Not much difference between a room full of religious people listening to a religious preacher and a room full of athiests listening to an athiest preacher.

Heh I didn't go, but I'm guessing the difference is something like this:

Richard Dawkins says: "Hey there's a turtle that breathes out it's arse!"
The audience goes: "Bulls***! Prove it!"
Richard Dawkins says: "It's true, if you read this scientific paper there's dude you can contact and he'll be able to show you the turtle for yourself"

Religious Preacher says: "Hey there's a dude that came back to life after 3 days and he's the Son of God!"
The audience goes: "Bulls***! Prove it!"
Religious Preacher says: "It's true, it's in this book that God wrote, TRUST ME!"

Not much difference between a room full of religious people listening to a religious preacher and a room full of athiests listening to an athiest preacher.

There is a huge, HUGE, difference.

Dazhel - the records of Christ and his resurrection were recorded by secular historians as well...


Was there last night and thought Dawkins mocked to much and didn't expose theories convincingly enough. There are so many basic creationist arguments against the little amount of (so called) facts he did present. To me, believing in evolution, is as much a "faith" (or religion as he seemed to use that word a lot) as any out there.

Also I was shocked to say the least at the mocking of those who have faith and the applause that followed - quite scary if you ask me. If not a form of racism - not against those who have different skin colour but those who have a certain belief system. I thought someone who has such a HUGE following wouldn't mock the way he did - but that people follow him and listen to him, buy his books, get his autograph, take photos of him is even more peculiar to me - because Christian or not I wouldn't follow someone who says such things (i.e calling other human beings doey or saying they have no brain!), He seems to ignore that many intelligent people on earth are/were Christians and many top scientists start believing in a creator verse evolution.

All I got was more hatred towards Christians/Creationists than unbiased "true" arguments for evolution! And those who were in agreement with him were doing so more in faith than anything because some of the arguments and presentations were really weak - but most people don't delve further or take a truly unbiased look at all the evidence and truth out there!

Just watched a YouTube link a friend sent me and Dawkin's quotes show how much he is ignorant not the other way around. They include - "if you meet educated people they tend to not be creationists" and "if everyone took a drug that boosted their intelligence by 5 points would religion survive?" (the answer obviously being no to him). Someone should have asked him last night - "Is there a Christian that exists that believes in Creationism that is smarter than you?" - if he answers no he is a liar and if he answers yes then why such comments? I had the feeling in the first time for a long time of being "inferior" - that is not Aussie culture I have ever experienced before nor the norm.

Some scientists who believe in Creationism

Francis Bacon - Scientific Method
Galileo Galilei - Physics, Astronomy
Isaac Newton - Calculus
Robert Boyle - Chemistry, Gas Dynamics
James Clerk Maxwell - Electrodynamics
Michael Faraday - Electromagnetics
Gregor Mendel - Genetics
Blaise Pascal - Hydrostatics
Johann Kepler - Celestial Mechanics, Astronomy
William Herschel - Astronomy
Matthew Maury - Oceanography
John Woodward - Paleontology
Nicholas Steno - Stratigraphy
Carolus Linnaeus - Systematic Biology
Lord Kelvin - Thermodynamics
John Dalton - Chemistry, Atomic Theory
Henry Rogers - Geology
* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone< Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman>, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology


No one can deny that these scientists were/are well educated.

One of the biggest questions I have for evolutionist is- how can something come from nothing? If bacteria was the start of evolution where did the bacteria come from? Has it always existed? Never had a start? Where did the moon come from? Really a Creator is the only explanation. A Creator that exsits outside of time. How could bacteria come from nothing? As this quote states "Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere."

If any of you are SINCERE about finding out the truth you should google Evolution VS Creationism and start reading BOTH sides of the argument. Maybe watching some of these may be a good start ESPECIALLY number 3 and 4 I found extremely interesting and think all evolutionists should view them!

Dean Kenyan – Professor of Biology (Kenyan use to be one of the leading chemical evolutionary theorists in the world, throughout the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s.) Now he concludes evidence of Intelligent Design.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 1 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/user/IllustraMedia#p/a/u/1/VWvS1UfXl8k

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 2 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNCwCbpX-bc&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 3 of 12) WATCH THIS ONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_13SKarGI&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 4 of 12) AND THIS ONE!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-fJ91tIRh8&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 5 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2hSXmyIOGY&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 6 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKBrgYoS5Mc&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 7 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLfeDjjio8k&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 8 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb6xdaC9hrM&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 9 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb2MsQKzZDI&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 10 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdBJt6sdDfI&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 11 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfRdpTk1ysY&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of the Life (Chapter 12 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgs96c_XklA&feature=related

No one can deny that these scientists were/are well educated.

I can practically hear BillyH typing the letters "that's argument from authority" as he prepares to own you.

If any of you are SINCERE about finding out the truth you should google Evolution VS Creationism and start reading BOTH sides of the argument. Maybe watching some of these may be a good start ESPECIALLY number 3 and 4 I found extremely interesting and think all evolutionists should view them!

I'll do that when Creationists start doing that and apply the principles of logic and reason.

Dean Kenyan – Professor of Biology (Kenyan use to be one of the leading chemical evolutionary theorists in the world, throughout the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s.) Now he concludes evidence of Intelligent Design.

ID has been cast out into the darkness where it belongs by anyone with even a shred of integrity or common sense though. For every ID fanatic you can show me, I can probably show you one courtroom where the judges ruled it was a sham, and at least 10 more other people with 'Dr' in front of their name who think it's silly.

(Also, welcome, new user, to the awesomeslaw of a forum religious thread!)

I didn't attend the speech but I really wanted to. I would have wanted to hear more about evolution though and less about religionbashing I guess (as much as I enjoy it).

What the hell. I can't believe anyone could have sat through that and then come out and say something like Gal. It's just like Dawkins said: he thought that convincing people of evolution should be quite simple, he has evidence, he has reasoning, but in his experience it doesn't just work like that. People will hold onto false beliefs for all sorts of reasons, that aren't actually valid reasons to believe something.

Trog in what way is a belief in Christ illogical and unreasonable?

Thanks for the welcome! Surprised to find a thread on a gamers site! Just came up in google is all. Was interested to hear what others thought and said about the night. Funny found another site that reverberated the same thoughts I had...

Just because a huge amount of people believe in something doesn't make it correct no matter how intelligent they are.

The fact is that there is no scientific proof of creationism whereas Evolution has more than enough proof and as Richard mentioned it is also vulnerable to be proven incorrect which it has yet to be. We can not go on what someone has written in the past as the Catholic church also forced people to write certain scriptures and documents with the threats of execution so they could keep power of the people.

I didn't find him bashing religion that much at all, it seems that the creationist just find themselves backed into a corner with no proof so just do the whole 'if i up in arms about this a lot it might look like I'm right'

Did you sit in that concert hall with your fingers in your ears going "la la la"?

Sorry I'm not being particularly constructive, I could easily dissect your first post and argue away, but I wonder whether it is really worth it.

Also agree that the talk was about evolution, not about bashing creationists.

----

reply to below because that's guy's post limiter is smaller than mine.

His proof is guessing - its a theory.

Dawkins spent like 15 minutes explaining the definition of theory and how it is used in science. I think you heard what you wanted to hear.



last edited by thermite at 16:53:43 05/Mar/10

Console calling people doey because they have a faith is bashing! That wasn't being backed into a corner! That was school yard bully tactics!

I sat through 90min last night and some of you won't even give 10minutes to two YouTube videos... who is the one who is closed minded - another name people of faith were called last night as well!

Console if you watched the you would see there is scientific proof for creationism. I can find a whole lot more scientific proof for God and His Truth. His proof is guessing - its a theory. That from micro changes in animals within species it leads to macro changes over time - as he mentioned where are the missing links? There should be a whole heap!!

sorry double post - deleted!

I think people should believe in whatever they like.

The problem is that if you want to believe in God you are going to have to put some hard evidence forward before I would ever believe in it.

When I mention this to a lot of religious people there answer is that you have to have 'faith' which really is a cop out... If something exists there will be evidence somewhere and if a so called 'God' wanted people to believe why wouldn't it contact or show itself in someway rather than just go on the mentality of 'You must believe in me and follow my rules if you want to go to heaven otherwise you will be punished'... so what we are one big game to him???

makes no sense to me

Sorry tried to edit the post but am unsure now how to delete the second one...

and changed should be changes

Some of the comments here (both for & against) REEK of the same level of bias and hatred towards the opposing side. I actually agree with Gal that if you're really interested in the debate than you need to see it from both sides of the arguement.

FWIW - I probably sit in the middle as I believe in evolution (far more than the 6 days and everything was made - LOLZ) as there is significant documented scientific fact that you'd be living in 1999 if you didn't believe otherwise but at some point something must have made the atoms, molecules, etc to form dust and matter that spun around itself and collided to become planets, etc.

But then what made that overall creator, did it evolve from a line of supreme beings (like Chuck Norris) ?

Console if you watched the you would see there is scientific proof for creationism. I can find a whole lot more scientific proof for God and His Truth.

ahahahahahahah

the only person you are trying to convince is yourself. you obviously posess an innate ability to hang on to your delusions in the face of an overwhelming amount of logicical assertions to the contrary.

reminds me of this : Atheist Nightmare

although I am imagining you will do a little fist pump after watching that video.

REEK of the same level of bias and hatred towards the opposing side

my preference is definitely hostility and contempt

religious belief and practice is the manifestation of a delusional mind.

"Scientific Proof of the Bible

The Bible is estimated to have been written between 1450 B.C. and 95 A.D. This chart shows scientific facts and principles referred to in the Bible, but not actually discovered by humankind until later centuries. Since people had no official knowledge or understanding of these scientific facts when the Bible was written, is this scientific proof that the Bible was inspired by God?"

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php


More....

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible.htm
http://paintingpictures.xanga.com/505730735/item/


Just a couple from the above...

"Scientific Knowledge found in the Bible, before mankind was even aware of it.

Suspended Upon Nothing

In ancient times when the Bible was being written, there was much speculation about how the earth was held in space. There were various mythological explanations as to how the earth was situated. It was thought at that time, that the earth rested
upon other objects and was supported by various contrivances.

Even before the invention of telescopes and scientific gazing devices - Bible writers were divinely inspired to record accurate scientific data concerning the earth.

Rather than reflect the mythological views existing at the time of its writing, the Bible simply stated (in about the year 1473 B.C.E.): "[God is] hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)

In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" used here means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible.

The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. Surely, only the creator of the earth and the universe would have known at that time, that the earth was being held in space upon "Nothing" -

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: "Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery."

Yes, nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support, a fact that is in harmony with the more recently understood laws of gravity and motion.

"How Job knew the truth," said one scholar, "is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture."


A Circle

The shape of the earth.

You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round.
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6.

The Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. - 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!

The Encyclopedia Americana said: "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe..."

The concept of a spherical earth was NOT widely accepted until the Renaissance.

Some early navigators even feared that they might sail off the edge of the flat earth.

But then the introduction of the compass and other advancements made possible longer ocean voyages. These "voyages of discovery," another encyclopedia explains, "showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed."

Yet, long before such voyages, about 2,700 years ago, the Bible said: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)

The Hebrew word here translated "circle" can also mean "sphere," as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth."—Moffatt.

Thus, the Bible was not influenced by the unscientific views prevalent at the time regarding the earth's support and its shape. The reason is simple: The Author of the Bible is the Creator of the universe.

He created the earth, so he should know what it hangs on and what its shape is.

Hence, when he inspired the Bible, he saw to it that no unscientific views were incorporated in it, however much they may have been believed by others at the time of the Bible's writing.

This, too, gives invariable evidence of the Bible's Divine inspiration.


PATHS OF THE SEA

Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. His wife was reading a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went look ing for these paths.

We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a guide to scientific discovery. This is yet another evidence of the
Divine Wisdom contained in Bible scriptures that were written by men who were inspired beyond the limited knowledge of the times.


The Hydrologic Water Cycle

The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of
the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science.
Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!

Yet, just another proof of the Bible's Divine Inspiration."

and theres many more in the bible - easy to find!

Scientific Proof of the Bible

if you knew what scientific proof was you would understand that what you posted =/ scientific proof

Here we go:

Was there last night and thought Dawkins mocked to much and didn't expose theories convincingly enough.

I thought Dawkins was given far more opportunities to mock religion than he took advantage of, and he even admitted he might be overly critical in response to the first question during Q&A. However, Dawkins would be right to mock either those who try to refuse what is probably the most robust and evidence-supported theories in science, or those who stay ignorant of the facts.

There are so many basic creationist arguments against the little amount of (so called) facts he did present.

I'd like to hear some of these, if you have time.

To me, believing in evolution, is as much a "faith" (or religion as he seemed to use that word a lot) as any out there.

That's because you are likely ignorant to what science is, the evidence, both, or you reconcile your cognitive dissonance of any knowledge you may have by lowering your threshold for what is acceptable as counter-arguments.

Also I was shocked to say the least at the mocking of those who have faith and the applause that followed - quite scary if you ask me. If not a form of racism - not against those who have different skin colour but those who have a certain belief system. I thought someone who has such a HUGE following wouldn't mock the way he did - but that people follow him and listen to him, buy his books, get his autograph, take photos of him is even more peculiar to me - because Christian or not I wouldn't follow someone who says such things (i.e calling other human beings doey or saying they have no brain!),

Why are you shocked that people mock the idea of Noah getting in his arc, and floating around all the oceans of the world to drop off specific species on different bits of land? The idea of dinosaurs living with man is also completely ridiculous and such ideas should be mocked as they are grossly unscientific.

He seems to ignore that many intelligent people on earth are/were Christians and many top scientists start believing in a creator verse evolution.

How is that relevant at all???

All I got was more hatred towards Christians/Creationists than unbiased "true" arguments for evolution! And those who were in agreement with him were doing so more in faith than anything because some of the arguments and presentations were really weak - but most people don't delve further or take a truly unbiased look at all the evidence and truth out there!

I think it's just bizarre that's how you felt after the talk. As for "true" arguments for evolution - if most of the rest of the audience was anything like me, they would already appreciate that evolution is real, and understand all the basics. I purely went to hear about the latest stuff he has in his book. (After all, this was a book tour, don't forget, not a comprehensive lecture.)

Just watched a YouTube link a friend sent me and Dawkin's quotes show how much he is ignorant not the other way around. They include - "if you meet educated people they tend to not be creationists" and "if everyone took a drug that boosted their intelligence by 5 points would religion survive?" (the answer obviously being no to him). Someone should have asked him last night - "Is there a Christian that exists that believes in Creationism that is smarter than you?" - if he answers no he is a liar and if he answers yes then why such comments? I had the feeling in the first time for a long time of being "inferior" - that is not Aussie culture I have ever experienced before nor the norm.

Some scientists who believe in Creationism

You go on to list creationist scientists who are presumably intelligent to argue against Dawkins' quote "if you meet educated people they tend to not be creationists". However, what about the thousands upon thousands of scientists who do NOT believe in creationism? Given that the sample you showed here are likely far far out-weighed by secular scientists, Dawkins' assertion that there is a tendency for educated people to not be Creationist is accurate.

No one can deny that these scientists were/are well educated.

This statement and your copy and paste of all these names is again completely and utterly irrelevant. What about all the Hindu scientists? If they out number the creationist scientists does that mean Hindu is the more true religion? The fact that some scientists also have (what would otherwise be clinically insane) beliefs in a god has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that god exists. Even if you could find the smartest person on the planet and they believed in a god, it says absolutely nothing about the existence of that god.

One of the biggest questions I have for evolutionist is- how can something come from nothing? If bacteria was the start of evolution where did the bacteria come from? Has it always existed? Never had a start? Where did the moon come from? Really a Creator is the only explanation. A Creator that exsits outside of time. How could bacteria come from nothing? As this quote states "Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere."

The answers to your questions are all covered in Dawkins' The God Delusion. And, by the way, Dawkins does not have all the answers. Science does not have all the answers. Science may not be able to find all the answers. That STILL does not mean that a god exists.

If any of you are SINCERE about finding out the truth you should google Evolution VS Creationism and start reading BOTH sides of the argument. Maybe watching some of these may be a good start ESPECIALLY number 3 and 4 I found extremely interesting and think all evolutionists should view them!

To be truly unbiased and look at both sides of the argument, we have to start with the assumption that there is no god. Any arguments made with reference to god, therefore, are useless. Any arguments made against the overwhelming majority of evidence FOR evolution are likely uneducated, ignorant, and do nothing for humankind.

Also the OP called it a concert - ie entertainment. Can't have contained anything substantial otherwise it would've been a talk or q&a or something. Maybe it had bright flashy lights to help brainwash people a bit easier.

Scientific Proof of the Bible

There might be some factual content in the bible but the fact remains the bible we have today is a concoction of hundreds and hundreds of books the church hand picked to include, many left out (and included) offer a vast amount of contradictory commentary. We're (well, you're) told to believe that some how the book we have now is "as god intended". They should include the book of Judas.

If anyone's interested that atheist priest from Brisbane (St Marys was it?) was on Sunday Night Safran a week or so ago and urmmm possibly Late Night Live or something on RN, was a good listen.

Edit:

A Circle

The shape of the earth.

You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round.
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6.

The Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. - 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!

The Encyclopedia Americana said: "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe..."

The concept of a spherical earth was NOT widely accepted until the Renaissance.

Calling bulls***. No scholar thought the world was flat in 1500 or for a loooooong while before that. Since the ancient Greeks we've known it was a sphere regardless of what the uneducated masses thought.


Double edit:

Here's an illustration from the 1200's

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Gossuin_de_Metz_-_L'image_du_monde_-_BNF_Fr._574_fo42_-_miniature.jpg

last edited by Syco at 17:22:42 05/Mar/10

Gal, that other stuff you have written is such garbage I don't know where to begin. For example, Eratosthenes not only knew the world was round in ~300BC, but he also used shadows cast by the sun to calculate the earth's circumference within a few hundred kms accuracy.

If i remember correctly a circle is not a sphere....

Some of the comments here (both for & against) REEK of the same level of bias and hatred towards the opposing side. I actually agree with Gal that if you're really interested in the debate than you need to see it from both sides of the arguement.

Ticman, within science, there is only one side of the evolution argument - it's real. However, the specifics of it are still being debated. Debates over these specifics don't include "maybe our calculations are off by 14 000 000 000 years" - yes, this is what creationists think.

Gotta go AFK for a bit but will return later.

If i remember correctly a circle is not a sphere....

Are you referring to the image? If I remember correctly you can't stand on the side of something and hope to keep your feet attached to it. It's an image of a sphere, they didn't have 3d goggles back then. As I said the ancient Greeks believed the earth was a sphere, we never lost that knowledge.

Edit: Never mind, I just realised you were talking about his "A Circle" bit.

last edited by Syco at 18:10:22 05/Mar/10

Also the OP called it a concert - ie entertainment.

I just don't get out to see many bands dude, so this is the closest I came to being in the moshpit

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Excellent link Mantorok

The religious response to this is 'You can't take the bible literally' but they will turn around and contradict themselves to take other areas literally such as the so called 'Miracles'

last edited by ConsoleTroll at 17:42:29 05/Mar/10

Aside from the fact that a few of the names you listed lived before Darwin wrote Origin of Species and therefore virtually everyone in the Christian world believed in creationism. I googled a few of the random names you put up and found no reference to them aside from various creation websites. So I went to search the various journal searches, still found no reference.

I think a number of those people you listed don't actually exist, so you might want to check your facts before pulling a random list from a random creation website.

Realistically I doubt you would find very many biological scientists that would say anything other than evolution is as true as it comes in science. I work in cell biology and I certainly don't know any.

You can also check out http://wiki.ironchariots.org/

Realistically I doubt you would find very many biological scientists that would say anything other than evolution is as true as it comes in science. I work in cell biology and I certainly don't know any.

I only know one 'scientist' of note that believes in creationism (or whatever they started calling it after the yanks told them they couldn't teach it in school if it includes religion) that isn't religious and even then he comes from a mathematics background and hasn't really contributed anything to it so maybe I should remove the "of note" bit ha ha. You'd think if there was any reasonable explanations supporting creationism there would be a divide but there isn't.

Why does there have to be something before time? I don't get it..

last edited by Syco at 17:47:03 05/Mar/10

Here's another good link: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Oh man, I need to distance myself from the religious nut bag I thought was presenting a reasonable argument..

Regarding the earth is round and who knew it first http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
"The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM] Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica] The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]"

Another interesting scientific verse in the bible http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-bible-say-anything-about-astronomy

"The expansion of the universe

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.

Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.

I wonder if any Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.

Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.

You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.

It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea."


Billy I would just be relaying what is all over the internet in regard to arguments but may look some stuff up tonight... it is not hard to find evidence for and against. But why not start with the very first links I gave.... There are some VERY basic arguments and presentations in there against evolution and for creation.

Regarding Noah and the flood there is proof for a world wide the flood and many sites (just use google again!) show how an ark of the size described in the bible could be made. Funny that so many historical records in the bible that have been scoffed at have been proven again and again with more discoveries. Here is a good link to start http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp or
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html



In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

"Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology."

There are many more also many biblical structures and places mentioned in the bible have been found. And tombs of people mentioned in the bible. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a026.html


It is relevant (that there are intelligent Christians) because Dawkins liked making a point that those who had faith were dumb, doey, have no brain and simply are not as smart as those who believe in evolution! So it is showing that you can be intelligent and a creationist (if not even more smarter than Dawkins himself) - regardless of the ratio of how many intelligent people out there believe/don't believe in the Bible.

I agree Science does not know all the answers. Really we are only scratching the surface and it is ALL guess work from a scientific stand point - trying to be a detective with one form of "knowledge"

Dude, posting links to those websites as evidence really wont help your cause. If you really believe that we thought the earth was flat as near as the 1500's then find us some non-bias sources and we might consider it.

Edit:

Regarding the earth is round and who knew it first http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
"The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM] Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica] The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]"

Screw it, I clicked it and read the passages, well I read 3 or 4. The only people who mention sphere or globe is the writer of the link you wrote, the passages mention circles. A circle is one dimensional IE, FLAT.

last edited by Syco at 18:12:53 05/Mar/10

To me, believing in evolution, is as much a "faith" (or religion as he seemed to use that word a lot) as any out there.

Not at all, evolution, as with all scientific theories is about the scientific community coming together and collectively saying "Hey, here's one explanation that seems to fit the available facts better than others. Can anybody else come up with a better explanation?"
That last question is always open by the way, if someone doesn't answer it immediately it's always on the table.
Though from reports it sounded like Richard Dawkins attempted to explain what a scientific theory and the scientific process is better than I am here.

Also the OP called it a concert - ie entertainment. Can't have contained anything substantial otherwise it would've been a talk or q&a or something.

I'm thinking OP called it a concert because it was held in the QPAC Concert hall. I doubt Dawkins was out there rockin' it with the air guitar.
According to this reference it was held by a book industry group in the context of a writer's festival where an author read a portion of a newly released book, i.e. a glorified book signing.

Since people had no official knowledge or understanding of these scientific facts when the Bible was written, is this scientific proof that the Bible was inspired by God?
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php

This link is just flat out funny.

Blood is necessary for life
Bible reference: Leviticus 17:11
Date of discovery by man: 19th Century

Lightning and thunder are related
Bible reference: Job 38:25
Date of discovery by man: 19th Century

Oh really? Humans were so misguided as a species that until the 19th century we didn't even realise the link between lighting and thunder or that letting that funny red stuff leak out is bad?
Nobody looked up at the sky in a storm or stabbed *anybody* before the 19th century?

Regarding the list of scientists the ones without the stars next to it are earlier scientists and the later ones modern scientists. I think you may need some extra googling skills! Yes many links come up with the creationist sites however please go to

http://www.sciencedirect.com - and some not all - of them have articles there!

So far Vladimir Betina, William Arion, Sung-Hee Yoon - but I am not going to go through all of them. Make sure you put their names in " on both sides when you do your search on that site under author! Some arent there but I am sure with a bit of leg work information about them can be found....

"Oh really? Humans were so misguided as a species that until the 19th century we didn't even realise the link between lighting and thunder or that letting that funny red stuff leak out is bad? "

Actually we were - "bleeding" was a form of medicine in some societies - they didn't realize the importance of blood and some people obviously died from it....


"Bloodletting (or blood-letting) is the withdrawal of often considerable quantities of blood from a patient to cure or prevent illness and disease. It was the most common medical practice performed by doctors from antiquity up to the late 19th century, a time span of almost 2,000 years.[1] The practice has been abandoned for all except a few very specific conditions.[2] It is conceivable that historically, in the absence of other treatments for hypertension, bloodletting could sometimes have had a beneficial effect in temporarily reducing blood pressure by a reduction in blood volume.[3] However, since hypertension is very often asymptomatic and thus undiagnosable without modern methods, this effect was unintentional. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the historical use of bloodletting was harmful to patients.[4]"

Oh yeah you may want the secular site that came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

Syco


"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)

The Hebrew word here translated "circle" can also mean "sphere," as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth."—Moffatt.

Oh man, why did you mention bloodletting? You're not good at this at all.

Regarding the list of scientists the ones without the stars next to it are earlier scientists and the later ones modern scientists. I think you may need some extra googling skills! Yes many links come up with the creationist sites however please go to

But noone that really cares about the scientific method - and I mean really cares, at a fundamental level that pervades through their entire consciousness and existence - gives a s*** about what other scientists who believe in some religion think.

Because at some point, they're taking a part of their life and not applying a scientific method to it.

I have no problems with that; if that's how they want to live then that's fine. I'm happy for them to have faith in something outside of the scientific method and I'm glad they can find solace in that (even if I feel it's misguided).

I'm not happy for these people to be held up as poster boys by creationists as if they alone debunk the scientific method and somehow conclusively prove the existence of a god or something. That's not how science works.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority is what I thought Billy would post)

trog how do you know if they do or don't care about the scientific method for all of them!!! Thats a bit judgmental LOL You seem to think believing in Creationism is unscientific - Again watch those very first links I posted of the YouTube videos especially video 3 then 4. And my reason for posting the list of scientists - was nothing more - than to show that Dawkins remarks were uncalled for. Whether a person who is intellectual who is a Creationist "cares about the scientific method or not" (they do!! but just for examples sake). Do you think they are SO smart that at the end of the day they would be so stupid enough to say yeah BUT I don't apply that to my beliefs! That will effect them for eternity? Thats because there is more to all this - thats because many of you have only been presented with one view.

Thermite some so callled Christians may have done that (bloodletting) but (this is where many of you fail and Dawkins to and Ill explain why) but some say they are and aren't. All the time! There are MANY people and churches who proclaim they are Christian and they are not. The only way to know yourself for sure is to read the bible yourself and see if their actions, beliefs and behaviors line up with it.

Where many of you and Dawkins fail is that you know a lot about evolution/science and nothing of the bible and or theology (generally) - so you make remarks about the bible/God/Christians/theology when in fact you are often times way of, misguided, mislead and or really have no idea. It is like someone who has only studied a Orange making remarks on a Watermelons insides from looking at the outside of a Watermelon only. Not actually looking further into it and really studying it yourselves.

Good link Trog because honestly - thats how I view evolutionists. They just believe what they are told. Many accept evolution because that is what they are taught in school. They believe it from "evidence" which really is just a theory from some scientific principles. Lots of guessing....

Where many of you and Dawkins fail is that you know a lot about evolution/science and nothing of the bible and or theology

You sound authoritative on what we as forum members do or don't know. Richard Dawkins has stated numerous times that his upbringing was Anglican similar to probably many on this forum.

The details are sketchy but I'm guessing that at a certain point he started to engage his brain and question the things that were being fed to him in between passing around the collection plate. All of the arguments in favour of religion that I've heard tend to be permeated with enough inconsistencies to raise skepticism.

Have you ever really seriously questioned whether you could have it all wrong?
I'm probably going to get branded as doing the devil's work for asking that question now.

trog how do you know if they do or don't care about the scientific method for all of them!!! Thats a bit judgmental LOL You seem to think believing in Creationism is unscientific

it is unscientific, because it doesn't follow a scientific method. It is a faith-based system of believe. They're two different things.

The next bit is a bit of an ask, but this is worth a read. It is reproduced (without permission but hopefully falls within fair use) from Anathem, a book that came out in 2008 by a bloke called Neal Stephenson. It is a really excellent book about a different sort of Earth. In this scene, a bunch of characters are driving along and the topic of God comes up. There are a group of people in the car called 'avout' - who are basically like monks that observe a science-based discipline, and Deolators, which are basically religious.

I have bolded the bit that I think is interesting; but basically the point of it is that the human brain cannot think about religion in a useful, scientific way. Because of the way our brain works, it can only deal well with things that can be perceived by our brain as existing in space and time, and the concept of a 'God' exists outside of that.

I really think this deals with the subject well and it's sort of what I'm trying to portray here.

It might blow your mind a little but it is a really interesting dialog (and the whole book itself, if you can deal with a book that is principally about a group of people that are awesome because they follow science as their religion, is awesome).

That’s why I snapped awake when I heard Ferman Beller mention God.

Until now he’d avoided it, which I could not understand. If you sincerely believed in God, how could you form one thought, speak one sentence, without mentioning Him? Instead of which Deolaters like Beller would go on for hours without bringing God into the conversation at all. Maybe his God was remote from our doings. Or—more likely—maybe the presence of God was so obvious to him that he felt no more need to speak of it than did I to point out, all the time, that I was breathing air.

Frustration was in Beller’s voice. Not angry or bitter. This was the gentle, genial frustration of an uncle who can’t get something through a nephew’s head. We seemed so smart. Why didn’t we believe in God?

“We’re observing the Sconic Discipline,” Arsibalt told him—happy, and a bit relieved, to’ve been given an opportunity to clear this up. He was too optimistic, I thought, too confident he could get Beller to see it our way. “It’s not the same thing as not believing in God. Though”—he hastily added—“I can see why it looks that way to one who’s never been exposed to Sconic thought.”

“I thought your Discipline came from Saunt Cartas,” said Beller.

“Indeed. One can trace a direct line from the Cartasian principles of the Old Mathic Age to many of our practices. But much has been added, and a few things have been taken away.”

“So, I guess Scone was another Saunt who added something?”

“No, a scone is a little cake.”

Beller chuckled in the forced, awkward way that extras did when someone told a joke that was not funny.

“I’m serious,” Arsibalt said. “Sconism is named after the little tea-cakes. It is a system of thought that was discovered about halfway between the Rebirth and the Terrible Events. The high-water mark of Praxic Age civilization, if you will. A couple of hundred years earlier, the gates of the Old Maths had been flung open, the avout had gone forth and mingled with the Sæculars—mostly Sæculars of wealth and status. Lords and ladies. The globe, by this point, had been explored and charted. The laws of dynamics had been worked out and were just beginning to come into praxic use.”

“The Mechanic Age,” Beller tried, dredging up a word he’d been forced to memorize in some suvin a long time ago.

“Yes. Clever people could make a living, in those days, just by hanging around in salons, discussing metatheorics, writing books, tutoring the children of nobles and industrialists. It was the most harmonious relationship between, er—”

“Us and you?” Beller suggested.

“Yes, that had existed since the Golden Age of Ethras. Anyway, there was one great lady, named Baritoe, whose husband was a philandering idiot, but never mind, she took advantage of his absence to run a salon in her house. All the best metatheoricians knew to gather there at a particular time of day, when the scones were coming out of her ovens. People came and went over the years, so Lady Baritoe was the only constant. She wrote books, but, as she herself is careful to say, the ideas in them can’t be attributed to any one person. Someone dubbed it Sconic thought and the name stuck.”

“And it all got incorporated into your Discipline, what, a couple of hundred years later?”

“Yes, not in a very formal way though. More as a set of habits. Thinking-habits that many of the new avout already shared when they came in the gates.”

“Such as not believing in God?” Beller asked.

And here—though we were driving on fair, level ground—I felt as I would’ve if we’d been on a mountain track with a thousand-foot cliff to one side, which Beller could have spilled us into with a twitch of the controls. Arsibalt was relaxed, though, which I marveled at, because he could be so high-strung about matters that were so much less dangerous.

“Studying this is sort of a pie-eating contest,” Arsibalt began.

This was a Fluccish expression that Lio, Jesry, Arsibalt, and I used to mean a long thankless trudge through a pile of books. It completely wrong-footed Beller, who thought we were talking of scones, and so here Arsibalt had to spend a minute or two disentangling these two baked-goods references.

“I’ll try to sketch it out,” Arsibalt continued, once they’d gotten back on track. “Sconic thought was a third way between two unacceptable alternatives. By then it was well understood that we do all of our thinking up here in our brains.” He tapped his head. “And that the brain gets its inputs from eyes, ears, and other sense organs. The naïve attitude is that your brain works directly with the real world. I look at this button on your control panel, I reach out and feel it with my hand—”

“Don’t touch that!” Beller warned.

“I see you seeing it and having thoughts about it, and I conclude that it’s really there, just as my eyes and fingers present it to me, and that when I think about it I’m thinking about the real thing.”

“That all seems pretty obvious,” Beller said.

Then there was an awkward silence, which Beller finally broke by saying—in good humor—“I guess that’s why you called it naïve.”

“At the opposite extreme, there were those who argued that everything we think we know about the world outside of our skulls is an illusion.”

“Seems kind of smart-alecky more than anything else,” Beller said after considering it for a bit.

“The Sconics didn’t much care for it either. As I said, they developed a third attitude. ‘When we think about the world—or about almost anything—’ they said, ‘what we are really thinking about is a bunch of data—givens—that have reached our brains from our eyes and ears and so forth.’ To go back to my example, I am given a visual image of that button and I am given a memory of what it felt like when I touched it, but that’s all I have to work with, as far as that button is concerned—it is impossible, unthinkable, for my brain to come to grips with the actual, physical button in and of itself because my brain simply does not have access to it. All that my brain can ever work with are the look and the feel—givens piped into our nerves.”

“Well, I guess I see the point. It doesn’t have that smart-aleckiness of the other one you mentioned. But it seems like a distinction without a difference,” Beller said.

“It’s not,” Arsibalt said. “And here is where the pie-eating contest would begin, if you wanted to understand why it’s not. Because, starting from this idea, the Sconics went on to develop a whole metatheorical system. It was so influential that no one has been able to do metatheorics since then without coming to grips with it. All subsequent metatheorics is a refutation, an amendment, or an extension of Sconic thought. And one of the most important conclusions you arrive at, if you make it to the end of the pie-eating contest, is that—”

“There is no God?”

“No, something different, and harder to sum up, which is that certain topics are simply out of bounds. The existence of God is one of those.”

“What do you mean, out of bounds?”

“If you follow through the logical arguments of the Sconic system, you are led to the conclusion that our minds can’t think in a productive or useful way about God, if by God you mean the Bazian Orthodox God which is clearly not spatiotemporal—not existing in space and time, that is.”

“But God exists everywhere and in all times,” Beller said.

“But what does it really mean to say that? Your God is more than this road, and that mountain, and all the other physical objects in the universe put together, isn’t He?”

“Sure. Of course. Otherwise we’d just be nature-worshippers or something.”

“So it’s crucial to your definition of God that He is more than just a big pile of stuff.”

“Of course.”

“Well, that ‘more’ is by definition outside of space of time. And the Sconics demonstrated that we simply cannot think in a useful way about anything that, in principle, can’t be experienced through our senses. And I can already see from the look on your face that you don’t agree.”

“I don’t!” Beller affirmed.

“But that’s beside the point. The point is that, after the Sconics, the kinds of people who did theorics and metatheorics stopped talking about God and certain other topics such as free will and what existed before the universe. And that is what I mean by the Sconic Discipline. By the time of the Reconstitution it had become in-grained. It was incorporated into our Discipline without much discussion, or even conscious awareness.”

“Well, but with all the free time you’ve got—sitting there in your concents—couldn’t someone be troubled in four thousand years to be aware of it? To discuss it?”

“We have less free time than you imagine,” Arsibalt said gently, “but nevertheless, many people have devoted much thought to the matter, and founded Orders devoted to denying God, or believing in Him, and currents have surged back and forth in and among the maths. But none of it seems to have moved us away from the basic position of the Sconics.”

“Do you believe in God?” Beller asked flat-out.

I leaned forward, fascinated.

“I have been reading a lot, lately, about things that are non-spatiotemporal—yet believed to exist.” By this, I knew he meant mathematical objects in the Hylaean Theoric World.

“Doesn’t that go against the Sconic Discipline?” Beller asked.

“Yes,” Arsibalt said, “but that is perfectly all right, as long as one isn’t going about it in a naïve way—as if Lady Baritoe had never written a word. A common complaint made about the Sconics is that they didn’t know much about pure theorics. Many theoricians, looking at Baritoe’s works, say ‘wait just a minute, there’s something missing here—we can relate directly to non-spatiotemporal objects when we prove theorems and so on.’ The stuff I’ve been reading lately is all about that.”

“So you can see God by doing theorics?”

“Not God,” Arsibalt said, “not a God that any ark would recognize.”

After that he managed to change the subject

Dazhel not at all! (regarding being branded!). Yes I have considered it.

Thanks for the info about Dawkins early history because then if he has been involved with the church (not sure if he or how much if he did witness what a real relationship with Christ is like though) - but if he did have involvement in a church that means he is extremely bias or only looks at what he wants when arguing Christianity/Creationism and leaving out a lot. From tidbits I have seen he would say this church/religion/group did this and this or this person said this - not looking at the full picture. IF he really was involved with the church he would know that doesn't represent all churches if they were even Christian in the first place.

Where many of you and Dawkins fail is that you know a lot about evolution/science and nothing of the bible and or theology (generally) - so you make remarks about the bible/God/Christians/theology when in fact you are often times way of, misguided, mislead and or really have no idea

I've seen a lot of Christians say that, and then when you throw some of the more X-rated bits of the Bible at them they tend to go quiet :) http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_the-9-most-badass-bible-verses.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html - obviously cherrypicking some seriously bad examples, but you get the point.

I have read most of the Bible; it's just not a big deal to me and doesn't factor at all into how I view religion and/or Christianity. As I said above, it's just not possible to treat religion anything like science. They're too different.

Okay - that passage to me is about ways of knowing? Ways of knowing truth. As a Christian truth is revealed and I'm not saying that expecting you all to believe - I KNOW you guys don't accept that! But Yes knowing isn't up to us in my beliefs it is up to God who tells us of Himself.... if it was up to us we would be lost.

You are saying we know through our senses only? I say there are other ways of knowing.

However if you just use senses - what about Jesus? He was touched, talked to, seen and resurrected which was recorded by the bible. The scientific and historical records of events? The eye witnesses.

How do you know love? You cant see it? You cant taste it. You cant touch it. But you know someone loves you when you are loved. The same is with Jesus.


Yes believing in Christ is faith based - but these scientists also disbelieve the "evidence" given for evolution (or debates) and believe other debates. So in that sense they can still be scientific minded in believing their faith if that makes sense.

I reckon you can work as a scientist and apply formulas and get the work done, without ever having to challenge your beliefs. So I don't think every scientist is "scientific minded", it's just a job, and they're still just a person struggling with their own thoughts, instincts, and the forces of the outside world.
And I bet they don't base their work on anything from the bible.

last edited by thermite at 20:21:26 05/Mar/10

I agree religion and science are different BUT nothing of truth (ie in my opinion the bible) is contradictory to science. God made science!

I know theres bad verses in the bible. Mostly from the Old Testament? Many fail to realize that the new Christian started with Christ not with things in the Old Testament. You need to look at Christ and who He is for CHRISTians are Christ followers. That isnt disregarding the Old Testament though but when it is looked at many things need to be considered if not mostly the culture of the time. Will check out your links and maybe comment on some....

Also note religion is different to relationship with Jesus which is what many Christians have - many are not "religious" that is what Jesus did away with.

JESUS f***ING CHRIST ON A STICK

If bacteria was the start of evolution where did the bacteria come from? Has it always existed? Never had a start? Where did the moon come from? Really a Creator is the only explanation

Amazing that religious people can say this with a straight face, and then answer the "where god came from question"

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

And nostradamus predicted ww2, hitler, 9/11 etc, its easy to take vague statements and then use them to fit known facts.

So funny one of the top verses is this one.

"Topping it was St Paul's advice in 1 Timothy 2:12, in which the saint says: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

Oh my gosh! This is why people when they aren't lead by the Spirit - though they may be Christian - get things wrong. At that particular church (remember Jesus had just been preaching and teaching women were EQUAL to men) and this was new to the people of that culture (Jesus made a special point about women being loved and treated right/equal) so the women in this particular church were usurping the men and standing over them. This was Pauls way to try and say be calm.... they were all equal. This is why when verses are misunderstood and taken out of context such wrong beliefs can invade some churches. Many Christians believe in women teachers and preachers. I do. There were some in the bible. Again easily googled - there are debates amongst Christians on the whole topic. I like to refer them to this book - Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry by Stanley J. Grenz, Denise Muir Kjesbo - which explains all those verses quite clearly.

Killing verses - not all of them but some of them. Why would God say to do such things? Because many of them were (not in a religious sense but in a holocaust/Hitler sense) evil. They would harm God's people. If God's people did not defend themselves against them or fought them then these people would have most likely killed them in return.

Again female subservience - misunderstood, taken out of context. The bible tells men to LOVE women before themselves. People like to ignore that verse. It is not Christ or the bible that makes women 2nd grade in some churches or places but religion and tradition. It is not from the Holy Spirit.

Not sure but will have to look it up that the concubine one is a cultural thing. Not all things that were done culturally back then were okay by God but recorded in the bible. Actually God's own people were disciplined again and again for some things they did....

Will read more and post more possibly

Bah the where did God came from question is answered in that He always existed because there is no time. God created time.

Nostradamus - was he Christian? not sure but has he predicted end times events that line up with the bible? Again not sure I will have to look. Has he predicted things that were predicted in the bible as well? Thats another thing of proof for the bible - its predictions...

Amazing that religious people can say this with a straight face, and then answer the "where god came from question"

simple - God created the universe (time, space, matter). If he created time, he's outside of time. "Before", "where" don't apply to God. When Moses asked for God's name, God replied "I am that I am". God just is.

BTW, welcome Gal!

About the verses - of the top of my head. God didnt have Abraham kill his son. It was a test because God knew how much Abraham loved his son and God wanted to see how far Abraham would obey. God ended up blessing Abraham and his descendants.

Slavery verse - God doesn't like slavery. But he was trying to help them behave better in the culture they found themself in. It was a man of God that stopped the black slavery trade and worked for years to stop it in England. It was God that lead him to do that and helped him through many years - the movie Amazing Grace is based on it.

Hi euphoria! Thank you!

simple - God created the universe (time, space, matter). If he created time, he's outside of time. "Before", "where" don't apply to God. When Moses asked for God's name, God replied "I am that I am". God just is.

Plz to be reading my wall of text :(

Plz to be reading my wall of text :(

sorry trog, tl;dr. My days of reading through a bazillion replies and responding with even more quotes from various creationist sources are over. I'm burnt out... happy to hand the torch to Gal, lol.

Bah the where did God came from question is answered in that He always existed because there is no time. God created time.

And you don't see the contradiction? You ask science to explain with their "logic" where bacteria came from, but then you answer the question using "faith".

Plz to be reading my wall of text :(

sorry trog, tl;dr. My days of reading through a bazillion replies and responding with even more quotes from various creationist sources are over. I'm burnt out... happy to hand the torch to Gal, lol.

I feel like my wall of text actually gives you an argument though! It nicely divides religion and science into two camps in a way that I feel both sides should be able to accept and it means neither can attack the other because of the nature of the divide (like it would stop it though)

Bah yes it is faith - but faith in something that is real which is Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Faith isn't believing in faeries. It is based on something. Just like when I sit down I have faith the chair will hold me up. So thus my belief in the origin (or no origin rather) of God is based on evidence. Just as your belief is based on your evidence. You have faith that the "evidence" your aware of means that matter just spontaneously existed one day and developed....

What is this ?
Hillsong Gamers League ?

Gal = euphoria

Just like when I sit down I have faith the chair will hold me up.

That is not faith, not in the sense that it is used commonly (or usefully).

Faith isn't believing in faeries.

it is sometimes. Just some people's faeries are different to other peoples. What you call a fairy might be someone else's God

Im not euphoria - surely the admins could see different isp's? do they show different parts of the country maybe even!? The admins have my permission to check this out LOL

Bah so I can explain origins using a theory that makes sense if not scientifically it is an explanation. Where did the first ever tiny bit of matter ever come from?

Trog (if memory serves me right) faith as used in the bible and that Christians have is faith based on evidence. It isn't wishy washy faith as others believe. God tells us in the bible that no man is without excuse from not believing in Him or a creator or a designer SIMPLY from nature itself.

"PROOF OF FAITH. The Bible teaches that the proof of faith (what faith is based on) is evidence. Faith is based upon strong, clear, logical, true, historical evidence. Faith is not guesswork. Faith is not a blind leap in the dark. Faith is not grounded in subjective feelings. God provides the objective, rational evidence for belief; man provides the belief based on that evidence. The Bible does not teach that God gives man his faith. John wrote: "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (John 20:31). Paul wrote: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). Unless our faith is based upon sound evidence from God's word, we do not have the right kind of faith." from http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-the-bible-says-about-faith.htm - theres more there

"A. Faith is not just part of religion but every aspect of our everyday lives:

1. Science: Ever seen electricity? You accept it by faith

2. Geography: Ever seen the Eiffel Tower?

3. Evolutionist’s often chide those who believe in God for their faith

a. No one has ever seen any evidence for evolution it is purely theory

b. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than God

4. Store phones you to say your order is ready.

a. You accept by faith the word of the operator that the order is ready

b. Driving down to pick up the order is an ACT OF FAITH

5. We accept God because of testimony of creation & Bible Rom 1:18-20

a. Repentance and obedience to God’s word is an ACT OF FAITH"

But there is also a Faith in God as in trusting Him and believing in His Word that comes from having a relationship with Him that is based on simply Who He is. Yes that is a different type and level of Faith but that Faith comes from the Faith we already have and or had in evidence - God's Word, Jesus, the historical records of Jesus, miracles, prophecies, historical events/records mentioned in the bible, God showing himself to us in personal ways (again knowing isn't just senses - how do we know the feeling of love is true? we can't see it or hear it or touch it but we know it is there), in the beauty of the world - how did randomness create such beauty? If science has taught anything wouldn't it be that nothing beautiful can come from chaos?

Where did the first ever tiny bit of matter ever come from?

I don't know, and if i was a scientist my answer would be "but i will try to find out", your answer is "it was god" followed by closing eyes holding hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala i am not listening".
Also when asked "where did god come from" you answer that the rules you apply to your matter question no longer apply.

last edited by Bah at 21:44:06 05/Mar/10

Yeah I have seen electricity it is called lightning.

The Bible teaches that the proof of faith (what faith is based on) is evidence.

where?

1. Science: Ever seen electricity? You accept it by faith

No. You are using faith as a general catchword to mean different things. Also I've never seen "electricity". This is a terrible example.

2. Geography: Ever seen the Eiffel Tower?

yyyyyyes. In photos, and then I verified it really exists with my eyes.

4. Store phones you to say your order is ready.

a. You accept by faith the word of the operator that the order is ready

b. Driving down to pick up the order is an ACT OF FAITH

This is REALLY stretching the word. Again, this is a common religious tactic and its really, really boring to refute, but I'll do it anyway:

a) you accept the word of the operator because logic dictates that, if they're running a business, they want your repeated custom. If you get there and it's not ready, you might decide to not pay, which is bad for their business.

b) it's an act of experience and common sense (and the occasional bit of driving school).

For the purposes of clarity, I (and I assume other athiests) use the word FAITH in discussions like this SOLELY in a religious context. ie, for the purposes of a scientific or rational discussion, there's no point in using the word 'faith' - for the reasons I outlined above (ie, it has emotional and non-spatio-temporal connotations that we can't think about in a meaningful way).

Bah so I can explain origins using a theory that makes sense if not scientifically it is an explanation. Where did the first ever tiny bit of matter ever come from?

This is a great question! Here is my multi-choice solution offering:

a. From Cornell: "In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle--for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays. "

b. God did it

c. none of the above

trog: how much trouble is it to confirm that Gal isn't euphoria?

Even if you could find the smartest person on the planet and they believed in a god, it says absolutely nothing about the existence of that god.

I don't believe in a god by the way, just in case Billy had confused anyone with his post about my stance on the issue.

Where did God come from? He was always there!
Where did the first bit of matter come from? It was always there!

trog: how much trouble is it to confirm that Gal isn't euphoria?

none at all, but I can tell from the pixels that they're different people

Ahhh, I love these threads.

Mostly because it makes me feel so much smarter than the people posting in them.

He just seems to be using the same old tired euph rhetoric and arguments, except sanitised without the dinosaurs living in medieval times and being mistaken for dragons stuff.

PS - Gal what is your take on dinosaurs and how old do you think the world is?

"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)

The Hebrew word here translated "circle" can also mean "sphere," as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth."—Moffatt.

Went out for dinner, didn't get a chance to reply. Baptists and co would have us believe that the current King James english translation is the only true bible, it's the exact wording and translation god wanted thus if it says "circle" it means "circle".

I don't know, and if i was a scientist my answer would be "but i will try to find out", your answer is "it was god" followed by closing eyes holding hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala i am not listening".
Also when asked "where did god come from" you answer that the rules you apply to your matter question no longer apply.

The correct answer I believe is "why does there have to be something before?". There doesn't need to be something before time began. We sure as hell don't need to invent something supernatural to make up for us not getting our head around it.

last edited by Syco at 22:10:54 05/Mar/10

Trog http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-the-bible-says-about-faith.htm is where - in there somewhere theres references etc. In the bible (google if you really want to see I guess) God says we are to have faith in His Son that he sent - that is evidence. It is not blind faith. He also says we should have faith in a creator from the evidence of nature and design and beauty itself. Also miracles (though I know scientists dont agree with miracles so I cant use that here!!) theres also historical records and prophecies. And about the electricity yes that is what they are saying! you haven't seen it but it exists. I dont know if you can or not was just pasting that from a website haha but thought it was okay as yes it is just an example - just like I guess a better one would be wind - you cannot see it though you can see the effect of it (ie blowing leaves) and feel it and hear it. Trog you say getting the takeaway is experience and common sense. The bible and other records of Christ tell of His existence. As do many other magazines and books tell of other peoples existence that I believe exist without having met.

Apparently the bible is more accurate then any other ancient historical book - even books that secular historians use themselves.

"Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.

As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.

While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism. "

http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible

Dinosaurs! really I havent looked into it enough to say. I know there are many arguments regarding dinosaurs, creationism, evolution, time of the earth etc on the internet. Even if the world is as old as evolutions claim (maybe google the accuracy of carbon dating cause I heard its not that great for some reasons but not sure how widely spread that knowledge is). Huge beasts are mentioned in the bible...

I may say more stuff tomorrow going for now but Bah just wanted to say that there is no answer to my question for the evolutionist. Because if you said before the first bacteria there was such and such - what created that or has that always existed and thus there was never a beginning? How can something come from nothing? Even if you had blackness that is something that existed and was? Where was the beginning?

Trog you said there was "a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons" - okay so has that always existed you say. Did it ever have a beginning? Or it always has been? Always was? How did it come to be!? Where did it COME from!? It had to come from somewhere!

Btw Im a she!

There is a scientific theory that explains why matter exists, it's something related to this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-brane
I don't know all about it but I believe the idea is that our universe is the residual effect of two membranes colliding in another dimension. If you could observe it the collisions would happen all the time, and each collision would produce a short burst of energy on the membrane, each short burst is an entire universe existing from beginning to end, right on the skin of the membrane.

I may say more stuff tomorrow going for now but Bah just wanted to say that there is no answer to my question for the evolutionist. Because if you said before the first bacteria there was such and such - what created that or has that always existed and thus there was never a beginning? How can something come from nothing? Even if you had blackness that is something that existed and was? Where was the beginning?

It's a crazy question. Why does something have to have existed before time began? It doesn't have to have had.

Btw Im a she!

And easily impressionable? Awesome... How YOU doin?

Well apparently you don't need to look into things from your point of view, you have faith. So how does your faith explain the dinosaurs and put down a number of years for how old you think the world is.

PS - I think you are euph. You've created another account because you are aware of how pointless it is to say anything without changing your name because of the utterly ridiculous things you have said in the past. Avoiding my question about the dinosaurs (you have all these other wacky theories that you have obviously researched extensively yet you just happened to skip learning anything about dinosaurs? Yeah that's totally believable) and your failure to say how old you think the world is pretty much confirms it to me. Plus omg your a girl! That means you couldn't possibly be euph!

It must be s***ty to have to come up with an imaginary account to try and promote the fantasy world that you live in. If you were completely new you'd be linking to answeringgenesis by now but that's something euph got shot down for as well.

Nah, I think this one is a legitimately retarded chick.

Who needs to show tits.

Girls + God = no sex before marriage

Trog http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-the-bible-says-about-faith.htm is where - in there somewhere theres references etc. In the bible (google if you really want to see I guess) God says we are to have faith in His Son that he sent - that is evidence. It is not blind faith.

I find it a little ironic that you can say "oh the bit in the Bible about faith is over there somewhere" and not be able to tell me what it is, and then in the next breath say "it's not blind faith"

just like I guess a better one would be wind - you cannot see it though you can see the effect of it (ie blowing leaves) and feel it and hear it.

That is a better example - for the science based people. You can feel wind, you can see the effects of it in the trees, you can hear it whistling past your ears, you can smell things far off as they are brought to you - they're all concreate, real things. Evidence, you might say, of wind existing.

Trog you say getting the takeaway is experience and common sense. The bible and other records of Christ tell of His existence. As do many other magazines and books tell of other peoples existence that I believe exist without having met.

Like Harry Potter? Or picking something a bit less ridiculous, how about the Greek pantheon described in things like the Iliad and various other epics? There are lots of books; not everything in them is worth believing.

http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible

I think I'll choose to treat an article called "how accurate bible" from bible.org with a fair bit of skepticism when considering it's objectivity :)

I don't want to sound like I'm s***ting constantly on the Bible. It has some good themes, and if more people actually lived by some of the things in it the world would be a much nicer place. But I'd be happy if everyone just took "do unto others" and then forgot the rest, because that's really the most important lesson in there (imho, of course).

Trog you said there was "a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons" - okay so has that always existed you say. Did it ever have a beginning? Or it always has been? Always was? How did it come to be!? Where did it COME from!? It had to come from somewhere!

These questions are thought about, written about and argued about by people much smarter than you or I. At the end of the day I choose to live in a universe where these questions have answers that are based on determinable, physical rules that we'll one day be able to puzzle out.

Back in the old days, when there was a terrible storm, or a plague, or a deformed baby, it was always "oh the gods did that because you did X". Now we're older and a bit wiser as a species and we know that those sorts of things aren't the whim of a capricious or benevolent god - they're just s*** that happens in a random universe as part of a complicated series of cause and effect. And the more we look, the more we understand the causes and the effects.

One day I hope to be able to answer your questions, but one thing I'll never do is just throw my hands up in the air and go "I don't know, therefore, it must be god". Because that's just simple mysticism and I like to believe that we, as a species, have come a bit further than needing to believe in magic to explain our place in the universe.

Do as you wish, so long as you do not harm another or go near the most sacred of skins, that of the fore. Peace be with you all. Life bless.

So you hate tits and pretty much worship the cock?

He worships your two dads' cocks

Jesus had two dads.

Jesus had two dads.

I hear if your parents are gay you have a higher chance to be gay yourself, does this mean Jesus was probably gay? That'd explain the whole no-wife thing and the whole Mary Magdalin ex-hooker, fag hag and a half!

yflmd dickwads

There is a huge, HUGE, difference.

He is not getting tax free dollars?

Wtf is richard dawkins?!

No idea but he rhymes with stephen hawkins*.






* i may have changed his last name to suit...he also doesnt focus on black holes and can talk without the aid of an iphone.

I am I am I said I'm not myself, but I'm not dead and I'm not for sale
So keep your bankroll lottery eat your salad day deathbed motorcade

ok i get how my original post may have been a teeeny bit offensive but my point stands imo;

this dude/dudette made ZERO contribution to this forum/site until this creationism/evolution thread popped up in their google-sights. you can sit here and debate them rationally all you want but they won't get it. srsly.

trog you're wasting your time. the kind of person that trawls the internet for creationism/evolution debates is the kind of crackpot that is perfectly immune to logical arguments.

you can't win.

i declare this the most tldr thread on qgl evar!

trog you're wasting your time. the kind of person that trawls the internet for creationism/evolution debates is the kind of crackpot that is perfectly immune to logical arguments.

I'm curious to see if blunt force logic trauma can ever make an impression though. Sadly I have to get on a plane for the next 14 hours so I'll probably miss too much of the rest :(

I'd like to see someone prove creationism WITHOUT usig the bible. Also, why do they only use the bible, why not the hindu and Muslim equivelants? I assume they have been around for a few thousand years too.

Its pretty simple realy, creationist started with there idea (obviously based on there religion) and then selectively found evidence to back it up.

The Evolution theory started with nothing, cause they didnt start with the theory and then find the evidence, it happened the other way around.

Just because we havent found all the answers doesnt mean you can instantly jump to the conclusion that God must have done it, like trog said, we didnt used to understand alot of things and used to attribute them to a God.

Damm I hate agreeing with trog.

Damm I hate agreeing with trog.

I dunno why people keep saying that, except for my dislike of TF2 and WoW and my hatred of babies and Spook's dance music I feel like my opinions are pretty well aligned with most people here. Otherwise why else would you all be here?!@#

edit: oh I also don't like HD. Or Avatar. Or the NBN.

I dunno why people keep saying that

Nothing personal, your just fun to argue with.

You dont like TF2?, what are you crazy? U know they have hats now!

I think mostly its that I enjoy arguing with people even when I Agree with what they're saying so I can plunge the depths of their convictions and understand their reasons for thinking that

HATS! Noone told me about hats.

I'd like to see someone prove creationism WITHOUT usig the bible. Also, why do they only use the bible, why not the hindu and Muslim equivelants? I assume they have been around for a few thousand years too.

Its pretty simple realy, creationist started with there idea (obviously based on there religion) and then selectively found evidence to back it up.

The Evolution theory started with nothing, cause they didnt start with the theory and then find the evidence, it happened the other way around.

Just because we havent found all the answers doesnt mean you can instantly jump to the conclusion that God must have done it, like trog said, we didnt used to understand alot of things and used to attribute them to a God.

The bible's been around much longer than any other religions' documents. I'm pretty sure the bible is the only religious text that deals with an initial creation event.

As for "instantly jump(ing) to the conclusion that God must have done it", well, yeah, Christians believe God created everything. That doesn't impede investigation or stop scientific curiosity. I've said it before, we just look at the world and wonder "how did God do it"? Studying the world and making discoveries is not impeded in any way by that driving question.

And no fpot, I wouldn't bother with creating a new account.

Need to do another data mine trog, forget threads with > 100 posts let's try for threads with > 1GB of text in it.

Also threads that spur exciting new members to join.

You're full of it euph. In every possible way.

The bible's been around much longer than any other religions' documents.

Yeh I guess. Except for the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, that's pretty much true.

i'm pretty sure the bible is the only religious text that deals with an initial creation event.

nah pretty much all the majors deal with that

Well, I figured out how to find the will to live through the nonstop tedium of far cry 2, you've got admit that's pretty impressive.

Dawkins' opening line when he walked out the other night was a command to never be bored or take life for granted because of how awesome your existence and consciousness is. Wish I could remember the quote.

Down with Spook's dance music and WoW!

now now matey, i understand you are jealous of my nice looking penis

Have you 'Christians' ever figured any of it out? How did God do anything? Start with existing if you like, then move onto the creation of matter.

Well of course not because the thinking goes that to understand God you have to *BE* God.
Copious amounts of "la la la la la la la" come after that in discussions.

Time to go back to your Gal account euph.

Gal, you seem genuinely determined to remain ignorant to the point of the scientific process and why it's important. If yo are ever around UQ I'd be happy to talk to you in person and show you some basic statistics and research methodology principles. We can leave god and evolution out of the discussion, and I'll demonstrate to you how we can use simple methods to ask questions about the world.

I extend my invite to euphoria as well.

I eagerly await the thread where trog posts explaining why his brother is in jail for murder.

When you say 'UQ' you really mean carpark and when you say 'talk to' you really mean bash hey?

Heh... nah... serious offer.

Just when you do talk to them, make sure euph and Gal are both there at the same time. I suspect we could have a Mrs Doubtfire situation going on of euph quickly changing in and out of his Gal costume here.

The bible contradicts itself within the first few pages... Take the creation story, for example. It offers two ENTIRELY different stories:

First account:

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second account:

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Anybody dumb enough to believe this drivel deserves all the crap they get.

Try reading this, creationists:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7168/munchiesanevolutionaryt.pdf

Maybe you can understand evolution if it's explained in the fairy tale fashion that you're used to.

I suspect we could have a Mrs Doubtfire situation going on of euph quickly changing in and out of his Gal costume here.

ahahahha you are a funny geez

As for "instantly jump(ing) to the conclusion that God must have done it", well, yeah, Christians believe God created everything. That doesn't impede investigation or stop scientific curiosity

Of course it does, because you already have the answer to everything, "God did it" how could you possible look at evolution seriously when you admit that your mind is already made up?

Im not saying theres anything wrong with that, if thats what you want to believe and you put your faith in your religion and live your life by it, thats up to you.

What s***s me is that you then come along and say that evolution isnt correct because its different to what your religion told you to believe is true and try and throw around bible references as "proof". Obviously the bible is slightly biased towards your side of the story.

I'd be happier if creationist would come out and say something like "yes, there is alot of scientific evidence that evolution is correct, and we realy dont have anything scientific to back up our claims, but its what we believe in and live by, so we arent going to change our beliefs"

Also, don't spread bulls*** about presentations by people like Dawkins (my original problem with Gal's post).

had a really busy day - may address some things at some point I'm not sure.

LOL @ Syco!

Billy do you deny Dawkins said those things that I said he did? He called Christians dopey/doey (and other names) laughed at those who had faith (with everyone applauding all this) and so on... meeting up - hmm not sure Id feel quite safe doing that for various reasons.

Trog just showing you where you can find answers to your questions yourself with out having to do the leg work myself. I already know its there in the bible! Just showing you where you can find it if you wanted to yourself - I don't need to. I do appreciate though how you tend to be fair in your debating it does show through...

Those Genesis verses and so called contradictions again a simple google search will explain why they are not. Such as
http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

I don't deny that he called Christians dopey or doey. Your first post made it sound like Dawkins spent the entire time mustering the crowd into a hating frenzy, and you likened it to a form of racism. That is a grossly inaccurate representation of the event and I find it baffling that you felt that way. People can listen to the ABC recordings to hear what he said.

As for mocking Christians, a certain level of mocking is absolutely warranted - as I have already said, creationists think that modern science is wrong by 14 000 000 000 years when it comes to the age of the earth. If Noah didn't stop his arc at every single country in the world to drop off specifics species, then the species native to Australia, for example, must have ALL traveled here (swimming through oceans, mind you) without stopping anywhere else on their way. Both of these creationist beliefs are ridiculous and insulting to everything we have learned from science.

If creationists continue to refuse the theory of evolution then of course they are going to continue to be mocked, and rightly so.

For everyone else, as I have said already in this thread, there is no "debate" about evolution. Creationists don't like it because it conflicts with their beliefs. This fact absolutely does not warrant a debate. There is still a group of people who believe that the earth is flat. Does that mean there is a debate about the shape of the earth?

There aren't always two sides to an issue. Sometimes there are far more than two sides, and sometimes there is only one story.

theoretically shoudnt things be evolving all the time then.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5027481876893938900#

The short answer is yes. Evolution is almost always happening but usually takes a long long time, depending on selective pressures, of course.

theres so much life on this planet that something should constanly be evolving. i always need a 3rd hand, 7 fingers huge cocks.if its always happening then there should be something always changing on this earth. or like most things does it take fire to stir the cells and make them change

What are you talking about? You know most evolution takes a lot of time right?

yeah but most things have been here for a long long timethe only changes(sea monkeys) that happen are when there near volcanic vents.ask murry mudskipper. im more inclined to believe that we we created (Maybe not in his image) than crawled out of a swamp.everything is neatly tucked into its slot

Over the past few thousand years people are getting taller, boobs are getting bigger, people get more resilient to certain things, develop new allergies. Plus, people are a bad example, the changes are less noticeable in animals than in plants and bacteria.
Apparently either the squids or octopuses are evolving the fastest out of the animals.

last edited by thermite at 23:24:40 06/Mar/10

so did the dinosaurs. boobs r plastik i like small boobs. do u call a healthy diet evolution?? that cant explain most things. can it? all a theory. well humans r a bacteria(yeah i giant 1).they should be more noticable in plants,bacteria and viruses. because ther only basic cells.so if it dosnt hapen there then hmmm. easiest way to replace a religion is say that ther 1 dont exizt. believe the numbers coz ther right.then replace it with something else. ave america

reefed, there is plenty of evidence of things changing around us, as thermite has pointed out. A lot more than just things near volcanic vents undergo changes.

Evolution is a fact. The theory is about how it all goes together.

How old are you reefed? Honest question.

ova the last few thousand yrs.???? wtfruta... global warming. hahahaha. ur igonorine the single cells. single cells first 2 react. because dont have a choice they have 2, to survive. so humans r getting biga coz its evo.i still want my extra arm. evolution comes down to a healthy diet then. billyhardball do u believe theres a afterlife/spark wotnot?

probly older than u scoot. how old u

Over the past few thousand years people are getting taller, boobs are getting bigger, people get more resilient to certain things, develop new allergies. Plus, people are a bad example, the changes are less noticeable in animals than in plants and bacteria. Apparently either the squids or octopuses are evolving the fastest out of the animals.last edited by thermite at 23:24:40 06/Mar/10

if uve got 8 arms no wonder

Over the past few thousand years people are getting taller, boobs are getting bigger, people get more resilient to certain things, develop new allergies. Plus, people are a bad example, the changes are less noticeable in animals than in plants and bacteria. Apparently either the squids or octopuses are evolving the fastest out of the animals.last edited by thermite at 23:24:40 06/Mar/10

if uve got 8 arms no wonder

an every1s seen the poof octos. where my calamari

Evolution is a fact. The theory is about how it all goes together. How old are you reefed? Honest question.

32

I'm 27 in a month and a half. Is English your first language?

reefed, no, I do not believe in an afterlife. Your posts are bordering on being unreadable - I don't really know what arguments you are making, for which side, and how I can even respond...

i've had like 12 rums and a fistful of weed and not even I type that bad

I think that's probably the point at which reefered joined the thread thermite, and he hasn't stopped.

i've had like 12 rums and a fistful of weed and not even I type that bad

so thermites had f*** all. billy feel sorry for you.
yeah im auzzie. so none of you believe in love then. god knows im a donut.

I think that's probably the point at which reefered joined the thread thermite, and he hasn't stopped.I think that's probably the point at which reefered joined the thread thermite, and he hasn't stopped.

actualy bah was thinking wtf if u spend ur time on forums donut u got any m8s

so billy hard ball is a dawkinist

I think that's probably the point at which reefered joined the thread thermite, and he hasn't stopped.

so u ve been watching from afar. bit like a shadow not willing expose ur believes.bah ha ha ha

One day Trog and Billy will evolve the ability to not be trolled. It will be a sad day for us all.

Jesus is the only friend i need.

Lucky euph/Gal have people like reefer on their side. Just remember you are just as retarded as him, but you somehow have the ability to type.

"I don't deny that he called Christians dopey or doey. Your first post made it sound like Dawkins spent the entire time mustering the crowd into a hating frenzy, and you likened it to a form of racism. That is a grossly inaccurate representation of the event and I find it baffling that you felt that way. People can listen to the ABC recordings to hear what he said"

Oh where? I cant find it... would love to listen again....

It doesn't matter if he did it once or 10 times during his speech at the end of the day he did it. And it is a form of racism. To say a type of person is more "dumber" than another type of person based purely on beliefs or skin colour is racism.

http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/4/5SCcJslv7X0 - an interview he did which he compares faith to incest (or something like that - really I didn't listen properly/rewind it because honestly I didn't want to) - what type of rubbish is that? If he is your hero I have to ask myself some questions regarding what type of person or people you are if you follow him. His remarks are extremely bigoted. Towards the end of this interview he says such things as "if you meet educated people they tend to not be creationists" and "if everyone took a drug that boosted their intelligence by 5 points would religion survive?". Would love to ask him "Is there a Christian that exists that believes in Creationism that is smarter than you?" - if he answers no he is a liar and if he answers yes then why such comments?

I am just surprised is all - I expected to go see a scientific presentation on evolution - something I could bite my teeth into - what I got was stuff Ive already heard a million times and uncalled for remarks in regard to those who have a faith.... Fine if he doesn't believe in God or Jesus or a Spiritual life that is one matter - but to make fun of those who do by such an esteemed man (by some) is something else.

Another thing that he said wrong (and he should know better if he comes from a family that went to church or believed) is that religion is a comfort blanket - sorry if I was choosing religion based on comfort it would not be the bible. The judgment on those who cause evil in this world will be great. It is not a book of comfort to all. If I had the choice I would choose a religion where ALL went to Heaven. God gives everyone the choice - they can go there if they want by accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and by His sacrifice on the cross BUT He wont force people to live with Him and be with Him if they don't want to - it all comes down to choice... Who will you choose? Someone who mocks and ridicules others Or someone who gave their life for you?

BTW the Bible and Jesus are not religion. Religion is doing something. Being a REAL Christian is having a relationship with Jesus Christ - no behavioral requirements necessary. You don't need to go to Church. You don't need to be perfect. That is religion. God calls us to relationship through His Son. Yes some people go to Church but that is to fellowship and share. That is not their Faith.

Don't you think having a relationship with an imaginary Jew has anything to do with behaviour and faith?

You shouldn't be surprised when evolutionists defend their position religiously.

Here's an article with no bible quotes, only quotes from evolutionists.

Evolution is Religion, not science

One of the quotes from that article:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

So many people don't allow for the concept that they've been indoctrinated to enter their minds for consideration. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Well, it's not even a theory, because other theories get thrown out when there are facts that contradict the theory. They'll say further study and research is required to figure out how to explain the facts in evolution terms. Now, creationists say the same thing as well, but we admit our position is a religious one!

f*** me if you're religious you can just DECIDE what words mean

"so did the dinosaurs. boobs r plastik i like small boobs. do u call a healthy diet evolution??"

can i borrow these for lyrics? ta

Jesus wasn't imaginary. He was recorded in the bible by eye witnesses and even secular writers mention him. He was in history. The question isn't so much was Jesus real. He was. The question is - Was/Is he the Son of God or some lunatic?


Again the bible record is one of - if not the most - accurate ancient manuscripts written in regard to historical records and its purity to its original writings. Historical references in the bible are proven over and over - even when secular historians say - that cant be true regarding a place or person - when more is found over time they see and find that it is. So in itself the bible is a source of proof for Jesus (not only the bibl as nature itself speaks of a designer/creator and there are other ways that people come to know Jesus as well...).

This says all I would say to you here http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html except I would summarize it but not going to spend hours doing so!!! If you don't read the whole thing at least this part -


"FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.

Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."



And

"THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."


And from another site

"The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah" referring evidently to Jesus' brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name."


"Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation) "

Yes Flavius and Josephus wrote about him 30 or so years after He was crucified however if he was a fictional character or if they thought he was they would have said so. Yes there is debate about that particular reference by Josephus which you can research yourself. Tacitus reference however - 50 years later is accepted as being authentic by most scholars - even though there will always be debates and things given against all these references as people disagree etc however most scholars even secular are for this one some just question what references he used (as they would!)

Tacitus -
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular"

Also (not sure how many here would know about this but many Christians certainly do!) a new archeological finding of recent times...

"The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.

Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: "I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake."

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James. "

So the question is Was Jesus a lunatic or crazy?

For him to fulfill all the prophecies of His coming and the related information given in these prophecies from the Old Testament is astounding

Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled In Jesus' Life
by Dave Arch


There were two primary evidences which the apostles appealed to over and over again to establish the Deity and Messiahship
of the Lord Jesus Christ. One was the fact of the resurrection and the other was the Old Testament prophecies which were fulfilled
in the life of Jesus Christ.

Below is a listing of the prophecies written in the Old Testament and given to the Jewish nation so that they might be able to
recognize their Messiah.


I. THE ACTUAL PROPHECIES

A. Concerning His Birth

1. Born of the seed of woman (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 4:4; Matthew 1:20)
2. Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18, 24, 25)
3. Son of God (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 3:17)
4. Seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16) Here it is determined that the Messiah would be a Jewish descendant.
5. Son of Isaac (Genesis 21:12; Luke 3:23,34) Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Now God eliminates one half of the lineage of Isaac.
6. Son of Jacob (Numbers 24:17; Luke 3:23,34) Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Now God eliminates one half of the lineage of Isaac.
7. Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23,33) Jacob had twelve sons and each became a tribe of the Hebrew nation.
Now God eliminates eleven-twelfths of the lineage of Jacob.
8. Family line of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1; Luke 3:23,32) Now God narrows it down even further by picking one family line out of the tribe of Judah.
9. House of David (Jeremiah 23:5; Luke 3:23,31) Jesse had at least eight sons (I Samuel 16:10,11).
Now God eliminates all of Jesse's sons except one, David.
10. Born at Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1) Now God eliminates all the cities in the world except one, Bethlehem.
11. Presented with gifts (Psalm 72:10; Isaiah 60:6; Matthew 2:1,11)
12. Herod kills children (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16)

B. Concerning His Nature

13. His Pre-Existence (Micah 5:2; Colossians 1:17; John 1:1)
14. He shall be called Lord (Psalm 110:1; Luke 20:41-44)
15. He shall be called Immanuel ("God with us") (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23)
16. Shall be a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:18; Matthew 21:11)
17. Shall be a priest (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5,6)
18. Shall be a judge (Isaiah 33:22; John 5:30)
19. Shall be a king (Isaiah 33:22; Matthew 27:37)
20. Special anointment of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16,17)
21. He zeal for God (Psalm 69:9; John 2:15-17)

C. Concerning His Ministry

22. Preceded by a messenger (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:1,2)
23. Ministry to begin in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1,2; Matthew 4:12,13,17)
24. Ministry of miracles (Isaiah 35:5, 6a; Matthew 9:35)
25. Teacher of parables (Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:34)
26. He was to enter the temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12)
27. He was to enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Luke 19:35,36,37a)
28. A "Stone Of Stumbling" to the Jewish nation (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
29. "Light" to the Gentiles (Isaiah 60:3; 49:6; Acts 13:47,48a)

D. Concerning Events After His Burial

30. His resurrection (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:31)
31. His ascension (Psalm 68:18a; Acts 1:9)
32. Seated at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

E. Prophecies Fulfilled In One Day

The following 29 prophecies from the Old Testament, which speak of the betrayal, trial, death and burial of Jesus, were spoken at various
times by many different voices during the five centuries from 1000-500 BC, and yet all of them were literally fulfilled in one twenty-four hour period of time in Jesus' life.

33. Betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Matthew 10:4)
34. Sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15)
35. Money to be thrown down in God's house (Zechariah 11:13b; Matthew 27:5a)
36. Price given for potter's filed (Zechariah 11:13b; Matthew 27:7)

In the previous four prophecies we find in both prophecy and fulfillment the following:

1. Betrayed
2. By a friend
3. For 30 pieces of silver (not 29)
4. Silver (not gold)
5. Thrown down (not placed)
6. In God's house
7. Money used to buy potter's field

37. Forsaken by His disciples (Zechariah 13:7; Mark 14:50)
38. Accused by false witnesses (Psalm 35:11; Matthew 26:59-61)
39. Mute before accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-19)
40. Wounded and bruised (Isaiah 53:5; Matthew 27:26)
41. Smitten and spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Micah 5:1; Matthew 26:67)
42. Mocked (Psalm 22:7,8; Matthew 27:31)
43. Fell under the cross (Psalm 109:24; John 19:17; Luke 23:26)
44. Hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16; Luke 23:33)
45. Crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
46. Made intercession for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
47. Rejected by his own people (Isaiah 53:3; John 7:5,48)
48. Hated without a cause (Psalm 69:4; John 15:25)
49. Friends stood afar off (Psalm 38:11; Luke 23:49)
50. People shook their heads (Psalm 109:25; Matthew 27:39)
51. Stared upon (Psalm 22:17; Luke 23:35)
52. Garments parted and lots cast (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23,24)
53. Suffered thirst (Pslam 69:21; John 19:28)
54. Gall and vinegar offered Him (Psalm 69:21; Matthew 27:34)
55. His forsaken cry (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46)
56. Committed Himself to God (Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46)
57. His bones not broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33)
58. His heart broken (Psalm 22:14; John 19:34) The blood and water which came from Jesus'
pierced side are evidences that the heart had literally burst.
59. His side pierced (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
60. Darkness over the land (Amos 8:9; Matthew 27:45)
61. Buried in a rich man's tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)

II. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

A. Fulfilled Prophecies Were Actually Written At Or After The Time Of Jesus

Answer: If you are not satisfied with the date of 450 BC as the date of the Old Testament completion, then realize
that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was completed in 250 BC.
Therefore, it appears evident that there were at least 250 years between the time of the writing of the
prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

B. The Fulfilled Prophecy In Jesus Was Deliberate On His Part. He Knew The Old Testament Well Enough
And Just Set Out To Fulfill All Of Them.

Answer: This might seem possible until we realize that thee were many prophecies outside of His control, such as:

1. Place of birth (Micah 5:2)
2. Time of birth (Daniel 9:25; Genesis 49:10)
3. Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14)
4. Betrayal
5. Manner of death (Psalm 22:16)
6. People's reactions (Mocking, spitting, staring, etc.)
7. Piercing of His side
8. Burial

C. The Fulfilled Prophecy In Jesus Was Coincidental, An Accident

Answer: Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963) determines the probability of one man fulfilling eight of the prophecies of the Old Testament for the Messiah to be 1 in 10 to the 17th power.

Now let's try to imagine what this means. If we took that many silver dollars (100,000,000,000,000,000) and laid them over the State of Texas,
they would cover the state two feet deep. Now mark one of the silver dollars, stir the whole mass thoroughly, blindfold a person,
and tell him/her that they can travel as far as they want but must pick up one silver dollar and say that it is the marked one.
What chance would s/he have of picking up the right one? It would be the exact same odds of anyone fulfilling eight of the Messianic
prophecies by chance alone.

Peter Stoner then goes on to consider the possibility of any one person fulfilling 48 of the prophecies by chance.
Here the odds jump to 1 in 10
to the 157th power. That number would look like this:

1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

CONCLUSION

"Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other: I am God and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from
the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done; Saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.'"
(Isaiah 46:9,10)

"I declare the former things long ago and they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them. Suddenly, I acted and they came to pass.
Therefore, I declared them to you long ago, before they took place I proclaimed them to you, lest you say, 'My idol has done them, and my graven image and my molten image have commanded them.'" (Isaiah 48:3,5)

Evidence The Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell
has been a primary source for the preparation of this paper.
RESOURCES

E-Mail: AskAPastor@aol.com
Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell
Answers To Tough Questions by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
The Honest Skeptic's Worksheet
The Historical Reliability Of The New Testament
Know Why You Believe by Paul Little
10 Reasons To Believe (http://www.gospelcom.net.rbc/10rsn.home/)


from http://www.askapastor.org/proph.html

Gal, as you have done this entire thread, rather than addressing my points you have gone off on yet another rant. You have also re-hashed arguments that I have already taken the time to respond to. Dawkins mocks you, and I will begin to, because it is impossible to have an intellectual conversation with you.

euphoria, that link you provided is why people mock creationists. If we even pretend that these quotes aren't cherry picked, which they are, and we pretend they aren't written into a completely creationist context, which they are, each quote in no way demonstrates that evolution is a (slow edit:) religion.

Also, the great thing about creationists is that you come up with the same old quotes, the meanings of which have already been well explained as to why they don't support your arguments, and we mock you for doing it too.

What happens when we fill in the "..." of the quote you posted here? Your version:

. . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . .

The full version:

. . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

Not only was your quote misleading, it was also wrong.

Far more important than demonstrating that you shouldn't believe everything you read on a creationist website, however, is the fact that your quote, nor any of the quotes on the page you linked to, demonstrate in the slightest that evolution is not a science. Your quote is actually arguing exactly the opposite point you think - science is the best tool we have to investigate the world, so when mystifying or counterintuitive findings result, we know they were discovered in such a way that we can believe them and trust their accuracy. Materialsm is absolute, in the quote, because letting a Devine Foot in the door would taint any objective research.

Creationists are mocked because you don't have a real appreciation for science. If you did, you wouldn't be spitting out such stupid, unintelligent dribble that doesn't point to any real reason why evolution is wrong.

No doubt, rather than replying with any coherent argument that directly addresses my points, euphoria, gal, or both, will go on another side rant about something else. So if you only respond to one thing I write, respond to this, do you really think that scientists are out by about 14 000 000 000 years when it comes to the age of the universe?

Edit: and dammit, yes, while I was typing that Gal went on another irrelevant side rant.

Peter Stoner then goes on to consider the possibility of any one person fulfilling 48 of the prophecies by chance.
Here the odds jump to 1 in 10
to the 157th power. That number would look like this:

Holy s***. Gal, I seriously suggest we have a sit down chat because you are not doing yourself any favours. If this at all was a legitimate argument (which it is not) you would believe that the earth is billions of years old, because the probability of that being incorrect is in about the same ball park.

I also ask that you stop copy pasting s***, because most of it is completely irrelevant and it makes the forum hard to read.

Billy I thought I addressed your last point VERY WELL - you said I gave a grossly inaccurate representation - I said even if he said something mocking once that is enough and it is racist as it is purely based on a persons beliefs that he claims they are dumb - and you even admit he did it at least once (though it was more).

Also you said you were baffled why I felt that way - I just told you why I felt that way... that what he said was wrong, demeaning and mocking.

I also asked you where the link was for the speech on ABC which you haven't showed me.

How do you know it is incorrect wheres your proof!?

Probability of Jesus being the Messiah http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm


"Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4). "



So I guess you are more learned and know more about statistical probability then the American Scientific Affiliation, a Professor Emeritus and 600 university students?

U never answered my question either gal or euphoria, prove creationism WITHOUT using the bible.

You cant use a book that puts forward a theory and then uses itself to prove it.

That would be like a scientific paper that made references to other sections of itself as proof.

And also, Euphoria said that christians already start with the answer "God did it" and then go and find the proof. I'm no scientists but im pretty sure thats not how it works.

Answer this question, would anyone have come to the conclusion that it must have been a creator god that created everything in the unniverse if we didnt have the bible?

Also like I said Earlier, why dont you just say something like "Contradictory to all the scientific evidence, I still believe in God and Jesus" wouldnt that be true faith?

Why try and even prove yourselfs on so called scientific grounds? Science and religion are 2 completely different things.

I dont think people who are religious are stupid, its when they say stupid things like creationism and Evolution should be taught as equal theorys that pisses me off. Admit that creationism is just Christianity and should be left in religious classes.

So I guess you are more learned and know more about statistical probability then the American Scientific Affiliation, a Professor Emeritus and 600 university students?

you mean this American Scientific Affiliation

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society

They dont have any Bias towards Christianity whatsoever.

http://www.asa3.org/

If you did, you wouldn't be spitting out such stupid, unintelligent dribble that doesn't point to any real reason why evolution is wrong.

But Billy, evolution must be wrong because it contradicts what God says!
We know what God said and did because some dudes wrote down what God said and did thousands of years ago right before He seemed to go on vacation.
There's absolutely no way that the message and the actual occurrences could have been distorted or co-opted over that time.
God can't be wrong because, well he's God.

QED

The thing is, to claim that there *is* an omnipotent being out there that created EVERYTHING, the burden of proof lies squarely on the head of creationists. Not only that, but the proof would HAVE to be beyond any sort of doubt. We *are* talking about "god" here.

While creationists may disapprove of science and it's methods, science has been able to create an accurate timeline of creation of the universe, extinction of dinosaurs, evolution etc. All of these have been backed up with substantial evidence.
Nothing but logic dictates how we go about finding and interpreting such evidence.

edit: i haven't read the whole therad, i just wanted to throw in my 2 cents ;(

last edited by Rohan at 11:49:21 07/Mar/10

"Also like I said Earlier, why dont you just say something like "Contradictory to all the scientific evidence, I still believe in God and Jesus" wouldnt that be true faith?"

Viper because no science does contradict the bible. You guys are making guesses and theories to how things work/how we came to be from scientific evidence. And that evidence - what you know for sure is only one small dot in the seas of the ocean sands in regard to knowledge learning. There is a LONG way to go.

Quote from a Science web site that believes in evolution http://www.spacecentre.no/English/The_Universe/Timeline/How_do_we_know_so_much_about_the_Universe+/

"Scientists learn more about the Universe almost daily, but none dare guess how much we will know five years or a century from now. Most likely, we will have completely new theories on almost everything. "


"U never answered my question either gal or euphoria, prove creationism WITHOUT using the bible."

Viper a CREATOR (so thus a creation) is proved from nature - its beauty and its design. If you watch the 3rd and 4th video links from the very first links I posted in this thread that may start to give you a bit of understanding as to how and why - and that is bar a fraction - theres many other things to consider in natures design and beauty.


Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 3 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_13SKarGI&feature=related

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 4 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-fJ91tIRh8&feature=related

so after watching them my simplistic answer is nature itself proves creation. The videos will give you an idea of what I mean. There is much more.


Regarding the bible and it proving itself - that would be a problem if it was contradicting and wasn't proven again and again in many ways to be true from prophecy to historical references to truths about human behavior and many other things - the more we learn and advance the more things in the bible are shown to be true.

"Answer this question, would anyone have come to the conclusion that it must have been a creator god that created everything in the universe if we didnt have the bible? "

Actually there have been known native societies that missionaries have come across many many years ago that without a bible and being secluded from any form of advance civilization and being very primitive who knew Jesus already. God reveals Himself and His truth in various ways if people seek Him.

I didnt come here to prove God and His bible scientifically since science isn't the only way of knowing. However nothing in the bible contradicts science - we either have it wrong OR we don't have the whole picture scientifically. Yet I have shown a little bit how science and the bible are not at odds and how science can show proof of a God to some extent.

You guys use science as your God and final say (which to me is a limited way of knowing if it is your only way of knowing) and we use Christ and His Word.

One day when we know science fully if that is even possibly which it isnt but just saying then maybe the human race may prove God exists.

Also Viper I get your last point. I really do. However creationism (though true to me and has evidence) is a theory of origins just as much as evolution is a theory. Evolution is not fact. So why should one be taught as fact in a school environment? When it is just one group of peoples belief/theory and there are many others?

What gets me mad is the many scientists and evolutionist who question things themselves and hide things themselves (can show you guys stuff if you want! - dont want to flood the boards again!) and even scientists who disregard things at times because you know it goes against their own personal theory of evolution.

Also sorry someone asked somewhere and I forgot to answer why do we need to know where the very first piece of matter/light or whatever was there first came from - cause it came from somewhere!!

Sure Rohan but

Your quote....
"While creationists may disapprove of science and it's methods, science has been able to create an accurate timeline of creation of the universe, extinction of dinosaurs, evolution etc. All of these have been backed up with substantial evidence.
Nothing but logic dictates how we go about finding and interpreting such evidence.

I'm sorry but that is not true.... It is not logic it is guessing. And it is not an accurate timeline it is guessing (as even proven by the theorists themselves...)

Just as a simple start....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33110809/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Evolution theory "changes" because they just keep discovering things that don't fit their theory. Quote from the SECULAR article (the link above)

"Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimplike creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way"

This is what the scientists are saying themselves...

And only just recently have found a dinosaur apparently 10 million years earlier then expected to have exist was in the news the last week.

Evolution theory "changes" because they just keep discovering things that don't fit their theory.

EXACTLY !!!

Scientists change there theory when new evidence comes along, creationists dont.

Also the changes are usualy slight corrections, not from the earth is 14 billion years old to 6000 years old.

Also Viper I get your last point. I really do. However creationism (though true to me and has evidence) is a theory of origins just as much as evolution is a theory.

Nope wrong answer, do people who believe in evolution go to evolution church on sundays and pray to the evolution god?, do we read from magical book with all the answers and decide our "beliefs" from it?

Viper because no science does contradict the bible. You guys are making guesses and theories to how things work/how we came to be from scientific evidence. And that evidence - what you know for sure is only one small dot in the seas of the ocean sands in regard to knowledge learning. There is a LONG way to go.

Of course there is a long way to go, but isnt that the point, you guys are saying there isnt a long way to go, you already have the answer "God did it"



last edited by `ViPER` at 12:18:43 07/Mar/10

Viper a CREATOR (so thus a creation) is proved from nature - its beauty and its design.

Sorry, but thats the biggest load of bulls*** I have ever heard, so everything looks pretty, therefore God created it, seriously thats your argument?

Im not sure if you live in the same world as me, but there are ALOT of things in this world that arent very "beautiful and Designed" What about kids born with health problems that die in a few months, perfect design there I guess, or was that the devil? or maybe "God" has bigger plans for them or some bulls***.

And yet you continue to spout out new irrelevant s***. Stop it.

Another problem arguing with creationists: they are armed to the teeth with stupid examples, so as soon as you pose a problem for them, they counter with a massive list of more s*** that you need to respond to.

I mock you for changing the topic over and over. I mock you that you still haven't addressed any of my points earlier, or other important points raised by other people. I mock you for being able to copy and paste the sorts of thing you are replying with. I mock you for still misunderstanding science and evidence for evolution despite people's best efforts in this thread to point out why your arguments are so stupid.

Your example of the statistics is wrong for so many reasons. I'm not going to waste the time to explain why on the forums unless you are willing to engage with me without copy pasting more s*** from creationist websites.

I think a correction from how we evolved from apes is a huge correction to evolution theory - that we even evolved from apes is just a huge guess anyway. Check out http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ps3eEU8QMTAC&pg=PA115&dq=how+to+argue+against+evolution&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=how%20to%20argue%20against%20evolution&f=false - a free book - big read. Doubt anyone will but you never know! Just found it.... will need to scroll up to page 79

Regarding design as proof for creationism - you obviously haven't watched those videos Viper.

"Nope wrong answer, do people who believe in evolution go to evolution church on sundays and pray to the evolution god?, do we read from magical book with all the answers and decide our "beliefs" from it?"

Its not the wrong answer. And can go into a whole separate debate but basically whatever you think about life and its origins is a belief. With whatever "proof" you may or may not have.

Yes we already do have the answer! Not because we found it ourselves in our limited knowledge!

Billy - I answered all your questions as far as I can see. If I was to write a paper on everyones question I would be here for a year. I have directed a lot of people to search the answers themselves after showing them where they are. Why should I do the leg work. I already know the answers enough for myself. Told you what they are simply. Directed you to where you can find out more yourself. There may be like one or two things I haven't addressed somewhere so just ask them again! And there may be some things I dont have answers for - Im not sure!

Im not going to promise to stop cutting and pasting. Why should I reword everything just to please you? Still interested in why the statistics regarding Jesus being the messiah are wrong. Also would like that ABC link....

And yet you continue to spout out new irrelevant s***. Stop it.

Another problem arguing with creationists: they are armed to the teeth with stupid examples, so as soon as you pose a problem for them, they counter with a massive list of more s*** that you need to respond to.

I mock you for changing the topic over and over. I mock you that you still haven't addressed any of my points earlier, or other important points raised by other people. I mock you for being able to copy and paste the sorts of thing you are replying with. I mock you for still misunderstanding science and evidence for evolution despite people's best efforts in this thread to point out why they are so stupid.

Your example of the statistics is wrong for so many reasons. I'm not going to waste the time to explain why on the forums unless you are willing to engage with me without copy pasting more s*** from creationist websites.

billy, i agree with you, but you're a smug little bastard.

"And only just recently have found a dinosaur apparently 10 million years earlier then expected to have exist was in the news the last week"

but earth is only 6000 years young, right?

billy, i agree with you, but you're a smug little bastard.

Unless you have read the whole thread, I think that's unfair. I have made my best efforts to argue politely from the beginning. One of Gal's issues with Dawkins is that he mocks creationists, and I originally tried to point out, in the nicest possible way, it's because creationist arguments are bordering on insanity. Failed attempt after failed attempt, I feel like I'm only left to exemplify why Dawkins mocks these people.

.....boring........

"In Six Days : Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" ( a book sold on Amazon)

But You can get it for FREE from here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp

"Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists and chemists come to some disturbing and revealing conclusions. In their estimation, evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion and, factually, it may lag behind."

Also..
"Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." "

Jesus was a conman of his time who was rightfully executed.

You know one day a leading psychiatrist is going to come out and note the distinct pattern of hardcore creationists line of thinking and mental traits, and actually be able to catagorise it is a mental illness.

You guys really seem to demonstrate repeatable and categorisable errors in the way your brain processes things. I can't wait for that day.

Well said, Zy. But I continue...

Also would like that ABC link....

The recording will be played on ABC radio on Thursday at 5pm. I assume it will be available to download after that.

Still interested in why the statistics regarding Jesus being the messiah are wrong.

I'm struggling to make sense of your post about prophecies, because it seems like there are more than 38 there... but here is my reply from any sense I can make out of it.

1) Do you really use this statistic as evidence for Jesus being the son of your god? If so, you are picking and choosing when you believe in statistics. If you can't see the problem with this, I mock you. However, I doubt this is the case. Instead, I mock you for pretending to use statistics to support such a ridiculous case.

2) How did he calculate those statistics? I can't see any method on the site? (don't copy paste, provide a link is fine)

3) How do you calculate the probability of your third prophecy, "3. Son of God (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 3:17) "?

4) You are retro-fitting the life of someone to meet those criteria. Confoundingly, their life has been written about in terms of of fulfilling these prophecies... this is why we use double and triple blind testing when it comes to drug trials - we want to remove any preconceived ideals or bias from influencing how we interpret data.

5) MOST IMPORTANT, and remember this when you are thinking about the big bang and evolution too, given enough time, unlikely events are likely to occur, and, in fact, they are almost inevitable. The fact that statistically unlikely events happen, whether you're talking about someone fulfilling prophecy or the combination of atoms, is proof of statistics, not a god.

Who's more of an idiot ... the one that believes in creationism or the one that tries to reason with a creationist?

Haha I agree with you more and more often Zy.

This thread has provided no end of lols. Billy, I can understand why you started arguing, because it appeared Gal was prepared to listen and discuss logically. However, when that was shown to not be the case, why continue to frustrate yourself?

Although Gal and euphoria may be lost causes, it's important for other people to realise there is no scientific debate about whether or not evolution happened. Just because there are a few more creationists than people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster, it does not mean they have any more credible arguments. We still evaluate the arguments based on the credibility of the evidence, of which creationists have none when it comes to scientific topics.

If people were arguing the world was flat, I would be replying with the same line of arguments.

How noble of you, forever trying to help people towards the light of truth and science.

This is a good time to point out this is why a lot of scientists refuse to "debate" creationists - having these public debates creates a false sense that there are two sides of the story, which is not the case at all. I cannot stress this enough. Scientifically speaking, a creationist explanation for the beginnings of the universe are akin to a 5 year old's imagination - they aren't realistic propositions.

There are very few places for God to exist now.
There are still some mysteries to Science but unlike Religion, Science will continue to search those places, not to prove God doesnt exist but because that is what Human Beings are capable of.
To believe in a God as creator is to deny us what we can become in the future.

Will we one day, millions of years from now, be able to create a Universe ?
Is that what a God really is ?

Such a God would certainly be capable of all things attributed to him in The Bible.

Again the bible record is one of - if not the most - accurate ancient manuscripts written in regard to historical records and its purity to its original writings.

No it isn't. Is this a common feeling among Christians? There are lots of ancient writings that are much better established, and frankly, much more believable as well. Why go I get the sinking feeling a lot of Christians think noone wrote anything before the Bible?

This is a good time to point out this is why a lot of scientists refuse to "debate" creationists - having these public debates creates a false sense that there are two sides of the story, which is not the case at all. I cannot stress this enough. Scientifically speaking, a creationist explanation for the beginnings of the universe are akin to a 5 year old's imagination - they aren't realistic propositions.

its almost like noone read my wall of text :(:(:(

I'm pretty curious as to why people vehemently protecting their faith are attempting to use quasi-statistics to prove a point..

Faith - noun.

8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


I seem to remember this whole push within christianity in school/high school that the moment you go and try to 'prove' the existence of God/Jesus/Mayor McCheese, you're belittling your own religion

but hey whatever right, someone else on the internet has an opposing view

We can also use other ancient texts that trog is referring to and compare them to the bible. Take the story of, say, Moses. There is nothing documented in any Egyptian texts about anything to do with Moses, despite the Egyptians keeping very specific records of everything that happens.

Also, jewish slaves didn't build the pyramids as the movie the Ten Commandments led me to believe: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191

Sure Rohan but

Your quote....
"While creationists may disapprove of science and it's methods, science has been able to create an accurate timeline of creation of the universe, extinction of dinosaurs, evolution etc. All of these have been backed up with substantial evidence.
Nothing but logic dictates how we go about finding and interpreting such evidence.

I'm sorry but that is not true.... It is not logic it is guessing. And it is not an accurate timeline it is guessing (as even proven by the theorists themselves...)

Just as a simple start....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33110809/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Evolution theory "changes" because they just keep discovering things that don't fit their theory. Quote from the SECULAR article (the link above)

"Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimplike creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way"

This is what the scientists are saying themselves...

And only just recently have found a dinosaur apparently 10 million years earlier then expected to have exist was in the news the last week.

Again, science isn't a static field of study. There are always changes and new discoveries to be made. What you've linked and said, only does to prove this.

“Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we’re really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it,” White said. “And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared.”
^ from your article.

edit: also, several passages in the bible do not refer to a historical Christ.
Rather, someone or something that is very much intangible.
Check out Tom Harpur if you wanna read more about that kind of stuff.

last edited by Rohan at 14:33:19 07/Mar/10

Evolution theory "changes" because they just keep discovering things that don't fit their theory.

that's why we call it 'science' and not 'religion'

I seem to remember this whole push within christianity in school/high school that the moment you go and try to 'prove' the existence of God/Jesus/Mayor McCheese, you're belittling your own religion

thats kinda what I was getting at earlier, why do the the creationists/christians need to debate with people who dont believe, are they trying to convert people?, I dont understand.

Are they worried that having kids taugh evolution that they are less likely to accept christianity aswell?

Why does it matter that everyone doesnt believe you? if the overwhelmy majority of scientists accept evolution, then it makes sense to teach that theory doesnt it? its not like its a 50/50 split.

Im sure you will turn this around and say why does it matter that creationists dont believe in evolution, the answer is it doesnt, I dont realy care what you believe, thats up to you. Like I said earlier, its when you try and push it as an equal theory and get it taught in schools in science classes.

Its a religious belief, not f***ing science, just becuase you have a few scientists that believe in creationism doesnt make it true, I bet if you look up there backgrounds they would all be religous, like that link you posted earlier to the american scientists whatever group, it was a group of christians scientists, is it any wonder they believe in creationism?

The Egyptians were really intense at recording history, and the pharoahs mentioned in the bible never existed, the biblical events that apparently happened in egypt receive no mention, and it is clearly an effort at telling the story of a long-established culture that didn't really exist until probably the time that moses is supposed to have lived.

Same with the Romans, again they recorded everything that happened regarding things like what their soldiers were up to and executions - no jesus, nothing that would indicate the things that happened in the bible were really going on.

The bible often also mentions kings and powerful leaders without giving them a name, but it goes into a lot of details about minor poor characters. This is classic story writing: "Once upon a time lived an evil king, and in the forest Billy played...". If you were recording history you wouldn't know what some random character did before all the s*** went down, you would see it from the perspective of what the ultimate consequence or change was, say in the kingdom.

The earliest gospel was not written till about 120 years after jesus supposedly lived. And it took some time for the others to get around. Gospel writing was a popular form of greek fiction at the time, and the idea of taking classic egyptian and iranian characters and stories and retelling them in a poor jewish setting with some roman tyrants was very appealing. All sorts of specific ideas in the new testament, from the virgin mary to the cross, can be traced to earlier legends. They took interesting parts of deities and composed an action hero. The people who wrote this stuff probably didn't even believe it.

Even looking back historically at early christians (for like the first thousand years) there were massive disagreements and wars over what christianity was, whether jesus walked the earth as a man, whether he always had the cross with him or whether he was crucified, and the bible as you know it is only about 400-500 years old when a committe of men sat down and DECIDED what the bible would be. Obviously they used old stories, but there are a lot of stories they chose to discard because it didn't fit into their view of what christianity should be.

No it isn't. Is this a common feeling among Christians? There are lots of ancient writings that are much better established, and frankly, much more believable as well. Why go I get the sinking feeling a lot of Christians think noone wrote anything before the Bible?

I too chuckle at Christians claiming that the bible is the 'best historical record of all time' etc. There are are Sumerian tablets from as far back as 10,000 years ago which document things such as crop yields, legal processes, political correspondence and social happenings in great detail. Plus their records didn't include silly fairy tales or glaring contradictions.

Have fun enjoying your imaginary sky-daddy, Christians, who (according to your very own book) hates you:
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8831/1267005777959.jpg

Man, this thread is better than when the South Australians attacked us over the watermelon vadge.

the biblical events that apparently happened in egypt receive no mention

Think about that though - if you were an Egyptian pharoah that got cained by an uppity Jewish orphan and had a buttload of slave servants take off with him you would you want to carve it on a stone wall and brag about for all eternity or try to sweep it under the rug?

I think if the rivers turned into blood and all that nonsense, then yes, it's not unreasonable to expect some record of it somewhere. But it's not just a lack of documentation in Egyptian accounts - no other peoples who supposedly encountered the Jewish people have documented the event, and no archaeological evidence can be found of them at places like Sinai.

The bible claims the israelites were slaves in Egypt, for hundreds of years, there's nothing about that ever happening in Egyptian history. There are detailed documents from Egypt regarding contracts and transactions and everything that was being built and worked on, and there is never anything about a couple million workers going missing. You can't just make it all disappear. Also no archaeological evidence from the desert between Egypt and Israel to support a massive exodus.
There is however a good amount of evidence showing the people of israel came from areas nearby israel! Surprise.

That evidence was planted there by God to test our faith.

also

cue insane euphoria ramblings.

Oh how right I was.

last edited by fpot at 17:52:03 07/Mar/10

If you read though other histories of the Middle East its pretty clear The Bible is just stories Jews stole from other Cultures.

Its more like a Blog that just kept getting stuff added.

Its like the news.com.au of history.

Also the eqyptions have erased some s*** from history (well tried) http://www.crystalinks.com/akhenaten.html i remember seeing tv specials about this guy a few time. Not that i disagree with what you're saying.

why on earth does anyone bother trying to relieve creationists of their ignorance?
seriously, if they believe it in the first place and refuse to acknowledge basic scientific evidence then they are far too lost a cause to bother with.

you're just slowing down the evolutionary process by attempting to help these people.

Yeah I gave up a few religion threads ago when I realised just how deranged euph was. Now I just stick to a steady regime of ridicule.

If you read though other histories of the Middle East its pretty clear The Bible is just stories Jews stole from other Cultures.

Its more like a Blog that just kept getting stuff added.

When Faceman is a voice of reason in a thread, you kinda have to wonder if there isn't a greater force out there.

Like Jedi force.

No it's just compared to euph Faceman is a rational thinker.

Here I think is the most classic euph quote of all time -

Well it's quite interesting that many cultures all over the world have stories and historical accounts of dragons. Yep, there you go trog... this thread has dragons! :) Big lizards. Don't laugh - we equate dragons to fantasy - but old stories couldn't have used the word dinosaur as it wasn't invented until the 1800s or so. There are numerous stories of "monsters" (Loch Ness monster, etc) and dragons from around the world. It's not impossible that these accounts are based on humans interacting with dinosaurs. There have been a number of examples where human presence has been found in the same rock strata as dinosaur fossils. Naturally, evolutionists aren't too keen for this to be widely noticed. Creationists say dinosaurs were with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

That definitely deserves a top10 spot on that fundies say the darnedest things page.

last edited by fpot at 21:14:04 07/Mar/10

hey guys i found this pic of jesus holding a dinosaur, so it must have really happened.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9660/picture77234891.png

Creationists say dinosaurs were with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

lol, those deleted scenes must be coming in the King James Version Director's Cut.

Theres plenty of sites on Suppressed Archeology.
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/archaeology.htm for instance...

Lorraine Evans puts together the pieces of ignored evidence that exists in Museums, in her book Kingdom of the Ark, claiming the ancient British race is descended from the Pharaohs.

As to why Academia ignores the evidence that contradicts their dogma, she concludes:

"The fact that I had unearthed so many pieces of evidence, archaeological and historical, to show Egyptian settlement in the British Isles raised one question. Why had this all been ignored in academic circles? One of the main reasons, I felt, was that if such information was readily accepted then academia would rapidly have to rewrite huge chunks of history. This would throw certain traditional `historical facts' into tremendous doubt. It is important to stress that many academics' careers are based on these `facts' and to disprove them overnight would make these people redundant, During the research for this book, I soon discovered that some academics were quite willing to share their work off the record, but when it came to committing it to print they soon backed down and a wall of silence greeted me. None of them, it appeared, wanted to put their jobs on the line, to tell the truth, The sad reality of the matter is that we are relying on these people to tell us our history, but they seem content to operate under a veil of academic censorship.

On a Saturday afternoon in the British Museum, hordes of tourists walk nonchalantly by some of the greatest collections of artefacts from the ancient world. As cameras flash and people pose by the more famous exhibits, there stands, in the Medieval Gallery, possibly the most important piece in the entire museum. By a dimly lit case rests the ancient stone of Llywel. Unearthed in a farmer's field in Wales in 1843, it was sold to the British Museum for the meagre sum of £10.00. An ornately carved piece of rock, its true importance appears to have been belittled by its placement. The most significant carving on this stone seems to have been deliberately obfuscated by the powers that be. Turned facing the wall, and impossible to view, there is a clear representation of a person dressed in Egyptian garb leaving the pyramids of Egypt on his journey to the west. ..."

One of my Fav websites.
Good place to spend some time.

More euph quotes

I put forward this alternate explanation for the various levels of complexity in optical systems: When God created the world all creatures had perfect vision (as all of His creation was perfect). Over time as various animals migrated to specific environments their eye sight diminished over generations as perfect vision was no longer was necessary to their survival.

____

The size of the ark is estimated to be about two thirds the size of the titanic. Noah was instructed to take two of each kind (not species) of air-breathing animal (not insects). And yes, dinosaurs were on the ark. They meet the criteria. But think about this, if you want to repopulate the earth, you'd want young animals that will live longer and produce more offspring. So why take a full grown elephant onboard when you can take two babies? Micro-evolution (or variations within a kind) is scientific fact. As an example, horses, donkeys, zebras are of one kind. If you can cross-breed them, they're of a kind. So the numbers involved are a lot less than most people think. And who says Noah went out and got the animals? They came to him. Animals have an instinct for knowing when catastrophic events are about to occur.

I'd be interested to hear Gal's thoughts on these beliefs.

Animals have an instinct for knowing when catastrophic events are about to occur.

This must be why dogs howl whenever euph is about to make a new post.

last edited by fpot at 01:33:58 08/Mar/10

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/modernmaterialist/2009/03/raptorJesus-pnged.png

Faceman a lot of archeologists are only hired if they are evolution based or promote evolution from any of the findings - so even if their findings disagree they (because they are payed for their job) wont say anything and say its proof of evolution etc. And yes some findings are suppressed. This is widely known within some circles and some thorough research can you show you that to.

Fpot - I believe there was an ark. I don't know what animals were/weren't included at the time - really haven't looked into it. It has been shown that to build an ark of the size mentioned in the bible and to hold many animals is possible. Again just google Is the ark possible to build? Theres even possible findings and evidence of the ark but this is all highly debated. Theres some cool large boat stuck in the middle of some huge high mountain in Turkey near modern day Mt Ararat

"The Bible says in Gen. 8:4 that the Ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat. At the time Moses wrote Genesis Ararat was a mountainous region located in what is today Eastern Turkey. The Bible only gives a general location for the final resting place of Noah's Ark. Contrary to what many Christians believe, the Bible does not say the Ark landed on the Mt. Ararat of today. There is, however, compelling evidence from ancient history that the Ark landed on a mountain about 200 miles south of Mt. Ararat. Josephus seems to be referring to this mountain, and he claims it still existed in his day. "

BUT this is highly debated and I havent had a chance to read both sides of the story yet. But it is funny how many other cultures have similar stories and myths of a world wide flood! Including Indigenous Aborigines of Australia.

"prior to the theories of Charles Darwin, most educated men explained the vast quantities of fossils as evidence of the global Flood from the days of Noah. In spite of what you may have heard elsewhere, animals and plants decay rapidly under normal circumstances, rarely leaving any trace for very long that they ever even existed on the planet. The mechanism for creating fossils requires unusual circumstances where an organism is buried before it can be eaten by other animals and bacteria. It is my opinion that the fossil record and sedimentary layers are best explained by a worldwide Flood"


Proof of a world wide flood from fossil record on this site http://x-evolutionist.com/the-fossil-record-evidence-of-the-world-wide-flood-of-the-bible

BTW gotta love this quote from there

"Punctuated Equilibrium – Another theory of evolution

The lack of the “transitional forms” was thought to be such a big problem for the theory of evolution that evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould came up with a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium which explains why there are no transitional forms.

The theory is basically this:

1. Evolution happened.
2. There are no transitional fossils, therefore.
3. Evolution was done in giant leaps, leaving no evidence.

So basically, one theory of evolution with no evidence replaced another theory of evolution with no evidence.Here is some excerpt from an article Steven Jay Gould wrote about transitional fossils

Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977), pp. 22-30.p. 22 “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it-selection can operate rapidly.“p. 24 “As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt’s postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages.“p. 24 “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.“p. 28 “The ess
ence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.”

Funny I thought evolution was a slow process....

Lots more good stuff there - and thats just one site of many - yes theres many sites on both sides!



Billy - statistics - it just shows that Jesus fulfilled prophecy which really is next to impossible UNLESS God knew before hand His plan. And some of them He couldn't just choose and fulfill himself - they were out of His hand. Such as where he was born. That the king of his time would want to kill babies. And others were out of his own hand to. That was all considered from what I read. I don't know how they were calculated - haven't looked into it - your welcome to. However it was good enough for the American Scientific Affiliation, a Professor Emeritus and 600 university students


"it's important for other people to realise there is no scientific debate about whether or not evolution happened." There is YOU just ignore it all. Don't be a liar. You choose what you like and ignore the rest.


Trog the bible is the purest form of ancient writings. It is more accurate from its original writings then any other historical book written by historians. A (unbiased - if that is even possible with you guys) google search will show you.

Crizane Tribal you misunderstood me. And your killing list is way underestimated. Lets start with the Holocust which was killing Jews - God's people. 6 million people. 11 people all up one site said when I had a quick look - haven't researched it but I knew Jews were around 6 million. If God's people back then didn't defend themselves they would have been wiped of the earth.

bats*** insane.

Yes I know from many of your point of view I should really believe I came from "no where" magically one day and evolved from non living matter, to something living, to a small cell to a monkey to a human - much more believable! Especially since there are so many transitional records showing this process!! As there should be! (just in case your not sure I am being sarcastic the transitional records are very poor/non existent when really there should be some if not thousands). http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

no, you should go google what "straw man" means in a logical/argumentative context.

then stop doing it.

then go away. your posts were entertaining for a while, now they're just depressing.

"The bible claims the israelites were slaves in Egypt, for hundreds of years, there's nothing about that ever happening in Egyptian history. There are detailed documents from Egypt regarding contracts and transactions and everything that was being built and worked on, and there is never anything about a couple million workers going missing. You can't just make it all disappear. Also no archaeological evidence from the desert between Egypt and Israel to support a massive exodus."

But there may be

"I've seen underwater slides and video film by Jonathan Gray, whose team found the site. They show the remains of Egyptian chariots, without wheels. Scripture explains how the thin rims sank into the mud formed by the melting ice, became clogged and broke from the axles. The four, six and eight-spoked chariot wheels were identified by the Department of Antiquities in Cairo as belonging to the 18th Dynasty. Apparently, monuments can actually be dated by
the number of spokes in a chariot wheel carved in a frieze. And only during the 18th Dynasty were four, six, and eight- spoked wheels used (see Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty, James K. Hoffmeier. JARCE, #13, 1976)."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb971126.htm and Also http://users.netconnect.com.au/~leedas/redsea.html

A unbiased site - that presents their view says Unproven http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm but they do say

"It was also discovered that there seems to be an underwater "bridge" of sea bed that is shallower than the depths on either side of it and that crosses from one side of the sea to the other. Wyatt said that could have been where the waters parted and made the way for the Hebrews to cross"

BUT this may be because.....

"The bottom line is that at this point all that seems to exist to support the claims of chariot parts on the bottom of the red sea are pictures, most of which are of coral formations. No documented artifacts have been retrieved and preserved from the site and now the Egyptian government prohibits bringing any findings to the surface to the questions may remain for a long time to come."

Funny that!

Taggs I wasn't going to reply anymore but someone asked me a question so I answered out of courtesy then decided to respond to some other things to - but some things I haven't because there probably is no point! If you aren't going to accept it you aren't! Regardless of what I say.

Butt-f***ing Jesus on an inverted cross do I pity any children you ever raise.

That's not what I meant by archaelogical evidence. I don't mean the f***ing water that moses partes is shallower in one section. WHAT THE f*** MATE. Show me the cigarette butts and snickers wrappers at the bottom of Mount Sinai. Show me evidence that human beings lived their whole life travelling across this f***ing desert. Find me where they buried their s***, dead babies, and elderly. Where they discarded old clothes and items.

No you can't, they ninja'd their way across!

Oh yeah shame on the egyptian government for not letting you religious nuts come and dig up their natural habitats. That's like if the muslims said there was evidence of Allah in the Great Barrier Reef, and if the QLD government didn't let them dig up the reef, THEN ITS A CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT ALLAH.

last edited by thermite at 12:16:23 08/Mar/10

I asked you questions about how exactly do you determine the probability that someone is the son of a god, and you reply with that alone is proof that Jesus was the son of god. You are the reason people laugh at and mock creationists.

You copy and paste more ridiculous s***, and I mock you for it. A lot of transitional fossils have been found. You are the reason people laugh at and mock creationists.

You somehow think that a magical god that is everywhere and no where at the same time is more plausible than the chance of the origins of the universe. You are the reason people laugh at and mock creationists.

Trog the bible is the purest form of ancient writings. It is more accurate from its original writings then any other historical book written by historians. A (unbiased - if that is even possible with you guys) google search will show you.

The bible has been re-written so many times. It is not pure. It has been translated a lot of times. It's meaning are interpreted differently by different people. It contradicts what other ancient texts say. It contradicts itself. You are the reason people laugh at and mock creationists.

You are unreasonable and naive.

do I pity any children you ever raise.

here here

my grandmother used to live next door to a wacky creationist couple and their three kids. when the eldest was 8 they took their children out from a catholic primary school (because the place "wasn't christian enough") and started to homeschool them. just witnessing how these kids were being raised and treated made you sick to your stomach. at one of the kid's birthday parties, after the cake had come out and the kid was about to cut it, the dad started preaching. and he kept preaching. and preaching. the whole time this poor kid was standing there wanting to eat some cake and open his presents. then another lady started preaching. and on it went, we all stood around politely for 45 minutes until they finally stopped.

multiply this by 7x52 and you get an idea of how these poor kids are going to turn out, completely and utterly brainwashed into accepting and defending these delusions. at least there will be future gals for QGL to look forward too.

What would baby Jesus say?

Face the facts, you are a biological entity living on an insignificant planet in a vast and expanding universe. Like all biological entities you are going to die, once dead that is the end of your existence... forever.

If there really was a GOD, he would surely be disappointed with the nut jobs that profess to be his followers.

Trog the bible is the purest form of ancient writings. It is more accurate from its original writings then any other historical book written by historians. A (unbiased - if that is even possible with you guys) google search will show you.

Back in year 9 and 10, I was taught that the bible (as a historical text) is one of the most inaccurate texts you could refer to.
Since it's been re-written and distorted throughout time.

other cultures have similar stories and myths of a world wide flood

Yeah? too bad they're just stories and myths then.

"Flood geology doesn't explain why characteristic pollens and spores are found alongside animal fossils of each age (stratum), or why large, slow-moving mammals are invariably found in strata above flying pterodactyls and early birds like archaeopteryx. Flood geology also fails to explain the fossil pattern for trees.
"

last edited by Rohan at 12:36:09 08/Mar/10

last edited by Rohan at 12:45:12 08/Mar/10

I'm not a fan of religion bashing. Its ... unkind.

But I have often wondered what those who deny evolution do about extinction? We observe species extinction events all the time, even in our limited recorded history. How is there so much remaining speciation if new species cannot arise? How can all the species have fit into any sort of repository, I'm imagining that for all the 'kinds' to be stored you'd need a much bigger ark, even if old mate Noah had DNA powers ... ?

haha, this thread just reminded me of this.

so it's not all bad. still makes me laugh, CT :D.

"I asked you questions about how exactly do you determine the probability that someone is the son of a god, and you reply with that alone is proof that Jesus was the son of god. You are the reason people laugh at and mock creationists."

I didnt say that was the ONLY reason - I just said that in many points in regards to whether Jesus was a real person or not - it just came out of that discussion. AND I don't have to understand HOW they came to the conclusion - if a American Science Association and Professor and 600 students think it was fair enough and they even said they UNDER estimated by heaps and heaps and made it very strict on all accounts.

Regarding transitional fossils - records are very few and fair in between and very debatable. Check out page 69 - more so towards 73 and onwards http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ps3eEU8QMTAC&pg=PA115&dq=how+to+argue+against+evolution&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=how%20to%20argue%20against%20evolution&f=false



Rohan (and Billy)
Regarding the purity of the bible - what you were taught or assumed was a lie. I showed a link how PURE the bible is but none of you bothered to click on it or have a look. HERE IT IS AGAIN!!! http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible Im sorry but even secular historians say from all records and account it is close to the original text more accurate than others. It is 99.95 percent pure. For you to say

"The bible has been re-written so many times. It is not pure. It has been translated a lot of times." is false.

Again Here....

"Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.

As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.

While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism. "


One out of many historical facts proven that scholars scoffed at and were found to be true AS mentioned in the bible - theres more here to.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1817
"The Fabled Hittites

Bible critics had long sneered at references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26 and elsewhere). Their opinion was that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers. Some critics said they may have been a small and unimportant tribe. But the critics were off the beam!

Toward the end of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were uncovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, proving the Bible right. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas, capital of the Hittite Empire) in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture. The centuries-old Hittite rubbish showed they were a real and formidable power. They were once one of the dominant peoples of Asia Minor and the Near East. They exercised considerable control south into Syria and Palestine.

The Bible was right all along! Today, no one questions the existence of the Hittites. Volumes of books exist on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites. Yet an anti-Bible prejudice still exists. Scholarly people usually believe that if it’s in the Bible, it’s wrong. But the Bible is right and has always been right.

In 1974, Italian archaeologists found approximately 17,000 cuneiform tablets and fragments at the site of ancient Ebla in northern Syria. The inscriptions on these artifacts date them prior to the 24th century b.c. Noachian Flood. Similar finds were uncovered in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The tablets show that writing was common centuries before Moses. The critics can no longer claim that Moses and his contemporaries were illiterate or that the Pentateuch was written by Ezra in the 5th century b.c"


Hogfather - http://www.gotquestions.org/noahs-ark-animals.html and or http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html



The fact is evolution is a big fat myth!! It is ONLY a theory - whether you believe in God or not.

The fact is evolution is a big fat myth!! It is ONLY a theory - whether you believe in God or not.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Billy maybe his book has more info on how he arrived at the statistics

"Professor Peter Stoner (June 16, 1888 – March 21, 1980) was Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953 when he moved to Westmont College in California. There he was Chairman of the science division and Professor Emeritus of Science. Professor Stoner is known for writing a book while he was at Westmont College called “Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible.” Science Speaks showed how Bible prophecy proves that Jesus was truly God in the flesh by using estimates and calculations. Professor Stoner calculated the probability of events in the bible including prophecies."


http://mattgamble.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/would-you-bet-your-life-on-the-probability-of-the-scriptures/

Yeah euph you really are an imbecile you know that right?

Mantorok from that site link

"In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 "


It is an EXPLANATION for your OBSERVATIONS - to me thats a guess.

And yes there is genetic change within species or we would all look the same! God made a beautiful varied creation not robots.

You're wrong.

the Bible is bulls***... just ask Penn and Teller...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

Gal do you accept the evidence of our Genes ?
That all Human Beings began in Southern Africa ?

Chinese, Jews, Indians, Aboriginals all descended from Africans.

I don't know. I haven't looked into it. What does it matter?

How would they arrived at that conclusion? Was it just guessing again?

Not sure what your getting at but anyway

"the geographical location of both Eden [where Adam and Eve were] and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush).[2] There are hypotheses that place Eden at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates (northern Mesopotamia), in Iraq (Mesopotamia), Africa, and the Persian Gulf. "

Funny one is Africa....

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/human_race.asp

"The Bible refers to genetic variations, such as the height of man, before the flood. It is therefore very probable that both before and after the flood variations in skin coloration also existed-even in Noah's family.

Up to the time of Babel, since there was only one language, all of mankind formed only one culture or 'marriage group'. Any variations would tend to be minimized since 'darkish' could marry a 'lightish', and the average color of the population would stay the same. However, the coming of new languages changed all that. The large group was split into many smaller groups. It is unlikely that each group would have contained a representative of all shades of skin color. So if a census had been taken of average skin color of each group, some would have averaged towards the darker end, and some to the lighter end. The same sort of difference would no doubt have occurred for any body characteristic-straight hair, wavy hair, eye shape, etc.

The world environment had been dramatically changed by the flood. As the groups dispersed, then, they were going to areas which offered them new and different climates and diets. Studies on the relationship between skin color and health in a given environment, suggest the following origin of racial colors. After Babel, those who went to colder climates who had darker skin, would probably suffer Vitamin D deficiencies, such as rickets. The skin produces Vitamin D from sunlight. The person with darker skin is worse off in a cold region since there is less sunlight, and since he is more sunlight resistant, he can produce less Vitamin D. The colder environment, both through sunlight and the available diet, would tend to favor those with fairer skins. Dark skinned people would be therefore less healthy and tend to have fewer children. Gradually the number of black people in any group that went to a cold region would dwindle. From that point on the remaining population was a 'white' race.

Likewise, those who went to brighter, hotter regions, and had darker skins would survive more easily (i.e. get less skin cancer, etc.) and hence be selected for. In this case, the whiter persons would dwindle from the population and a 'black' race would result. It is interesting to note that if a pure white European is married to a pure black Negro, the offspring are an intermediate brown called mulatto. If two mulattos are married, the offspring can be any of 9 colors, from pure white to pure black.

The simplest conclusion that it may be possible to draw from this observation is that Noah and his family possessed genes for both dark and light. Dark enough to protect them, and light enough to ensure sufficient Vitamin D. In the world before the flood it is unlikely that there would have been extremes of heat or cold, so that a balanced skin color was the most suitable. After Babel the extremes of environment sorted these color factors into groups which contained different numbers of light and dark genes. The final ratio of dark to light genes in any one group would be the most useful balance for that environment. This process of gaining a light or dark skin is not an adaptation in the evolutionary sense of the organism developing something new to cope with a new environment. All basic factors in skin color were present in the first created man. Adam was designed to 'cope'."

So Adam could possibly have had those genes? - not sure I don't know much about genealogy! And who is to say the first Africans were as dark? Just some questions!

I'll probably stop here, seeing as how you continue to spout "evidence" that has been refuted and dismissed by both the Scientific and Historical communities.
but anyway,

Mantorok from that site link

"In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 "


It is an EXPLANATION for your OBSERVATIONS - to me thats a guess.

And yes there is genetic change within species or we would all look the same! God made a beautiful varied creation not robots.

.. I fail to see how you could attribute any of that to a guess. "well documented, well supported and well substantiated". for something to be backed up with such credibility and evidence, that's what makes it a valid point of reasoning.
Makes you really wonder, that if you're calling that a guess.. =/

Evolution is guess work from certain observations that have been made and or so called evidence.

To prove a theory don't you have to do it? Would like to see that. Would also like to see living matter form from non living matter/material.

Also it doesn't explain how we got here. How did the first - very first piece of material arrive? It had to come from somewhere.


"In practice, evolution is neither fact nor theory. A theory is a well-supported—but falsifiable—body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power (e.g., the theory of gravity). Evolution, however, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation). Evolutionists fit all evidence into the framework of evolutionary naturalism (the belief that there are no supernatural causes). As a corollary to this, evolution cannot be used to make predictions because all results are filtered through the prior belief in evolution.

Evolution is better referred to as a tenet of naturalistic philosophy or humanism (a belief system). Most evolutionists presuppose a worldview that demands the removal of any supernatural agents acting in a knowable way (e.g., miracles, special creation). Calling it a theory and/or fact is a disingenuous attempt to hide the underlying beliefs and to discourage debate by ridiculing those who disagree.


Rohan you said
"well documented, well supported and well substantiated" - You guys observe bits and pieces and say hey this is part of evolution. It isnt the whole picture. You can only observe variations within a species - just as God made us.

"The word evolution (sometimes called Darwinism) has a variety of definitions, from simply “change” to “the natural process by which all life derived from a single ancestor,” and is referred to alternately as “hypothesis,” “theory,” “law,” and “fact.” Because of its imprecise nature, the term is often used ambiguously to imply that the processes we can observe in the present (e.g., natural selection) “prove” that the processes we cannot observe in the past must have happened as well (e.g., the change of dinosaurs into birds). In fact, the term evolution can also be used to denote the philosophy of naturalism, which depends upon unobserved events in the past (including in astronomy, chemistry, and geology).

In scientific terms, evolution generally means the change in genetic material between generations, which is also referred to as “descent with modification.” These changes are attributed to mutations, gene flow and drift, and natural selection, which are examples of observational science and can be shown to occur. However, the other aspect of evolution is the belief that all animals descended from one original ancestor. Evolutionists sometimes claim this “fact” is established in the fossil record, homology (similar structures), and genetic evidence. However, any evidence involving historical science (one-time events that cannot be retested) is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.

Mutations and genetic drift are often cited as the source of heritable traits from one generation to the next. While mutations do cause changes in the genome and genetic drift changes the frequency of those traits, neither process is capable of changing one kind of animal into another. More often, mutations have either no noticeable impact or cause degeneration.

When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#evolution-as-theory-and-fact

How would they arrived at that conclusion? Was it just guessing again?

Adam and Eve, we all descended from the same gene pool. ;)

Just one question, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Religious_demographics Christianity is less the 1/3 of the worlds population, what makes you right and everyone else wrong?

last edited by GumbyNoTalent at 15:44:36 08/Mar/10

EvolutionReligion is guess work from certain observations that have been made and or so called evidence

I'll probably stop here, seeing as how you continue to spout "evidence" that has been refuted and dismissed by both the Scientific and Historical communities.

Ditto. I leave with this final comment:

Gal, we will continue to laugh at you and call you stupid if you can't or refuse to understand why religion is not a science. Science doesn't care whether or not a god exists, it just cares about using logic to help us understand the universe. You can believe in a god if you like, and even that his son walked the earth, but as soon as you refute scientific fact because it doesn't agree with your belief, you are choosing to remain uneducated and ignorant, and your arguments don't deserve time, attention or respect.

From http://www.topix.com/forum/seattle/T336A1Q0VK5CRTELF

Seven Reasons Why Evolution is a Fraud

1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not.

More info at http://www.evofraud.com

"Just one question, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Religious_demographics Christianity is less the 1/3 of the worlds population, what makes you right and everyone else wrong?"

Sorry I missed your question just saw it was edited your post so missed it.

I can't tell you. I can only tell you why I believe.

When you come to know God/Jesus - if God is real - don't you think He is powerful enough and big enough to teach you about truth and who He is. Its not a matter of how do I believe. It is a matter of how big God is and how much He shows you truth.

Gal, you're welcome to keep posting, but you can't just repeatedly just copy/paste large blocks of text which are continually handed around by creationists on every website in a half-assed attempt to debug evolution. If you are going to copy/paste stuff, you must:

1) use the <quote> and </quote> tags around it so it is clear it is something that you are quoting
and
2) include a link to where you are citing from

When you come to know God/Jesus - if God is real - don't you think He is powerful enough and big enough to teach you about truth and who He is. Its not a matter of how do I believe. It is a matter of how big God is and how much He shows you truth.

See, this is much more interesting than posting drivel that has already no doubt been torn apart by cold hard science and logic and rationality. How were you shown the Truth? What is your reason for belief?

I'd rather hear about that

There is absolute proof in our Genes that we came from Africa.
There is absolutely no evidence that Human Genes began in the Middle East.

Something happened around 100 000 years ago that added something to our DNA.
Viruses, Cosmic Explosion, radiation, The Sun, whatever it was it was not a God.
God played no part in creating human beings.

We evolved from Primates, something altered our family tree for us to become what we are today. Yes there are apes and monkeys today but they have taken a different evolutionary route than our ancestors did.

A creator of Planets and Universes would not need to slightly alter an Ape to become a race of Humans. He could have engineered a completely unique species.
Humans are not very complex genetically so it would have been quite simple for such a Creator of everything.

It is a matter of how big God is and how much He shows you truth.

Finally, something we can agree on. My contention is that until God bellows down from the sky and makes his presence known unequivocally, I'll stick to worshipping the sun and praying to Joe Pesci.

woah did trog do magic or do the spaces before and after 'and' stop it from working?

God played no part in creating human beings.

I'm not prepared to rule out the existence of a god or gods. But I'll wait til the evidence supports it, and until it does I'll go on believing the stuff that the evidence does support.

Also from Anathem: "That's funny because if anyone actually did prove the existence of God we'd just tell him 'nice proof Fraa Bly' and start believing in God."