Where's the beef?

You obviously attribute to God a mentality just like your own.

 

The idea that a personal God, being all-powerful, damn well does what he wants because he is all-powerful and capable of being capricious and irrational is one of the arguments that fundies, particularly Christians, use as a bludgeon when backed into a corner by a reasonable line of questioning.

 

Yes, it makes you wonder just what kind of a God they believe in.
And on the level of disputing archaelogical evidence, it's curious how the exact same type of evidence is taken as indisputable when it comes to things such as criminal investigations. They'll admit scientists have got it right if they date some human remains that have been found to a murder in the 1970's, but when the same techniques are used to date ancient human remains and artefacts, they say it's their peculiar God playing tricks to fool the unbelievers.

 

...or the devil playing tricks...I've heard the argument that Satan created archaeologic, geologic, historic, and palenteologic evidence, as well as all religious traditions save Christianity, to further deceive shaky believers and unbelievers and therefore ensure their damnation...:X

 

Yes. God is a little more intelligent then me though.

 

.

 

That wouldn't be difficult. And it isn't saying much for God.

 

Mm...my favourite was when a girl who was trying to save me explained that Lucy (one of the most complete Australopithicine human ancestors) was nothing more than a series of pork bones.

 

I've heard similar BS...no doubt there are scientific fakes and dishonest research results, and religious fanatics jump on these when they come to light, but the scientific method itself is sound and objective.

 

Yea but then again there are people who believe everything that science says and really miss the point. I mean when you really talk about the Big bang theory, you are really referring to it because what you see in space now , "Could be" the left overs from big bang. Again, samething is true with most scientific things when you analyze them, when you are talking about the atom being the smallest particle... well its really not, you have subatomic particles, but then those are not small, then we declare the smallest to be like wavish things etc. From my own understanding gof a show that I saw on the science channel, which was also called "understanding" , the show points out that finally, we are seeng something only because we are creating what we are seeing... i know it doesn't make sense but then they refer to this idea of waves acting like particles and particles acting like waves and I don't remember what it was but it was interesting to see.

Anyway, the idea is that everything is subject to change when it comes to science because what we may think are facts today, may not even be relevant to discuss or ponder tomorrow and alot of people today miss that I think, especially religious people who want to make their ideas be supported by scientific evidence.

 

I promise you that Lucy is most def. not some pork bones.

 

i promise to love you forever and ever

 

Aww...I love you too, Molly! lol

 

I hate ya both ,
.
.
..
.
.


Nah just kidding..

 

kidding as in a goat or a pig?

 

Main Entry: 2kid
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): kid·ded; kid·ding
: to bring forth young -- used of a goat or an antelope

 

kidding as in a goat or an antelope?