moviequest14's comments

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@nparks : There are various things that bring young-earth at least into question.For example the rate that the earth is crumbling...an estimated 24billion lbs. of land fall off of the earth (into the ocean) every year this means that the earth itself would be 5% (or less) land only 10million years or less after it was created.But certainly not into the 50 millions to even billions of years...and yes mankind making civilizations would effect the rate..but not nearly that much.Also to note is the ocean,a certain amount of saltwater is released into the ocean each year,this means if it remained at even remotely the current rate that the world would be several thousand years old..because if several million to billion years old were true than you would hardly be able to even swim in the ocean due to the 95% salt that would make it up.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@sircyrus : But most of that that was under the Catholic name was only a front and excuse for greedy people to do whatever they want.Most were purely inspired by a thirst for more and more land which was only excused in the name of religion.What you said was exactly true,the Catholic church did engage in political and economic manipulation..but it had nothing to do with their religion,most (catholic) church leaders were corrupt to begin with with power,much the same if they had been put in a position of power in government.The Church and Government were becoming so intermingled that corrupt church leaders got more and more powerful (part of the reason for separation of church and state,which is a completely different meaning than it is considered today...it was intended to keep the state from influencing the church with political views,which was rampant in Europe at that time not outlaw any personal religious choices,even by government officials) and did what they like,not what was right (the ''man of god'' villain in Hunchback of Notre Dame was a prime example of this) ,but this had much more to do with their power-trip than their religion.But it is to note that no bad mistakes made by Christianity as a whole leave the Bible at fault,it is human mistake,not the base for the religion...in fact most of those mistakes are due to NOT listening to the Bible.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@TheTrueMagusX1 : So I guess the jedi were right all along,may the force be with you! ;) (eh,,you know i'm jk :P ) Anyways,I don't try to judge people and ''shove'' my Christianity down peoples throats at all,but (while they might be a bit on the extreme side) I in a way understand those that do.Because if you are an atheist there really isn't much of a reason to convert a Christian...they can live in happy ignorance until they die,they will go nowhere anyway.But if you are indeed a Christian you would have to hate someone pretty badly to not even try to keep them from going into a fiery pit of which there is not even a nano-second of relief from agony,pain and misery.Do I agree with them shoving it around? no,it usually brings the opposite of desired effect but I can understand where they are coming from. I find it interesting enough though how much of an effect Christianity has had on the world more so than just about any other religion.Christians have been one of the main religions to be openly persecuted (in ancient Rome often Christians were set on fire on posts left to burn simply as ''lamps'') and seems to be the major religion that is hated (for little to no reason) and also seems to be one of the most impacted (considering the world-wide ''revivals'' that have happened in the name of Christianity) considering that no other religions have had nearly as large an impact.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@TheTrueMagusX1 : Part 2 : And if there is any open possibility to compare the beginning of time to today lets use the rather appropriate game terms...if there is a game developer..why would there be any reason for him to make an un-complex,crude,8-bit,form hardly resembling a game character and wait for say..18 months for it to turn into Mario,Drake,or Master Chief when he could've done the exact same thing in 18 days (or less)? Why would a god choose to make quirks and wait millions of years for them to develop when he could've made the finished product in the time it takes to microwave popcorn? Why would a god even make us if it takes several million years for us to even notice that he exists? If you ask me that seems like it is strange thinking and planning if it were even a simple/mortal construction worker much less a supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing god.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@TheTrueMagusX1 : (First want to note that I am not attacking your opinion at all in this case but am just expressing mine) I personally find it hard to believe in the Bible and evolution both and modern Christianity as we know it.There are various records show evidence that there was a Jesus Christ that lived..and I find it impossible to just say that he was a wise man,or even just a prophet..he made many,many,many claims to being the Son of God so he was either a.a lunatic b.a liar or c. correct and if either (or both) a and b are correct then the Bible itself is full of lies as 4 entire books are dedicated to what (if a and b are correct) is a liar and lunatics life and the first book in the Bible is a lie and which if 5 books are completely false then that doesn't lead well into believing the rest of it is even remotely true.And if a or b were true then even more of the Bible would be comprised of gullible chumps that believed in a liar and lunatic and are giving information they found from him (and if I am correct I wouldn't want to listen to the teachings of a liar and lunatic unless I am one myself).And if the Bible were to be completely incorrect and there is not a piece of evidence to support it and there is a god that we haven't discovered that started evolution then I have to ask,why? Why start the tiniest quirk of life when if you are indeed a god and have enough power to do that you don't just make all creatures and get it over with?

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@sircyrus : I just want to point out,if science and christianity contradict each other then how is it that many of the leaders that made science what it is today in the middle ages and earlier were openly and proudly christians? The classification that so many use today to ''prove'' evolution was developed by a devout monk..if it hadn't been for these people who according to your opinion ''contradict'' science then we wouldn't have science as we know it today.I don't seek to go into much more of a conversation with you though,knowing that from previous comments you would probably end up getting angry or insulting me anyway,it is fine to have your opinion but I am just throwing that out there.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@TrueMagusX1 : thanks! my main point at base was that evolution is far too many times/places considered scientific law and fact which,even if there were some evidence,would still only be a theory.I personally find it rather ironic how creationists [particularly christians] are told to ''keep quiet'' about their religion,not shove it down people's throats,and not bring it out in public where it could ''offend'' someone yet the religion [if it requires even the slightest bit of faith it is technically ''religious''] of evolution is ''shoved down'' others throats all the time and everywhere.Even if there is significant evidence everywhere it would still be only a theory since it can't be replicated.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@calvinsora : regarding h1n1... if you are implying h1n1 is new then you are going into spontaneous generation,not evolution.Viruses are first and foremost *not alive* becausse they can't reproduce on their own.Also viruses have a big tendancy to stay at rest for LONG periods of time unless they are disturbed.In fact there was an epidimic a century or 2 ago that was much like h1n1 but then died out [or at least until recently]...if you are implying that a non-living organism can evolve then this is an entirely new principle in evolution. Also in regards to the dodo....if the dodo had reached an evolutionary dead end then it is EXTREMELY odd that they only became extinct around the time hunting and poaching started in that area.There are both examples today of creatures [ie the ostrich running at high speeds] that use feathers for features that could just as easily be used on mammals,amphibians,etc...just because there is an animal with similar features to several species doesn't mean that are an evolutionary link.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@calvinsora : Part 3 : Here are some following quotes from EVOLUTIONISTS.: ''The first and most important steps of animal evolution remain even more obscure than those of plant evolution''-Paul B.Weiss,''As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present''-C.A Arnold,''The best place to start evolution of the vertebrates is the imagination''-Homer W.Smith (and imagination,if I am correct,is letting go of principles ans science right?),''The real origin of horses is unknown''-Tracy I. Storer,''We do not know how life began''-Ann H. Morgan,''Just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery -but they did''-E.A Hooton : all of these are professed evolutionists declaring many principles of evolution are either impossible or are just so because evolution ''has'' to be true.The common process of dating the world is fossils by the sequence of fossils in layers of rock,but how do they date the rock surrounding the fossils? By the fossils themselves.Evolution has so many flaws,open holes,and leaves more questions than answers that it is simply a rough theory at best and certainly not fact and would have to take down several other scientific laws set before to even prove remotely plausible..and cancelling out spontaneous generation and the ''big bang'' theory for many of the same reasons that leaves creation as about the only other plausible answer.

Avatar image for moviequest14
moviequest14

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

66

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By moviequest14

@calvinsora : Part 2: Feathers don't necessarily mean evolution at all..there are about 23 uses for feathers other than flying that could easily be used for other animals than birds..remember that just because we don't see many/any creatures today that have feathers other than birds doesn't mean that there haven't been any...creatures like the platypus have had entire groups developed just for them because they have so many features but yet they are showing no signs of evolving.The ichtiostega isn't/wasn't the only animal with lungs that is designed for water,there are MANY creatures like dolphins and whales for example that are mammals that spend excessive amounts of time in the water.Keep in mind that just because there is a new species that is unfamiliar to us doesn't mean it is evidence,if that were true then every single creature in America would be considered ''evolutionary'' to early europeans.Of course new bacteria would be discovered because an entire world of them could fit on your computer screen and they are invisible to the naked eye..we could keep on discovering bacteria for centuries to come,that doesn't mean that they are new to the world..just to us. ''dating mechanisms, modern day group tests and a wider knowledge of the embryonic process have given ample supports to the theory. Meanwhile, nothing supports creationism.'' There are many evolutionists that say parts (if not all) of evolution are puzzling/impossible...