declare them all to be a subset of the young earth creationists, who, IMHO, are heretics, since saying that Scripture is true is just another way of saying that it and objective reality, as it is observable, are in agreement with each other. The character of a trickster god who plants fake fossils, varies the speed of light, etc, in order to make the universe appear older than it is, is not consistent with the character of the God revealed in Scripture. In any case, the way in which geneologies are presented in the Bible makes it pretty clear that they're not supposed to be used to measure how many years transpired between since a certain anscestor; Sometimes they describe say, nine generations between A and B, while elsewhere a more complete geneology is given. It's torturing these to use them as a dating system that makes them appear contradictory, IMO.

The Bible dosen't actually say that every speicies was represented on the ark, just every "kind".  Those could concievably have been very broad categories (two rodents, two non-domestic ungulates...). I personally find it very unlikely that penguins would have been included, or that God would have inundated Antarctica in order to get rid of all the wicked people, who may have all been living at the bottom of the Mediteranian basin at that time.

>Again, not too hard: get a young pair of T-rexes, and they'll fit. Also, there are
>not "millions" of species unless you count them the way those evolutionists do,
>declaring every tiny genetic variation a new species. By their standards, you
>and I are a different species unless we're twins or something. The pairs in the
>ark were from every kind of living animal, not every tiny variation.

Of course, many animals require very different climates to survive. The needs of penguins are very different from those of an alligator. Then there's the fact that all these animals would eat several hundred pounds of food a day. All of which makes a lot more sense if you look at from the point of view of someone from that time period who probably only knew of maybe 20-30 different types of animals, all of which were common to the areas where they lived, so that's all they figured would be needed on the ark. Then you have the question of whether just two animals is enough to repopulate an entire species. People of the time would have figured it was, but now we know that without enough genetic diversity, a species won't survive. Of course that's overlooking the fact that 40 days and nights of rain, even a constant downpour would never be enough to raise the water level over the top of every mountain in the world and if it was, everyone on the ark probably would have suffocated due to the thinness of the air at that altitude. More facts which wouldn't have been known to the human authors of the Bible at the time.

Furthermore, why would an all-powerful god need to have a human save the animals for him and use a flood to kill everyone else? Why not just snap his gingers and wipe the world clean except for Noah and his family? Surely, that's well within God's power, right?

>As with most ignorant atheists, you obviously never actually read the Bible. As a
>matter of fact, Genesis is very clear that incest was not wrong in days before the
>Mosaic law. Abraham, the father of the Jews, is even quoted saying on two
>separate occasions that Sarah, his wife, was his half sister. In ancient times,
>people were different.

So "right" and "wrong" aren't absolutes and what's ok today might be wrong tomorrow? By the same token, maybe what was wrong a few thousand years ago is ok today. Maybe the people who claim that times have changed enough that most of the ten commandments no longer apply aren't that far off the mark...

>B. You apparently refuse to believe that humans are inherently evil

But since God created humans, that must be the way he wanted them to be. Unless you're suggesting an all-knowing god didn't forsee that humans would end up being evil from the very milisecond that he first thought about creating them. Or maybe you're suggesting that an all-powerful god was incapable of making perfect creations.

>or that Satan exists

But since God created Satan, that must be the way he wanted him to be. Unless you're suggesting an all-knowing god didn't forsee that Satan would end up being evil from the very milisecond that he first thought about creating him. Or maybe you're suggesting that an all-powerful god was incapable of making perfect creations.

>C. If God did keep all of this evil from happening, he'd pretty much be stripping
>every human of his free will, which is a horrendous crime itself.

How could anything God decides to do ever be wrong? I mean is altering people's free will any worse than killing off the entire population of the world except for one family?

>E. God made this universe, and hence knows all of its workings better than
>anyone else. You're in no position to tell God what would or would not be a
>better way to run things. If I were you, I'd be more humble in the face of such a
>powerful mystery.

Humans do things for one of three reasons;

1. As an experiment to find out what will happen. Once the results are known, we don't need to continue experimenting. For example, you already know how gravity works, so you don't go around intentionally dropping things, right? An all-knowing god already has all the answers so he doesn't need to experiment.

2. In order to accomplish something else that you can't do directly. For example, you want to eat, but first you have to make the food and you can't do that until you buy the food, etc. Since God is all-powerful, there's nothing he can't do directly, therefore God doesn't *HAVE* to do anything.

3. For our own amusement. You know what will happen if you toss a ball into the air, and doing so does accomplish anything, but you do it anyway just to amuse yourself. This is probably the only valid reason an all-knowing, all-powerful god would have for doing anything.

So the only conclusion to draw from the above is that the universe is God's version of The Sims and we're all just puppets for him to play with.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that idea kind of insulting.

Writer,

you have written:
"Nevertheless, I prefer the cruel world we have to the plastic perfection we might have if those trans-humanists ever get their way. Think about that."

I think this is what only people can say who already live a good life.
Ever been
- unemployed for a long time?  
- begging for food?
- working 14 hours a day like the kids in india?
- forced to prostitution?  ect...

I would prefer even a grey technocratic world were everyone has food and work but is forced to shut up
instead of todays world of some rich, many poor and the glorius goal of freedom of speech.

Writer wrote:

> Again, not too hard: get a young pair of T-rexes, and they'll
> fit. Also, there are not "millions" of species unless you count
> them the way those evolutionists do, declaring every tiny
> genetic variation a new species. By their standards, you and I
> are a different species unless we're twins or something.  The
> pairs in the ark were from every kind of living animal, not
> every tiny variation.

So, with this reasoning Noah took just every kind of animal and not every species of animal? You're saying that, technically, there aren't many species, just one kind of each animal? Listen to yourself...look around you. Explain something as simple as spiders to me. A spider is a spider? There's not different species of them? How about birds? No, I guess they're all the same, they just LOOK different. Or perhaps they were the same back in the day and Noah put them on the ark and then since that time, they evolved into...wait, nope...scratch that. Sorry, I said the "E" word. JohnL also brought up some good points about the problems of animals, an ark, and 40 days and nights of rain.

> As with most ignorant atheists, you obviously never actually
> read the Bible.  As a matter of fact, Genesis is very clear
> that incest was not wrong in days before the Mosaic law.
> Abraham, the father of the Jews, is even quoted saying on two
> separate occasions that Sarah, his wife, was his half sister.
> In ancient times, people were different.

Woops, I guess I hit a nerve since you're now resorting to throwing insults. But to address this...Incest WAS ok? Oh, that's so much better. Phew, here I was worried about nothing!

> A. Shorten your ranting. We mere mortals don't have infinite
> patience. Quit being such a troll.

Again, resorting to insults. Not once did I call you a name. As for being a troll, I think it's apparent to most on this board, that I am not a troll, even if I happen to disagree with something.

> B. You apparently refuse to believe that humans are inherently
> evil, or that Satan exists, even in the face the very evidence
> you've just given for both. Instead, you put the blame on God.
> Then you go out and do all kinds of evil yourself, as all of
> fallen humanity does. That's why I always suspect an ulterior
> motive of people who cite the problem of evil as an excuse for
> rejecting God: blaming God for the evil that you and others
> like you are doing is disingenuous.

This is just ridiculous ranting. Sure people are evil, where did I say they aren't? And where do you come off saying that I go out and do all kinds of evil? You don't even know me. You got some set on you to accuse me of this. Who's a troll?

With all that other crap you spewed, you never did really address my issue, all you did was dance around the subject much as a politician would when asked something he can't answer...as I suspected would happen. Now, before this gets out of hand, which I believe it already has since you felt the need to resort to name calling and accusing me of being inherently evil and doing bad things...I would like to point out that I have always respected other peoples beliefs even if I don't share their views. But, I have noticed that alot of believers start to get hostile once they find out that your views are different. You've managed to prove that to me once again.

> Wence, if you encourage odinn7 in his trolling, you have no
> right to my respect or anyone else's. Behave yourself.

There you go again.



Post Edited (02-20-05 10:13)