"Intelligent" Design

[armaghniac]

And there was a guy on TV who claimed to have measured the temperature for the last 10000 years by drilling in the Antartica ice, funny how these scientists are all anti-Christian! Everyone knows that creation already put a great slab of ice in Antartica! 

[nifan]

At least we arent the worst 
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

[armaghniac]

Indeed they have legislators in those parts who rival Lisburn council, there was the famous bill in Injdiana in 1897 that defined the value of π (pi) to be 3!

[Orior]

I can understand how animals evolved, and adapted to surrounding, but how did eyes evolve?

Did a plant just decide one day, I gotta see whats going on?

Were animals blind before then?

And... why did the woman I married 10 years ago evolve into a hippopotamus?

[Gnevin]

I can understand how animals evolved, and adapted to surrounding, but how did eyes evolve?

Did a plant just decide one day, I gotta see whats going on?

Were animals blind before then?

And... why did the woman I married 10 years ago evolve into a hippopotamus?

Plants can "see" ever see a plant growing towards the sun. Eye's started off as simple photo sensitive cells .

[Maguire01]

Lads, are we all in the same boat?

catholic upbringing and all, do we consider quite a bit of the church's teachings laughable?

Absolutely not!
Catholic church does not teach us that the world was created in 6 days, the 7th being a day off, or that dinosaur bones were planted by bad people to fool us into thinking the world is older then 6500 years!! 
My RE lessons taught me that the New Testament was "Gospel", but the Old Testament was to be taken with a seriously major pinch of salt!!

Yes, so the OT is just a collection of off the wall stories, but the NT is 100% watertight. 

Without wanting to offend anyone, can i ask, if you were standing on the outside looking in with an unbiased and logical approach, would you find one of these stories totally believeable, yet be able to dismiss the other as a 'story'?

1) God created the world in 6 days, as per the OT; and

2) Jesus died and 3 days later he rose from the dead and 'saved' everyone, as per the NT.

[thejuice]

At least we arent the worst 
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

I was wondering what happened to our friend from Kansas, did the creationists take him out for showing signs of evolution because he clearly was still Neanderthal showing vague signs of homosapian behavior like using a computer

[Hardy]

Feckit, seems we've been wrong all along. The lads over at Godtube.com have come up with the incontrovertible proof.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4f1456031fcc05a3afaf

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Lads, are we all in the same boat?

catholic upbringing and all, do we consider quite a bit of the church's teachings laughable?

Absolutely not!
Catholic church does not teach us that the world was created in 6 days, the 7th being a day off, or that dinosaur bones were planted by bad people to fool us into thinking the world is older then 6500 years!! 
My RE lessons taught me that the New Testament was "Gospel", but the Old Testament was to be taken with a seriously major pinch of salt!!

Yes, so the OT is just a collection of off the wall stories, but the NT is 100% watertight. 

Without wanting to offend anyone, can i ask, if you were standing on the outside looking in with an unbiased and logical approach, would you find one of these stories totally believeable, yet be able to dismiss the other as a 'story'?

1) God created the world in 6 days, as per the OT; and

2) Jesus died and 3 days later he rose from the dead and 'saved' everyone, as per the NT.

Black?



We were taught to believe that the "Gospels" NT were to be taken as a representation of what we as Christians should atain to re our lives. Parables were used to teach us right from wrong etc... unlike many of the anti-church posters on here, my RE classes taught us to think and not just to listen.
BTW seeing as the NT was supposed to be writen by humans (who would be fallible) I think that we can accept that some of it has been changed over the years depending on the views at the time. 

[ludermor]

We were taught to believe that the "Gospels" NT were to be taken as a representation of what we as Christians should atain to re our lives. Parables were used to teach us right from wrong etc... unlike many of the anti-church posters on here, my RE classes taught us to think and not just to listen.
BTW seeing as the NT was supposed to be writen by humans (who would be fallible) I think that we can accept that some of it has been changed over the years depending on the views at the time. 

But not all RE classes teach that. Some are quite stringent in their views and teachings.

[J70]

Feckit, seems we've been wrong all along. The lads over at Godtube.com have come up with the incontrovertible proof.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4f1456031fcc05a3afaf

Well, the average fish that jumped onto the shore like that probably would die. Unfortunately for the creationists, I haven't seen anyone except themselves suggest that that was the way the transition happened. And of course, there are a number of species of fish which can survive quite happily on land.

[Maguire01]

Lads, are we all in the same boat?

catholic upbringing and all, do we consider quite a bit of the church's teachings laughable?

Absolutely not!
Catholic church does not teach us that the world was created in 6 days, the 7th being a day off, or that dinosaur bones were planted by bad people to fool us into thinking the world is older then 6500 years!! 
My RE lessons taught me that the New Testament was "Gospel", but the Old Testament was to be taken with a seriously major pinch of salt!!

Yes, so the OT is just a collection of off the wall stories, but the NT is 100% watertight. 

Without wanting to offend anyone, can i ask, if you were standing on the outside looking in with an unbiased and logical approach, would you find one of these stories totally believeable, yet be able to dismiss the other as a 'story'?

1) God created the world in 6 days, as per the OT; and

2) Jesus died and 3 days later he rose from the dead and 'saved' everyone, as per the NT.

Black?



We were taught to believe that the "Gospels" NT were to be taken as a representation of what we as Christians should atain to re our lives. Parables were used to teach us right from wrong etc... unlike many of the anti-church posters on here, my RE classes taught us to think and not just to listen.
BTW seeing as the NT was supposed to be writen by humans (who would be fallible) I think that we can accept that some of it has been changed over the years depending on the views at the time. 

Not sure what you mean by 'Black?'...

But anyway, i have thought about religion - extensively. I studied it to A Level (with particular emphasis on the NT Gospels), and have also studied Social Anthropology - i'm not an 'anti-church poster' who hasn't thought about these things. It's something that fascinates me, from a cultural perspective. I just don't believe in a 'higher being'. I'm not trying to stir.

But back to my last post, which you haven't answered:

Without wanting to offend anyone, can i ask, if you were standing on the outside looking in with an unbiased and logical approach, would you find one of these stories totally believeable, yet be able to dismiss the other as a 'story'?

1) God created the world in 6 days, as per the OT; and

2) Jesus died and 3 days later he rose from the dead and 'saved' everyone, as per the NT.

Yes, Jesus rising from the dead was a story written by humans, but Christians believe that this happened - this isn't supposed to by merely symbolic or a representation, it is supposed to have happened. Therefore, is the 'world created in 6/7 days' story any more unbelievable than a man rising from the dead?

[mylestheslasher]

The church that thought our parents and grandparents most certainly did not advise them to think for themselves. It quite clearly stated that adam and eve was not a parable, eating meat on Friday was forbidden, limbo and a whole lot of other silly things. My opinion of  this is that as the people became more educated and began to question this teaching the church had to change its angle. So old stories that were a definite were changed to parables, The old testament should be taken with a pinch of salt etc etc. The church had to morph and adapt to stay relevant to its followers. Of course, this all forces me to ask what is the real truth of the bible and of the teaching of Jesus if the church can just change things to suit themselves as times change. In some ways I have more respect for the idiots pushing "intelligent design" - at least they are being consistent.

[ONeill]

[nifan]

In some ways I have more respect for the idiots pushing "intelligent design"

You had me up until this point