DaVinci Code Protesters

[DawnCt1]

The Terminal was a huge bomb so by your argument he should be lucky to be working anymore.

Every movie that Jennifer Lopez and Jennifer Aniston seem to make are huge bombs but they, somehow are still working. I think that Tom has enough acting capital to survive another lousy movie.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

The BIG BANG did not magically create life. Life on our planet started several billion years later and then -Caution: Here comes another 'bad' word for you- EVOLVED to what we see now. There's ample proof for both the big bang and the evolution.

It seems that you and WVRevy are great at stating generalities, but don't provide any examples to back up what you say. You state it as fact, but don't provide anything to back it up. I just wanted to know, from either of you, what is your "mountains of evidence" or your "ample proof" for the big bang, evolution, etc...? How do you KNOW that life on our planet started several billion years ago, since you weren't around? Or is it just your opinion that you THINK is true?

 

[ncdisneyfan]

The logic used by religious people has not much in common with the logic used in science, because it is always based on beliefs. When the base for a logical chain is just a belief and not something that can be proven the rest of the chain is completely useless - even if from link #2 on everything is logical.

Such as? Examples? Scientists can't definitively prove the "big bang", their work is based on what they believe happened with what they see to work with, and what they believe they can reasonable estimate as far as time goes.

Does logic tell you that an explosion happened and we just "evolved" into the most complex lifeform ever known, with everything working together just right, all by chance?

I'm just looking for your examples, rather than your generalities.

 

[cardaway]

Every movie that Jennifer Lopez and Jennifer Aniston seem to make are huge bombs but they, somehow are still working. I think that Tom has enough acting capital to survive another lousy movie.

The reasons why the two Jens get movies and why Tom does are so different they can't even be in the same discussion.

 

[wvrevy]

It seems that you and WVRevy are great at stating generalities, but don't provide any examples to back up what you say. You state it as fact, but don't provide anything to back it up. I just wanted to know, from either of you, what is your "mountains of evidence" or your "ample proof" for the big bang, evolution, etc...? How do you KNOW that life on our planet started several billion years ago, since you weren't around? Or is it just your opinion that you THINK is true?

Do your own research. (Google is a wonderful thing ) The fact is, I stated pretty clearly that the "Big Bang" is a theory, not a proven fact. It is supported by all the available evidence (thereby earning it "theory" status, btw...look up the definition of the word), but as it is impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, science will not call it a "fact." It is simply the most likely explanation, given all known evidence at this time.

But I notice you are not willing to turn it around and use this "logic" of yours to support creationism. You seem to believe that a mystical wizard somewhere up in the sky magically created all life on earth...what evidence do you have to support that?

 

[Mugg Mann]

I hope Tom Hanks can live it down.

I think that Tom has enough acting capital to survive another lousy movie.

Holy contradictions, Batman! Which one is it, Dawn?

 

[Disney Doll]

That's impossible as religion and god (ALL religions and ALL gods) are figments of human imagination - so there is only a human side to it.

Viking, you don't get it, you won't get it, you don't want to get it and I am pretty tired of trying to explain it or defend it.

You may believe what you want, I'll believe what I want, we won't discuss it and we'll both be happy.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

It's his opinion. You make similar comments all the time about your beliefs. Are you going to stop?

That's baloney and you know it. If anything I tend to be guarded in how I phrase things. Yes, it is clear what I believe -no denying that. Sorry if you found my calling out the other poster offensive, but it just struck me as totally mean and arrogant.

 

[Mugg Mann]

It seems that you and WVRevy are great at stating generalities, but don't provide any examples to back up what you say. You state it as fact, but don't provide anything to back it up. I just wanted to know, from either of you, what is your "mountains of evidence" or your "ample proof" for the big bang, evolution, etc...? How do you KNOW that life on our planet started several billion years ago, since you weren't around? Or is it just your opinion that you THINK is true?

We have carbon-dated fossils that prove life existed on this planet 530 million years ago. Carbon dating is a valid technique incorporating radioactive decay rates that is accepted by scientists worldwide in all scientific fields. There's no opinion involved, except for those who refuse to believe scientific fact that contradicts what they want to believe elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/504776.stm

Your turn. Is there anything in the bible stating life existed 530 million years ago, and if you claim that there is, what is your proof beyond "it says so", or some variant thereof?

 

[cardaway]

That's baloney and you know it. If anything I tend to be guarded in how I phrase things. Yes, it is clear what I believe -no denying that. Sorry if you found my calling out the other poster offensive, but it just struck me as totally mean and arrogant.

And no matter how guarded you are, more than one post of yours has come off as arrogant and offensive.

Not looking to defend the other poster (I find him offensive as well), just pointing out that you do the same thing. In fact many people of faith do it all the time when they go on about how their beliefs are the only right way.

No matter how well you phrase things, there is no difference between saying there is no god and there is only one right one. In fact it's even more offensive when people like yourself deny that you post anything that can be taken as offensive. The whole I'm better than that BS.

 

[cardaway]

Holy contradictions, Batman! Which one is it, Dawn?

Exactly. If she didn't do it so often I could think it was a mistake.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

And no matter how guarded you are, more than one post of yours has come off as arrogant and offensive.

Not looking to defend the other poster (I find him offensive as well), just pointing out that you do the same thing. In fact many people of faith do it all the time when they go on about how their beliefs are the only right way.

No matter how well you phrase things, there is no difference between saying there is no god and there is only one right one. In fact it's even more offensive when people like yourself deny that you post anything that can be taken as offensive. The whole I'm better than that BS.

As usual, my bitter yet persistent friend, you are imposing meanings upon my posts that simply are not there. Maybe you could put me on your ignore list since you find me so outlandishly offensive

 

[cardaway]

We have carbon-dated fossils that prove life existed on this planet 530 million years ago. Carbon dating is a valid technique incorporating radioactive decay rates that is accepted by scientists worldwide in all scientific fields. There's no opinion involved, except for those who refuse to believe scientific fact that contradicts what they want to believe elsewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/504776.stm

Your turn. Is there anything in the bible stating life existed 530 million years ago, and if you claim that there is, what is your proof beyond "it says so", or some variant thereof?

You'll find many Christians accept carbon dating when it proves that an artifact did indeed come from the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth but throw it out the window when it works against them.

 

[cardaway]

As usual, my bitter yet persistent friend, you are imposing meanings upon my posts that simply are not there.

Did I call that one or what?

In fact it's even more offensive when people like yourself deny that you post anything that can be taken as offensive. The whole I'm better than that BS.

Ignore it if you want, but if you really are not looking to offend you might want to stop and take what I'm telling you seriously. Most of your posts on these topics come off as very arrogant. And then the further reponses, like that last one, are quite offensive.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Do your own research. (Google is a wonderful thing ) The fact is, I stated pretty clearly that the "Big Bang" is a theory, not a proven fact. It is supported by all the available evidence (thereby earning it "theory" status, btw...look up the definition of the word), but as it is impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, science will not call it a "fact." It is simply the most likely explanation, given all known evidence at this time.

But I notice you are not willing to turn it around and use this "logic" of yours to support creationism. You seem to believe that a mystical wizard somewhere up in the sky magically created all life on earth...what evidence do you have to support that?

Hey, at least we're keeping it civil! I'm not trying to "get your goat" or anything, just trying to nail down your side of the story for myself.

I understand your contention of it being a "theory" instead of fact, and I agree, it is just a theory, and not fact.

Before I answer your question, in relation to "turning it around", how about answering the ones I've posed the last few posts? I'm still waiting for that "mountain of evidence." I'd be happy to walk you through 12 steps that show the Bible to be true. But you have to approach it from a neutral mind, i.e. one that isn't bent on believing one way or the other. If you're already bent to believe that it's NOT true, and that there is no God, and you won't believe regardless of what I say, then it would be impossible for me, or anyone else, to ever convince you.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

You'll find many Christians accept carbon dating when it proves that an artifact did indeed come from the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth but throw it out the window when it works against them.

And you'll find many scientists, geologists, etc... accept carbon dating when it proves that an artifact is dated to when they think it should have been (i.e. millions or billions of years ago), but throw it out the window or "re-date" when it works against what they're trying to prove. So, the best thing to do might be to throw the whole carbon-dating argument out the window, don't you think??

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I always find it amusing when these topics turn into religious "is He real or not?" debates. No one is ever going to change the other person's mind. I think it's safe to say we are all pretty set in our ways of thinking. But it's interesting to read the replies and sometimes I even learn a thing or two in the process

 

[JoyG]

But speaking of facts in connection with the bible is utterly ridiculous. This collection of stories has been written centuries after the things they are based on happened.

I read this at the beginning of the thread and wanted to point out that the New Testament was not written centuries after Christ. All the books in the NT were written before 90 A.D.

However, the "gospels" Dan Brown uses to claim Mary was married to Jesus were written CENTURIES after Jesus by authors claiming to be people they're not.

But, hey, if Jesus and Mary were married, so what? Sex within marriage isn't a sin so He would still be sinless. I've seen where churches (all denominations) around here have made a big deal out of the DC. I really am not even sure what their arguments are. Maybe I am missing bigger issues.

(Hi Bucky! )I hear this said often. It seems like an innocent enough question, but I think by even allowing the speculation that he might be married to Mary Magdeline gives credence to the "other gospels" that DC is based on. Those books just are not credible. I don't think that question is the biggest deal in the DC though.

The biggest blasphemy in TDC is the statement that Christ wasn't considered Divine by the early church. That His Divinity was created at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. None of which is true.

I read TDC, and saw the movie this weekend. I didn't really like the book except for the beginning which was like a fast paced murder mystery. The middle of the book had me bogged down in falsehoods and conspiricies about everyone and everything imaginable (including Walt Disney. Gasp!).

The movie wasn't my first choice to see, but when DH wants to take me out, I don't complain much. The movie was slightly better than the book. I liked the little twist at the end where Sophie turned out not to be related to her grandfather after all but just being protected by him.

But the things that irked me about the book...the blasphemy...irked me about the movie (I shouldn't be surprised). And at the end when Tom Hanks was bowing down and worshiping at Mary's grave...well if I had a "gag me with a spoon smilie"...I'd be inserting it right -HERE-.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Did I call that one or what?



Ignore it if you want, but if you really are not looking to offend you might want to stop and take what I'm telling you seriously. Most of your posts on these topics come off as very arrogant. And then the further reponses, like that last one, are quite offensive.

I think my reputation is fair here. My last post directed at you was purposefully sharp because you invite such rhetoric. As for you grading my posts... well, thanks for taking notice . You certainly do bring out the sarcastic side of me. I am sure that can be seen as breezy arrogance in any reponses directed at you.

With that, I'll officially check out of this thread. TTFN

 

[DawnCt1]

Holy contradictions, Batman! Which one is it, Dawn?

One can live down the embarrassment of a lousy movie and still live to tell about it. Why is that a contradiction??