Riot is blatantly anti God

slippykitten·Dec 22, 2014·7 votes·2,457 views

I see posts all the day long (and comments galore) bashing God, religion and everyone who would believe in such things. They use the most vulgar words and insults they can muster and are never deleted, but if you post even a kind hearted opinion in favor of God, or biblical principles, mods delete you as fast as they can find it.

Likewise, if you say the slightest words not in favor of homosexuality, you are banned, but you can bash christians all day long.

I for one am tired of a company with such obvious discrimination, and i think it is time i took my money elsewhere.

66 Comments

TeemoJenkinsDec 22, 20149 votes

Sounds like you're browsing the wrong forums or viewing the wrong threads sir. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just like you are with your blaming of Riot for anti-theology posts. While I think your post is ignorant and inflammatory that doesn't make you feel any less right.

You will find toxicity everywhere in Online gaming. I suggest taking your money to Barnes and Noble and buying a good book or investing in some single player games.

AnidanDec 22, 20148 votes

As a Christian myself I have to ask: would you mind backing up that post or are you just going to make inflammatory statements for just about nothing? Maybe it's just GD being GD or something since I rarely ever visit there but I never see any anti-theology posts on the boards. And if it's GD, then the best idea is probably outright avoidance. There's reasons many already avoid GD.

Celeste BenalDec 22, 20145 votes

http://nomtaunts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/QuitSquirming1.jpg

dogmythJan 16, 20152 votes

This picture was only made by anti-theists as a troll and has no actual truth at all. A real Christian would not be so hateful to someone and persecute them, they would try to help them and save them by teaching them about Christ and the Gospel. Christians show love, not hate as many atheists claim we do in their hatred of us.

B3ERJan 20, 20153 votes

Agreed with this. Most religious people I know show kindness. The bad apples like Westboro are nasty because of their human faults.

Drunk RummateJan 9, 20154 votes

Please direct me to your vast and unbiased source of information that allows you to prove that religious insults go unpunished.

Tundra FizzJan 19, 20154 votes

I'm guessing that you're talking about General Discussion, since this was a big problem on that specific board about a month ago when you first created this thread.

Recently Tamat has been talking with the people who frequent GD (most of the discussion has been in this thread )) about all of the religion spam as well as a few other things. Shortly after, all of the spam-threads have disappeared and the members involved in created them were temporarily banned.

Apparently the reason why it took so long was because the mods were afraid that people would get mad for being "too strict" about removing such threads before Tamat spoke with the rest of GD.

{quoted}

but if you post even a kind hearted opinion in favor of God, or biblical principles, mods delete you as fast as they can find it.

I for one am tired of a company with such obvious discrimination, and i think it is time i took my money elsewhere.

I've heard from a few different people say that the mods discriminate, but unfortunately I have nothing to say about this since I've never experienced it myself. For the most part I just ignore the threads that bash on religion because I don't want to feed the trolls.

While there is still one or two trolls running around posting their provoking spam on General Discussion, it has gotten a lot better for which I'm happy. Now all that's needed is for those final guys to be silenced. After all... it is obvious that nobody wants them there when all those people are are getting downvotes and flame-posts.

JubbinautJan 19, 20151 votes

Hey, thanks for this post. I don't bother with GD (out of old forum habit), so I wasn't aware of any of that. It answers my questions concerning the creation of the thread. Also, thanks for the link!

dogmythJan 9, 20153 votes

I'm sorry man but that is where America as a whole is heading. I know it's frustrating, atheists can say your're an ignorant, bigotted, **** ***** **** (idk I just put asterisks) moron for believing in creation and Jesus (even though the evidence that Jesus was a real person is clear and there is much scientific evidence against evolution). If you try to say one thing (such as give evidence against evolution and for the Flood or Tower of Babel or something like that you are massively attacked). But we live in an increasingly anti-theist country and all we can do is try to be lights in the darkness as Jesus wants us to be.

Please support ministries such as Answers in Genesis as they are increasingly attacked for trying to stand up for the truth! :)

JubbinautJan 9, 20154 votes

even though the evidence that Jesus was a real person is clear and there is much scientific evidence against evolution

Source, please.

slippykittenJan 13, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Source, please.

a. Jewish historian, Josephus (AD 37-100) verifies many characters, places, and events of the bible. i. “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” b. Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-117) verified the life and death of Christ.
i. But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. c. Greek Satirist, Lucian (2nd century) verified Christ even though he was trying to suppress Christianity! i. “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom11 they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. d. Roman historian, Suetonius (AD 120) verified the existence of Christ and persecution of early Christians. i. “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chestus (another word for Christ), he expelled them from Rome” ii. “punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition” e. Pliny the younger (AD 112) verified the practice of the early Christians i. “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, and never to deny a truth when they should be called upon to deliver it up.” f. A letter of Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 73) i. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down

Would you like more?

JubbinautJan 13, 20153 votes

Oh, please, yes. Absolutely. Especially since you've only managed to source half of the claim I quoted.

As a secondary note, I've never debated the existence of such a person as Jesus. I've never actually seen such a debate.

Duke AnaxJan 19, 20151 votes

Yeah it's been scientifically proven that Jesus lived. It's even been proven likely that he woke up after his crucification. (in his time anesthetics used a vinegar base and shortly after a great prophet from the west appeared in India)

Some of his other feats? Apparently Chuck Norris did more...

It's also been proven that he was black, which a lot of Christians, especially white american Christians still refuse to accept.

Also the Flood (tsunami) the Seperation of the Sea (earthquake) and the Tower of Babel have been confirmed, Heck they even found the Garden of Eden (sunk in the Persian Gulf)

But im not aware of any evidence against evolution and I really want to find some too.

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

Where is teh evidence that Jesus was black? The genealogies confirm state that He was a Jew, a descendant of David, and I won't go against the Bible since it hasn't been proven wrong yet.

Duke AnaxJan 20, 20151 votes

Ah yeah, he was only "black" in so far as everyone not white is often called "black" (Obama for example)

Jesus was definitely a Jew with jewish apearance. which means, brownish skin and black hair, but definitely not white blond or brunet

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

Ok thank you for clarifying. When you said black I thought you meant He was African, which He was not, He was Jewish and thus would have looked very similar to the Jews alive today.

I know that Jesus was not white says it says so in the Bible, since it states that He was a Jew.

I would like to talk about where you mentioned that Jesus simply "woke up" in the tomb. If you don't mind, would you please clarify what you mean by that?

Duke AnaxJan 20, 20151 votes

Ok, unfortunatelly I can't give a reference, because it was a TV show, I forgot the name of, but let me repeat the reasoning as I remember it:

I think the Bible states that his crucification was over unusually quick, which may indicate that he only was seemingly dead and taken down prematurely.

He was also given vinegar to drink. which suggests that someone may have helped him reach that state. At that time it was common to prepare drugs with vinegar, in the right dosage some of them can bring someone close enough to death, to be declared dead, but still able to revive from that state.

"simply woke up" is probably the wrong description here.

Anyway the HOW is pretty much speculation, but the important part is that he was most likely alive after his crucification. They found some indipendant Indian reports of the years after, that clearly speak of a Prophet/Philosopher with Jesus appearance arriving from the west.

dogmythJan 24, 20151 votes

That may be what you believe, but I believe that Jesus did die and that He rose from the dead so that we can be forgiven of our sins if we repent and put our faith in Him.

The problems with believing that Jesus just fell asleep and woke up in the cave are many. He had a stake driven through His legs to hold Him to the cross, so how would He be able to walk around? The cave probably got below freezing each night, so how did He not freeze to death. These Roman soldiers were expert in execution, so how would they mistake a man for dead when He was simply asleep? How did Jesus get out of His grave clothes by Himself? After you die, your blood separates into plasma and water, and when Jesus was stabbed in the side that was what came out, but if He was still alive how was this possible? Why would the apostles risk their lives and die as martyrs for a belief they knew was wrong (if Jesus simply woke up, they would have known it because they saw Him after He rose from the dead)?

Thank you for your time.

slippykittenJan 28, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Duke Anax,realm=EUW,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=fehytMwi,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-01-20T04:23:14.728+0000)

Ok, unfortunatelly I can't give a reference, because it was a TV show, I forgot the name of, but let me repeat the reasoning as I remember it:

I think the Bible states that his crucification was over unusually quick, which may indicate that he only was seemingly dead and taken down prematurely.

He was also given vinegar to drink. which suggests that someone may have helped him reach that state. At that time it was common to prepare drugs with vinegar, in the right dosage some of them can bring someone close enough to death, to be declared dead, but still able to revive from that state.

"simply woke up" is probably the wrong description here.

Anyway the HOW is pretty much speculation, but the important part is that he was most likely alive after his crucification. They found some indipendant Indian reports of the years after, that clearly speak of a Prophet/Philosopher with Jesus appearance arriving from the west.

Jesus denied the vinegar and gall to drink because he didn't want to deny the pain. He was also speared through his side, directly into his heart by a trained centurion soldier. This was all after he was poisoned with massive thorns that inflated his head several times its normal size and was whipped so profusely that his ribs were exposed. I have a hard time believing he would live through that.

But even more convincing to me is that the men that saw him after he had risen were martyred for spreading this information. Don't you think of the 100 or so people that were killed after witnessing these things, one of them would have spilled the beans? What exactly did they stand to gain if this was a lie?

B3ERJan 19, 20153 votes

He meant evidence against evolution. At this point its quite likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed and no one is refuting that. Whether he was as miraculous as claimed is another thing.

dogmythJan 15, 20151 votes

Sorry this took so long. Please check out these sites:

On the existence of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/incarnation/jesus-did-not-exist/ http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm (make sure you read the quote by Josephus; it's in bold)

On the scientific evidence against evolution: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/ https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/ (this contains several articles and you can read any of them) https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/the-grand-canyon/ https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/

The fact remains that fossils tend to be formed very quickly by something catastrophic (such as a huge Flood)--not over millions of years. The evolutionists claim that fossils are formed over millions of years but the evidence for this is not there. In fact, fossils of such things as leaves, jellyfish, one fish eating another fish, and a dinosaur giving birth tend to prove the opposite because these things would have to be fossilized quickly.

Also, fourteen years after the Mt. St. Helens eruption, some scientists wanted to see how accurate their dating methods were. Potassium-argon dating was the method chosen, and it was done three different ways. Only yielded a date of hundreds of thousands of years, while both of the other two yielded dates of over a million years. Now, we know as a matter of fact that those rocks were only fourteen years old, but these "reliable" dating methods gave dates of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

Sir, please consider seriously the reliability of the scientific evidence for evolution, and also what is written in the Bible. If you were to become a Christian, I would gladly welcome you as my brother in Christ and hope to talk to you via email sometimes (maybe helping you grow in your relationship with Christ). Even if you do not, I respect you as a person made in the image of God and will show you kindness and love as God has to me.

JubbinautJan 16, 20152 votes

I'll read through all those links later. I want to note clearly, however, that this link makes terribly fallacious arguments. Among those, is dismissing a particular assumption (that admittedly is only arguably valid) and replacing it with another assumption that has no greater basis for validity. It is a statement akin to "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

{quoted}

The fact remains that fossils tend to be formed very quickly by something catastrophic (such as a huge Flood)--not over millions of years. The evolutionists claim that fossils are formed over millions of years but the evidence for this is not there. In fact, fossils of such things as leaves, jellyfish, one fish eating another fish, and a dinosaur giving birth tend to prove the opposite because these things would have to be fossilized quickly.

Actually, it's indicated that - depending on the type of fossil - both statements can be true. For example, fossilized organic matter (petrified wood, fossil bones, etc) takes significant amounts of time, depending on what the original material is. However, "trace fossils" may occur very quickly. It's easy to see measurable examples of this simply by looking at the handprints on Hollywood Boulevard.

Additionally, all that needs to happen for fossils of things such as fish eating one another or animals giving birth to have time to form would be a catastrophic death event. In other words, they need only die quickly - and after that, the natural processes that petrify their bones have plenty of time to work while the bodies aren't moving.

Also, fourteen years after the Mt. St. Helens eruption, some scientists wanted to see how accurate their dating methods were. Potassium-argon dating was the method chosen, and it was done three different ways. Only yielded a date of hundreds of thousands of years, while both of the other two yielded dates of over a million years. Now, we know as a matter of fact that those rocks were only fourteen years old, but these "reliable" dating methods gave dates of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

K-Ar dating is known to be inaccurate at time-scales shorter than about 100,000 years. Attempting to use that method for stones known to be younger than that is effectively ensuring incorrect results. I'd hesitate before calling persons who performed an experiment such as you've indicated "scientists."

Sir, please consider seriously the reliability of the scientific evidence for evolution, and also what is written in the Bible. If you were to become a Christian, I would gladly welcome you as my brother in Christ and hope to talk to you via email sometimes (maybe helping you grow in your relationship with Christ). Even if you do not, I respect you as a person made in the image of God and will show you kindness and love as God has to me.

You make quite a lot of assumptions about my beliefs. I haven't spoken a single word indicating my beliefs in this or any other posts on these boards. Because my personal religious and spiritual beliefs are not relevant to these boards. Nor are they relevant to you.

As such, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make such assumptions, and perhaps focus on examining the obvious bias of your own source material.

dogmythJan 17, 20151 votes

You cannot make the claim that Answers in Genesis is wrong simply because they do not agree with the assumptions that scientists have for millions of years. That is all they are, assumptions. Dating methods are unreliable and involve assumptions to get an answer. Historical science is not like observational science, historical science is your BELIEFS about the past; you can't use observational science to prove something that happened in the past unless you have the account of a reliable witness who was there (such as the Bible, the written of Someone who was there, God).

As for my assumptions about your beliefs, I'm sorry if I offended you, but all I really assumed is that you are not a Christian and believe in evolution. And I thought that those two points were clearly implied by your response to me saying that Jesus existed and evolution is false.

Also, I wrote very kindly in that paragraph, telling you that I respect you and care for you as a fellow human being, and it is disheartening that you responded by mocking me. However, this does not change my opinion: I still care for you, and that wouldn't change even if you said that you hate me. In fact, you saying that would probably just make me pray MORE for you.

JubbinautJan 17, 20153 votes

{quoted}

You cannot make the claim that Answers in Genesis is wrong simply because they do not agree with the assumptions that scientists have for millions of years. That is all they are, assumptions. Dating methods are unreliable and involve assumptions to get an answer. Historical science is not like observational science, historical science is your BELIEFS about the past; you can't use observational science to prove something that happened in the past unless you have the account of a reliable witness who was there (such as the Bible, the written of Someone who was there, God).

I didn't claim they were wrong because they didn't agree with the assumptions scientists made (though those assumptions haven't been made for "millions of years"). I indicated that it's fallacious to claim one side is wrong because they're making assumptions and the other is right because they're making other assumptions.

Replacing one assumption with another is inherently fallacious. It's also hypocritical, but I made a point of not mentioning that, because it's rude. But since you're accusing me of being such anyway (or close enough), I figure I might as well.

As for my assumptions about your beliefs, I'm sorry if I offended you, but all I really assumed is that you are not a Christian and believe in evolution. And I thought that those two points were clearly implied by your response to me saying that Jesus existed and evolution is false.

Part of your false assumption is that Christians are incapable of belief in evolution - neither I, nor any of my friends and associates find the two incompatible. Neither do any of the Jews I know see any discrepancy between belief in the Bible (or Torah) as a religious text, and evolution as a scientific concept.

As for that quote, I quoted an entire clause, because I prefer to handle quotes that way. Perhaps I should have merely quoted the specific part of the clause that was of primary concern to me, but I saw no reason not to encourage a more thorough citation. Even so, asking someone to source their claims should never - in any conceivable way - indicate the basis of one's own beliefs, nor should it be assumed to mean such.

I'm not offended by your assumptions. I'm offended by your need to fall back on those assumptions. I'm offended that rather than addressing the discussion (which we're not at the moment, by the way, and my posts regarding the discussion have been completely ignored), you instead decided to tell me all about how I should become a Christian.

It could be argued, in fact, that that entire paragraph of your post was an argumentum ad hominem, though I want to be extremely clear when I say that I am not trying to imply that I viewed it as an attack. Rather, I mean that to state that you were addressing the debater, rather than the debate. Which is, in this context, fallacious.

Also, I wrote very kindly in that paragraph, telling you that I respect you and care for you as a fellow human being, and it is disheartening that you responded by mocking me. However, this does not change my opinion: I still care for you, and that wouldn't change even if you said that you hate me. In fact, you saying that would probably just make me pray MORE for you.

I honestly don't understand why you think I'm mocking you, or even how what I said could be considered such. I have no reason to mock you, as I know virtually nothing about you. I've simply indicated that your sources have a specific bias, and encouraged you to examine that bias, and its implications.

dogmythJan 19, 20151 votes

Since you made the comment that we got away from the original points let's return to them. They were the existence of Jesus and evolution, so I choose to talk about evolution. Since you said that you have never been in a debate on the existence of Jesus I assume that you would agree with my choice.

Yes, I know that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution--Michael Gungor is one such person--but what must be understood is that those who do so are destroying the foundations of Christianity. One can be saved and believe in evolution, but this is a precarious position to be in.

The account of Creation in Genesis and the idea of evolution are not compatible. Ken Ham understands this, most if not all of the AiG staff understands this, Richard Dawkins understands this. The Bible does not leave room for evolution to be added to it: Exodus 20:11 states that God made the world in six days, Jesus refers to Adam and Eve when questioned on divorce, Paul refers to Adam and Eve, The New Testament states that God made everyone of one blood (now the different blood types (A,B,AB, and O do not contradict this; the point being made is that we are all related, like when someone says that you have your father's blood in you).

If I may, can I ask you several questions that pertain, directly or indirectly, to the Creation/evolution debate:

Did nothing make everything? Yes or No
Did Christ Jesus really exist? Yes or No
Do you have all knowledge? Yes or No
Which evolved first: the digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Which came first: male or female?
Which came first: the bones, the ligaments, the tendons, the blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

Thank you for your time sir. I hope to continue talking with you.

JubbinautJan 19, 20151 votes

Actually, this was the original point:

I see posts all the day long (and comments galore) bashing God, religion and everyone who would believe in such things. They use the most vulgar words and insults they can muster and are never deleted, but if you post even a kind hearted opinion in favor of God, or biblical principles, mods delete you as fast as they can find it.

Likewise, if you say the slightest words not in favor of homosexuality, you are banned, but you can bash christians all day long.

I for one am tired of a company with such obvious discrimination, and i think it is time i took my money elsewhere.

You'll note that there's no debate there about evolution or about the existence or non-existence of any form of deity. You'll also note that my response to that doesn't address either of those things:

I'm so confused by this post.

I've been frequenting these board since they closed down the forums, and this is only the second thread I've ever seen that remotely touches - with any intention - on the subject of religion. And I'm pretty sure the other was yours as well, wasn't it?

So where are all those posts and comments bashing religion?

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

This was what the board was originally about. I made a comment on it and you replied to what I had said to the author of this discussion and that is how this started. Your original response to me was about Jesus' existence and proofs against evolution so that is why I stated that that is where our conversation began.

Duke AnaxJan 19, 20152 votes

Oh i can answer most of thos:

I don't quite understand the question.
Yes
No
the food
the abbility
female
the muscles

As for leaving no room in the Bible: It contains a lot of fables. I don't think it ever claims anywhere to be historically accurate throughout. It cant' be because it contraticts itself constantly, even in the genesis. At one point it claims God made both Adam and Eve out of dirt, at another it claims Eve was made out of a part of Adam.

There are even some older parts that were taken out of the modern Bible staing the first woman wasn't Eve, but Adam didn't like her so God made another.

As for the confusion about old and new version, I like to refer to several translation issues throughout time. The Greek version for example was written akin to this: GODISNOWHERE, which could either mean GOD IS NOW HERE or GOD IS NOWHERE, depending on the reader.

JubbinautJan 19, 20153 votes

Number 1 is a reference to the commonly held mis-representation that the Big Bang theory of universal creation holds that before our universe existed, there was nothing.

Which isn't entirely accurate to the current views on the theory.

Duke AnaxJan 19, 20152 votes

Oh yeah that one, I always wondered how they came up with that. It's pretty obvious that for someting to explode outward, there has to be something that previously colapsed or compressed.

Anyways I just remebered some definite proof for evolution:

There is a human that was born with light amplifiaction eyes like a cat, or anotehr that has such a tough skin that he can't be burned by frying fat. there is an entire group of people that have enlarged their body hairs to a point they look like bigfood. And I know of one Vietnamese that has actual scales on his entire body.

If I search a bit more I can come up with countless cases of directly observed ongoing evolution, even in humans.

One may dispute the question whether there was someone who created it or helped it along (ancient aliens anyone?) but there is no doubt about the fact that evolution is definitely part of the system now.

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

Can I get some links to these "proofs" of evolution so I can check them out for myself, please? I would like to research them so that I can be educated on the topic.

Duke AnaxJan 20, 20152 votes

Ok, I rechecked them, apparently the night vision turned out to be a fake report and fryer proof has mostly to do with toughening exercise, but the hair growths (at least some form of it) is genetic and hereditarry, so a starting evolutionary process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis

An example for a completed process are the Sherpa people of the Himalaya, they have genetically adapted to breathing thin air.

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

But if something existed before the Big Bang how did that something get there? Was there an eternal something that has always existed? If eternal matter could exist why not an eternal God?

JubbinautJan 20, 20152 votes

{quoted}

But if something existed before the Big Bang how did that something get there? Was there an eternal something that has always existed?

Perhaps it was the remains of the previous universe. Perhaps it was dregs from another universe (a lot of what we're learning from research into quantum theory lends credence to the concept of a multiverse), squeezed out - perhaps through something akin to a black hole - and expanding into a whole new universe.

... I just realized how gross it is to imagine that our entire universe may have come from the metaphorical equivalent of another universe's pimple. Bleh....

There's a great deal of postulation about what was before our universe, but we have no real way to gather information about that.

The most commonly accepted current theories indicate that a super-dense ball of energy reached a critical mass and began expanding, in what is commonly called the Big Bang event (after the Big Bang theory, which is no longer really considered valid - the "Big Expansion" is probably a better term, but less catchy). As it expanded, it cooled and broke apart into the matter we examine today. There's no way to know with any amount of certainty where that ball of energy came from, but personally, I don't consider it particularly important.

If eternal matter could exist why not an eternal God?

That's a good question. Though that argument has never held any form of water for me. Primarily because that very question begs two other questions:

Why an eternal God?
Why your eternal God?

As those questions may indicate, the existence of the one does not require or even necessarily imply the existence of the other. Since it's an empty direction of inquiry (by which I mean, a series of questions with no meaningful answer that we can determine), I give it no weight.

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

I would like to ask how you know the answers to questions 4-7? Also, 1 was a reference to the fact that if there was no God, then either nothing became something or there was eternal matter.

What good is food if we do not have the ability to eat and digest it? You could have all the food in the world but if you can't eat it you will still starve to death.
How do you know for sure? How did the females reproduce without a male to fertilize them? If everything reproduced asexually in the beginning, why did some things change to sexual reproduction?
How do muscles work without bones? What did they attack to? How would one move with no bones, ligaments, tendons, or blood supply, just the muscles?

The Bible claims to be the Word of the God it states is perfect, holy, omniscient, and inerrant. The Bible is perfect because the One who wrote it is perfect.

Even was made directly out of Adam and indirectly out of dirt. Adam was made out of dirt and Eve was made out of Adam so she was ultimately made out of dirt as well.

The Apocryphal books are not and never were Books of the Bible. I do not care what they say any more than I care what the Qur'an says.

What are you talking about? Can I get a reference and a website that explains why it is a contradiction.

JubbinautJan 20, 20151 votes

{quoted}

What good is food if we do not have the ability to eat and digest it? You could have all the food in the world but if you can't eat it you will still starve to death.

Define "food," please.

How do muscles work without bones? What did they attack to? How would one move with no bones, ligaments, tendons, or blood supply, just the muscles?

Ask a shark. Sharks have exactly one section of bone (the jaw), which is almost entirely separated from the musculature.

Additionally, you might consider the muscles in your own body that are not connected to bones (there's a series of muscle tissue under your skin that's not connected to bone, and some of the muscles that control your eye movement, in addition to the tongue and heart, which are organs made entirely of muscle tissue).

Duke AnaxJan 20, 20151 votes

That's argumentation is so nonsensical that it is hard to replay to it, but I try anyway: "Food" can exist without the need for anyone to eat it, plants for example use minerals and gases and they don't eat or digest them either, they just absorb it, together with the water an air.
there are enough species that are female only or even some that can spontaneusly turn from female to male, but a male only can't work because they can't product offspring. As to why some or even most species do have males, I dont know really, seems superflus.
Even simpler: a worm, is all muscle. Bacteria dont even have blood supply, but they still got muscles.

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

But how do they make the transition from asexual with only female to sexual with male and female without dying off? How do you make the transition from just muscle to bone and muscle? How do you make the transition from absorbing sustenance through osmosis to eating it and digesting it in a stomach?

OnegarionJan 29, 20151 votes

They make the transition very slowly. Most adaptations start by being a simple genetic mutation. This would be seen as the first male of the species that isn't asexual and dying off due to not being able to breed, but if the mutation starts to occur more often eventually the species itself must cope with the change thus producing new reproductive organs. Also if you want to look to how animals can change from female to male there are frogs out there that do it when their species runs out of males.

The evolution to muscle and bone is the same way. As the water lvls lowered there was less area for aquatic life. Muscle/cartilage doesn't hold up well when trying to move around on land so at least 1 animal slowly grew the mutation to develop bones. This allowed it to walk on land and as it mated more of its offspring gained the same ability. As the mutation grew more bone was developed causing more to go to land until there were either none left in the sea or a new species showed up.

The difference of how they eat comes down simply to what is available. To put it on a very simple lvl if there are no more oranges, but all you eat is oranges you will adapt or die. We see this evolution with Giraffes in a different way. Many animals were eating plants at the bottom of the trees and one day a mutation occurred which allowed the giraffe to reach the top of the trees. It made it so those with shorter necks couldn't survive and those with long necks did. The same is how food is digested in the many different ways. When one source becomes scarce you adapt to eating what is available even if you much change how you do it.

Mast3rShakeJan 20, 20152 votes

Have you taken a high school level bio course? Not to be rude, but in all honesty your ignorance of science really shows.

Food are just a bunch of atoms which have formed molecules. We break these down and rearrange them. So when organic molecules were created "food" was created. It has been shown by the Miller-Urey experiment that organic molecules can be formed from gases of the primitive oceans and lightning. Some single-celled organisms secrete enzymes to break things down outside of themselves and then just absorb the "food."

Things changed to sexual reproduction because genetic variation gives your species an advantage to adapt. The world is constantly changing so being able to adapt is important.

Single cells divide using something that acts in the same manner a muscle does to contract, no bones needed. Your stomach has muscles not attached to bone as well as your heart. If it is a single celled organism then oxygen can just diffuse through the cells membrane.

Again, you really should just take a basic course on science because I think you would learn a lot. It is clear you don't have an understanding of basic scientific concepts.

There is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution, and that is why it is a theory. The fossil record, genetics, biochemical similarities, embryology, homologous structures, vestigial structures, and witnessing evolution in real time such as in bacteria forming antibiotic resistances. Also, there is a couple that study finches that may have now become two distinct species.

In the end, there are two types of people in the world:

Those that shape their beliefs to the world they see around them and Those that try and shape the world around them to their beliefs

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

But how do things make these changes from eating by absorbing to eating by swallowing and digesting? How is the change made from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? How is the change made form just muscles to muscle, bone, tendon, and ligament?

The fossil record helps to support that at some point a cataclysmic worldwide flood occurred. It is why even many evolutionists believe that a worldwide flood once occurred.

If you look at genetics, mutations tend to result in a loss of genetic information, but they never, ever give new genetic information that did not exist before.

The pictures of embryology that state that humans go through the phases of evolution while in the womb have been proven wrong. For example, the so-called gills that a baby has at a certain point in the womb have been proven to actually be ears in the process of being developed.

There are no vestigial organs whatsoever, all that were once claimed to be vestigial now have known functions. Two common ones were the appendix and coccyx. The appendix plays a large part in the immune system of young people, and many muscles, tendons, and ligaments connect to the coccyx.

I have no problem with one species of finch becoming two species of finches. That is microevolution at work, it is a beautiful process because God's creature grow and become different from each other and thus show us more of His beautiful Creation.

There is a difference between micro- and macroevolution. Microevolution is scientific and is factual, macroevolution is not. What would help to prove evolution true is proof of one family becoming another. God gave the command for His creature to reproduce after their kind, so two different species of finches are not disproving the Bible because they are still in the same kind. In fact, there are more differences in different dog breeds than in the Darwinian finches.

I am not in one of those two categories that you mentioned. I am in the category of those who rest on the absolute truth of the Bible, God's Word, and look around, seeing all the evidence for the Bible in nature and science.

B3ERJan 20, 20151 votes

So this is the hypocritical part about religious people that bugs me. You can defend micro-evolution for having proof but completely dismiss macro-evolution for only having evidence (no matter how much evidence).

And then you have the audacity to be adamant that there is a God who has neither evidence nor proof. And that's part of why these discussions go nowhere.

JubbinautJan 20, 20151 votes

{quoted}

There is a difference between micro- and macroevolution. Microevolution is scientific and is factual, macroevolution is not.

From a scientific standpoint, the actual difference between micro- and macroevolution is merely one of scale. More specifically, it's one of the scale of time. Microevolution, it turns out, is the process by which macroevolution occurs.

Take enough small changes over a long enough timeline, and you can change anything into anything else. We see the validity of small changes leading to big changes in everything - geography, geology, sociology, psychology, politics, biology, astronomy, physics, astrophysics, math.

I went to double-check the source of the term (I'd never heard it used outside of pointless debates like this), and while I never did find the source of it, I did find a few other interesting quotes:

Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution. Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales but they are not exactly the same thing.

Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

#Note:

I want to be very clear - the reason I term debates like this pointless is because neither of us has anything to learn here.

No matter what argument is presented to you, you will continue to believe what you want to believe, rationalizing it however you wish.

No matter what argument you present, the people debating with you will continue to believe what they want to believe rationalizing it - almost certainly - based on the inherent circular logic of your base assumption.

No one's mind is going to change. There's no epiphany to be had. There's no benefit to the discussion. The only difference between this debate and the ones I used to have 15 years ago is that one of the arguments used to be "What would help to prove evolution true is proof of one species becoming another." Now it's "What would help to prove evolution true is proof of one family becoming another." And that's a classic fallacy: moving the goalposts.

B3ERJan 19, 20151 votes

One of the biggest problems of today's society is people trying to force their opinions on things they have no clue about. It is a crime you are guilty of and I humbly request that you change that attitude. False and fallacious information is dangerous to the development of the human race.

dogmythJan 20, 20151 votes

I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. Forcing my opinion on someone would be telling them to change their opinion to the same opinion that I have. I have simply been talking about some issues and asking for another to consider something. I have not forced my opinion on anyone at all.

I kindly ask you to please not accuse me of something that I have not done.

B3ERJan 20, 20151 votes

You're forcing a bad opinion by quoting scientifically poor articles and regarding them as truth. People who know less than you, will believe the fallacious articles and what we're left with is more people regarding poor arguments as truth. This is dangerous. Don't spread misinformation.

dogmythJan 24, 20152 votes

Why is the opinion that I believe a bad one?

I have not forced any opinion on anyone, I have simply used the knowledge God has given me.

Also, Answers in Genesis is not poor science. The only reason that people believe that is because AiG gives evidence against evolution and people do not like hearing the information that goes against evolution so they say that AiG has bad science. You can't say that someone is not scientific because they are a Creationist. In fact, Lawrence Krauss said that he believes a Creationist can actually be a better scientist than an evolutionist. For an example of a Creationist who is a good scientist, look to the MRI machine, because it was invented by a Creationist.

Also, how is being a Christian and spreading information on the Creation/evolution debate dangerous?

warpenguin555Dec 22, 20142 votes

wtf no, to my knowledge riot isnt. some people who play this game do, but i cant recall a rioter saying they hate god

JubbinautDec 22, 20142 votes

I'm so confused by this post.

I've been frequenting these board since they closed down the forums, and this is only the second thread I've ever seen that remotely touches - with any intention - on the subject of religion. And I'm pretty sure the other was yours as well, wasn't it?

So where are all those posts and comments bashing religion?

Colgate GatorJan 9, 20152 votes

Maybe no one cares about other people's religion in the forum of a computer game.

Also, you sound kind of preachy and offer no proof at all of your claims, if there's some bashing I don't see really often in this board, is religion, unless you worship Teemo.