The Religion Of Atheism

The Religion Of Atheism

By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor

A person’s religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest “monotheistic” religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.

Some religions are “polytheistic,” with belief in many gods, each with different functions.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on “separation of church and state.”

But this is like saying that “black,” (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, “black” is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, “Atheism” is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!

When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

Therefore I urge you to understand clearly in your mind that Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are religions. And any restrictions placed on Christianity, Judaism, or Islam must also be placed on Atheism. Atheism must not be allowed to slip through its little loophole any longer, by pretending it is not a religion.

Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Creator of the Universe.

Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor www.InternetDailyChapel.org
Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: The Religion Of Atheism

83 Comments on “The Religion Of Atheism”

  1. Cyboman Says:

    Atheism, is most assuredly NOT a religion. You have absolutely no legitimate way of asserting this. You are simply trying to make a point by abusing semantics. You are intellectually dishonest therefore.

    Atheists don’t worship anything. Atheism isn’t an elaborate dogma of unjustified beliefs. It simply is the admission that given everything we know about the universe, it appears that no intelligence appears to be governing anything. You may say you see evidence of this all around but you can’t prove it scientifically. It is only your belief – which is unjustified. Since you can’t justify your beliefs then it isn’t legitimate in the public arena. Your beliefs about a god or gods are yours alone.

    That animals have evolved to their current state is a scientific fact which you refuse to accept because of your intellectual cowardice and your traditionalist world-view. It is supported by 150 years of biological, geological, and genetic research very little of which you are aware of. Francis Collins, is a leading genetic scientist and recently converted to Christianity. He is a devout Christian and has every incentive to reject evolution in favor of a few Sumerian-derived myths but he is simply to aware of the world (unlike you) to discount evolution. His feelings on evolutions is that the evidence is absolutely incontestable.

    If you really don’t wont a separation a church and state why don’t you move to a country where there is none and let the rest of us be free.


  2. Atheism is most certainly a religion, and it is called secular humanism.A person’s religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest “monotheistic” religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.

    TUPELO, Miss., Aug. 19 /Christian Wire Service/ — A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said, “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

    Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, described the court’s ruling as “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

    “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” stated Fahling.

    The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

    Fahling pointed to today’s ruling as “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

    “It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said

    Just one more story of thousands like it.

  3. Cyboman Says:

    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source
    secular humanism
    -noun

    any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.

    You’re not fooling anyone. Not having a religion doesn’t make you religious. You can site thousands of news articles (which you can’t) about how this or that person thinks atheism is a religion (in a legal sense or whatever). You will not successfully fool people into beleiving that atheisims has any of the attributes religion has such as

    * Beleifs unsupported by evidence,
    * Unquestionable dogma
    * A history of being used to justify attrocities (burning people alive, the crusades, tortured confessions)
    * A tendency to create separate moral communities often using violence against each other
    * Belief in unsupported claims (faith) as a virtue
    * Martyrdom (suicide bombings, 9/11)
    * Animal/human sacrifices
    * Faith healing
    * Prohibitions on medical research and necessarily medical procedures.
    * Bigotry (xenophobia/racism, sexism, homophobia)
    * Institutionalized polygamy, honor killing, genital mutilation

    (this is a small list of the first things to come into my head)

    Atheism is the humble admission that we don’t know the everything about the nature of the universe. Secular humanist despise religion for the aforementioned attributes and believe there is a better way to approach ethics and morality.

  4. Webmaster Says:

    If you had ever taken the time to read the Human Manifseto written by atheists for atheists then you’d choose a different approach than the dead one you just took in trying to defend atheism as not being a religion,and it’s obvious that you have not which makes you just another anti-theist loudmouth.Although viewing yourselves as “free thinkers”, you all have a Party Line you follow rather closely.Evolution and time are your God,and evolutionists are always demanding that creationists should “just disprove” (or falsify) evolutionary theory, if it’s so wrong. But what escapes their notice is that more evolutionary pressupositions have ALREADY been falsified than have been proven, yet they cling tenaciously—nay, religiously—to their beliefs, regardless of how little real scientific data support them, insisting that the opposite of the truth is true!
    Conversely, creationism is open to no less falsification process than evolutionism, yet the main line of attack evolutionists invariably use against creationism has nothing to do with the details of the data and how it fits the theory—rather they begin by crying “foul!” on the grounds that creationism is somehow “religious” while evolutionism is somehow not. But even if we were to accept that claim, the central question remains: Which set of presuppositions (or which suggested scenario) best fits the data—particularly while requiring the fewest modifications to the original scenario? Even if the best scenario happens to have “religious” implications, it would seem that an objective scientist would be interested in the results—and many are (who are not all creationists).

    Regards,

  5. Cyboman Says:

    I don’t need to have to read anything other than a dictionary to know what the word atheism means or to know when someone is being dishonest with regard to semantics.

    What in the world does it mean for “evolution” or “time” to be gods. Do you know what these words even mean?

    Evolution doesn’t provide comfort or meaning the way religion does. Though it does provide an elegant and factual way to account for our existence it also says “tough shit. your on you
    r own Jack”. There are no emotional or religious incentives to cling to evolution just like their are not emotional incentives to cling to the theory of gravity. What is important i
    s that we honor the truth. That is what is at stake here with regard to conversations like this. You are simply ignorant or lying when you intimate that evolution is on shaky scientific grounds. You likely get a lot of your information on evolution from religious propaganda books (Ann Coulter for example) which are written to reinforce a world-view rather than inform.

    Explain why Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project, who was once an atheist and has recently become a devout Christian still believes wholeheartedly in the Darwinian
    account of evolution through natural selection. Write an article about it. Is he, one of our greatest scientists and religious thinkers, a stooge?

    In your last paragraph you seem to be saying that creationism isn’t necessarily religious. In your first paragraph you say that evolution and time are gods to atheists (people who don’t beleive in gods). You seem incredibly confused about this subject. Can’t you just admit that modern biological knowledges threatens your world-view and instead of facing up to this fact you have created a propagandist website to confound the issue for people who are not very knowledgeable about science.


  6. You are the one being dishonest because too many of you God-Haters don’t care about the truth.Your myopic brain only has one desire, and that is to destroy God, and to wish to destroy something you must hate it, and to hate it you must believe in it.
    You have demonstrated that.
    You have demontsrated that rather remarkably.
    Moving ahead……..
    To answer your second question,I stated that Evolution ,and time were your God, are you really that dense?
    I’ll let you figure that one out on your own.
    As well, Evolution does provide comfort and meaning to the atheist because it releases them from all moral responsibility.
    So you buy into the fallacy of Evolution then?
    Tired of being a blowhard? Then lay it out for me.Describe to me all of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from a small land mammal to a whale.And tell me how each successive creature was better adapted than the last.
    And your citation to Frank Collins is nothing more than an appeal to authority so I won’t even address that.
    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Darwinism will die a most welcome scientific death within your lifetime,and it’s happening as we speak.
    In my last paragraph I stated what I meant, and that is that creation and science are mutual.
    In the final sumnation it is you that are confused about your own origins, and not I.
    Atheism is a religion. Atheists make a big deal of their atheism. And you live by faith.. the belief that God does not exist,as you cannot prove what you believe.
    At this point I am of the contention that you are nothing more than a God-Hating anti-theist as your tone, and begging of the questions dictates.
    Now are you going to admit this is true, or do you still want to argue
    about it?

  7. Cyboman Says:

    You seem much more upset than you were before. Interesting 🙂

    OK, lets start up again. You call me a God-Hater. Of coarse, I don’t believe in a god so that doesn’t make sense. Apparently I want to destroy a being that I don’t believe in because I “hate” it so much. Furthermore, somehow, I think its within my power to destroy an omnipotent being even when I don’t believe in him.

    Could it be that the god you are talking about is merely a belief and not a real entity. The rest of your arguments would make a lot more sense. Lets look at it that way for a second.

    I think the notion of a god is patently irrational. Since I am against irrationality I would want to “destroy” a *belief* that is irrational in hopes of creating a better world for my fellow humans to live in. Since god is now a mere belief, then it is true, I would have to believe in the belief of a god in order to want to see the belief disappear.

    As far as time and evolution being gods, you *did* say they were my gods. I assumed you meant “you as an evolutionist/atheist belief in the gods of time and evolution”. Your assertions were nonsensical (as I pointed out before) so forgive me if I didn’t (and still don’t) know what on earth you were talking about.

    Morality is rooted in our biology (immorality is too as it were). It is also institutionalized in our laws. Atheism doesn’t allow you to escape your own moral intuitions. Do you really think our society would me more moral if it were not for the secular Age of Enlightenment which ended the religious atrocities in Europe and gave us our modern, democratic, scientific world. There is a reason athists don’t go around hurting people whenever no one is looking. Maybe you would if you didn’t believe there was an divine surveillance system in the sky. But most normal people aren’t like that. It’s more noble, I think, to be ethical for the sake of being ethical and not in order to please a god.

    Explaining basic evolution to you would be elementary (though time consuming) but since you weren’t paying attention in 10Th grade biology you will have to go to a book store and learn it yourself.

    Whats wrong with talking about Francis Collins. Your appeal to a 2000 year old magic book for almost all your insight into science and ethics. Collins is an ironic figure worthy of discussion. The problem of coarse is that invoking Collins obliterates any anti-evolution argument you could come up with in a thousand years so you are wise to avoid him.

    I can’t disprove the existence of Yahweh. Then again, I can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s existence. Neither can I disprove that a tiny china teapot orbits the sun. I can comfortably claim that nether of these 3 proposals are very likely to be true.

    You thought this propaganda stuff would be easier didn’t you 🙂


  8. That’s interesting, what in heavens name would make you think that you could ever upset me?
    I did call you a God-Hater, and that makes perfect sense if you had studied my inerrant logic.
    If you don’t hate God, then why aren’t you out attacking pink Unicorns instead of God’s sovereign nature?
    Doesn’t that strike you as being a bit odd at all?
    Could this God that you hate (the one I am talking about) really make you so angry, and upset that you have to incessantly ponder him, and his followers with the utmost contempt?
    Let’s put it this way; I don’t believe in little pink Unicorns so you’d never see me over on the pink Unicorn newsgroups railing against them and their believers. That simply doesn’t make sense to a rational person such as myself, and would imply that I did believe in them if I expended the undue amounts of energy towards unicorns that you expend in hating your God.
    As one with a much higher IQ than yours it is easy to see the blatant fallacy in your claims. You are so blinded by your contempt for God, and Christianity from your father Satan that you fail to see something that other more implicitly rational people see as much more than crystal clear.
    Your atheism has caused more misery, death, and destruction of freedom than any other ideology in history. See-https://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/tag/atheism-kills-with-a-demonic-fury/ for starters.
    As well if you think morality were rooted in biology then why don’t you give us the chemical equation for it? How about love?…silly me…. question withdrawn because you don’t, and never will have it.
    The religious atrocities throughout the ages?
    Religious atrocities less than 10,000 and many from malnutrition while in jail.
    But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.”
    Don’t like stats like that do you?
    Citations? Hundreds both from biased and unbiased sources are out there on the Internet. Start here

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/11/23/atheism-kills/

    You haven’t explained Evolution to me either because you cannot. I have asked you to lay it all out for me and describe to me all of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from a small land mammal to a whale. And tell me how each successive creature was better adapted than the last. The truth is that you cannot because evolution fails you. There is no fossil evidence that macroevolution occurred.None,Zero,And the famous names in evolution know that and admit it. That is why Gould (one of the most famous
    evolutionists who ever lived) took Goldschmidt’s ridiculous concept of “Hopeful Monsters” (the idea that for example,
    a bird hatched from a reptilian egg) and toned it down and claimed that macroevolution occurs in “fits and starts” and called it, “Punctuated Equilibrium”. Why? Because he knew
    AND ADMITTED that the fossil record does NOT contain ANY evidence for macroevolution
    As I’ve stated before that Collier is an appeal to authority and nothing more, and your presumption that a 2000 year old book is full of flaws remain to be easily debated, but that is to be left to a whole other thread.
    Your admission that you cannot disprove the existence makes you an agnostic at best. To know there is no God you would have to be like God.
    Out of all of the information in the universe that you contain it is a dismally small number. Therefore not knowing or having all of the information makes you logically an agnostic thank you.
    A flying Spaghetti monster?
    First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. The Spaghetti monster is simply presented as a fictional character.
    Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses, and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure.
    The Spaghetti monster you lay ruse to is intentionally and knowingly presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole with Santa. Third.
    The intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where the accounts of Santa or a Spaghetti monster are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.

    Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit an historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral conceptualization except to state that there is a north pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.
    You God-Haters never cease to sicken me,and it is the method you dishonest atheists use.You try to belittle Christians, and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact. You think that by making the claims you do, and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it
    up, with your slams. At the same time, you also try to cover up the fact that you’re intentionally slamming people, by trying to sound scientific. However, you don’t succeed, since it is you who does not comprehend the basic premise of science, let alone anything else about it.
    You’re just a pretender, and not a very good one. I was really hoping for a debate here but all I get is the same old parroted bullcrap from the party line that you anti-theists all subscribe to.

  9. Cyboman Says:

    If everyone believed in pink unicorns and this belief resulted in murders and injustices I would be confronting people who believed in pink unicorns. You obviously expend more energy than I do pondering atheists and evolutionists.

    Why do you think I hate Yahweh so much. I’m not blinded.
    “My father Satan”? Where do you come up with this stuff?

    The Nazis and communists you mentioned were atheist (Hitler professed a belief in the Christian god in his writings but we will leave that alone for now). But they killed in the name of wildly irrational ideologies. Fascism, nationalism, Marxism, totalitarianism. They used their unjustified beliefs to commit mass genocide. While the rest of the world was modernizing, they were taking advantage of the worlds modern weapons technologies to institute their irrational ideologies (medieval Christians could only dream of that kind of killing power). Atheism was merely one of their attributes. Using this argument is like saying mustaches cause genocide and atrocities because Hitler, Stalin and Castro all had them. %90 percent of the scientist in the National Academy of Science are atheists. Do you think these people should be suspected of genocidal tendencies?

    To use your logic: to know there is a god you would have to be like a god.

    For the record I never said anything about Jesus.

    I’m not going to give you an introduction to evolution by natural selection. It’s an incredibly easy concept to grasp but you wont accept it. Besides, we both know that’s not what this is about. It’s about your refusal to look the universe in the face and reconcile your religious indoctrination with modernity.

  10. Cyboman Says:

    Just wanted to remind everybody that your favorite infidel, Richard Dawkins will be own O’Reilly tomorrow

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,900,n,n

  11. Blogmaster Says:

    On your first point:
    So confront the atheists that have killed hundreds of millions throughout the history of the world.
    You won’t do that and do you want to know why?
    It’s because you hate God, and his followers.
    You’re nothing more that an anti-theist that hates God.
    Only you can ask yourself why you hate God so much.
    Satan obviously has a spear in your rear at one end.
    I have several theories as to why you may hate God, and I am more than happy to post them here for you to hopefully reflect on.

    1.Much like here you declare on a public forum that you are “furious at God for not existing”.

    2.When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites….all that is except for your friend who died.

    3.You say that there is no God ,and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.

    4.You not only spell “God” with a lower case “g,” but you also add an “E” to “B.C.,” and replace the word “Christ” with an “x.” Yet, when asked to name the planets you have no problem with spouting out the appropriate list of Roman Gods. Heck, you’ll even spell them with capital letters! Not only that, you can even spell and pronounce the name of the 800-mile-diameter Trans-Neptunian Object ‘Quaoar’, and are delighted that it comes from the creation mythology of the Tongva people (aka the San Gabrielino Native Americans).

    Hitler was a pagan and not a Christian so maybe you better leave that one alone before it bites you in the ass also.
    Science is amoral and scientists are amoral, and given the chance and opportunity yes they would experiment on humans just as they did in all of the other tolitarian/atheist regimes. You won’t find a Christian abortion Dr. practicing the slaughtering of the innocent unborn anywhere as well. I guarantee you that they are all atheists.

    .
    In closing let me state that you know absolutely nothing about me or my education and experience.
    All you are doing is begging the questions put forth to you.
    Let me also bring you up to speed on what’s modern and what’s not..
    Evolution is a horrible scam that is as unscientific as you are knowledgeable about the subject.
    Not once did you address any of my points in a rational manner, and all you are doing is cluttering up my precious time with your parroted responses.

    You also miss an important point – what proof do you have that shows how life began from non-life (abiogenesis). What proof do you have that there isn’t an
    intelligent guiding force in nature (apart from your own existence, which can be used to prove either 1) that no intelligent being would have started
    or designed a process that would result in someone like yourself, cause that’s just bonkers, or 2) the guiding intelligence also has a wacky sense
    of humor)?

    This “Theory of Evolution” talk is nothing more than “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” bunk. Just a bunch of pendants running in circles plugging holes in a dam that never held water in the first place, all to see who can pontificate the loudest.

    It’s clearly a Theory devised and perpetuated by people who want to “create” an environment (at least within there own consciences), either consciously or not, wherein there is no responsibility or recourse for one’s actions…ie. there is no God to whom one must answer.

    All of this gobbledy-gook nonsense can be boiled down to this simple progression of thought: Either there is a God of infinite intelligence that has always existed
    and that used His extreme intelligence to create life as we know it in all its wondrous and awe-inspiring forms…

    OR,

    There has always existed inanimate matter…and that “inanimate matter” arranged itself in such a manner, as such, that it’s arrangement defies all human attempts to this day to fully decipher,decode, or understand it (thereby intimating and assigning an extremely intelligent intellect to inanimate matter).

    But yet, these pendants such as yourself would have the unwashed masses believe that inanimate matter, arranging ITSELF, is somehow miraculously responsible for ALL life forms as we know them, including the very humans who are unable to comprehend or prove how this inanimate matter (that always existed, according to them) arranged itself to accomplish all that in the first place. You my friend simply believe in a miracle without a miracle worker.

  12. Cyboman Says:

    Why do you keep saying I hate your god. I simply don’t see any proof of what you would describe as God. If your god was good and rational then it would expect me to be good and rational which I try to do. This is what causes me to be an atheist. If I were a god I would expect good rational people to come to this conclusion too. I’ve never experienced a tragedy like you described. I knew about religion, evolution and atheism when I was in 3rd grade. I was encouraged to think for myself. At 15 I was taking Pascal’s wager. A few years later I saw that that wasn’t the correct approach because Pascals wager could be taken for any religion or idea.

    You also make a lot of odd clams about my grammar. I use the word god because that is what I mean (a god). I don’t buy into the religious convention that Yahweh should be synonymous with God. I treat all gods equal with regard to my belief in them. Thor, Odin, Yahweh all have the same amount of evidence justifying their existence. “X” is a Greek abbreviation for Christ. Look up the word XMAS for more on this.

    You fear and distrust people who make it their business to understand the world. You’re an anti-intellectual. I could address every point you make but my time is more valuable than that. Why should I drag a mule to the feeding troth of knowledge who would prefer to starve to death.


  13. You mistakenly think that it’s different, when an atheist fails to accept or distorts the truth because they can always claim that they
    are “logical”, “rational”, and “un-biased”. Yeah, whatever….What they can rarely manage to be, however, is logical, or rational, or unbiased. Indeed it is hilarious to note that they keep repeating, in set phrases, atheist slogans like ‘think for yourself’! People who think for themselves do not need to talk in elderly slogans. With that being said, sorry to rain on your parade, and thereby mess up your glossy fur coat, but you undoubtedly give every indication of being anti-theist, specifically anti-Christian/Hebrew God/anti-intellectual. You’re obsessed with theology, and you hate being called the God-hater that you exemplify because that label indicates that God does exist.
    Your hatred of God in Heaven who incarnated as Yeshuwa` The Messiah simply strengthens my faith, and has the same effect on many others, I suspect.
    When atheists or anti-theists such as yourself start railing against belief in Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Satan, Buddha, the Goddess, etc., and calling that evil and insane, I might reconsider my opinion of their intent to simply wipe out belief in the God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.
    Your last statement is a dichotomy to boot where you state that you would address every point I make, but that your time is more valuable than that.
    In the time it took you to write this duncescreed you call a rational point you could have answered my questions.
    This only leads a rational, and intellectual person such as myself back to the premise that you cannot do so in a logical, and scientific manner. Since you offer nothing in support of your claims besides sweeping (and disfigured) generalizations (e.g., “Like all creationist whom are misguided, you certainly fit the cake.”), it remains unqualified and unsubstantiated, as does the balance of your message.
    You may be very attentive to the needs of your fellow anti-theistic God-Haters, but to a rational person such as myself if you were any more vacuous your head would implode.

  14. Cyboman Says:

    Why are you so upset with me anyway. I don’t believe what you believe and I provide perfectly legitimate arguments for why I don’t and you write back like you are burning up inside. I’m vaguely perturbed by you and I think you’re out of your mind in terms of your belief system.

    I think in some way you are threatened. Or maybe the belief system you have feels threaten. Perhaps your belief in your god is so strong that it ends up taking a life of its own and tries to defend itself. Maybe its a mild form of paranoid schizophrenia. Some people hear voices in their head which command them to do things (you know, like Abraham). Maybe this is what is happening to you, though clearly in a much more subtle and different way. Your belief in a your god is commanding you to defend it. Of course this is just wild speculation but it would explain your behavior. Perhaps you have a memetic disease 🙂

    Have you ever noticed that everything seems to strengthen peoples faith no matter how insane, tragic or ridiculous the thing may be. This is probably because the same part of your brain that processes faith is closely associated with the insane, tragic and ridiculous.

    It would take me all day to get you back on track but you would reject everything I say. Even if I was able to set you straight what benefit would I get. Nobody even seems to be reading this anyway. 5-10 minutes of this a session is enough to keep me entertained.


  15. I am not upset with you.
    But, what I don’t like is the hypocrisy that you God-Haters spew.I’m vaguely perturbed by you, and I think you’re out of your mind in terms of your anti-theism.You claim you don’t believe, but you’re here spewing out your anti- Christian / anti-theist crap while claiming that you are an atheist.
    The fact is that you’re not an atheist,but you are a pretender.You hate your God, and that’s what drives you to relentlessly attack him, and his followers.You are dishonest and, you have zero credibility.Practical Atheists don’t give God a second thought.Pretenders and hypocrites do.

  16. DA Says:

    Atheism is not a religion. Humanism, christianity, judeism, hinduism etc. are religions. Atheism is the dis-belief in a religion. You don’t believe in Allah or Brahma; therefore, you are an atheist, also.

    Atheist Stooge sez:
    Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on “separation of church and state.”
    But this is like saying that “black,” (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, “black” is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, “Atheism” is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

    If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
    Checkmate

  17. DA Says:

    Evolution is not a religion, nor is it atheism. It is science; pure and simple. And if science is a religion, then you are a party to it. You use it everyday. You use it when you type on your keyboard, cook a meal, drive to work, go to the doctors. Science is why we live so comfortably and can even discuss this.

    I am not as dumb as you are, and you couldn’t refute the
    facts, which is why you didn’t, and you’re dumb enough
    to think that if you type some more self- described assertions, that means
    that no one will notice.
    Facts? Which “facts”?
    Atheism is your religion and time is your God.

    During my time at school, my study of philosophy (in the old sense
    which includes the study of music as part of philosophic education)
    was limited to playing the violin and the piano, and studying old
    Greek and Latin at college, and was further
    limited to a ‘Time-Life’ book from the library, that explained,
    that
    “Life consists of molecules in the sea that have been hit,by accident, by lightning,

    “to combine into simple proteins which, by chance, combined into living cells which,

    “by an endless succession of chance occurrences, finally combined into human bodies.”
    The book had a painted picture of a sea, with lightning flashing above it. And that picture ‘proved the matter conclusively.’
    One teacher at college knew it wasn’t true, but he did notdare to say anything when I mentioned that “proof:”
    Simple ‘accidental’ proteins would ‘accidentally’-without any spiritual or Life Energetic causeor control -combine into extremely complicated, pulsating,
    living, moving cells. Again without any spiritual cause or Life Energy
    – ‘by accident’ -these went through such an incredibly complex process as cell-division.
    And they kept on ‘accidentally’ dividing and combining, till, by the laws of chance,
    there ‘accidentally’ appeared the most complex and organized thing you can imagine:

    An ape-like body.

    Chances oif that are like having a tornado run through a junkyard and come out with a Ferrari.
    Man are you evolutionists dense.

  18. Cyboman Says:

    atheiststooges,

    You have an annoying tendency to take what ever I say about you and redirect it to me. Why do you need to rely on what I say about you to criticize me. Then again, you have an annoying tendency to make ridiculous claims with almost every sentence you write.

    When have I attacked Yahweh? I wouldn’t call what I am doing “attacking” you (or Christians). I’m making sound arguments in defense of a view point that is opposite to yours.

    When a society believes and reveres (above all) unsubstantiated ideologies it is, historically, on its way to totalitarianism. We’ve seen that with communism, fascism, Islam, and medieval Christianity. People like you are eager bring us back to this level of irrationality. People like you are an embarrassment and a threat to the human race. Thats what brings me to debates like these.

    Atheism perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity.
    Atheism is the ultimate of Satanism. Ask Satan does God exist and he will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other. In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called “the law of sin” which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law of sin is none other than the law that governs Satan’s kingdom. And there it is. I knew it would come out in short order,(the insults once again)and it did, in just one reading of your messages. You are angry at Christians. Or so you think, anyway. The picture that you have of what Christians are. So what happened? Abusive parents, who whipped you and beat you into a pulp and said it was for the Lord? Sexual abuse as a child, by someone who claimed to be filled with the Holy Spirit? You might as well spill it. With your lack of control, it’s going to come out anyway, that’s for sure and without doubt. You obviously have a lot of faith, if indeed you are an
    atheist. It takes more faith than I have to conclude that there is no God. You are a paper tiger. You feel all puffed up and big while typing on your keyboard, because you feel safe from those whom you seek to denigrate. One can know, given the amount of venting that you do in your messages, that your frustration is pent up in real life and you are cowardly face to face. If that were not so, we would not see such hate constantly spewing out in your posts. There would also be toned down responses. The fact that all we see from you
    is anger, proves to us that you are timid in person and that you are a paper tiger.Powerful on paper, but weak and timid in person.

  19. Cyboman Says:

    You just keep getting nuttier and nuttier don’t you. I don’t really have any replies since you didn’t really say anything which corresponded to reality. Think about what you say before you say it and we can continue.

    Dear howler monkey,
    You are to rational and sane what homosexual sex is to disease control.
    Ponder that.

  20. Cyboman Says:

    You’re really just out of your mind aren’t you. Well, I don’t have any reply since you didn’t say anything that made sense.

    Reply to what, a howler monkey that does nothing but chatters angrily and constantly?

  21. Cyboman Says:

    Sorry about the double post. My comments were appearntly still awaiting moderations after a day and I didn’t realize it because I’m at a different computer.

  22. DA Says:

    Atheist stooge

    My aren’t you an idiot. You do not even realize what evolution consists of. Here, I will give you the definition of evolution:

    Evolution:
    1. All living species are descendants of other species that lived in the past.
    2. Change occurs through the gradual genetic transformation of populations of individuals over thousands or millions of years
    3. New forms of life arise from the splitting of a single lineage into two, ie speciation. This continual splitting leads to a geneology of species or a ‘tree of life’ whose branches can be traced to a single common ancestor.
    4. Much of evolution occurs through natural selection. Individuals carrying genes better suited to the specific environment leave more offspring, causing genetic change in populations over time improving the ‘fitness’ of the population to its environment.

    Now, what is your explanation.

    DUHHH, God done it.

    Wow, you are brilliant

    Seriously, just split man go away. I’m not at that Resident Evil Horror or any of those other shite forums you frequent, so stop trying to act intelligent.
    It just makes you look as stupid as you actually are.
    Either we were made or we were not.
    There is no point in-between.
    The DNA code refers to mathematics and probability regarding evolution.
    The theory of evolution proposes that all of the highly complex structures and systems of the universe are due to the operation of purely natural and haphazard processes of nature.
    Diametrically opposed to this philosophy,biblical creationism maintains that the innumerable,highly complex systems and intricate structures of the universe offer exceptionally strong evidence of a creator.
    The probability of getting hit by lightning is about 1 in 600,000.The probability of winning the lottery is about 1 in 5.2 million.
    The likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet is only 1 in 26 to the 9 power or 1 in 5,429,503,679,000.
    Twenty cards numbered 1 through 20 thoroughly shuffled and laid out in numerical order from 1 to 20 is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000.
    The probability of accidentally generating Genesis 1:1 is 1 chance in 26 to the 44 power trials.
    This is equivalent to 1 chance in 1.81479392 x 10 to the 62 power trials.
    In other words,the chance of randomly producing Genesis 1:1 is 1 in 181,479,392,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
    A simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems) is a 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in 788,657,867’364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,295,135,977,687,173,363,294,742,533,244,254,86,525,693,
    548,253,221,223,563,458,754,215,467,377,195,357,468,174,235,875,421,256,424,222,563,85
    445,447,777,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
    This colossal number can be written more simply as 10 to the 375 power.Thus there is only one chance in 10 to the 375 power of selecting the proper arrangement for a simple 200-part system on the first trial.
    This renders a mathematically impossible even for the most elementary form of life to have arisen by mere chance.
    Life is no accident.It is not even something that brilliant scientists can synthesize.The bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules completely rules out the chance of life originating apart from a super intelligent designer.The most logical and reasonable conclusion that can be reached based on mathematical analysis is that complex,ordered systems,which so characterize the world,never happened by mere chance.

    Great is our Lord, and of great power:his understanding is infinite.
    (Ps. 147:5).

  23. DA Says:

    –If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
    Checkmate–

    Then how many religions do you belong to?

    This would mean that I belonged to several. Apparently, the fact that I belong to a church is irrelevant when it comes to your definition of religion.

    Is this seat empty?
    Thank you…………..
    And to think, out of billions of sperm cells, you were the quickest swimmer. For the sake of this world and the gene pool, every male, including yourself, in your leafless family tree should be liquidated.

  24. DA Says:

    –to a ‘Time-Life’ book from the library–

    And what year was that?

    Of course, this is not the theory of evolution but abiogenesis, but why worry yourself with little things like knowing what you are talking about.

    The issue here however, is whether or not creation happened.
    The scientific evidence certainly leads one to that
    conclusion, with the sudden appearance of kinds and the lack
    of transitional fossils and the impossibility of abiogenesis
    and given the law of biogenesis.
    What you are trying to do, is avoid the actual issue and to
    try to raise a red herring, so that you can try to make it
    seems as a purely religious attempt to evangelize, as if
    Intelligent Design has no science behind it.
    No, it can’t, since both are based on evolutionary thought
    You are trying to call evolution science and ID religion
    and that won’t fly, since it isn’t true. And while you
    people demand proof that God created, you dishonestly
    try to desperate abiogenesis from evolution.
    ID has support in the fossil record. All we have is the
    sudden appearance of the various kinds, with some variation
    within kinds, which is microevolution and which ID would
    predict.
    Evolution has no support in the fossil record and the most
    famous names in evolution know it and admit it and
    know better than to go to the fossil record to try to
    support evolution.

  25. DA Says:

    –Simple ‘accidental’ proteins would ‘accidentally’-without any spiritual or Life Energetic causeor control -combine into extremely complicated, pulsating,
    living, moving cells. Again without any spiritual cause or Life Energy
    – ‘by accident’ -these went through such an incredibly complex process as cell-division.
    And they kept on ‘accidentally’ dividing and combining, till, by the laws of chance,
    there ‘accidentally’ appeared the most complex and organized thing you can imagine:
    An ape-like body.
    Chances oif that are like having a tornado run through a junkyard and come out with a Ferrari.–

    And yet you think that a supremely intelligent being with the power to create the universe can just occur by chance.

    Boy, are you dense.

    Plus, the ‘accidents’ you mentioned are not uncommon occurences.

    Conservation and Novelty in the Evolution of Cell Adhesion and Extracellular Matrix Genes
    H. Hutter, et al. Science, 2000; 989-994.

    Self-Assembled Silica-Carbonate Structures and Detection of Ancient Microfossils
    J. M. Garcia-Ruiz, et al. Science, 2003; 1194-1197.

    The Emergence of Competition Between Model Protocells. I. A. Chen, R. W. Roberts and J. W. Szostak. Science, 2004; 1474-1476.
    Condensation of amino acids to form peptides in aqueous solution induced by the oxidation of sulfur(IV): An oxidative model for prebiotic peptide formation By: Chen, Fei; Yang, Dan Source: Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol. 37 (1). FEB 2007. 47-54

    Abiotic condensation synthesis of glyceride lipids and wax esters under simulated hydrothermal conditions By: Rushdi, Ahmed I.; Simoneit, Bernd R. T. Source: Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol. 36 (2). APR 2006. 93-108.

    Vindhyan akinites: An indicator of mesoproterozoic biospheric evolution By: Srivastava, Purnima Source: Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol. 35 (2). APR 05. 175-185.

    Electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide on pyrite as a pathway for abiogenic formation of organic molecules By: Vladimirov, M. G.; Ryzhkov, Y. F.; Alekseev, V. A.; Bogdanovskaya, V. A.; Otroshchenko, V. A.; Kritsky, M. S. Source: Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol. 34 (4). August 2004. 347-360.

    I have studied evolution for years. I am well educated
    in various sciences and I am telling you, that I was
    once in your position, not having an intimate knowledge
    of my Bible (it says more about this than you think),
    nor evolution. But I came to the point, after reading
    my Bible enough, where I knew I could no longer try
    to explain away the obvious conflicts. in a lie?
    If we came from apes, the Bible is wrong
    and so, I wasn’t about to spend my whole life
    believing in a fairy tale.

    So I did my research from a scientific standpoint and
    like many other scientists, I found out that evolution
    is a house of cards. There is nothing supporting it.
    And I mean, “NOTHING”!

    You see, there are six kinds of evolution. One of them
    is called, “microevolution” and that one IS a fact of
    science. It can’t be denied. It happens. This is the
    one they wave in front of your face and then tell you
    that the rest happened. Microevolution simply means
    that we see flowers from flowers, reptiles from
    reptiles, etc.. We have about 300 varieties of dogs
    and they all came from a common ancestor, which was
    a pair of dogs. And dogs probably came from wolves,
    as they are both canidae and wolves may have come
    from another canidae. But they were all canidae. They
    all came from the same “kind”, as the Bible says.

    The other one that is pertinent to this conversation,
    is “macroevolution”. This one is NOT a fact of
    science. It has NEVER been observed and the supposed
    supporting evidence has been a pile of frauds and
    outright lies. No evolutionist who has a brain, goes
    to the fossil record to try to support their case. And
    the funny part is, some even try to claim that the lack
    of fossil evidence, is proof of evolution. 🙂 Gould,
    for one, who is very famous in the world of evolution.

    You see, they have an “a priori” belief. They do not
    form their ideas from the evidence, as they claim.
    Darwin had zero evidence for macroevolution and
    admitted it in his book, yet people believed it.

    There is zero proof for macroevolution. There is
    nothing they say, that does not simply reveal a common
    Designer. And they become completely illogical in
    their approach. They ask why so many living things
    have common features. Yet, they would never expect
    any human designer to reinvent the wheel, whenever
    they make a new type of vehicle. The first pickup
    truck had round wheels just like a car and a steering
    wheel and doors, etc.. Does this mean that a car
    evolved into a pickup truck? 🙂 Abiogenesis and
    macroevolution defy the laws of probability trillions
    of times, for what they believe happened, to have
    happened and yet, they have no issue with this? They
    also have no proof that it happened and yet, ridicule
    anyone who disagrees with them. Why?

    This belief started with the idea that a single cell
    was nothing more than just a bit of protoplasm, in
    Darwin’s day. Now we know that a single cell is a
    factory, more complex than any major city and yet,
    it just happened by accident?

    Abiogenesis says that life came from non-living matter,
    all by itself and this belief started with the belief
    that maggots appeared out of dead meat and that was
    disproved a long time ago. They will try to tell you
    that “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis” are
    two different things, but they are not. And now that
    they have been embarrassed by this, they have tried
    to separate abiogenesis from evolution, as if they are
    two different things, but the fact is, they are part
    and parcel with each other.

    The evolutionists claim that there was nothingness and
    then there was a dot of matter, that contained all of
    the matter in the universe. Yet a law of science tells
    us that matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. So
    they now claim that “virtual particles” popped into our
    “space” and that’s what happened. Are virtual
    particles reality? They can’t be seen, nor measured.
    They were simply an invention of the mind, to try to
    explain away the problem. The fact is, even Hawkings ,
    who they worship, lives in a fantasy world. He claimed
    that (this is funny) because virtual particles could
    not be measured by a particle detector, that proves
    that they pop in from nothingness. 🙂 I.e., they
    assume they exist and then, when they can’t measure
    them, claim that proves that their fantasy explanation
    happened!

    They also knew there is not enough matter in the
    universe to hold it all together. So what do they do?
    They INVENT IN THEIR MINDS something called,
    “dark matter”, which they cannot see, nor measure
    in any way and then claim that this means that it is
    there. Then of course, the measurements of it change
    every time they need it to and they call this science?!

    The atom contains three parts. Protons, Neutrons and
    Electrons. I don’t know if you’re familiar with atoms,
    so I will tell you, that Protons are positively
    charged, Neutrons are neutral and Electrons are
    negatively charged. The core of the atom is the
    Nucleus. Inside the Nucleus is the Protons and
    Neutrons and whizzing around the Nucleus is the
    Electrons. Since like charges repel each other, the
    evolutionist can’t figure out how the Protons don’t
    force each other away from themselves. So what did
    they do? They INVENTED ANOTHER item for the
    Nucleus and called it a “Gluon”. Now they
    teach that Gluons are part of the atom, even though
    there is absolutely no way to verify that.

    You see, while they tell you that their “facts” come
    from evidence, which in science, is either direct
    observation, or repeatable tests, the fact is, no one
    can directly observe the things they claim and there
    are zero repeatable tests you can run for these things.

    This is what THEY call “science”,. And
    macroevolution is no different. They have NOTHING!

  26. DA Says:

    —But I came to the point, after reading
    my Bible enough, where I knew I could no longer try to explain away the obvious conflicts. in a lie? If we came from apes, the Bible is wrong and so, I wasn’t about to spend my whole life believing in a fairy tale–

    Here is the bottom line. It has nothing to do with science or evidence it has to do with your faith. You cannot accept the scientific evidence because of the conflict with your holy book. The question becomes; what if your holy book is nothing more than fiction written by normal humans who invented god in their image, instead of vice versa.

    In my discussion with you and other athests I never hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard — especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t. Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

    –Either we were made or we were not.–

    Not exactly,

    Not exactly? So we we not made, and we are made all at the same time?
    Care to clarify such a dumfounded statement?

    there is also the question of whether there is a god that is concerned with our lives. There could have been a god that helped to initiate the formation of the universe and life but does not involve itself with the day to day occurrences.

    –Diametrically opposed to this philosophy,biblical creationism maintains that the innumerable,highly complex systems and intricate structures of the universe offer exceptionally strong evidence of a creator.
    The probability of getting hit by lightning is about 1 in 600,000.The probability of winning the lottery is about 1 in 5.2 million.–

    And what are the odds that a golf ball is going to come to rest on a specific blade of grass at a specific time. The odds are also astronomical but they are going to occur. The odds of your existence is more astronomical, if you go back several generations. What are the odds that your great grandparents are going to live through this illness or accident? What are the odds that they would have married this person instead of that person. What are the odds that your grandfather would have been conceived at that moment, by that sperm. The odds of you having ever lived is astronomical, but it has happened and you are alive. The odds of each step are much smaller than the odds of the complete process, but they do occur.

    Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

    There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

    At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.

    But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of Gods existence.

    This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.

  27. DA Says:

    “In my discussion with you and other athiests I never hear any evidence for the validity of atheism”

    That is because we were discussing science and whether or not atheism and evolution constitute religion, not the validity of atheism. However, this begs the question: where is the validity for your faith, christianity?

    You don’t put words in anyones mouth howler monkey.The truth is that atheism and evolution do constitute religion.So basically, you’re a moron who isn’t interested in discussion anyway. Just an opportunity to attack. Thank you for admitting that to us.

    Also, many atheists don’t say that ‘god doesn’t exist,’ but ‘there is no proof of a god.’

    *sigh*…Are these real questions, or are are you simply trying to avoid the discussion with a feeble Red Herring? In the first case, I’m not your instructor, I’m not certified to teach Special Education. In the second, You’ve failed, but I’ll indulge you in it once last time.

    “especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence.”

    So where is your proof of the positive?

    You fail to acknowledge the facts, because you’re unable to refute them and so, you pretend they don’t exist. Then, you wish to challenge me, as if you are an honest individual? Um, no. It is apparent that all you have is insults, when faced with what you cannot dispute, so why would I bother doing all of that typing, just to read a response from you, telling me that there are no facts in my post?

    “the atheist must hold his position by faith.”

    Where is the faith in asking for proof of god? Your statement that atheism is faith-based is erroneous.

    In order to state that there is no proof for God’s existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.
    At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are no proofs for God’s existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one.
    Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God’s existence, would the atheist be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God’s existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God’s existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

    “At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem”

    These are not valid arguments. Each has multiple flaws. For instance, the biblical prophesies are so vague that they are ridiculous and many are demonstrably wrong if more than the single passage is read. Jesus’ resurrection is not verifiable. There are no independent sources for the validation of this. Also, there is no independent validation for the existence of Jesus, at all. All references toward Jesus are either christian or frauds. You’ll have to refresh my memory about the transendental problem. There is no problem concerning entropy.

    The faulty premise that you are attempting to dictate does not wash when held up under closer scrutiny rather than what you had hoped would be at face value.The Bible is historically accurate,holds predictions, and prophesy hundreds of years before they occured,contains science that was not known until centuries later, and to this day has been attacked relentlessly by the opposition but has held up tremendously as truth in spite of attacks from every direction; only because it is the word of God spoken via his prophets and laid down textually, and not only survived but continues to grow exponentially each year. In my opinion, so far your reasoning has not demonstrated that atheism is true. Of course, it is early in the debate. I suspect that you are attempting to lay a premise on which to build your case. If you are trying to lay the premise that there is no evidence for God’s existence, that would be a tall order for you to fill.
    So far, you have only attempted to demonstrate that mere belief is not sufficient evidence to prove God exists and that the evidence for God is “sorely lacking.” It is the second assertion by you that is weak since it is a subjective statement especially since you opted to promote “objectivity” as a positive criteria to judge evidence. In either case, you have not offered anything that substantiates the validity of atheism.
    To demonstrate that atheism is true, I propose that you would need to either

    Provide a logical proof why God does not exist, or
    Disprove, within reason, all theistic evidences for God that are presented to you.

    “Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible”

    Your statement that evidence for the existence of God or gods is sorely lacking is an opinion as it is my opinion that evidence for God is plentiful. Opinions don’t make something true anymore than simply believing in something makes it true. An opinion, after all, is a belief, isn’t it?
    So, when you conclude that “Atheists no more hold with the existence of IPUs or Santa Clause than they do with the existence of some god or goddess,” you are really saying very little. What do you mean by “no more hold with”? Does it mean you don’t know if God exists, “lack belief” in God, or believe that He does not exist? Your statement isn’t clear. However, if I were to dare an assumption that you reject that God exists because there isn’t any evidence that He exists, I would then ask you what would constitute sufficient evidence. If you cannot give me a reasonable answer, then it means you haven’t thought your position through sufficiently and are holding your position, to some extent, by faith. Certainly, there must be some sort of evidence that you would reasonably accept. What is it?

    That depends on whether the atheist is a positive or negative atheist.

    “This is why atheists need to attack Christianity”

    Your christian persecution complex is laughable considering the name of the site you moderate.

    “It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence”

    Claims that are not only high, but conflict not only reality, but many other religions.

    “They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.”

    The arrogance of the christian. The christian believes that god created the entire universe [trillions of planets and suns] and all of its inhabitants [which are probably much more numerous than the christian realizes] for the christian to dominate. Compare this to the non-theist who realizes that they are nothing more than atom on the body of the universe and will come and go without altering the universe and simply try to live the here and now to the best of their abilities.

    “there is something really pathetic in the statement that the universe was made for man…There are more than 300,000 million stars [in our galaxy] alone [whose total weight is] equal to about 270,000 million suns the size of our own. This is the raw material, the amazing cosmic ‘batter,’ from which our planetary system came…It is like mixing a batter of dough as big as the sun to bake a single crumb of bread. A baker who worked on the basis of that much material as a means to an end would be considered a dolt…No mentality above the level of an idiot would devise such madhouse ‘schemes’ as that of spinning billions of globes for the amusement or of tossing them around aimlessly to prove itself intelligent.”
    Woolsey Teller, Astronomer

    Either we were made or we were not.
    There is no point in-between.
    The DNA code refers to mathematics and probability regarding evolution.
    The theory of evolution proposes that all of the highly complex structures and systems of the universe are due to the operation of purely natural and haphazard processes of nature.
    Diametrically opposed to this philosophy,biblical creationism maintains that the innumerable,highly complex systems and intricate structures of the universe offer exceptionally strong evidence of a creator.
    The probability of getting hit by lightning is about 1 in 600,000.The probability of winning the lottery is about 1 in 5.2 million.
    The likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet is only 1 in 26 to the 9 power or 1 in 5,429,503,679,000.
    Twenty cards numbered 1 through 20 thoroughly shuffled and laid out in numerical order from 1 to 20 is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000.
    The probability of accidentally generating Genesis 1:1 is 1 chance in 26 to the 44 power trials.
    This is equivalent to 1 chance in 1.81479392 x 10 to the 62 power trials.
    In other words,the chance of randomly producing Genesis 1:1 is 1 in 181,479,392,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
    A simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems) is a 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in 788,657,867’364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,295,135,977,687,173,363,294,742,533,244,254,86,525,693,548,253,221,223,563,458,754,215,467,377,195,357,468,174,235,875,421,256,424,222,563,85
    445,447,777,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
    This colossal number can be written more simply as 10 to the 375 power.Thus there is only one chance in 10 to the 375 power of selecting the proper arrangement for a simple 200-part system on the first trial.
    This renders a mathematically impossible even for the most elementary form of life to have arisen by mere chance.
    Life is no accident.It is not even something that brilliant scientists can synthesize.The bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules completely rules out the chance of life originating apart from a super intelligent designer.The most logical and reasonable conclusion that can be reached based on mathematical analysis is that complex,ordered systems,which so characterize the world,never happened by mere chance.

    Henry F. “Fritz” Schaefer one of the foremost theoretical chemists of our day.

    Great is our Lord, and of great power:his understanding is infinite.
    (Ps. 147:5)

  28. DA Says:

    —So basically, you’re a moron who isn’t interested in discussion anyway.—

    In other words, “there is no validity to christianity so I’ll have to resort to ad hominem attacks.”

    So basically, you’re just a moron who isn’t interested in discussion anyway.

    —It is apparent that all you have is insults, when faced with what you cannot dispute—

    The only insults are coming from you.

    Let’s cover some of your past responses thereby showing everyone how you continue to lie and attempt to decieve.

    “And yet you think that a supremely intelligent being with the power to create the universe can just occur by chance.
    Boy, are you dense.”

    “This is why atheists need to attack Christianity”

    “Now, what is your explanation.
    DUHHH, God done it.
    Wow, you are brilliant”

    Once again I have shown how you are nothing more than a pretender, and show everyone just what a narrow minded liar you happen to have become at some point in your miserable existence.

    —if there was a proof that truly did prove God’s existence, would the atheist be able to accept it—

    Yes, but that would most likely make atheists into deists. Proof of gods existence is different from proof of Yahweh’s existence.

    Pretending again are we? I’ve shown you why your atheism is an untenable position from a logical position and all you continue to do is ignore it, and waste my vlauable time.What you’ve given me thus far is nothing less than digital shit.

    —The Bible is historically accurate—

    Really,

    Where is the independent verification of the slaughter of the innocents, the raising of the dead, the multiple miracles of jesus, the roman census?

    One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus’ miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. It was insufficient for the development of miracle legends. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).
    The noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.

    There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). (If they could have disputed it, they would have.) Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (verses 47-48). Because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful “fabrication” of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.

    The reporting of the events around the life and death of Jesus are just about what you would expect in the first century, given that Jesus’ following was so small during his lifetime, that He lived in such a remote corner of the Roman Empire, and given the state of astronomy at that time.

    Despite these limitations, Josephus (the first century Jewish historian), and Tacitus (an early second century Roman historian) make significant reference to Him. And actually, the very thing that you call for does exist. The mid-first century Roman historian Thallus makes reference to the darkness of the sun at the time of the crucifixion as he tries to refute the apostles’ claim. He argues that the crucifixion had, by chance, taken place during a solar eclipse.
    Your position discounts the experience and witness of those who were “biased” — presumably referring to the New Testament writers, biased because they believed in Jesus. But who was unbiased? Can we count on those who rejected Jesus to have been unbiased? Why? Those closest to the events had high stakes in trying to protect their power base. The reports of Jesus’ followers [actually] gain a certain authority because of their willingness to die for their witness to the resurrection.

    —holds predictions, and prophesy hundreds of years before they occured—

    Give me some examples. I’ve read many of them and they are ridiculously vague.

    Give me your best alleged Biblical inerrancy and I’ll refute it. If your best doesn’t work, then you must admit that your best Biblical contradiction has failed you and the winner takes all.

    —contains science that was not known until centuries later—

    This is laughable. It contains scientific errors that caused centuries of murder and horrific punishment towards scientists.

    Give me your best alleged discrepency, and refer to the above.

    “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the manner and form we will prescribe to you. Furthermore, so that this grievous and pernicious error and transgression of yours may not go altogether unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting, or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances. This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce:

    F. Cardinal of Ascoli
    B. Cardinal Gessi
    G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
    F. Cardinal Verospi
    Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
    M. Cardinal Ginetti
    Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio

    – Condemnation of Galileo Galilei, 1632”

    Throwing out another feeble Red Herring only makes your case weaker than I’ve already shown it to be.

    —Provide a logical proof why God does not exist—

    I do intend to discuss this in a later post.

    Let’s discuss it now, before you run back to one of those hundreds of other archives of atheist straw men sites for more ammo because you obviously cannot think on your own two feet.

    —Your statement that evidence for the existence of God or gods—

    You were responding to your own, previous, statement.

    —The DNA code refers to mathematics and probability regarding evolution.
    The theory of evolution proposes that all of the highly complex structures and systems of the universe are due to the operation of purely natural and haphazard processes of nature.
    Diametrically opposed to this philosophy,biblical creationism maintains that the innumerable,highly complex systems and intricate structures of the universe offer exceptionally strong evidence of a creator.
    The probability of getting hit by lightning is about 1 in 600,000.The probability of winning the lottery is about 1 in 5.2 million.
    The likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet is only 1 in 26 to the 9 power or 1 in 5,429,503,679,000…..—

    Lets look at statistical probability. Probability is defined as:

    the ratio of the number of ways the specified event can occur to the total number of equally likely events that can occur.

    or numerically P(E)=n/N or

    Probability of an event=number of favorable outcomes/number of possible outcomes.

    You are comparing god creating the univers, genesis 1, to the natural occurrence of a 200-part system. Your comparison is ridiculously lopsided. A better statistical comparison would be the probability that god would occur and perform genesis 1 vs the probability that the dense matter/energy that expanded, via the big bang, to become the universe. In other words, try comparing apples to apples, not apples to worms.

    Hey howler monkey,less time bending over for the homeless and more time taking your anti-viral meds and you might do a tad better.Has anyone else ever noticed how DA tends to focus on only one thing per thread and goes on to post about that thing over and over again until his gimmick goes past the funny phase and just becomes pathetically redundant?

    My other question for you is how you came up with your numbers, specifically the probability of Genesis 1. I would like the name of the original research that you are referring to so that I may read it.

    You’ll need to buy the book.

    Lastly, the evolution of a 200 component organism may have occurred in many steps. It would be more accurate to look at the possibility of each step occurring than the possibility of the complete organism occurring. Or in other words, what are the chances of shuffling the deck of cards and laying down an ace? Then with the ace down, shuffling and laying down a deuce. Also, in the natural world, trillions of experiments are occurring each moment resulting in a multitude of changes. So by comparing the number of naturally occurring experiments with the possibilities, you would arrive with very different numbers.

    Your analogies, the 20 questions game, or zip codes; that encourage you to state that “Specificity = Information” do not clarify anything about the “information contained in a protein” in that a 200 amino acid protein A that has higher levels of all the components of your information formula can be arbitrated by exactly as much information as a 200 amino acid protein B that is stated as low in all your components. Indeed, I firmly believe most scientists who have pondered the information represented by enzymes or genes would logically conclude that a large complex protein involves quite a bit more information than a short polypeptide. And most certainly it requires more information to render the sequence of a large protein. Yet in your entire list of components of information you have completely negated that one parameter that scientists would consider as being the most important in comparing information content.

  29. DA Says:

    >So basically, you’re just a moron who isn’t interested in discussion anywayThe only insults are coming from you.

    Let’s cover some of your past responses thereby showing everyone how you continue to lie and attempt to decieve.

    “And yet you think that a supremely intelligent being with the power to create the universe can just occur by chance.
    Boy, are you dense.”
    “This is why atheists need to attack Christianity”
    “Now, what is your explanation.
    DUHHH, God done it.
    Wow, you are brilliant”Pretending again are we? I’ve shown you why your atheism is an untenable position from a logical position and all you continue to do is ignore it, and waste my vlauable time.What you’ve given me thus far is nothing less than digital shit.One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus’ miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels.The noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.The reporting of the events around the life and death of Jesus are just about what you would expect in the first century, given that Jesus’ following was so small during his lifetime, that He lived in such a remote corner of the Roman Empire, and given the state of astronomy at that time.Josephus (the first century Jewish historian)The mid-first century Roman historian Thallus makes reference to the darkness of the sun at the time of the crucifixion as he tries to refute the apostles’ claimYour position discounts the experience and witness of those who were “biased” This is laughable. It contains scientific errors that caused centuries of murder and horrific punishment towards scientists.
    Give me your best alleged discrepency, and refer to the above.
    Hey howler monkey,less time bending over for the homeless and more time taking your anti-viral meds and you might do a tad better.Has anyone else ever noticed how DA tends to focus on only one thing per thread and goes on to post about that thing over and over again until his gimmick goes past the funny phase and just becomes pathetically redundant?You’ll need to buy the bookYour analogies, the 20 questions game, or zip codes; that encourage you to state that “Specificity = Information” do not clarify anything about the “information contained in a protein” in that a 200 amino acid protein A that has higher levels of all the components of your information formula can be arbitrated by exactly as much information as a 200 amino acid protein B that is stated as low in all your components. Indeed, I firmly believe most scientists who have pondered the information represented by enzymes or genes would logically conclude that a large complex protein involves quite a bit more information than a short polypeptide. And most certainly it requires more information to render the sequence of a large protein. Yet in your entire list of components of information you have completely negated that one parameter that scientists would consider as being the most important in comparing information content.

  30. DA Says:

    *My last post didn’t post correctly so I will attempt it again.

    “So basically, you’re just a moron who isn’t interested in discussion anyway”

    If you’re going to be childish; I am rubber you are glue….

    Are you finished with the ad hominems now?

    “The only insults are coming from you.

    Let’s cover some of your past responses thereby showing everyone how you continue to lie and attempt to decieve.

    “And yet you think that a supremely intelligent being with the power to create the universe can just occur by chance.
    Boy, are you dense.”
    “This is why atheists need to attack Christianity”
    “Now, what is your explanation.
    DUHHH, God done it.
    Wow, you are brilliant”

    Point taken. I will attempt to withhold attacks if you will.

    So you admit you were wrong.
    Then you are more than likely be be incorrect about your other contentions as well because after all your star is dimming more and more with each and every post you lay down.

    “Pretending again are we? I’ve shown you why your atheism is an untenable position from a logical position and all you continue to do is ignore it, and waste my vlauable time.What you’ve given me thus far is nothing less than digital shit.”

    More ad hominems. I am waiting for you to show me why your beliefs are logical.

    More ignorance eh? I am waiting for you to show me where I haven’t addressed this point to you yet,j ust go back a tread or two and bam!… just like that you’ll get your answer yet again.

    ‘One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus’ miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels.”

    Oh really,

    Actually the earliest gospel, Mark, was published between 20-130 yrs after Jesus’ alleged death. It was most likely written around 85 AD. Also, if there were no miracles and the gospels were works of fiction; then there would be no witnesses to refute them.

    Oh really?,
    Name your witnesses?
    I can give you literally hundreds that were indeed witnesses to Christs miracles.
    Name some of those witnesses please.

    “The noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.”

    Circular logic, again.

    Circular logic how?
    This is a matter of historical fact?
    Explain how it is circular,do you even know what the term means?

    If the gospels are fiction written decades later, then why and how could the original jews have contradicted them? Demonstrate that the occurrences in the NT occurred with independent sources pointing out the crucifiction, the trial, and the conversation with pilate. Then, I will lend your argument some credence.

    More digital crap from the king of verbal feces.
    You really are dense aren’t you?
    The jews of that time never contradicted any facts relating to Christs miracles, and they were all witnessed and documented by the Pharisees and hundreds of others.They claim he drew his power form Satan.

    “The reporting of the events around the life and death of Jesus are just about what you would expect in the first century, given that Jesus’ following was so small during his lifetime, that He lived in such a remote corner of the Roman Empire, and given the state of astronomy at that time.”

    There were various authors at that time; greek, jewish, and roman. For instance, Justus of Tiberius, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder all wrote within the 1st century and none wrote about massacres of innocents or the dead walking the streets.

    Are you a scarecrow?
    You’re built out of straw and like the lion you need to grow a heart

    “Josephus (the first century Jewish historian)”

    The 2 phrases attributed to Josephus were added later by christians which is why these quotes were not noted until the 4th century, even though they were christian apologists writing for over 100 years and one, Origen, critisized Josephus for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. This specifically contradicts the phrase, as well as, the fact that Josephus had written in ‘the wars of the Jews’ book VI Chapter V section IV that vespasias was the messiah.

    “The mid-first century Roman historian Thallus makes reference to the darkness of the sun at the time of the crucifixion as he tries to refute the apostles’ claim”

    Thallus was a pagan who may have written his book/books (no one knows whether he wrote more than one) between 112-109 BC, 49-52 AD or 89-92 AD. None of these dates corresponds to the alleged death of Christ. Also, there have been at least 3 solar eclipses since my childhood so this would be weak evidence, at best. I am looking for evidence of the impossible; I want independent evidence for the dead walking the streets as mentioned in Matthew 27:53.

    More to the point, it is doubtful that Pliny would have recorded this event in any case, unless he had been there himself. The darkness at the crucifixion, as we see from Thallus, defied natural explanation, and had the character of a miracle; and this is precisely the sort of event that Pliny would pass over in disdain – for he was a skeptic and a rationalist of the highest order! Consider the words from Pliny’s pen.I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to discover the shape and form of God.
    That that supreme being, whatever it be, pays heed to man’s affairs is a ridiculous notion.
    Given the above, what would this writer have made of reports of a miraculous and unexplained darkness? My guess is, he would turn up his nose and relegate the matter to the wastebasket! He would consider such reports unworthy of his attention and not worth recording.

    What, then, of Seneca and his work, Naturales Questiones [Sen.NQ]? There is even less cause to suppose mention of the darkness here. Seneca’s work is mostly theoretical surveys of natural phenomena – by no means an attempt at an exhaustive catalog of events! – and Seneca is far more concerned with drawing morals from what he records that with listing events, of which he does very little.

    As for Josephus, while that may seem a tougher one, it isn’t — we need to keep in mind a major constraint Joe was under at the time! Josephus was writing for the favor of his patron Vespasian, whom he had credited with fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Josephus was quite safe mentioning that Jesus did miracles, but to ascribe to Jesus some sign that would have signified special status with God — like the darkness — would have been at cross-purposes with what his patron would have been happy with.

    Bottom line: For this objection to have any force, it must be shown WHY these writers should have included a reference to the darkness – but for Seneca and Pliny, there is simply no evidence that they should have, or would have been interested in recording it, and Josephus would have been inclined if anything to not report it.

    “Your position discounts the experience and witness of those who were ‘biased‘”

    I am not saying they were biased, I am saying that there is no evidence that the writings are not fiction.

    And I’m saying that the only dilemma here is for me facing a howler monkey that refuses to pay creed to a mountain of evidence in the face of incalulable odds regarding the veracity of the Bible.

    “This is laughable. It contains scientific errors that caused centuries of murder and horrific punishment towards scientists.
    Give me your best alleged discrepency, and refer to the above.”

    I gave you evidence from Galileo’s trial. More evidence was the burning at Bruno on the stake as a heretic because he believed that the Earth circled the sun and not vice versa. Other evidence that the bible is scientifically wrong:

    Your mixing apples with origins here. Let me cite you an example since you’ve drifted way off base with your line of reasoning.
    Trials are not Science.

    Isaiah 40:22a–When is a Circle a Sphere?

    Here is how Isa. 40:22 is rendered in the NRSV:

    It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers:

    who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

    and spreads them like a tent to live in …

    This being thosands of years before Columbus proved the Earth wasn’t flat.
    ——————————————————————

    Statements Consistent With Astronomy
    The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

    Genesis 22:17
    Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

    Jeremiah 33:22
    “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”
    Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
    The Bible also says that each star is unique.

    1 Corinthians 15:41
    There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
    All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
    ————————————————————————————————————————————-
    The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

    Jeremiah 31:35,36
    Thus says the LORD,
    Who gives the sun for a light by day,
    The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
    Who disturbs the sea,
    And its waves roar
    (The LORD of hosts is His name):
    “If those ordinances depart
    From before Me, says the LORD,
    Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
    From being a nation before Me forever.”
    —————————————————————————————————————————————-

    The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

    Job 26:7
    He stretches out the north over empty space;
    He hangs the earth on nothing.

    Statements Consistent With Meteorology
    The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

    Ecclesiastes 1:6
    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————–

    The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

    Job 28:25
    To establish a weight for the wind,
    And apportion the waters by measure.
    The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)
    —————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Statements Consistent With Biology
    The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

    Leviticus 17:11
    ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
    The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————–
    The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

    Genesis 1:11,12
    Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:21
    So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:25
    And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
    The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
    —————————————————————————————————————————————–
    The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

    Genesis 2:7
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

    Genesis 3:19
    In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
    Till you return to the ground,
    For out of it you were taken;
    For dust you are,
    And to dust you shall return.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.

    Proverbs 12:4
    An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
    But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.

    Proverbs 14:30
    A sound heart is life to the body,
    But envy is rottenness to the bones.

    Proverbs 15:30
    The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
    And a good report makes the bones healthy.

    Proverbs 16:24
    Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
    Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.

    Proverbs 17:22
    A merry heart does good, like medicine,
    But a broken spirit dries the bones.
    Statements Consistent With Anthropology

    We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

    Job 30:5,6
    They were driven out from among men,
    They shouted at them as at a thief.
    They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
    In caves of the earth and the rocks.
    Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually(Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

    Matthew 9:6-7,17-33

    *here the bible is saying that illness is caused by demons

    And it is.
    I have seen the power of Satan personally, and have known of those that were verifiably possessed in the Twentieth century,
    All confirmed by Vatican Scientists, and some lay Medical physicians as well that referred their patients that were beyond all hope to Exorcists for healing, and are now leading normal lives.May I suggest Father Gabriel Amorth documented chronicles by independent medical experts(specifically Psychiatrists) called “An Exorcist Tells His Story.” And lets not forget the works of Ed and Lorraine Warren and John Zaffis as well as a host of other highly educated people.Keeping in mind that the Vatican requires a Medical doctor to rule out any mundane cause for a persons affflictions before consulting a bishop who therefore grants an exorcisim.
    Some verified signs of Demon possession :
    Physical Changes Affecting The Person

    1 The person involved may go for long periods of time without blinking their eyes. (Can indicate a neurological condition as well)

    2 The person may appear catatonic. (Can also be a sign of mental illness)

    3 The person speaks a language they could not possibly know. (An impossibility that does occur)

    4 The person speaks in unknown or lost aand antiquated languages.

    5 The person will become completely rigid where they cannot be moved at all, even by multiple people.

    6 Look for changes in the eyes. They may turn almost black like shark eyes.

    7 Look for obvious changes in their features.

    8 The person may possess inhuman strength.

    9 The person may exhibit “precognition,” the ability to predict the future.

    10 The person displays “retro cognition,” the ability to know about past events they should not know about.

    11 The person may be able to know something about a person they have not met.

    12 Their voice may change. It may go from high to low to guttural.

    13 They may be able to tell what you are thinking.

    14 They may move in some unusual way. For example, they may seem to glide instead of walk.

    15 Writing or symbols may appear on the body in the form of welts and scratches. Look especially in areas they could not reach.

    16 They may levitate.

    17 Hair or eye color may change.

    18 There may be multiple voices coming from the person at the same time.

    19 Take note if animals appear to be frightened of the person, especially if they begin acting fearful when there are personality changes in the person.

    A couple of these symptoms can be related to medical or psychological conditions but most of them fall outside the realm of science. If you start to see a few items in this category, there is serious cause for concern. At this point, you start to take items from the first category and see if they are consistent with items from things in this second category, or the third one I am about to detail. Obviously, some are more telling than others. You have to give weight to the values when you try to make a determination. The Holy Spirit should be called on for guidance and discernment, especially where there are only vague manifestations.

    Outward Manifestations

    1 Objects move around seemingly by themselves.

    2 Objects may disappear and not be found again. (Asporting)

    3 Objects may disappear and be found in another location. (Teleporting)

    4 Objects may disappear and later be found where they originally were.

    5 Objects may come from nowhere. (Apports)

    6 Knocking, banging or pounding may be heard throughout the house or in just one room.

    7 Objects fly around as if they were thrown from unseen hands.

    8 There may be knocks at the door but no one is ever there. These are often heard in threes, as this is a way of mocking the Holy Trinity. Ditto for doorbells.

    9 Religious articles disappear or are destroyed. They may also be desecrated.

    10 Growling may be heard but the source cannot be located.

    11 There may be scratching sounds heard without an obvious source.

    12 There may be foul odors that have no verifiable source. They may come and go.

    13 Odd lights may be seen. They may shoot around a room.

    14 Heavy furniture may move on its own.

    15 There may be sightings of people or dark shadows that may or may not have form.

    16 Odd-looking creatures may be seen.

    17 Doors and drawers may open and close on their own.

    18 Electrical appliances may turn on or off.

    19 Spontaneous fires may start up.

    20 Animals may become spooked and stay away from the targeted person altogether.

    21 Animals may growl at something they see but you do not.

    22 Any talk of God or religion may cause an outbreak of activity.

    23 Glass may break for no reason.

    24 Sounds of glass breaking may be heard but there is no evidence of it happening.

    25 There may be sudden temperature changes, up and down although it is usually down. These can be recorder on a thermometer.

    25 A person may suddenly become cold while the temperature remains constant. A thermometer may record a one to two degree drop in that person.

    26 People may have a feeling of being watched or that they are not alone.

    27 People may hear voices when no one is present.

    28 People will often hear their name called only to find that no one is around. Sometimes, a couple will each think they heard the other call to them.

    29 There may be a sensation of wind blowing even with the windows closed.

    30 Lights will go off or not come on when turned on.

    31 Apparent retaliation after some attempt to stop the activity.

    32 Activity starts up when you attempt to say prayers.

    33 Apparent retaliation if a clergyman has been to the home.

    34 Physical attacks. It might be in the form of punching, scratching, biting, hair pulling, etc.

    35 Psychological attacks. The devil knows your weaknesses and will try to exploit them. Someone who feels ashamed about something will have an increase in that emotion. The same is true for depression, anxiety and anything else you can think of.

    36 Sexual assaults. This can run the gamut from fondling to actual penetration. This can occur in males as well as females.

    37 Levitation of objects or people.

    You need to shore up on your facts more before you can pretend to lecture me.
    All of the above criteria vave been docunebted after being observed by scientists and medical personnel

    Job 37:2-4

    *the bible saying that thunder is the voice of god

    Tsk,tsk,this is the anti-theists only defense for his stance, and it’s simply to takie things out of context to make them sound rediculous to others when it is perfectly clear to all that hey are simply liars and decievers.
    Let’s see what it really says:

    Listen carefully to the thunder of God’s voice as it rolls from his mouth. – Job 37:2
    Then comes the roaring of the thunder–the tremendous voice of his majesty. He does not restrain the thunder when he speaks. – Job 37:4

    A metaphor is an indirect comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects that typically uses “is a” to join the first subject(s)

    Multiple people who have supposedly lived outrageously long lives, such as: methuselah 969
    Genesis 5:27

    God had a plan to repopulate the Earth, and that is also why incest was also needed back when the Earth was destroyed as in the days of Noah.
    And they did live these long lives and science is predicating this very same phenomena within the next 50 years.

    Hey howler monkey,less time bending over for the homeless and more time taking your anti-viral meds and you might do a tad better.Has anyone else ever noticed how DA tends to focus on only one thing per thread and goes on to post about that thing over and over again until his gimmick goes past the funny phase and just becomes pathetically redundant?

  31. DA Says:

    *continued from above

    The homo-phobic attacks won’t work on me; I’m neither homo-sexual nor homo-phobic. I even have friends that are homo-sexual. I also have a wife and daughter. Of course, unlike you, homo-sexuals don’t bother me because I’m not attracted to men.

    And unlike you ,I could care less about what will or won’t work on you due to the fact that I could care what you feel about anything.No one is preaching at you Willy.Get over it.

    Now, why don’t you try to refute my point about your erroneous statistics rather than resorting to personal attacks.

    “You’ll need to buy the book”

    I just need the authors name.
    I’ll need to dig it out of my library of hundreds of books on the topic.
    You’ll need to wait,not that it means anything because both you and I are not interested in any meaningful dialog.

    “Your analogies, the 20 questions game, or zip codes; that encourage you to state that “Specificity = Information” do not clarify anything about the “information contained in a protein” in that a 200 amino acid protein A that has higher levels of all the components of your information formula can be arbitrated by exactly as much information as a 200 amino acid protein B that is stated as low in all your components. Indeed, I firmly believe most scientists who have pondered the information represented by enzymes or genes would logically conclude that a large complex protein involves quite a bit more information than a short polypeptide. And most certainly it requires more information to render the sequence of a large protein. Yet in your entire list of components of information you have completely negated that one parameter that scientists would consider as being the most important in comparing information content.”

    That is the beauty of evolution and natural selection. Large proteins can arise from smaller sub-units. In fact, the first organisms probably did not use proteins at all. They were most likely formed from short nucleic acids that did double duty as both the genome and the required enzymes.

    The Structural Basis of Ribozyme-Catalyzed RNA Assembly. Michael P. Robertson and William G. Scott. Science 16 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1549 – 1553.

    Ok let’s play the quote mine game again since you appear to be an expert in it’s useage.

    Evolution Is Not Happening Now
    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true “vertical” evolution.
    Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”
    A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
    Evolution Never Happened in the Past
    Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
    Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
    Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct “kind” to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
    With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
    And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
    Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
    Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
    Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
    Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:
    The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
    Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish— with its hard parts all on the inside.
    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9
    Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10
    So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn’t change during their durations?
    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11
    As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
    All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12
    Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:
    The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
    Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:
    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14
    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
    Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.
    Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any “vertical changes” in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
    Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
    Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
    The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee “similarity,” noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn’t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?
    Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
    Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian “proofs.”
    The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15
    There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.
    The abundance of so-called “junk DNA” in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called “pseudogenes.”16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.
    Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17
    It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled “pseudogenes,” have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled “vestigial organs” in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
    At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.
    The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
    A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
    Evolution Could Never Happen at All
    The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
    This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.
    No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
    The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is “independent of details of models.” Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no “vitalist” forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
    Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an “open system,” with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski’s impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is “natural processes’ ability to increase complexity” by noting what he calls a “flaw” in “the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics.” And what is this flaw?
    Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
    This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
    Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
    From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
    Evolution is Religion — Not Science
    In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21
    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
    Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.22
    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
    The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
    It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25
    Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26
    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
    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.27
    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a labo ratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
    We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28
    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29
    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30
    Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.
    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31
    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!
    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33
    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.”34 Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”35
    That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
    In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
    References
    Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
    Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
    Ibid.
    Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
    Ibid., p. 83.
    Massimo Pigliucci, “Where Do We Come From?” Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24.
    Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
    J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
    Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
    Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
    Colin Tudge, “Human Origins Revisited,” New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
    Roger Lewin, “Family Feud,” New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
    N. A. Takahata, “Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
    Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
    Rachel Nowak, “Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA’,” Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
    Ibid.
    E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
    Norman A. Johnson, “Design Flaw,” American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
    Scott, Eugenie, “Fighting Talk,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
    Ericson, Edward L., “Reclaiming the Higher Ground,” The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
    Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
    Mayr, Ernst, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
    Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
    Rifkin, Jeremy, “Reinventing Nature,” The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
    Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
    Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
    Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
    Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
    Appleyard, Bryan, “You Asked for It,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
    Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
    Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
    Ibid., p. 222.
    Ibid.

  32. DA Says:

    Why I am an A-Theist

    First, let us look at the term atheism.

    Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
    (new american heritage dictionary)

    A – prefix meaning ‘without’

    Atheist – without belief in a personal god. It is often further broken down into two categories: positive and negative. Positive atheists make a positive statement that god does not exist. Negative atheists say that there is no evidence for god.

    Arguments against god:

    In order to make an argument against god; the idea of god must be defined. For my arguments, I will use the christian personal god definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being that created the universe and is involved in the daily life of human beings.

    I. The argument from evil

    This is the LaCroix version:

    i. There is a god who created everything that exists.
    ii. Before god created there was nothing but god.
    iii. After god created, everything is causally dependent on god.
    iv. God had the choice of whether or not to create this world.
    v. In one possible scenario, god could have chosen not to create anything at all.
    vi. If the choice were actualized, God would not have created a world in which evil existed.
    vii. Since god is perfectly good, if god had not created anything, all that would exist would be perfect goodness.
    viii. Evil exists, therefore, there can be no god.

    The Smith version:

    i. God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good.
    ii. There is evil.
    iii. An omniscient and omnipotent and wholly good being eliminates every evil hat it can properly eliminate.
    iv. It is possible for god to create free human who always do what is right without there being any natural evil, and if god creates these humans, it will not create evil.
    v. There is no evil, entailed by i, ii, iii, iv.
    vi. Evil exists; there is no god.

    Impossibility arguments for Atheism:

    The impossibility of omnipotence:

    1. The paradox of stone: Can god create a stone that it could not lift? If he could not create the stone; god is not omnipotent because it could not create the stone. If god could create the stone; it is not omnipotent because it could not lift the stone.

    The impossibility of omniscience:

    There are several arguments about the impossibility of omniscience that involve the different kinds of knowledge (prepositional knowledge vs. how to knowledge). If god lacks form it cannot know how to do physical actions such as throwing a ball or running. Also, if god is all good it cannot know how it is to be evil. This leaves prepositional logic or knowing that something is the case. For instance, knowing that Washington DC is the capitol of the US.

    There is also the cantorian argument. This states that there can be no set of all truths. For any set of truths, any subset is a truth in and of itself. Therefore, there can be no set of all truths.

    The impossibility of combined attributes:

    1. Can god be all-powerful and all-knowing? In other words, can he be free to create if it knows what it will create and do before it does it. In other words, if god knows what it is going to do; god is not free. If god doesn’t know what it is going to do; it is not omniscient.

    2. Can god be all-knowing and all-good? Basically, god cannot be all-good if it creates an evil person with the knowledge that the person is going to be evil, unless god is evil or indifferent.

    Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually.
    Permit me not to reinvent another wheel by providing you with a comprehensive rebuttal to your proposed dilemma.

    Determinate” means “precisely limited or defined.” A “characteristic” is a distinguishing feature or prominent aspect of something. An “attribute” is a quality in something, usually that which identifies a characteristic. A characteristic of God is that he works patiently with people. An attribute of God is that he is all knowing.
    I assume that Mr. Smith means that to be “exempt” from natural law means that God is not restricted to them or by them. That would make sense since, if God exists and if he created the universe, then by nature, all laws thus created by Him and are, therefore, subject to Him.
    However, I see no logical reason to state that God cannot have limited or defined characteristics. A supernatural being must, by logical necessity, operate in concert with his nature. In other words, God could not violate his own nature. This non-self-violation truth would be a characteristic: the inability of self-contradiction. By default, this is a limitation upon God that does not negate his existence. Since God is eternal by nature, he could not destroy himself and thus violate his attribute of eternality. In fact, such thinking would demonstrate the logic of his existence by affirming the lack of ability of self-contradiction. As we can see around us, all things that exist have a nature against which they cannot act in a contrary manner. A tree cannot be a galaxy; their natures are different. A cat cannot be a jumbo jet; their natures are different. The fact that a cat cannot be a jet does not mean that neither the cat nor the jet exist. The same with God. God is limited to his own nature because he cannot do things which are against his nature. For example, God cannot lie, stop being God and then become God again, etc. Therefore, the claim that attributes which necessitate limits disproves God’s existence is illogical.
    Additionally, natural laws are creations of God and are reflections of his creative nature: consistency, absoluteness, etc. But, they are not beyond him nor greater than him since, by definition, God is greater than all things.
    These attributes would impose limits and these limits would restrict the capacities of this supernatural being.
    As stated above, a restriction of capacity does not negate the possibility of God’s existence. Again, God does not have the capacity to lie, steal, cheat, not be God, or violate his own nature and these limits do not prove he cannot exist.
    A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature — which amounts to existing without any nature at all.
    This is not a logical statement. The “must” in the statement is unqualified. Why “must” a supernatural being exist without limits? Limited how? In scope, size, duration, extent, nature, etc.? It is unspecified and, therefore, difficult to address in detail.
    Furthermore, above I demonstrated that God is limited to the characteristics of his own nature in that he cannot violate his own nature. His attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, etc.), which are reflective of his nature, cannot be self-contradictory.
    Since God is not self-contradictory, he would act in concert with the natural laws which have been “designed into” the universe. However, since these natural laws are created by him, he is in full control of them all and can act in a way that to us is miraculous.
    Furthermore, since God would be infinite, any natural laws reflected in a universe would be, by definition, limited since the universe, a created thing, cannot exceed the scope, nature, and power of God since it is a creation. By necessity, then, when God created the limited universe, the natural laws in it, cannot control or restrict him since they are finite and he is infinite. At best, the natural laws are only a reflection of his infinitude and internal consistency and are subject to his control.
    http://www.carm.org/atheism/law_limits.htm

  33. DA Says:

    Before I continue with refuting all of your biblical nonsense, I am posting what you asked for earlier. Some arguements for atheism.

    First, let us look at the term atheism.

    Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
    (new american heritage dictionary)

    A – prefix meaning ‘without’

    Atheist – without belief in a personal god. It is often further broken down into two categories: positive and negative. Positive atheists make a positive statement that god does not exist. Negative atheists say that there is no evidence for god.

    Arguments against god:

    In order to make an argument against god; the idea of god must be defined. For my arguments, I will use the christian personal god definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being that created the universe and is involved in the daily life of human beings.

    I. The argument from evil

    This is the LaCroix version:

    i. There is a god who created everything that exists.
    ii. Before god created there was nothing but god.
    iii. After god created, everything is causally dependent on god.
    iv. God had the choice of whether or not to create this world.
    v. In one possible scenario, god could have chosen not to create anything at all.
    vi. If the choice were actualized, God would not have created a world in which evil existed.
    vii. Since god is perfectly good, if god had not created anything, all that would exist would be perfect goodness.
    viii. Evil exists, therefore, there can be no god.

    The Smith version:

    i. God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good.
    ii. There is evil.
    iii. An omniscient and omnipotent and wholly good being eliminates every evil hat it can properly eliminate.
    iv. It is possible for god to create free human who always do what is right without there being any natural evil, and if god creates these humans, it will not create evil.
    v. There is no evil, entailed by i, ii, iii, iv.
    vi. Evil exists; there is no god.

    Impossibility arguments for Atheism:

    The impossibility of omnipotence:

    1. The paradox of stone: Can god create a stone that it could not lift? If he could not create the stone; god is not omnipotent because it could not create the stone. If god could create the stone; it is not omnipotent because it could not lift the stone.

    The impossibility of omniscience:

    There are several arguments about the impossibility of omniscience that involve the different kinds of knowledge (prepositional knowledge vs. how to knowledge). If god lacks form it cannot know how to do physical actions such as throwing a ball or running. Also, if god is all good it cannot know how it is to be evil. This leaves prepositional logic or knowing that something is the case. For instance, knowing that Washington DC is the capitol of the US.

    There is also the cantorian argument. This states that there can be no set of all truths. For any set of truths, any subset is a truth in and of itself. Therefore, there can be no set of all truths.

    The impossibility of combined attributes:

    1. Can god be all-powerful and all-knowing? In other words, can he be free to create if it knows what it will create and do before it does it. In other words, if god knows what it is going to do; god is not free. If god doesn’t know what it is going to do; it is not omniscient.

    2. Can god be all-knowing and all-good? Basically, god cannot be all-good if it creates an evil person with the knowledge that the person is going to be evil, unless god is evil or indifferent.

  34. DA Says:

    “Isaiah 40:22a–When is a Circle a Sphere?
    Here is how Isa. 40:22 is rendered in the NRSV:
    It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers:
    who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    and spreads them like a tent to live in …
    This being thosands of years before Columbus proved the Earth wasn’t flat.”

    the authors of the bible believed that the earth was like a dinner plate, flat and circular. If they had meant that the earth was round, they would have said that the earth was a globe or sphere, not a circle. Also, it was preceded by:
    Isaiah 40:21 Do ye not know — do ye not hear? Hath it not been declared from the first to you? Have ye not understood [From] the foundations of the earth?
    Come on then you bum nugget, you’re “excepting” call outs, I hope you’ll quit being exceptionally bad at debate.I don’t have any ‘best’ material, it’s all on the same level, which as this thread and blog grows, you’ll find out. This match will end sooner than expected, as no doubt you’ll have to climb out from beyond alt.atheisms arse to be able to respond.
    You stand corrected yet again, and miss the point (rather arbitrarily) and you don’t decide which definitions apply because they don’t fit your paradigm.
    It was widely believed that the Earth was flat before Columbus discovered America correct? Remember 1492?
    What shape is a circle?
    Is it trapezioid? Square maybe?…No it’s round ,just like the prophet predicted through his conversation with Almighty God ,and no amount of poorly executed manuevering can dispute that immutable fact.
    Where in the Bible does it state.”dinner plate?”crickets again?….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    They also believed that the earth was held up by strong pillars as evidenced by 1st Samuel 2:8, Jeremiah 31:37 , and Psalms 75:3.

    It’s a beautiful metaphor in which the Bible so eloquently uses in many chapters and verses.

    Also, you’ll notice that Isaiah 40:22 directly contradicts Isaiah 11:12.

    My dearest howler monkey.
    A compass or circle can have 4 points
    Ever hear of North South East and West?
    There is no discerepency in the translations, only minor wording due the the authors doing the translations all from the original.
    Now having refuted your contention that a circle is not a square would you pacify me by giving me your best Biblical Inconsistency.
    This is your last chance you see because you God haters have thousands of websites out there with all of the same lies on them.For you to look up an alleged nconsitency would take all of 2 minutes,but for me to answer it truthfully would take somewhat longer and I am tiring of your games.
    Give me your best one-winner takes all.
    I doubt you’re up for the challenge due to your hit and run posting style.

  35. DA Says:

    “Statements Consistent With Astronomy
    The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.
    Genesis 22:17
    Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies….”

    Compare the obvious fact that there are many stars in the sky with some of the bible’s astronomical mistakes (pardon the pun).

    Straw man aside the most stars that were viewable at that time were somewher around 900.
    I guess God God knew alot more than you ever could huh.

    Joshua 10:12Then speaketh Joshua to Jehovah in the day of Jehovah’s giving up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he saith, before the eyes of Israel, `Sun — in Gibeon stand still; and moon — in the valley of Ajalon;’ 13and the sun standeth still, and the moon hath stood — till the nation taketh vengeance [on] its enemies; is it not written on the Book of the Upright, `and the sun standeth in the midst of the heavens, and hath not hasted to go in — as a perfect day?’

    Ecclesiastes 1:5 Also, the sun hath risen, and the sun hath gone in, and unto its place panting it is rising there.

    *The bible saying that the sun rotates around the earth

    Aren’t you dummies tired of pulling this tired old card yet?
    Youv’e got to be a newbie.

    Where’ s the Evidence?
    Here eat somemore science:
    Free yur mind and your ass will follow.

    Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured.”
    The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars (“host of heaven” is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.

    Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): “He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
    The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.

    Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
    The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called “atoms.”

    Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”
    The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled”, and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.

    Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.”
    The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.

    Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): “Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?”
    The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement — that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’ t discover this until 1864 when “the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12).

    Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth.”
    The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: “It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . .” (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of “the New World”).

    Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). “Where is the way where light dwells?”
    Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a “way,” involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

    Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
    Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. “In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters.”

    Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking):
    “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares. (Job 40:15-24).

    This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
    It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
    It had its strength in its hips.
    Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
    It had very strong bones.
    Its habitat was among the trees.
    Drank massive amounts of water.
    His nose pierced through snares.
    Then Scripture says, ” . . . He that made him can make his sword approach to him.” In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.

    Psalm 8:8: “And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas.”
    What does the Bible mean by “paths” of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have “paths?” Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850’s, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression “paths of the sea.” Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.

    Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.”
    When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the “bottoms of the mountains.” Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana’s Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.

    Amos 9:6 (written 2,800 years ago): “He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name.”
    The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That’s just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth.

    Job 38:12, 14, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: “Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.”
    Modern science has come to understand that the earth’s rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun’s rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter’s wheel — an accurate analogy of the earth’s rotation.

    Psalm 19:4-6: “In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun’s] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”
    Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a “circuit” just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.

    Job 38:22 (written 3,500 years ago). God says: “Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?”
    It wasn’t until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical “treasure.”

    Genesis 2:1 (after creation): “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”
    The Hebrew word used here is the past definite tense for the verb “finished,” indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was “finished” — once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. It states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. There is no “creation” ongoing today. It is “finished” exactly as the Bible states.

    Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): “. . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment.” The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn’t discovered by science until comparatively recently.
    Genesis 17:12: “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.”
    Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.

    Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
    This verse reveals that a female possesses the “seed of life.” This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the “seed of life” and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.

    Isaiah 40:12 (written 2,800 years ago): “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . .”
    We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.

    Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): “He stretches out the north over the empty place . . .”

    Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north.

    Isaiah 40:22 (written 2,800 years ago): “It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in.”
    Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain.

  36. DA Says:

    ‘The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.
    Jeremiah 31:35,36
    Thus says the LORD,
    Who gives the sun for a light by day,
    The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
    Who disturbs the sea,
    And its waves roar
    (The LORD of hosts is His name):
    “If those ordinances depart
    From before Me, says the LORD,
    Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
    From being a nation before Me forever.”’

    I use Young’s literal translation because some translations (KJV) are simply ridiculous, that said, the literal translation differs from yours.

    KJV strawman aside………..
    Jeremiah 31:35Thus said Jehovah, Who is giving the sun for a light by day, The statutes of moon and stars for a light by night, Quieting the sea when its billows roar, Jehovah of Hosts [is] His name36If these statutes depart from before Me, An affirmation of Jehovah, Even the seed of Israel doth cease From being a nation before Me all the days.

    If you look at the literal version, the bible is mistaken as it attributes the moon as being a light making source.

    If I look at your interpretation of what it actually states it’s no wonder that you’re as confused as a hooker on fathers day.
    Ever read a paper by moonlight I have.
    My source was the light from the moon.
    Your dilemma being,”The statutes of moon and stars for a light by night,”Both the moon and stars emit light correct?
    Whether reflected or not.
    You’ll notice that I have not infested the board with posts of feces. If you’re really interested in the psychodynamics of scatology in an adverse environment may I suggest a viewing of the movie, “Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom.” It made me feel uncomfortable but it might be a good first date movie for you. Nothing like doing prospective romantic partners a huge favor by planting that red warning flag right up front. It may mean some lonely nights for you but think of the children.

    What’s your take on this one.
    The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.
    job 26:7
    He stretches out the north over empty space; (No stars in the North discovered until the advent of the telescope, and unseen by the naked eye in ancient times)
    He hangs the earth on nothing.
    I’ve started several threads, here. Let me assuage that notion of yours that it results from any social difficulties. It’s the price you pay for coming into the forum and acting like an ass. See? You come off like an ass and recieve an anti-social response. Personal awareness! It’s what’s for dinner.

  37. DA Says:

    ‘The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.
    Jeremiah 31:35,36
    Thus says the LORD,
    Who gives the sun for a light by day,
    The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
    Who disturbs the sea,
    And its waves roar
    (The LORD of hosts is His name):
    “If those ordinances depart
    From before Me, says the LORD,
    Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
    From being a nation before Me forever.”’

    I use Young’s literal translation because some translations (KJV) are simply ridiculous, that said, the literal translation differs from yours.

    Jeremiah 31:35Thus said Jehovah, Who is giving the sun for a light by day, The statutes of moon and stars for a light by night, Quieting the sea when its billows roar, Jehovah of Hosts [is] His name36If these statutes depart from before Me, An affirmation of Jehovah, Even the seed of Israel doth cease From being a nation before Me all the days.

    If you look at the literal version, the bible is mistaken as it attributes the moon as being a light making source.

    Your strawman on the KJV aside…..
    Funny where do you see that at because I see it nowhere in the passage? You know that literal thingy. Have you ever read a newspaper under a full moon at night? I have. The moon was my light source. I’ll give you a D- on this one.
    In Jeremiah 31:35-36, the Bible said that as surely as God has decreed the sun to shine, he too has decreed that the people of Israel will never cease to be a nation of people. This promise of preservation continues to be fulfilled today, as the Jewish people maintain their identity as a distinct group of people, with its own culture, religion and language. This is a remarkable feat considering the vast number of indigenous peoples throughout the world who have lost their language and culture even without the additional burden of being exiled from their homeland. The Jews, however, endured 18 centuries of dispersion since they were exiled from their homeland by the Romans in 135 AD. Today, there are Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world who can speak the same Hebrew language that is found in even the oldest of the Biblical scriptures. (By comparison, an Englishman today would have a difficult time reading an English text written a mere 500 years ago).

    Was this your best?
    Remember I asked for your best.
    Cmon now, and stop playing word games.

    “Come on then you bum nugget, you’re “excepting” call outs, I hope you’ll quit being exceptionally bad at debate.I don’t have any ‘best’ material, it’s all on the same level”

    So far you level is pretty pitiful.

    Where in the hell did lose your brain at? I wear you around like I wear a stain :0)

    “You stand corrected yet again, and miss the point (rather arbitrarily) and you don’t decide which definitions apply because they don’t fit your paradigm.
    It was widely believed that the Earth was flat before Columbus discovered America correct? Remember 1492?”

    You need to study your history better. It was known long before Columbus.

    Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) recognized that the Earth is spherical in his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana.

    And Job

    Pythagoras
    Pythagoras (b. 570 BC) found harmony in the universe and sought to explain it. He reasoned that Earth and the other planets must be spheres, since the most harmonious geometric form was a circle.

    Plato
    Plato (427 BC – 347 BC) travelled to southern Italy to study Pythagorean mathematics. When he returned to Athens and established his school, Plato also taught his students that Earth was a sphere. If man could soar high above the clouds, Earth would resemble “a ball made of twelve pieces of leather, variegated, a patchwork of colours.”

    Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) was Plato’s prize student and “the mind of the school.” Aristotle observed “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
    Wikipedia.com

    Sigh………..
    A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 – “the circle of the earth.”

    Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

    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]

    The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth’s spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

    The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

    “When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.” [DD]

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

    “What shape is a circle?”

    A 2dimensional shape. A sphere is 3 dimensional. Haven’t you taken geometry?

    Holy god, your logic is beyond everything retarded.
    A circle is round. A sphere is round, and a compass is round two dimensional perspective or not.

    A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 – “the circle of the earth.”

    Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

    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]

    The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth’s spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

    The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

    “When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.” [DD]

    “My dearest howler monkey.
    A compass or circle can have 4 points
    Ever hear of North South East and West?”

    That is one interpretation. However, that is a problem. You cannot deny that both interpretations have the same credibility.

    I surmise that from an ancient perspective it was quite an amazing feat to determine something not know until the late 1400’s.

    “would you pacify me by giving me your best Biblical Inconsistency.”

    Here is one that I’ve found rather interesting. When was Jesus’ ascension?

    Luke 24
    1And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others] with them,
    2and they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb,
    3and having gone in, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
    51and it came to pass, in his blessing them, he was parted from them, and was borne up to the heaven;
    *ascension occurring the first day

    John 20
    1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,
    2she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.’
    26And after eight days, again were his disciples within, and Thomas with them; Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut, and he stood in the midst, and said, `Peace to you!’
    27then he saith to Thomas, `Bring thy finger hither, and see my hands, and bring thy hand, and put [it] to my side, and become not unbelieving, but believing.’
    *here he is in John, 8 days after he resurrected.

    Acts 1
    1The former account, indeed, I made concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
    2till the day in which, having given command, through the Holy Spirit, to the apostles whom he did choose out, he was taken up,
    3to whom also he did present himself alive after his suffering, in many certain proofs, through forty days being seen by them, and speaking the things concerning the reign of God.
    4And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he,] `Ye did hear of me;
    5because John, indeed, baptized with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit — after not many days.’
    6They, therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, `Lord, dost thou at this time restore the reign to Israel?’
    7and he said unto them, `It is not yours to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority;
    8but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.’
    9And these things having said — they beholding — he was taken up, and a cloud did receive him up from their sight;
    Acts 13
    28and no cause of death having found, they did ask of Pilate that he should be slain,
    29and when they did complete all the things written about him, having taken [him] down from the tree, they laid him in a tomb;
    30and God did raise him out of the dead,
    31and he was seen for many days of those who did come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
    *Here he is ‘many’ days after he resurrected.

    Ok I’ll take this as your best then.
    Not only is the Ascension related in the passages of Scripture cited above, but it is also elsewhere predicted and spoken of as an established fact. Thus, in John 6:63, Christ asks the Jews: “If then you shall see the son of Man ascend up where He was before?” and 20:17, He says to Mary Magdalen: “Do not touch (translated “approach” in the Aramaic) Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father, but go to My brethren, and say to them: I ascend to My Father and to your Father, to My God and to your God.” Again, in Ephesians 4:8-10, and in Timothy 3:16, the Ascension of Christ is spoken of as an accepted fact. Christians do not interprete this as a “state of full consciousness,” but rather a literal rising from the earth into the sky.

    The third account of the Ascension is in the Acts of the Apostles (1:9-12). For forty days after the Resurrection, Jesus continued to teach his followers. Jesus and the eleven were gathered near Mount Olivet, to the northeast of Bethany. Jesus tells his apostles that they will receive the power of the Holy Spirit, the comforter, and that they will spread his message the world over. Jesus is taken up and received by a cloud. Two men clothed in white appear and tell the apostles that Jesus will return in the same manner as he was taken.

    Even though these three accounts might appear contradictory, the reader should keep in mind that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were both written by the same author and are thus very unlikely to contain such glaring discrepancies. In fact, the Gospel of Luke never says that Jesus was taken up immediately after his Resurrection but simply states that the ascension happened “when he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany”, which could very well be forty days after his Resurrection. It is also recognized by virtually every scholar that Mark either originally ended at 16:8 or had a different ending, see Mark 16. This Ascension account should therefore be read in the light of later authorship, probably with reference to the existing traditions surrounding the event.

    The Gospel of Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee, with Jesus commanding the Disciples to spread the Gospel. No mention of the Ascension is made. Also, in the more recently discovered Nag Hammadi, Gospel of Thomas, no mention is made.

    ACOUPLE OF MORE OBSERVATIONS HERE:

    1. THE MATTHEW PASSAGE DOES NOT MENTION AN ASCENSION

    2. IN ACTS 1.4-6, WE LEARN THAT JESUS MET WITH THEM ON MANY DIFFERENT TIMES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, MOST INSTANCES OF WHICH HE PROBABLY LEFT BY A DISAPPEARANCE OR MINI-ASCENSION

    3. ALSO IN THE ACTS PASSAGE IS AN APPARENT REF TO THE LUKE 24 INCIDENT, SO THE MINI-ASCENSION IN LUKE IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THAT THE ONE IN ACTS…

    SO I DONT ACTUALLY SEE THAT THESE PASSAGES ARE REFERRING TO THE SAME ASCENSION…THE “BIG ONE” IS THE ONE OF ACTS…

    HOPE THIS HELPS SOME…

    I guess you lose huh.

  38. DA Says:

    “Statements Consistent With Meteorology
    The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.
    Ecclesiastes 1:6
    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit.”

    I would not consider this consistent with reality. It says that the winds go in a circle from north to south, when in reality, it the jet stream follows a, somewhat, longitudinal path around the globe.

    The truth is, your claims stem from your own PHILOSOPHY and not from scientific data. It was scientifically proven that the wind goes from North to South.The three-cell circulation model of the atmosphere was only discovered and documented thousands of years later making this statement fully consistent with God’s revelation.

    “The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
    Job 28:25
    To establish a weight for the wind,

    This could a simply mean that the wind pushes on you as it blows and does not necessarily mean air [barometric] pressure. Once again, simple observation.

    “To make for the wind a weight, And the waters He meted out in measure.” begs a strong argument for fluid dynamics that co-incidentally wasn’t even discovered in Jobs days. You can consider yourself lucky that I entertain their arguments, which were debunked by myself, and others long ago.I state the truth and that’s all that’s necessary.Your rantings, and purposeful ignorance do not concern me. All you God-haters can do is dodge and rant.You will claim that something is not true, but it is the only “logical conclusion,” and given that you claim by your approach, that you are incapable of bias, or error makes you and other anti-theists Gods. Plueeezzz.

    “Statements Consistent With Biology
    The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.
    Leviticus 17:11”

    How many people did they watch bleed to death? It is a simple observation that people bleed to death.

    How many Red Herring’s are you capable of producing in one thread?

    “The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.
    Genesis 1:11,12”

    The bred animals, it is no surprise that they would write about breeding. Again simple observation.

    Here we see the plants bringing forth fruit after its kind. Of course, an apple tree produces apples, an orange tree produces oranges, and so on. What is missing here? Your inability to honestly debate.

    In the end, your examples are nothing more than simple observations, some of which are wrong.

    In the more accurate, and therefore broader picture,you argue in circles and when you are done being revealed as to what you are by me, you will pretend you won, and run away and then start the exact same arguments that you know have been debunked, all over again with someone new. Now you know why I don’t bother with you fools anymore as much as I used to on the forums. And I gave you your last chance to prove your claims about evolution.You couldn’t do it ,and did exactly what I said you would do and now, as also predicted, chase me around, claiming to have proof.

  39. DA Says:

    “I have seen the power of Satan personally, and have known of those that were verifiably possessed in the Twentieth century,
    All confirmed by Vatican Scientists, and some lay Medical physicians as well that referred their patients that were beyond all hope to Exorcists for healing, and are now leading normal lives.May I suggest Father Gabriel Amorth documented chronicles by independent medical experts(specifically Psychiatrists) called “An Exorcist Tells His Story.” And lets not forget the works of Ed and Lorraine Warren and John Zaffis as well as a host of other highly educated people.Keeping in mind that the Vatican requires a Medical doctor to rule out any mundane cause for a persons affflictions before consulting a bishop who therefore grants an exorcisim.
    Some verified signs of Demon possession :
    Physical Changes Affecting The Person”

    This is laughable. Demons are superstitions just like ghosts, witches, warlocks, the boogey man, etc. Unfortunately, this superstition can be dangerous. It causes the torture of the mentally ill and can result in death.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179789.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6376211.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/472418.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4596127.stm

    It amazes me that people still believe in these ridiculous superstitions.

    What is more laughable is that you provide a few obscure links to incomplete stories of people that may, or may not have been trained as Exorcists, and believe that someone is to take your word over that of trained Vatican scientists reagrding the existence of demons.
    In 1999, when the Vatican issued its first new guidelines since 1614 for driving out devils, it urged priests to take modern psychiatry into account in deciding who should be exorcised.
    The Vatican (All scientists with Doctorates) specifically the Jesuits,are the real experts, and are consulted everywhere around the globe.

    http://www.siue.edu/ALESTLE/library/fall1996/oct.31.96/exorcism.html
    http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/exorcism.html
    http://www.trosch.org/chu/exorcism.htm
    “The real Exorcist” http://www.trosch.org/chu/exorcism.htm

    What amazes the faithful is the blindness and basic aversion to everything holy that you God haters secrete.
    You truly are spawns of the Devil.

  40. DA Says:

    Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.

    4. Is ID Science?


    Going forward if you want a post approved please provide a brief summary with a link to avoid cluttering up the forum.
    If people want to read it they will.

    Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures
    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
    With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It’s a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.

    Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls “irreducible complexity.” In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

  41. DA Says:

    cont.

    The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).

    Court systems swing like the wind.
    Darwinism will be dead in ten years.

    It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

    Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

    How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a “black box”-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

  42. DA Says:

    “What is more laughable is that you provide a few obscure links to incomplete stories of people that may, or may not have been trained as Exorcists, and believe that someone is to take your word over that of trained Vatican scientists reagrding the existence of demons.
    In 1999, when the Vatican issued its first new guidelines since 1614 for driving out devils, it urged priests to take modern psychiatry into account in deciding who should be exorcised.
    The Vatican (All scientists with Doctorates) specifically the Jesuits,are the real experts, and are consulted everywhere around the globe.”

    First off, these were not obscure cases.

    These are obscure,they don’t list enough detail and are not trustworthy sources.
    Just because you read the Enquirer does that make it fact.
    Do you believe everything that you read on a webpage?
    Unlike you I lack gullibility and am a healthy skeptic.

    These people were killed because of superstition.

    These people were killed by other human beings that are fallible,and you never addressed my statements.
    Were these exorcisms allowed by the Vatican?
    Were Psychiatrists and other medical professionals consulted to rule out more mundane causes and uillness?

    Second, the vatican’s doctorates have no evidence that these types of things occur.

    Your ass is blowing alot of wind in here, and stinking up my pristine blog.
    The evidence is insurmountable if you take the time to look it up and study it.
    Your emotions are once again clouding up any minute amount of logic that your simian sized brain can muster.
    You’re simply assuming that your conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.

    Thirdly, I have been in medicine for 17 years and have seen many people with mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, and it is abhorable that superstitious morons like yourself are abusing them in the name of your religion.

    Fourth you are a huge bullshitter.
    My mother is a retired Medical Doctor (Psychiatrist) and has personally witnessed cases of demonic possesion and, had several in her records.
    Two patients were brought to her by the police over a period of 7 years.
    Objects moved around her clinic on their own accord.
    The temperatures went from near freezing to 100 degrees in the dead of winter in the ward where these people were staying for no ascertained reason.
    One individual levitated before her and a group of other physicians.
    These patients had the ability to see into the future and knew what she had for dinner the night before.
    Their eye colors changed as the spirits manifested through them.
    This is just a small sampling of the things that she witnessesd, and no amount of your manuevering can dispute any of this.
    The best you can say is that you don’t believe ,and that’s ok because you even doubt your own existence.
    You’re an idiot with no experience and alot of hatred for theists.
    That’s beacuse you believe in God and to hate something you must believe.

    You are little more than a paper tiger.
    All puffed up on paper but paper nevertheless.
    You are what’s termed in the theological field as a “scared believer.”

  43. DA Says:

    “In the more accurate, and therefore broader picture,you argue in circles and when you are done being revealed as to what you are by me, you will pretend you won, and run away and then start the exact same arguments that you know have been debunked, all over again with someone new. Now you know why I don’t bother with you fools anymore as much as I used to on the forums. And I gave you your last chance to prove your claims about evolution.You couldn’t do it ,and did exactly what I said you would do and now, as also predicted, chase me around, claiming to have proof.”

    Arguing in circles? You are the person throwing all of the red herring bible examples without ever producing evidence that the bible is anything more that fiction.

    “Even though these three accounts might appear contradictory, the reader should keep in mind that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were both written by the same author and are thus very unlikely to contain such glaring discrepancies”

    Any yet the discrepencies are SOOOO glaring.

    “ACOUPLE OF MORE OBSERVATIONS HERE:
    1. THE MATTHEW PASSAGE DOES NOT MENTION AN ASCENSION
    2. IN ACTS 1.4-6, WE LEARN THAT JESUS MET WITH THEM ON MANY DIFFERENT TIMES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, MOST INSTANCES OF WHICH HE PROBABLY LEFT BY A DISAPPEARANCE OR MINI-ASCENSION
    3. ALSO IN THE ACTS PASSAGE IS AN APPARENT REF TO THE LUKE 24 INCIDENT, SO THE MINI-ASCENSION IN LUKE IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THAT THE ONE IN ACTS…
    SO I DONT ACTUALLY SEE THAT THESE PASSAGES ARE REFERRING TO THE SAME ASCENSION…THE “BIG ONE” IS THE ONE OF ACTS… ”

    Typical, a glaring error appears so you try and say that jesus ascended twice. Brilliant 🙂

    Typical God-Hater,no glaring error evident so you create an imaginary one.
    Face it fool,your best has failed you.

  44. DA Says:

    ‘Researchers have found that people may become more easily convinced that they’ve witnessed a case of demonic possession if the event is made to seem plausible.
    People studying false memories have established that it’s easier to plant a memory of a plausible than an implausible event. Now, in tests with Italian university students, psychologist Giuliana Mazzoni of Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey, and colleagues have shown that they can convince even some skeptics that possession is possible.

    At the beginning of the study, to be published by the Journal of Experimental Psychology, all 22 subjects said that it was “highly implausible” that they had witnessed a demonic possession in their childhoods. Students then read short articles that claimed that the phenomenon is more common than thought and took a test that revealed their fears. The students were then told that their “fear profile” indicated that they probably had witnessed a possession. By the end of the process, four students agreed that it was likely that they had witnessed a possession, while the others remained unconvinced.

    The findings might help illuminate how people develop “memories” of such implausible things as satanic ritual participation, alien abduction, and events immediately after they were born, the authors say. And although people’s memories were not altered in this study, co-author Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington says the work suggests it can be done “experimentally with normal people.” Indeed, she predicts a jump in purported possessions this fall, with the rerelease of The Exorcist and a Halloween broadcast of “Possessed,” a TV documentary about an exorcism in a mental hospital.

    The authors argue that the manipulations in their experiment are “a mild version” of what can happen in psychotherapy, where “suggestive communications lead patients to believe that implausible events have happened to them.” But psychologist Kathy Pezdek of Claremont Graduate University in California warns that the study doesn’t necessarily mean it’s easy for a therapist to induce false memories of childhood events such as sexual abuse, “especially when such events are implausible.”‘
    Science 3 November 2000:

    Fine article about nothing much at all except quite a bit of speculation.
    I noticed the tone of the entire article was one of uncertainity.
    And besides none of it can address documented aspects of the phenomenon such as the ones listed below.
    What you’ve quote mined is speculation.
    What I’ve presented is observation by independent witnesses and documented fact backed by Vatican scientists,clergy, and the ages.

    Physical Changes Affecting The Person

    1 The person involved may go for long periods of time without blinking their eyes. (Can indicate a neurological condition)

    2 The person may appear catatonic. (Can also be a sign of mental illness)

    3 The person speaks a language they could not possibly know. (Or speak English with unusual accents.)

    4 The person speaks in tongues.

    5 The person will become completely rigid where they cannot be moved at all, even by multiple people.

    6 Look for changes in the eyes. They may turn almost black like shark eyes.

    7 Look for obvious changes in their features.

    8 The person may possess inhuman strength.

    9 The person may exhibit “precognition,” the ability to predict the future.

    10 The person displays “retro cognition,” the ability to know about past events they should not know about.

    11 The person may be able to know something about a person they have not met.

    12 Their voice may change. It may go from high to low to guttural.

    13 They may be able to tell what you are thinking.

    14 They may move in some unusual way. For example, they may seem to glide instead of walk.

    15 Writing or symbols may appear on the body in the form of welts and scratches. Look especially in areas they could not reach.

    16 They may levitate.

    17 Hair or eye color may change.

    18 There may be multiple voices coming from the person at the same time.

    19 Take note if animals appear to be frightened of the person, especially if they begin acting fearful when there are personality changes in the person.

    A couple of these symptoms can be related to medical or psychological conditions but most of them fall outside the realm of science. If you start to see a few items in this category, there is serious cause for concern. At this point, you start to take items from the first category and see if they are consistent with items from things in this second category, or the third one I am about to detail. Obviously, some are more telling than others. You have to give weight to the values when you try to make a determination. The Holy Spirit should be called on for guidance and discernment, especially where there are only vague manifestations.

    Outward Manifestations

    1 Objects move around seemingly by themselves.

    2 Objects may disappear and not be found again. (Asporting)

    3 Objects may disappear and be found in another location. (Teleporting)

    4 Objects may disappear and later be found where they originally were.

    5 Objects may come from nowhere. (Apports)

    6 Knocking, banging or pounding may be heard throughout the house or in just one room.

    7 Objects fly around as if they were thrown from unseen hands.

    8 There may be knocks at the door but no one is ever there. These are often heard in threes, as this is a way of mocking the Holy Trinity. Ditto for doorbells.

    9 Religious articles disappear or are destroyed. They may also be desecrated.

    10 Growling may be heard but the source cannot be located.

    11 There may be scratching sounds heard without an obvious source.

    12 There may be foul odors that have no verifiable source. They may come and go.

    13 Odd lights may be seen. They may shoot around a room.

    14 Heavy furniture may move on its own.

    15 There may be sightings of people or dark shadows that may or may not have form.

    16 Odd-looking creatures may be seen.

    17 Doors and drawers may open and close on their own.

    18 Electrical appliances may turn on or off.

    19 Spontaneous fires may start up.

    20 Animals may become spooked and stay away from the targeted person altogether.

    21 Animals may growl at something they see but you do not.

    22 Any talk of God or religion may cause an outbreak of activity.

    23 Glass may break for no reason.

    24 Sounds of glass breaking may be heard but there is no evidence of it happening.

    25 There may be sudden temperature changes, up and down although it is usually down. These can be recorder on a thermometer.

    25 A person may suddenly become cold while the temperature remains constant. A thermometer may record a one to two degree drop in that person.

    26 People may have a feeling of being watched or that they are not alone.

    27 People may hear voices when no one is present.

    28 People will often hear their name called only to find that no one is around. Sometimes, a couple will each think they heard the other call to them.

    29 There may be a sensation of wind blowing even with the windows closed.

    30 Lights will go off or not come on when turned on.

    31 Apparent retaliation after some attempt to stop the activity.

    32 Activity starts up when you attempt to say prayers.

    33 Apparent retaliation if a clergyman has been to the home.

    34 Physical attacks. It might be in the form of punching, scratching, biting, hair pulling, etc.

    35 Psychological attacks. The devil knows your weaknesses and will try to exploit them. Someone who feels ashamed about something will have an increase in that emotion. The same is true for depression, anxiety and anything else you can think of.

    36 Sexual assaults. This can run the gamut from fondling to actual penetration. This can occur in males as well as females.

    37 Levitation of objects or people.

    A fair number of the items listed in the above category could be the result of a human spirit. This is why you have to look at all three columns together to get a fair sampling. If any of the above takes place and stop when commanded to in the name of God, or if holy water stops the activity, that is a good sign of a serious problem. However, judging one or two items by itself is not a large enough sample to conclusively prove the influence of something diabolical.

    The Roman Ritual does not require a specific number when it comes to proving that something demonic is taking place. Rather, what you have to do is paint a picture, of sorts. Consider all of the evidence together before making a determination. It is also very important to rule out what you can as being natural in origin. Take into account that when people are frightened, their senses sharpen and every sound appears ominous, even natural, everyday sounds. Imaginations will run wild when one believes that something evil is taking place. That must be considered when someone comes up to you and tells you that they believe a house is haunted or a person is demonically possessed.

    While you cannot be close-minded, you must remain skeptical. Rushing into an exorcism where one is not necessary can have serious consequences. If a person is suffering from a mental illness, an exorcism will only exacerbate the situation. The person may now believe they are evil. If the exorcism is being done on a house where it is not needed, it can attract attention and stir up trouble where there was none before. In this field, “better safe than sorry” does not apply. An exorcism is a very serious thing and it is extremely dangerous. It can have serious consequences. Where evil is involved, the person who is called on to combat it is in serious danger, and if they are not careful, the consequences can be horrendous. It is not something to be played with. Only someone who has had experience in both the supernatural and Church teaching should even attempt to perform this rite. It is best if that person has been ordained as an exorcist.

    During an exorcism, anything or nothing can happen. There is no set standard. In some cases, all hell seems to break loose; in others, not a peep is heard. Sometimes the smell of roses permeates the location, a positive sign that the entity has been expelled. However, it can take some time before you are sure an exorcism has worked. Sometimes the Ritual forces them into a state of dormancy. However, at a later date, the problem may arise again. In many cases, multiple exorcisms may have to take place. The devil can be a persistent force and it will hold on for as long as it can. It sometimes comes down to attrition.

    The person who performs the exorcism must know the risks. There is likely to be retaliation so that person must stay in God’s light at all times. There is no sense of time on the other side so even though an exorcism was performed ten years ago, there is still the risk of retaliation. There is always the risk of retaliation.

  45. DA Says:

    A five-year-old girl was killed by her mother when she tried to pull the devil out of the girl’s mouth by means of her hands. In that way the enlarged tonsils were pushed back and caused together with the woman’s fingers a temporary closure of the hypopharynx and at least the suffocation of the child. About two years ago the woman began to show paranoic ideas exacerbating up to the fatal event.
    Fatal exorcism. A case report. Archiv Für Kriminologie [Archive of Criminology] 1997 Sep-Oct; Vol. 200 (3-4), pp. 73-8.

    DA, get some new material.
    I’ve already covered this topic with a list of factual data concerning true demonic possession so the balance of your posts will not be approved and flagged as redundant.
    Dismantle my earlier argument.
    If you you can’t do that then all you are is a quote mining paper tiger.I’m not one of your bearded, Oyster Bar daisy chain linked redneck leatherboy friends of yours…I’m a sophisticated twenty first century American professional who knows the inherent value of effectively staying cool, dry and comfortable in a fully-reliable closed environment when out on the highways…

  46. DA Says:

    “Typical God-Hater,no glaring error evident so you create an imaginary one.
    Face it fool,your best has failed you.”

    Sure, and a bat is a bird [Leviticus 11:19] and, also:

    Of course omit the fact that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. Let’s start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a “bird” was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply “owner of a wing”, the word being ‘owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.The category of ‘owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). It’s similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like “sunset” and “sunrise” without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn’t we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.

    snip rest of redundant blather

    Your best has failed and this thread is now closed.

  47. DA Says:

    “It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.
    Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.”

    The obvious fallacy here is it is not a biological system. That said, each component may have a use separate of the whole. Springs are utilized in many ways and for many tools. Small wooden plates could be used for a variety of purposes, also [wedge, coaster]. The pin could also be used for other purposes [cotter pin]. You get the idea. Also, if you are looking at two houses, one with a broken mousetrap and one with a working mousetrap. Both houses will work, the partial mousetrap would be the biological equivelant of genetic drift. What a stupid analogy you’ve posted.

    “How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a “black box”-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world. In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.”

    A single stranded RNA virus is not. It is postulized that early life began as small vesicles with small single-stranded nucleic acids that served to reproduce the simple organism.

    Follow the Yellow brick road to glimpse the genius behind the curtain….

    Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists
    Although some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity, others, while using different wording, tacitly admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. Three intertwined examples of irreducible complexity discussed in this brief report are 1) The origin of novel regulatory complexes governing gene behavior, 2) The hoped-for evolution of genes that have novel functions relative to their supposedly ancestral genes, and 3) The origin of new proteins that have a very different function from the presumably ancestral proteins. In each case, evolutionists point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system.

  48. DA Says:

    Prophecies in the Quran:

    The Qur’an says: “Allah has promised to those of you who believe, and do good deeds, that He will surely grant them in the land inheritance of power as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion which He has chosen for them. And that He will change their state after fear to one of security and peace. They will worship Me alone and not associate aught with Me.” (24:55) And also: “Say to those who deny faith, soon you will be vanquished.” (3:12) and “When comes the help of Allah and Victory, and you see the people enter Allah’s religion in multitudes . . .” (110:1-2) The first verse was revealed at a time of the Muslim’s weakness, promising the righteous victory, and the second predicting the peoples entering into Islam in crowds, and so it came to pass, after the capture of Mecca, and in the time of the Caliphs Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, who were from the most pious companions of the Prophet, were established by Allah in the land, defeating the Persian and Roman empires, so that Islam was established from Spain to parts of China in a mere twenty years. This, in part, fulfills another prophecy of the Qur’an: “It is He who has sent the Messenger with guidance, and the religion of truth, to make it triumphant over all religions.” (9:32) Christianity, Judaism, paganism have never regained any lasting dominance, physically and intellectually since the coming of Islam. The secular philosophies of communism and capitalism are in the process of being dealt death blows. At the present rate of growth Islam will over take Christianity by 2025 in terms of numbers. See also Qur’an 48:18-21 and 1:13, which promise victory and the taking of booty – which were also fulfilled.

    The Qur’an says: “The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, even after this defeat, will gain victory in a few years. Allah’s is the command, in the past and in the future. On that day shall the believers rejoice, with the help of Allah, He helps whom He wills. And He is the mighty and the most Merciful. It is the promise of Allah. Allah never departs from His promise: but most men understand not. They crave for the outer things of life, but of the hereafter they are heedless.” (30:1-7) The Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Persians who captured Jerusalem in 614, and after that Egypt and Syria fell, and Constantinople was laid siege to – (“a land close by”). The pagan Arabs delighted in this, as it seemed to signal to them the success of idolatry over the followers of revelation. When this verse was revealed it seemed impossible that Rome would recover. The word, translated “a few”, is bid’a, which actually means from three to nine years. Ubayy, a pagan Arab, wagered Abu Bakr one hundred camels that this would never occur. By the year 623, Heraclius, the Byzantine Roman Emperor, took to the field and vanquished the Persians in a series of battles, culminating in the battle of Niveveh in 627. Ubayy had been killed, so his relatives paid the dept. At this same time the Muslims had been victorious over the pagan Quraish and were rejoicing, as the Qur’an foretold.

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Prophecies/

    Don’t think that christianity is the only religion boasting of fulfilled prophecies.

    Your article is meaningless as it doesn’t address prophesy.
    No I don’t think, I am positive that Christianity is the only true religion that is backed up by cold hard fact.
    Here choke on this short list of 10 from over 300 fulfilled prophesy.

    Predicted ca. 855 BC: The prophet Elijah predicts Jezebel would be eaten by dogs upon her death in Jezreel. (1 Kings 21:23)– Fulfilled ca. 841 BC: Jezebel is killed in Jezreel and dogs eat her body (2 Kings 9:36).
    Predicted ca. 760 BC: Amos predicts Israel would be restored as a nation and would never be uprooted again (Amos 9:15)–Fulfilled in 1948.
    Predicted ca 732 BC: Isaiah predicts the Medo-Persian empire will conquer Babylon (Isaiah 13:17-18) and Babylon would become a wasteland.–Fulfilled in 538 BC when the Medes took over Babylon and 275 BC when the Seleucids forced all of the inhabitants to leave.
    Predicted ca. 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).–Fulfilled ca. 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.
    Predicted ca. 701 BC: Isaiah claims Israel will be taken captive by the Babylonian empire (Isaiah 39).–Fulfilled ca. 597 & 586 BC: Babylon takes captives and sacks Jerusalem the first time then totally destroys Jerusalem about 10 years later.
    Predicted ca. 589 BC: Ezekiel tells about the destruction of the great city Tyre (Ezekiel 27).–Fulfilled in 1291: Muslims destroy the city.
    Predicted ca. 543 BC: Daniel tells of a great Grecian king who would conquer the Persian empire but would have his kingdom divided four ways after his death (Daniel 8).–Fulfilled in 330 BC when Alexander the Great defeats Persia and 281 BC after the Greek generals who succeed Alexander reach an agreement after years of war to split the kingdom four ways.
    Predicted ca. 536 BC: Daniel prophesies that the Greek empire would not go to Alexander the Great’s heirs (Daniel 11).–Fulfilled ca. 323-281 BC after Alexander’s death when his generals fight over the kingdom while shutting out (and killing) his heirs.
    Predicted ca. 430 BC: Malachi prophesies that Yahweh’s name would be honored by the Gentiles (pagans) (Malachi 1:11).–Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present: Pagans worldwide have forsaken their paganism and have confessed that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
    Predicted ca. 30 AD: Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted and hated by the majority of the people on the earth because they follow him (Matthew 24:9).–Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present: Ever since the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached, millions of true Christians worldwide have been mistreated or killed for the faith.
    “I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” (Isaiah 46:10-11).

    Oh well by the way you strutted in here like Joan Collins looking for a slap-fight I just surmised that you took a wrong turn at gaysearch.com
    Now you and your shit-eating grin be on your pathetic way, you nonsensical idiot.

  49. DA Says:

    “Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists
    Although some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity, others, while using different wording, tacitly admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. Three intertwined examples of irreducible complexity discussed in this brief report are 1) The origin of novel regulatory complexes governing gene behavior, 2) The hoped-for evolution of genes that have novel functions relative to their supposedly ancestral genes, and 3) The origin of new proteins that have a very different function from the presumably ancestral proteins. In each case, evolutionists point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system.”

    GOD OF THE GAPS=MEANINGLESS STRAWMAN

    At the beginning of christianity; it was believed that god made things go down towards the ground. The theory of relativity, the one that makes computers and space flight possible, wasn’t developed until 100 yrs ago. There are many things that scientists don’t know YET. That does not mean that they are either irreducibly complex, just that they have not yet been discovered.

    At the beginning of christianity; it was believed that god made things go down towards the ground = MEANINGLESS STRAWMAN
    You are being overly sensitive, you must be having a bad day

  50. DA Says:

    “Predicted ca. 30 AD: Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted and hated by the majority of the people on the earth because they follow him (Matthew 24:9).–Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present: Ever since the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached, millions of true Christians worldwide have been mistreated or killed for the faith.”

    This one caught my eye. This is rather ridiculous. Many christians have been killed by other christians. Also, muslims are, probably, the most untrusted religion in the world, at the moment, because of the violence that they are committing throughout the world. Christians are not being killed or mistreated, although they try to do that to others [ie atheiststooges.com] who do not believe them.

    You need to get that eye checked.
    Or the prophesy just like the others I have presented simply came true because they were from divine authority.Dispute that, and by dispute I don’t mean take a lucky guess,I mean show me that invisible evidence of yours.
    I’ll choose Occam’s razor on this one.You are constantly met with failure when addressing my logic.I am of the contention at this point that you were born in June earlier last year, the cursed offspring of an unholy communion between a Down’s Syndrome mother and a well-endowed chimpanzee.

  51. DA Says:

    “Dismantle my earlier argument.”

    Read the research. The idea of demonic possession is nothing more that superstition.

    Throwing out silly Red Herrings, and appeal to authority mean nothing in making a case for yourself.
    Do you believe everything that you read dolt?
    I’ve presented the documented evidence and youv’e yet dismantled my position.
    Dismantle the evidence then we’ll talk, or at least give it an honest try you lazy bastard.

    These people have psychiatric disorders and nothing more. You have posted no actual evidence; just alleged signs and symptoms of possession. I listed many research articles that refute your ignorance and you merely deleted them. Like christians of the past; you operate by removing and ignoring evidence that you cannot refute. I say again, pitiful.

    So basically you’re an idiot that has nothing of interest to say other than,”because I believe it it must be true.”
    Like the little God hating bastard that you are,you’ve chosen to simply ignore the facts ,and that is not too surprising since by your own definition you don’t even exist.You asswipes think you are scientific but you have no idea what science is.You’re little more than a chattering howler monkey in a short list.A little man with perhaps the worst mullet known to science

  52. DA Says:

    “Throwing out silly Red Herrings, and appeal to authority mean nothing in making a case for yourself.”

    As I said, demonic possessions are nothing more than psychiatric disorders. That is why there is shizophrenia in the DSM IV but not demonic possession.

    Stop begging the question.

    “You asswipes think you are scientific but you have no idea what science is.You’re little more than a chattering howler monkey in a short list.A little man with perhaps the worst mullet known to science”

    And how much science do you know? How much science have you had? During my education, I’ve taken biology, chemistry [organic and inorganic], biochemistry, physics, microbiology, Human anatomy and physiology, neurobiology, cellular biology along with my medical education. Now, what were you? Oh, that’s right, a philosophy major. You are nothing more than a superstitious moron living in a modern world.

    blah…blah…blah….
    So I was a philosophy major now?
    Give me a citation regarding that statement.

  53. DA Says:

    “During my time at school, my study of philosophy”

    A quote from early on.

    Where?
    Provide a citatation.
    If you cannot then you are a liar as the balance of your posts dictate as well.

  54. DA Says:

    Here is a question for you. What is the creationist rationalization for the Creutzfeld-Jakob type diseases [CJD,vCJD,Fatal Familial insomnia]? How can this be explained by ID or creationism?

    These diseases are 100% fatal and can be horribly frightening for the families, as well as, excrutiatingly painful.

    Here are some questions for you that are still sitting in the “unable to address bin.”.
    Disprove these documented charactaristics of true demonic possession and the story that follows.

    Outward Manifestations

    1 Objects move around seemingly by themselves.

    2 Objects may disappear and not be found again. (Asporting)

    3 Objects may disappear and be found in another location. (Teleporting)

    4 Objects may disappear and later be found where they originally were.

    5 Objects may come from nowhere. (Apports)

    6 Knocking, banging or pounding may be heard throughout the house or in just one room.

    7 Objects fly around as if they were thrown from unseen hands.

    8 There may be knocks at the door but no one is ever there. These are often heard in threes, as this is a way of mocking the Holy Trinity. Ditto for doorbells.

    9 Religious articles disappear or are destroyed. They may also be desecrated.

    10 Growling may be heard but the source cannot be located.

    11 There may be scratching sounds heard without an obvious source.

    12 There may be foul odors that have no verifiable source. They may come and go.

    13 Odd lights may be seen. They may shoot around a room.

    14 Heavy furniture may move on its own.

    15 There may be sightings of people or dark shadows that may or may not have form.

    16 Odd-looking creatures may be seen.

    17 Doors and drawers may open and close on their own.

    18 Electrical appliances may turn on or off.

    19 Spontaneous fires may start up.

    20 Animals may become spooked and stay away from the targeted person altogether.

    21 Animals may growl at something they see but you do not.

    22 Any talk of God or religion may cause an outbreak of activity.

    23 Glass may break for no reason.

    24 Sounds of glass breaking may be heard but there is no evidence of it happening.

    25 There may be sudden temperature changes, up and down although it is usually down. These can be recorder on a thermometer.

    25 A person may suddenly become cold while the temperature remains constant. A thermometer may record a one to two degree drop in that person.

    26 People may have a feeling of being watched or that they are not alone.

    27 People may hear voices when no one is present.

    28 People will often hear their name called only to find that no one is around. Sometimes, a couple will each think they heard the other call to them.

    29 There may be a sensation of wind blowing even with the windows closed.

    30 Lights will go off or not come on when turned on.

    31 Apparent retaliation after some attempt to stop the activity.

    32 Activity starts up when you attempt to say prayers.

    33 Apparent retaliation if a clergyman has been to the home.

    34 Physical attacks. It might be in the form of punching, scratching, biting, hair pulling, etc.

    35 Psychological attacks. The devil knows your weaknesses and will try to exploit them. Someone who feels ashamed about something will have an increase in that emotion. The same is true for depression, anxiety and anything else you can think of.

    36 Sexual assaults. This can run the gamut from fondling to actual penetration. This can occur in males as well as females.

    37 Levitation of objects or people.

    Also:

    I have a psychologist friend who was present with me at another exorcism in Newport Beach, California. Before we entered the room he said, “I want you to know I do not believe in demonic possession. This girl is mentally disturbed.”

    I said, “That may well be. We’ll find out very soon.”

    As we went into the room and closed the door, the girl’s supernatural strength was soon revealed. Suddenly from her body a totally foreign voice said quietly, with a smirk on the face (she was unconscious -the psychologist testified to that), “We will outlast you.”

    The psychologist looked at me and said, “What was that?”

    “That is what you don’t believe in,” I said.

    We spent about 3 1/2 hours exorcising what the psychologist didn’t believe in!

    At the end of the exorcism he was not only a devout believer in the personality of the devil, but in demonic possession and biblical exorcism as well. He now knows that there are other-dimensional beings capable of penetrating this dimension and of controlling human beings!

    http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch36/default.htm

    Now, I want a comprehensive refutation to all 37 points as well as the documented story that followed that converted another man of science in a horde of others on the validity of the supernatural.
    Without that you’re stil 0 for 0.

  55. DA Says:

    ‘“During my time at school, my study of philosophy”

    A quote from early on.

    Where?
    Provide a citatation.
    If you cannot then you are a liar as the balance of your posts dictate as well.’

    Your response above to my post;
    April 26th, 2007 at 2:04 am

    So your’e caught lying once again and pretend that you’ve said something important.
    You talk about ownage, but yet you have bottled out of every challenge known to mankind. You use the same lame tactics over and over and this is how you get owned time and time again. Lets make this ownage official shall we?

  56. DA Says:

    Also, explain the common appendicitis via ID or creationism.

    Also explain :
    Why are the three laws of thermodynamics so important?

    Why are the three Laws of Thermodynamics so important? Our concept of “Modern Science” is based on a series of major discoveries that define our understanding of the universe. Advancements in mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, and other disciplines have usually been accompanied by defining, or discovering, fundamental principles. The Laws of Thermodynamics are important because they control interactions of everything in the universe – regardless of scale. These rules stretch across every form of science known to humankind.

    Classical physics is, from a certain perspective, entirely based on Newton’s Laws of motion. Most of the equations and principles taught in physics are based on these simply stated rules. In a similar way, thermodynamics is defined and based on the fundamental principles known as the Laws of Thermodynamics. All of the equations and guidelines used to design engines, analyze machines, and understand natural phenomena are subject to these laws.

    The Laws of Thermodynamics take on a special importance because of their scope. It has been shown that Newton’s laws of physics are only applicable in certain conditions. These conditions include pretty much every situation important to most engineers, chemists, and scientists. However, there are some known conditions where “Newtonian” physics are inaccurate. The Laws of Thermodynamics have no such exceptions. Energy is conserved, regardless of the amount or type of energy. Closed systems always tend towards greater entropy unless externally modified, whether those systems are atomic or galactic in size.

    This means that the three Laws of Thermodynamics have influence over every scientific discipline, every biological or geological process, and every interstellar system. We can immediately test certain ideas against the Laws of Thermodynamics to see if they follow some of the universe’s most basic rules. Ideas that don’t follow those rules are either wrong or must be caused by some supernatural influence. For example, perpetual motion machines are provably impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. The first law shows that energy (or matter) cannot be created from nothing, and the second law shows that a closed system will degrade its own energy over time. A machine that runs forever without any external energy source is either fictional or powered by some unnatural source.

    Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics, much more than other concepts, have sparked fierce debate about the very origins of the universe. The Laws of Thermodynamics leave some popular scientific theories in serious doubt. The fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, raises questions about where all of the matter in the universe came from. Interestingly, there are those who shrug off disagreements between the Laws of Thermodynamics and certain popular scientific theories. While the fundamental laws of matter and energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, are used to measure truth in every other discipline, some scientists ignore these laws as they pertain to their theories. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics define the rules of the natural universe, how do we explain things that those Laws say are not possible? If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than just a possible conclusion – it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics. If something exists when natural laws say that it cannot be created, then something or someone operating outside of those laws must be responsible. The Laws of Thermodynamics lead us not only to greater knowledge of the natural universe, but they point us toward answers outside of that universe as well.

    Oh yea I almost forgot: I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God’s language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God’s plan.

    and

    I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist’s assertion that “I know there is no God” emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”

    C.S. Lewis… He’s everywhere.

    Collins: Why this scientist believes in God – CNN.com

  57. DA Says:

    “Here are some questions for you that are still sitting in the “unable to address bin.”.
    Disprove these documented charactaristics of true demonic possession and the story that follows.
    Outward Manifestations
    1 Objects move around seemingly by themselves.
    2 Objects may disappear and not be found again. (Asporting)
    3 Objects may disappear and be found in another location. (Teleporting)
    4 Objects may disappear and later be found where they originally were.
    5 Objects may come from nowhere. (Apports)
    6 Knocking, banging or pounding may be heard throughout the house or in just one room.
    7 Objects fly around as if they were thrown from unseen hands.
    8 There may be knocks at the door but no one is ever there. These are often heard in threes, as this is a way of mocking the Holy Trinity. Ditto for doorbells….”

    These are cases of extra-ordinary claims require exra-ordinary evidence. There is no evidence that these occurrences ever happen. I’ve seen video of exorcisms and actions, such as teleporting and asporting, do not happen. The people who do see these things, generally are as delusional as the people that they are exorcising. This is why there is no evidence of actions such as asporting. If it did occur, then it would be rather easy to catch it on video in front of skeptical scientists.

    You’re Modus Operendi is consistently begging the question so why is that you howler monkeys keep parroting the same mantra over and over when the evidence is everywhere?
    Don’t you realize that this same agrument can, and will be applied to everything that you state because it logically flows both ways?

    Here is a little expo on your little Extraordinary evidence parrot:
    Have mommy explain it to you if it gets too deep.

    What criteria do they use to determine what is extraordinary evidence?

    The reality is that there is no precise scientific method for determining the validity of historic events. There is a degree of subjectivity involved. Different people will claim different requirements for validating ancient phenomena based upon their presuppositions and the type of evidence involved. Also, since ancient events dealing with human history and claims cannot be observed or repeated, we must look at the evidence differently. This makes the application of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” somewhat subjective and invalid for determining ancient phenomena.
    Is the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

    The skeptic often requires “proof” that God exists, or “absolute proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many atheists, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus’ resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is an impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can’t apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Atheists know this and that is why they require it; therefore, they are being unreasonable. Nevertheless, when the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the atheist feels vindicated.
    However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact that there is a category of “sufficient evidence.” In logic, there is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement of “extraordinary evidence.” The evidence is simply examined contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which it fits. This is what I mean:
    We do not apply observation, experimentation, and repetition to the subject of Napoleon’s existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus’ resurrection, thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis.
    Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring “extraordinary evidence” yet they will require it of Jesus’ existence.
    However, a skeptic might say that Alexander the Great never claimed to have risen from the dead and that normal evidence would be sufficient to determine his existence with reasonable probability. But, Alexander the Great, according to history, performed an extraordinary feat. By the age of 33 he had conquered the known world. That is indeed an extraordinary event in history. So, I ask, “Where is the extraordinary evidence to back that extraordinary claim?” Has any skeptic in Christ’s resurrection equally applied the principle of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” to Alexander the Great’s conquest of the known world? If not, then this brings us full circle to the issue concerning presuppositions. With an atheist, for example, the presupposition that God does not exist means that the extraordinary claim of Christ’s resurrection requires extraordinary evidence but Alexander the Great’s world conquest does not, yet both are extraordinary claims of history. I can’t help but notice the inconsistency.
    Conclusion

    If it is true Alexander the Great conquered the known world by 33 years of age, no big deal. It won’t have any effect on anyone and it won’t change anything in anyone’s life. But, if it is true about Jesus, then that is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as performing miracles and rising from the dead. The claims concerning Christ can have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want what Christ said to be true and will sometimes desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    Nevertheless, when defending the Bible and dealing with the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” address the following issues.

    Will their presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence?
    What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
    What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence?
    Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?
    Hopefully, a healthy dialogue can be had by both parties.

    http://www.carm.org/evidence/extraordinary.htm

  58. DA Says:

    “Here is a question for you. What is the creationist rationalization for the Creutzfeld-Jakob type diseases [CJD,vCJD,Fatal Familial insomnia]? How can this be explained by ID or creationism?

    These diseases are 100% fatal and can be horribly frightening for the families, as well as, excrutiatingly painful.”

    Since you cannot answer the question. I will explain why I ask. God is, supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing etc., yet this doesn’t make sense in the light of many diseases. The diseases above are prion diseases. A prion disease is cause by a protein [PrP] that is developed in nerve cells. In the disease, the PrP protein changes shape from an alpha helix to a pleated sheet. This change in shape makes the protein resistant to proteases, which break down the protein normally. This leads to a collection of the protein in the brain that causes holes in the brain [ie spongiform encephalopathy] resulting in the symptoms and eventual death. The change in the protein shape can be caused by an abnormal gene or the protein itself, which is why the disease is both spontaneously occurring and transmissible.

    This type of disease is easily explained by evolution. The protein is needed for healthy neurons, however, due to the biochemistry of the protein and the occurrence of mutation, that can be neutral, positive or negative [as in this case], these diseases occur. However, if there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent god, these diseases do not make sense. Why not use a protien that doesn’t change shape? Why allow mutations that can cause the disease? Why not just stop the protein from changing shape?

    LMAO!
    Begging the question again are we?

    Here, I’ll give you another quesion since since I know you have yet to address a single one I’ve set forth so I’ll play your favorite game of ping pong until we both tire.
    Answering someones questions with another question that you God haters consistently do is like clockwork,sort of like my dog licking his bum after a healthy dump.

    Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?
    In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequences are just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.php

  59. DA Says:

    “Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics, much more than other concepts, have sparked fierce debate about the very origins of the universe. The Laws of Thermodynamics leave some popular scientific theories in serious doubt. The fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, raises questions about where all of the matter in the universe came from. Interestingly, there are those who shrug off disagreements between the Laws of Thermodynamics and certain popular scientific theories. While the fundamental laws of matter and energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, are used to measure truth in every other discipline, some scientists ignore these laws as they pertain to their theories. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics define the rules of the natural universe, how do we explain things that those Laws say are not possible? If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than just a possible conclusion – it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics. If something exists when natural laws say that it cannot be created, then something or someone operating outside of those laws must be responsible. The Laws of Thermodynamics lead us not only to greater knowledge of the natural universe, but they point us toward answers outside of that universe as well.

    Oh yea I almost forgot: I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God’s language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God’s plan.

    and

    I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist’s assertion that “I know there is no God” emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”

    C.S. Lewis… He’s everywhere.

    Collins: Why this scientist believes in God – CNN.com”

    You should read Francis Collin’s book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. It presents an excellent case for evolution [something that Dr. Collins accepts, except that he thinks the beginning point was god].

    The topic is not evolution.
    The topc is your claim that no scientists bellieve in God.
    Here is another short list of scientists that belive in God.(One created Paleontology)
    The following list is very incomplete.

    Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

    Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

    Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

    Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

    Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

    Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

    Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

    Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

    Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

    David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

    Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

    Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

    Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

    Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

    Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

    Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

    Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

    Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

    Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

    Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

    Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

    John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

    Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

    William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

    George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

    D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

    James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

    Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

    John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

    Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

    Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

    Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

    Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

    Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

    Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

    James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

    Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

    Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

    Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

    Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

    Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

    Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

    William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

    John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

    Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

    Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

    James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

    Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

    George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

    Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

    William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

    Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

    Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

    Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

    A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

    A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

    John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

    The 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy must be conserved. This doesn’t conflict with the physics that I’ve seen. In fact, it makes more sense when looking at physics than when looking at god. Physics states that the beginning of the universe, as we know it, was a change in matter and energy from a highly dense form to an expanding form.

    The god hypothesis states that a highly intelligent and powerful being can come from nothing. This is the anti-thesis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and also illogical when compared to evolution that states that complexity can only come from small steps over a large amount of time.

    Are you retarded ,or just an illiterate that likes to play with nonsensical sentences?

  60. DA Says:

    “Here is a little expo on your little Extraordinary evidence parrot:
    Have mommy explain it to you if it gets too deep.”

    Here is a thought; how about a confirmed incident caught on video in front of a multitude of neutral witnesses. Of course, you cannot do that because you are touting superstition.

    There are thousands of miracles in place and verified and time and space would limit the listing of even 1%.
    Fatima for starters: Witnessed by thousands.
    “The sun started to roll from one place to another and changed to blue, yellow – all colours. Then we see the sun coming towards the children. Everyone was crying out. Some started to confess their sins because there was no priest around there . . . My mother grabbed me to her and started to cry, saying ‘It is the end of the world!’ And then we see the sun come right into the trees . . .” Dominic Reis, in an American TV interview, 1960.

    http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles4.htm

    “Padre Pio, a humble Capuchin priest from San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, was blessed by God in many wonderful and mysterious ways. The most dramatic was the stigmata. Padre Pio bore the wounds of Christ for fifty years!Among his other gifts were perfume, bilocation, prophecy, conversion, reading of souls, and miraculous cures. People are still being cured through his intercession in ways that cannot be explained by medicine or science.More important, if less spectacular, are the spiritual healings that take place in all parts of the world! Padre Pio is a powerful intercessor!!”

    http://www.padrepio.com/canonizationinfo.htm

    Catheryn Alegretti a Yonkers N.Y. woman born wiithout retina’s in both eyes is able to see after a visitation by Padre Pio.

    The DOCUMENTED miracles at Lourdes

    Heavyweight Boxing Champion, Evander Holyfield was banned from boxing after a congenital heart problem was discovered. In a prayer meeting with Evangelist Benny Hinn, he asked, and received a healing from God. After 31 months and verification of a mysteriously normal heart by the Mayo Clinic, Holyfield pulled the boxing upset of the decade by beating Mike Tyson. NO major news network carried the details or investigation of this story and only one major newspaper did.

    Natalie Cole was driving on the rain slicked roads of Hollywood at a time she was fighting a drug addiction. The car skidded and flipped out of control crashing mercilessly into a ditch. Natalie found herself standing on the road, completely unharmed a few yards away. At that moment, a car with 3 ladies – on their way to bible study pulled up, shocked to see that she survived the crash. Oddly, they mentioned that they had been praying for her for sometime to accept Jesus.
    Ms. Cole also recounted the miraculous deliverance from the Detroit fire which saved her and husband in her TV movie The Natalie Cole Story and in her autobiography Angel on my Shoulder.

    And the best one of all,”The miracle of life.”

    Now,Prove these didn’t happen.
    Do you think that people are going to take the words of a chattering monkey such as yourself over the testimony of thousands>

  61. DA Says:

    “The topic is not evolution.
    The topic is your claim that no scientists bellieve in God.
    Here is another short list of scientists that belive in God.(One created Paleontology)
    The following list is very incomplete.”

    Excellent, you have just proven that science and evolution are not a religion because many of your co-religionists believe in it.

    Excellent, and you have just proven that you are indeed dyslexic once more.
    You’re almost as full as Red Herrings, and the begging of questions as you are full of monkey shit.
    I’m laughing all the way to the bank. You’re simply crying because I’ve put you in a mental wheelchair for life.
    Lay off the illegal drugs, you rodent. I heard the toilet scrubbing company you work for, will be doing random tests soon. You might want to be careful..

    ps. I never claimed that no scientist believed in god. About 10% of the most notable population of scientists and about 40% of your average scientists believe in god. I was saying that there is no evidence of demonic possession because it is simple mid-evil superstition, kind of like witchcraft.

    I’m still waiting for the proof to the claim that I was a philosopy major.That was 5 threads ago.
    I am still waiting for your proof against my arguments for the 37 documented signs of demonic possession.
    Can you give us a citation to that 10-40% spread?
    I’d like to see it for myself as well.
    If you can’t then you’ve just proven that you’re nothing but a huge bullshitter who ignores requests for evidence and runs and start another thread like you’ve been doing from day one.

  62. DA Says:

    “The god hypothesis states that a highly intelligent and powerful being can come from nothing. This is the anti-thesis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and also illogical when compared to evolution that states that complexity can only come from small steps over a large amount of time.

    Are you retarded ,or just an illiterate that likes to play with nonsensical sentences?”

    Here, I will break it down for you so that your simple superstitious mind can absorb it.

    The god hypothesis states that a highly intelligent and powerful being can come from nothing.

    This is the anti-thesis of the 1st law of thermodynamics [which says matter and energy must be conserved ie cannot be created or destroyed].

    Therefore, the god hypothesis is illogical when compared to evolution, which that states that complexity can only come from small steps over a large amount of time.

    Really?
    How does a God being outside of space, time, and matter go against the very laws that he created?
    If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

    Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

    From: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

    Oh, and do you want your ballsack back?
    I’ve left it in a jar with your self-esteem by the door.

    “Why should I memorize something I can glean from a book.”
    Albert Einstein

  63. DA Says:

    “Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?”

    No, it can prove that there is a higher being as a driving force for evolution.

    All of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.
    Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
    Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
    Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
    SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

    ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don’t naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

    Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

    Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and “intelligent” processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

    “The skeptic often requires “proof” that God exists, or “absolute proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many atheists, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus’ resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method.”

    There is no proof that jesus ever existed, let alone that he performed miracles and was resurrected.

    Here let me help you watch your argument commit suicide.
    Let’s start with the first question: Is what the New Testament says about Jesus a true, accurate historical record?

    How do historians determine the accuracy of ancient documents and records?

    Historians look at:

    How close, in time and geographically, were the writers of the documents to the original events?

    How many early copies do we have, how close are the copies to the originals (in time)?

    Do the documents have contradictions or factual inaccuracies?

    Are the descriptions of locations, roads, structures and geographical features confirmed by archeology?
    We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate.

    The Roman historian Tacitus wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about 115 AD. We have one copy of the first six books in this series. It was copied in about 850 AD. Books 11 through 16 are available in a copy made about 1050 AD. Books 7 through 10 are lost. The Annals of Imperial Rome is considered by historians to be accurate.

    We have nine Greek manuscripts of first century historian Josephus’ work titled, “The Jewish War.” These copies were made in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. They are considered by historians to be accurate.

    Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 — over 1,400 years after his death. We have five early copies of Aristotle’s works.

    We have eight copies, dated about 900 A.D., of the history of Thucydides. He lived in the mid-400’s BC. Historians have long ago determined, based on these eight manuscripts created 1300 years after the original was written, that the history of Thucydides is accurate.

    Homer’s Iliad, the bible of the ancient Greeks, composed in 800 BC has an impressive 650 ancient Greek copies available — the earliest is from the second and third centuries AD – 1000 years after the original was written.

    So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?

    We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts! Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.

    We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John’s Library Papyri — containing a portion of the book of John — was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The book of John was written in approximately 90 AD).

    Question One Summary

    Numbers of copies: No other ancient historical documents come even close to being available in such large numbers (the Iliad is second with 650 copies) as is the New Testament.

    Closeness to the originials in time: No other ancient historical documents are available in copies made so soon after the originals were written. (Most other documents are available only in copies made over 1000 years after the original.)

    Contradictions: Other than a few minor differences in the Old Testament that are attributed to “typos” – none of which are related to fundamental doctrines or beliefs, there are no contradictions.

    Archeology: Archeology has never contradicted anything in the Bible and has confirmed much of the Bible.

    The conclusion: based on the number of copies, and their closeness in time to the originals, the New Testament has ample support for its accuracy.


  64. DA,
    Does the atheist have grounds to condemn Hitler’s actions? The atheist will certainly answer yes, for in fact, what Hitler did is an atrocity that both the Christian and the non-Christian are in agreement on. The question before us is not whether we can agree that what Hitler did was wrong, but rather, on what basis can we judge that what he did was wrong? I will outline Bahnsen’s major points and support each one and demonstrate why the atheist has no epistemological grounds for condemning Hitler.

    (1) Apart from the Christian worldview (that is, if the God of the Bible does not exist), the atheist “loses all principled moral complaint” on all matters of morality.

    (2) In a universe in which God does not exist, there is no ethical relevance with regards to what “one ‘animal’ does to other ‘animals.'”

    (3) The atheist is left with their “feelings and desires” versus those of others, Hitler included.

    (4) Thus, the atheist, if they are to be consistent with their worldview, should support Hitlers right to murder and gas millions of Jews. Therefore, in a godless universe, Hitler was justified in murdering the Jews.
    How logical when put under the micropscope of reason.

  65. DA Says:

    “Now,Prove these didn’t happen.”

    Do you think that people are going to take the words of a chattering monkey such as yourself over the testimony of thousands”

    Again, asking for proof of a negative. The burden of proof is on you. Also, you miss the possiblities that include medical error and statistical chance.

    Part of the whole debate on atheism verses theism is the issue of evidence for God’s existence. I have presented various kinds of evidence to atheists before and it is summarily explained away and/or ignored. You see, the problem, as I have said before, is with presuppositions. As an atheist you say there is no God so all evidences for God’s existence must be explained away for you to remain in your position. Quite frankly, your bias will not allow you to objectively examine the evidence. Earlier you raise the issue of objective evidence, but I brought out that evidence is simply evidence. Objectivity rests in the individual.
    The inconsistency with the atheists I have seen, and I believe you are guilty of this as well, is that they claim to “lack belief” or be “without belief” but when discussing God and evidence is presented to them supporting God, they behave as though they absolutely believe there is no God since they repeatedly try and destroy any theistic evidences. In other words, their bias is showing. You would think that the agnostic type phrase, “I lack belief” would belie an attitude of objective examination. However, I’ve yet to hear an objective “Let’s try and objectively look at the evidence” from an atheist. Rather, it is, “Let me tell you why all of your evidence is false.”
    So, can a believer, myself for example, present evidence for God’s existence to an atheist? Yes, I can. Will an atheist be able to accept it objectively? No, I do not believe so. Why? Because you presuppose atheism in the argument against theistic evidence. You appear to have your mind made up–since you are defending atheism and trying to negate theistic evidences.
    Actually, it would much better if you actually did “lack belief in God” so that when you saw the evidences, you’d be objective about it. I do not believe it is a matter of merely presenting evidences. I believe that you would find a way to refuse them no matter what I presented. But, of course, this is just my opinion.
    Regarding “Is belief in God evidence for His existence?” I do not know for sure. It may be upon much deeper analysis. However, I suspect that it wouldn’t be proof that God exists, but it may be evidence that He does. Since I have not thought it through sufficiently, I will “lack belief” one way or the other.
    Nevertheless, since it is a subjective experience to believe in God and since this subjectivity cannot be quantified, it may certainly be that the believer’s belief is evidence, but not necessarily proof. After all, we all go through life without proof of many things and assume certain outcomes based on faith. In many cases, faith is an evidence of an actuality or the possibility of an actuality based upon evidence, i.e., having faith that you’ll make it to the store alive tomorrow because you’ve done it before. Belief can be an evidence and I do not believe that it should be simply dismissed as non evidence without further examination. But, to reiterate, I would not assert that mere belief is proof that God exists. Remember, you are talking about evidence here, not proof.
    No Response to Point 3 Since we agree
    In my responses to points 1 and 2 I further outlined what I mean by objective evidence. The conclusion you drew from your assumption of how I am using those terms is incorrect. I was going to follow up in more detail on the ideas and questions you presented in this response, but since they are based on a false assumption and will be covered in follow-ups to your other points Ill leave them till later.
    Saying that my assumptions are false does not mean they are. In a debate, if you want to say they are, then demonstrate how they are or make no comment. I will look for your proof that my assumptions are incorrect in your later posts.

    “If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing”

    Unless the chain is a circle. If the matter/energy of the universe has always existed, then god is unnecessary.

    You base your assumptions on blind faith, and no facts other than it might have happened that way.
    You’ve yet to disprove God’s non-existence, and I don’t see it happening in your lifetime or generations to come.
    You’ve made the claim that God cannot logically exist, and I’ve proven you to be logically wrong time after time.
    You regurgitate the same questions over, and over ignoring my arguments.
    When I present an argument you disregard the post and turn to another topic.
    Your train of thought is not normal, and is what to be anticipated from someone that claims to hold the key to logic but doesn’t have a clue on logical debate.
    I’m actually embarrased to be caught in the same virtual forum with you.
    Somtimes you bring up 5 different topics in a single thread.
    If you continue this charade you’ll get yourself banned for inanity,something that you appear to be an expert on.

    “Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.”

    If there must always be a first cause, then god also needs a cause. The paradox of infinite regression.
    “Oh, and do you want your ballsack back?”
    How many times do I have to tell you, I’m not gay so you can quit with the sexual enuendo.

    “Does the atheist have grounds to condemn Hitler’s actions? The atheist will certainly answer yes, for in fact, what Hitler did is an atrocity that both the Christian and the non-Christian are in agreement on. The question before us is not whether we can agree that what Hitler did was wrong, but rather, on what basis can we judge that what he did was wrong? I will outline Bahnsen’s major points and support each one and demonstrate why the atheist has no epistemological grounds for condemning Hitler.
    (1) Apart from the Christian worldview (that is, if the God of the Bible does not exist), the atheist “loses all principled moral complaint” on all matters of morality.
    (2) In a universe in which God does not exist, there is no ethical relevance with regards to what “one ‘animal’ does to other ‘animals.’”
    (3) The atheist is left with their “feelings and desires” versus those of others, Hitler included.
    (4) Thus, the atheist, if they are to be consistent with their worldview, should support Hitlers right to murder and gas millions of Jews. Therefore, in a godless universe, Hitler was justified in murdering the Jews.
    How logical when put under the micropscope of reason.”

    Have you ever heard of the word ’empathy?’ If you believe that there is not an atheist basis for recognizing misdeeds, you are very mistaken.

    As I was saying,you know that something exists from a primary perception and you are being told by one who has not yet had the perception that it cannot be real. It’s like being at Kitty Hawk and witnessing the Wright brothers’ first flight only to come home and have some egghead patronizingly explain to you, in great scientific detail, that heavier than air flight is ‘utterly’ impossible. This really did happen. Up to a year after their initial flights, Scientific American, the U.S. Army and most American scientists still thought that the Wrights were guilty of playing a hoax on the American public. What would you do if you found yourself in this dilemma? You were there! You saw the plane take off and land! So did many others. You can either dismiss the argument of the egghead as coming from his own ignorance and lack of perception, or you can begin to doubt your own perception and question your sanity along with your ability to reason. Did you REALLY see that plane take off? Maybe you just imagined it all. Our senses can play tricks on us, but they can also inform us of reality. How do you know if your senses are being deceived?
    However, it is impossible to hold such a position dogmatically without falling into absurdity. Albert Einstein once said that we know maybe 5% of all possible knowledge. Regardless of whatever that number really is, the point remains that what we know is a very limited subset of all possible knowledge. So, it logically follows that there always exists the possibility of the existence of God outside our current knowledge.

    The only way we could be certain that God does not exist, is if we possessed all knowledge, across all time, in all locations. In order to know for certain that God does not exist, we would have to be omniscient. In fact, for someone to claim with authority that there is no God, that person would actually have to be God.

    The best an atheist can actually do, is to claim that God does not exist, based on their current set of knowledge, which is much closer to popular agnosticism, rather than true atheism. Someone who makes the claim that God does not exist period, strikes me as being intellectually ignorant as well as arrogant, as they are effectively claiming that they possess all knowledge. Thus atheism is untenable.
    http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/2006/02/absurdity-of-atheism.html

  66. DA Says:

    “Does the atheist have grounds to condemn Hitler’s actions?”

    Of course, it is called empathy, how about the judeo-christian?

    The atheist will certainly answer yes, for in fact, what Hitler did is an atrocity that both the Christian and the non-Christian are in agreement on. The question before us is not whether we can agree that what Hitler did was wrong, but rather, on what basis can we judge that what he did was wrong? I will outline Bahnsen’s major points and support each one and demonstrate why the atheist has no epistemological grounds for condemning Hitler.

    (1) Apart from the Christian worldview (that is, if the God of the Bible does not exist), the atheist “loses all principled moral complaint” on all matters of morality.

    (2) In a universe in which God does not exist, there is no ethical relevance with regards to what “one ‘animal’ does to other ‘animals.’”

    (3) The atheist is left with their “feelings and desires” versus those of others, Hitler included.

    (4) Thus, the atheist, if they are to be consistent with their worldview, should support Hitlers right to murder and gas millions of Jews. Therefore, in a godless universe, Hitler was justified in murdering the Jews.
    How logical when put under the micropscope of reason.

    • Lithp Says:

      Hitler not only targeted the Jews, but gypsies, homosexuals, intellectuals, politicial enemies, religious leaders, occultists, black people, autistics, the disabled*, as Y!A cleverly puts it, “Anyone who wasn’t Aryan.”

      Now, if you know anything about genetics, you know that limiting the gene pool like that actually INCREASES disabilities and LOWERS biological variation. Biological variation is very important to the survival of a species.

      Additionally, of the groups he was targeting, he was certainly removing a lot of useful skills from the population. I have “the disabled” asterisk’d to point out that those might not come from what “common sense” would have you believe. After all, Stephen Hawking is a parapalegic.

      So, to recap, Hitler is harming the population by reducing the gene pool, creating a Founder Effect, and overall decreasing the number (and thus potential reproductive success) of the population. Since he about exterminated the Jews in Europe, had his plan been allowed to come to fruition, you can imagine the dramatic effect this would have on the human race–especially because Hitler’s poor leadership led his own civilization to ruin, in spite of all of that Master Race business.

      So, there you have it. A perfectly good “evolutionist” reason to take down Hitler.

  67. DA Says:

    I notice that you keep deleting my responses. Keep in mind that we are not having a debate, for this reason. You delete anything that you cannot argue against and then accuse me of failing to respond.

    Your responses have been deleted due to your repetivness that I will not allow.
    When I answer a question, I don’t appreciate you coming back with the same question six different ways ,nor do I appreciate having you hide from my questions, and just run off at the mouth by answering them with other questions.
    That’s the game you God-Haters, play not I.
    I am far too intelligent for that.

  68. DA Says:

    “The only way we could be certain that God does not exist, is if we possessed all knowledge, across all time, in all locations”

    This is true for the deist god, but not the christian god. Your, so called, miracles are not evidence, either. Remember that all religions have miracles. Here is a small article about religious miracles by a hindu author.

    http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/12/15_miracles.shtml

    “but rather, on what basis can we judge that what he did was wrong?”

    Have you ever read about the evolution of altruism. Altruism has been selected for for millions of years, for obvious reasons. A species that does not kill its family members and groups that it comes into contact with is more fit than groups that are constantly killing each other. This has caused humans and other species to feel empathy and act altruistically towards others. This is not based on scripture, but genetics. Unfortunately, we were also ingrained with the ability to lose our altruistic predelections when it comes to certain other groups. This has in group/out group mentality has led, arguably, to the vast majority of violence in the world; both religious and non-religious. This can be seen with nationalism, cliches and religions.

    Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism. S. Bowles.Science, 2006; 1569-1572.

    Otherness–When Killing Is Easy. Caroline Ash. Science 2 February 2007:Vol. 315. no. 5812, pp. 601 – 602


  69. Evolution of altruism = strawman argument.
    Get over it and move on.

  70. DA Says:

    “You base your assumptions on blind faith, and no facts other than it might have happened that way.”

    I am not surprised that you would say this. There are numerous physics research papers out there that support my position. Have you ever heard of the inflationary multiverse hypothesis. At the moment, it is only demonstrably via mathematics, however, with the onset of new technology [large haldron collider or LHC] this will be a more testable theory in the future. Essentially, this hypothesis states that the cosmos is like a large glass of champagne and that universes arise like bubbles and that they expand ad infinitum.

    Here is an example of the research

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1475-7516/2006/01/017/jcap6_01_017.html

    I’ve read the article.
    Interesting science fiction you gave there.
    Here are the operative words gleaned from the embodiment of the article, and pay attention carefully to see my point:
    OPERATIVE WORDS:
    “may admit”
    “If there were just a few vacua”
    “However”
    “there may be a vast landscape of possibilities”
    “may look ”
    “On the surface, this seems to undermine our ability”
    “we may in fact broaden”
    “we may try to determine, from the theory”
    “what is the probability for the observation”
    “formal expression for the probability of observations”

    Need I go on and embarrass you any further?
    What you’ve presented is little more than hypothesis and is not science.
    You are rapidly falling down a Slippery slope.

    The fundamental theory of Nature may admit multiple vacua with different low energy constants. If there were just a few vacua, as in standard GUT models, then a few observations would determine which one corresponds to the real world. Predictions would then follow for every other observable in the low energy theory. However, it has recently been realized that in the context of string theory there may be a vast landscape of possibilities, with googols of vacua to scan [1-3]. Many of these may look very much like our own vacuum, except for slight variations in the values of the constants. On the surface, this seems to undermine our ability to predict these values, even after a systematic examination of the landscape.

    Cosmology, on the other hand, suggests that rather than giving up on our ability to make predictions, we may in fact broaden their scope. Thus, instead of trying to determine from observations which vacuum is ours, we may try to determine, from the theory, what is the probability for the observation of certain values of the constantsNote1. Indeed, eternal inflation [4, 5] leads to the picture of a `multiverse’, where constants of Nature take different values in different post-inflationary regions of spacetime. Observers bloom in such thermalized regions at places where the conditions are favourable, much like wildflowers at certain spots in the forest. Given a reference class of observers, we can ask what is the probability distribution for the values of the constants that they will measure. This approach was suggested in [6] and further developed in [7-10]. It leads to the following formal expression for the probability of observations:

    P(X) is the volume fractionNote2 of thermalized regions with given values of the constants X, and nobs(X) is the number of observers in such regions per unit thermalized volumeNote3.

    Even though the dynamics responsible for the randomization of the constants during inflation is well understood, the calculation of probabilities has proven to be a rather challenging problem. The root of the difficulty is that the volume of thermalized regions with any given values of the constants is infinite (even for a region of a finite comoving size). To compare such infinite volumes, one has to introduce some sort of a cut-off. For example, one could include only regions that thermalized prior to some time tc and evaluate volume ratios in the limit . However, one finds that the results are highly sensitive to the choice of the cut-off procedure (in the example above, to the choice of the time coordinate t [11, 12]; see also [13, 14] for a recent discussion). The reason for the cut-off dependence of probabilities is that the volume of an eternally inflating universe is growing exponentially with time. The volumes of regions with all possible values of the constants are growing exponentially as well. At any time, a substantial part of the total thermalized volume is `new’ and thus close to the cut-off surface. It is not surprising, therefore, that the result depends on how that surface is drawn.

    As suggested in [7, 8], this difficulty can be circumvented by switching from a global distribution, defined with the aid of some global time coordinate, to a distribution based on individual thermalized regions. The spacetime structure of an eternally inflating universe is illustrated in figure 1. The vertical axis is the proper time measured by comoving observers, and the horizontal axis is the comoving coordinate. Thermalized regions are marked by grey shading. Horizontal slices through this spacetime give `snapshots’ of a comoving volume at different moments of (global) time. Initially, the whole volume is in the inflating state. While the volume expands exponentially, new thermalized regions are constantly being formed. These regions expand into the inflating background, but the gaps between them also expand, making room for more thermalized regions to form. The thermalization surfaces at the boundaries between inflating and thermalized spacetime regions are three-dimensional, infinite, spacelike hypersurfaces. The spacetime geometry of an individual thermalized region is most naturally described by choosing the corresponding thermalization surface as the origin of time. The thermalized region then appears as a self-contained infinite universe, with the thermalization surface playing the role of the big bang. Following Alan Guth, we shall call such infinite domains `pocket universes’. All pocket universes are spacelike-separated and thus causally disconnected from one another. In models where false vacuum decays through bubble nucleation, the role of pocket universes is played by individual bubbles.

  71. Matt Says:

    Atheism is not a religion since the basis of any religion is to hold some form of belief in a higher power – be it Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the immortal omnipotent spirit of John Wayne.

    An argument could be made, instead, that Atheism is a Belief System but even that would be weak since the only thing which links an Atheist with any other Atheist is the disbelief in a higher power. There are no common beliefs, no common dogma or laws, no churches or anything of the like.

    To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems.If the atheist says he “lacks belief” in God, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack. The problem is that “lacking belief” in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to “lack belief.” Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
    My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
    To say “I believe there is no God” is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
    If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God’s existence?
    There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God’s existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
    (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
    Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
    If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God’s existence?
    At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
    Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God’s existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God’s existence.
    If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God’s non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God’s non-existence.
    If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
    If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
    For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
    http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm

  72. DA Says:

    “Evolution of altruism = strawman argument.
    Get over it and move on.”

    It is an explanation, not a strawman. If it is a strawman then knock it down. The evolution of altruism demonstrates why humans, as well as animals, do not need scripture to act with compassion and demonstrate a base knowledge of kindness. For instance, this is why a rhesus monkey will starve for days rather than shocking another monkey to get food. This is why a chimpanzee will console another chimpanzee after a fight.

    Also, you, like most other christians, do not truly derive your morals from scripture, anyway. You pick certain passages out of the scripture and ignore most others. Otherwise, you would be owning slaves and murdering anyone who worked on a Sunday, children who talked back, wives who cheated, and virgins that were raped and did not scream loud enough. I should also highlight all of the atrocities committed by the, supposedly, loving god of the bible.

    -snipped for brevity-
    It’s a strawman but I’ll pacify you one more time anyway.

    Altruism is elusive for starters.
    SCIENCE
    Exploring altruism: What makes people help others?

    Rescuers during Hurricane Katrina. Passengers on Flight 93 who crashed a plane into a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001. Neighbors who hid Jews during the Holocaust. A recent flurry of scientific studies, articles, books and conferences have explored altruism – the quality that inspires people to act selflessly to help others.

    Experts from a broad range of disciplines – sociobiology, psychology, theology, philosophy, genetics and biology – are studying questions such as: Why are some people willing to help others even at their own expense? If the urge to help others is universal, as some believe, then why do some feel its pull more strongly than others? Can altruism be promoted or learned, or is it innate? Is there some degree of self-interest involved in any altruistic act?

    The findings can help journalists report on the altruistic actions of individuals, whether they take place because of natural disasters, terrorism, crime or in the course everyday life:
    • A team of Israeli psychologists recently said that it discovered an “altruism gene.” The psychologists found that two-thirds of a group of individuals who displayed selfless behavior had a certain variant of the dopamine receptor gene, which is associated with feelings of pleasure. This corresponds to earlier U.S. studies that found that people who help others often experience a “helper’s high.”
    • A number of studies have found a correlation between helping others and good health, a sense of well-being and longevity.
    • Evolutionary biologists are debating how to explain altruistic behavior in animals and humans. Does acting to benefit others at one’s own expense contradict the theory of natural selection? Some say no, explaining that acting to benefit the group, rather than one’s self, helps the group survive, even though it endangers the individual.
    • Scientists are studying whether animals, like people, act altruistically. One study said yes by studying birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk while drawing unwanted attention to themselves. A recent study from UCLA disagreed, showing that chimpanzees do not act altruistically.
    Why it matters

    Sacrificing one’s own interests for the good of another is an ideal held in common by most world religions. Altruism, from the Latin “alter,” or “other,” describes actions performed in a selfless manner for the benefit of another.
    http://www.religionlink.org/tip_051128.php

    Christian Ethics and the Moral Psychologies
    http://books.google.com/books?id=1dfsFMqv2IAC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=altruism+and+christian+ethics&source=web&ots=eORzf9B0v8&sig=fZ58kGJHPS6tSy0ZyeSFAzPL8kc#PPA83,M1

  73. DA Says:

    Continuing your blatant censorship, I see. You are a bigot, an asshole and a fascist. Try going to an open forum like samharris.org/forum

    You would not be censored for expressing your views.

    Call me a Nazi, and an asshole again and I’ll see to it that every single post on this blog by you gets wiped out.
    You don’t even know what the hell a Nazi is, and besides the terminology is fit best on an anti-theist such as yourself rather than on a Christian.Still, just as there are rude, people of faith who continue to pester atheists about how they’re ‘going to hell’ or whatever, there are rude, childish atheists who have only to learn that someone is religiously devout and they start insulting religion. In a case like that, it’s perfectly alright to express your discomfort and ask them to stop, and if they don’t, to avoid them.
    Right now your necks been on the chopping block for several days.
    It’s just a question of time before you get blocked. (No pun intended)

  74. DA Says:

    –Scientists are studying whether animals, like people, act altruistically. One study said yes by studying birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk while drawing unwanted attention to themselves. A recent study from UCLA disagreed, showing that chimpanzees do not act altruistically.–

    And which study was that? All studies that I’ve seen conflict.

    Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees. Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello
    Science 3 March 2006 311: 1301-1303

    Chimpanzees Recruit the Best Collaborators
    Alicia P. Melis. Science 3 March 2006:
    Vol. 311. no. 5765, pp. 1297 – 1300

    Evolution has never been observed. (And no a thousand pissed off fruit flies can’t attest to anything.)
    Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    There are no transitional fossils.
    The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
    Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
    I am now asking you (or any evolutionist) to back up their proofs of evolution with genuine examples from respected science journals, encyclopedias, or science textbooks. (I do not dispute that new species can appear, such as a new species of butterfly, because the genetic information for making a butterfly is in all butterflies. What I dispute is that the information in one kind of creature can over time produce a completely different kind of creature with different genetic information — such as simple sea animals’ eventually giving rise to humans.)
    If you back up your claim with good research and genuine examples, and I could verify it, I will put your proofs of evolution on my website to show that I was wrong and the evolutionists were right.
    The veificaction asking for proof has been given.

  75. DA Says:

    –You don’t even know what the hell a Nazi is, and besides the terminology is fit best on an anti-theist such as yourself rather than on a Christian.–

    Hitler was a catholic.

    Changing the topic again I see,ok I’ll play Hitler was a pagan and anti-Christian.

    I am a military officer with over 15 years of service. I was in the 1st ID during the first gulf war and am still in the reserves. I have fought against censorship my whole life. You invite critisism when you moderate a site called atheiststooges. Christians, in particular, feel that it is acceptible to belittle a whole subpopulation of the community. Well, as you can see, some of us are tired of being critisised for not believing in your superstition. If you want to change my mind, censorship is not the way.

    Then stop being a circular blowhard with Tourettes.
    We covered this already.

    Let’s keep playing your puny little game of dodgeball….
    Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?
    When a living coelacanth fish was found in 1938 it was hailed as the scientific sensation of the century. Until then, the coelacanth (pronounced SEE’-luh-canth) was known to science only from fossils. Scientists generally believed coelacanths had become extinct 60 or 70 million years ago. Since 1938 many more living coelacanths have been caught.

    All coelacanths, living and fossil, are members of a group of fishes called Crossopterygians. It is this group that most evolutionists believe evolved into amphibians and all land vertebrates — including man.

    Before the discovery of living coelacanths, evolutionists assumed that the fish’s internal organs would be “part way” evolving from those of ordinary fish to those of amphibians. But the living coelacanths showed no evidence that their soft parts were starting to adapt for use on land. So it was conceded that the coelacanth was obviously not the ancestor of amphibians after all.

    Did anything evolve?
    So evolutionists looked for another type of fish that would fit their belief that fish evolved into the creatures that dwell both on land and in water — the amphibians. There was no strong evidence, but they decided that another member of the Crossopterygian group of fishes — the rhipidistian — might have evolved into an amphibian.

    How did they decide that rhipidistian fishes could have evolved into amphibians? The idea grew out of their study of similarities in skeletons of rhipidistians and what they believe were “early” amphibians. But in reality there is a vast difference between rhipidistians and amphibians.

    Using even the evolutionists’ time scale, which some scientists dispute, the coelacanth is the same fish it supposedly was hundreds of millions of years ago. It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically, while its cousin the rhipidistian was supposedly evolving the mind-boggling number of changes required to transform it eventually into a human.

    The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time. In other words, the coelacanth has reproduced after its kind just like the Bible’s book of Genesis said fishes would!

  76. DA Says:

    –Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.–

    Gravity is a theory, also. Evolution has been supported by millions of experiments. I could list several hundred thousand. Here are several items relating to evolution.

    –Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.–

    Gravity is a theory, also. Evolution has been supported by millions of experiments. I could list several hundred thousand. Here are several items relating to evolution.

    Consider this comparison: What would happen if a science teacher were teaching about the force of gravitation, and some students said they didn’t believe in gravitation? Without doubt the teacher would take a ball or a paperweight or a book or some other object, explain what gravitation is supposed to do, then throw the object in the air so everyone could watch what happens.

    Those students would never doubt the existence of gravity again.

    But what happens if students say they doubt some of the claims for evolution? Well, one example is what happened to high-school junior Danny Phillips in Denver.

    Danny’s school class was assigned to watch a government-funded television program that presented evolution as fact. It said something to the effect that the first organized primitive life-form was a tiny protozoan from which all life on earth has evolved.

    Hate campaign
    Danny knew that claim was going beyond the scientific evidence, and criticized the program as propaganda.

    Did evolutionists then quietly present him with proof that he was wrong? Not at all. After initial sympathy from the school, the news became public and things turned nasty. Evolutionists sent a barrage of vicious letters to the city’s newspapers (like the emails they send to us), and high-profile anti-creationist Eugenie Scott publicly cast the student as an opponent of learning!

    No proof of evolution! Just more name-calling, ridicule, and irrelevant “evidences” heaped upon a student who rightly didn’t like to see speculation taught as scientific fact.

    Evolution is a belief system
    If you accept evolution without question you will generally be safe from academic criticism. But if you push evolutionists for evidence that a creature lacking the genetic information for some major features has turned into a creature with that genetic information, they quickly run out of examples of where that new information came from. Instead, they tend to resort to sneering, irrelevant claims, verbal abuse, diversions, sarcasm, and even threats.

    We have found this pattern consistently, and people like Danny Phillips and countless others have also experienced it when they simply ask for scientific proof of evolution.

    Evolution — meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypuses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form — is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact.

  77. DA Says:

    –Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.–

    The 2nd law of thermodynamics-A process can occur spontaneously only if the sum of the entropies of the system and its surroundings increases. Mathmatically it is stated as:

    (change of a system + change of surroundings)>0 for a spontaneous process

    This means that part of a system can become more organized if energy is added maintaining an overall equality. Therefore, life on earth is dependent on energy from chemicals. As chemicals and light energy increase the entropy of the source, it allows organization in organisms.

    An example of energy producing complexity from randomness are the intricate sand formations found on shallow beaches. The continuous mechanical energy produced by the wave movement forms elaborate ripple formations on the sandy bottom.

    Here are some great pictures

    http://www.umt.edu/geosciences/faculty/hendrix/g432/g432_L7.htm

    Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.

    The Evolutionist’s Spin
    Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

    Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

    This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

    Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

    Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law’s demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.

    Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infinite—yet random—additional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism. This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.

    Details, Details…
    Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.

    To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenon—or an empirical fact gathered in any scientific discipline—might be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories). But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing. Popper insisted that a theory’s true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictions—success in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place. Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact “predictions” for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to them—frequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.

    In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a “fact” that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as “fact” leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law. But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimov’s words) “all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.”

    Open vs. Closed Systems
    The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

    The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

    Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

    The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

    But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

    Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

    “…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems … there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
    [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
    So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

    The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

    a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
    a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
    Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

    Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

    So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

    While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

    In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

    Steiger’s Brand of Thermodynamics
    Frank Steiger has published two essays in the Talk.Origin archive, in which he does a respectable job of iterating the common evolutionist answer to this problem. But while the answer he presents may be adequate to convince many willing believers in evolutionism, careful examination proves it to be nothing less than the same inadequate work-around commonly served up as an answer to second law objections.

    Steiger also wrongly attributes false and misleading claims to his creationist counterparts, which, if taken at face value, would lend to Steiger much more relative credibility than he otherwise deserves. Add this to his failure to meet the second law’s challenge to evolutionism, and Steiger’s work is reduced in simple terms to the same old song and dance with a few pot shots thrown in for effect.

    Not far into the more lengthy of his two Talk.Origins essays (“The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability”), Steiger attributes to “creationists” a:

    wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
    …which he then attempts to dispute by means of a grossly erroneous generalization:
    In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.
    The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns.
    Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.

    On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:

    “‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content … Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’”
    [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
    Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:
    “The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
    [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
    Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
    “As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings… The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal… It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however… The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.”
    [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
    Steiger’s blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a willful misrepresentation of the facts.

    Later, Steiger declares that:

    …a system can go from a more probable state to a less probable state, providing S for the system is negative. In cases where the system interacts with its surroundings, S can be negative providing the over-all entropy of the system and its interacting surroundings is positive; the over-all change can be positive if the entropy increase of the surroundings is numerically greater than the entropy decrease of the system.
    Don’t be alarmed. By way of explanation, “S” simply refers to change in entropy. A positive change (increase) in entropy is the general, universal tendency as described above (=less order, complexity, available energy, a more random, disorderly, and probable state). A negative change (decrease) in entropy is invariably an isolated and temporary event (=more order, complexity, available energy, a less random, disorderly, and probable state).
    This profound statement on Steiger’s part, then, is simply stating the obvious—restating the second law in terms of a system’s more or less “probable state” as a direct consequence of the respective increase or decrease in entropy. He correctly acknowledges that a less probable state may be reached by a system, only as long as it is an “open” system (i.e., able to interact with its surroundings) and there is an external increase in entropy exceeding the measure of system’s internal decrease in entropy.

    It is significant that Steiger does not take the time here to consider whether such a phenomenon tends to happen spontaneously, routinely, or with any constancy—without a directing program (e.g., DNA) and a means of energy storage and conversion (e.g., photosynthesis, metabolism) in any living organism (as described earlier). A declaration that a theoretical decrease in entropy is possible serves little in explaining biological processes and their relationships to energy and organized complexity. Steiger seems to avoid altogether any discussion of how biological processes achieve and sustain the very decrease in entropy which he goes to great lengths to demonstrate as mathematically “possible.”

    In fairness, it must be said here that the thermodynamicist need not concern himself with the “how” (i.e., the process) of a matter in order to generate the mathematical calculations of entropy change from the beginning to the end of any theorized event. However, we must remember that the ability to calculate this change on paper by no means renders the event likely, or even possible.

    Classical Thermodynamics may thus be employed to postulate the alleged entropy change of an event (e.g., spontaneous generation, or a macro-evolutionary event), apart from defining or identifying a mechanism or means by which the event could conceivably take place. Yet the barrier of the “generalized 2nd law” remains firmly in place and applicable to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory (e.g., the increase and preservation of information contained in genetic code), as well as that of statistic entropy and its applicability to systems (e.g., highly complex and integrated biological systems found in all living organisms).

    In any case, Steiger goes on to observe that:

    …when living things decay after death, the process of decay takes place with an increase in entropy … a spontaneous change in a system can be reversed, providing the system interacts with its surroundings in such a manner that the entropy increase in the surroundings is more than enough to reverse the system’s original entropy increase.
    (One can’t help but wonder whether this paragraph is meant as an attempt to go beyond the myth of spontaneous generation to suggest the notion of spontaneous resurrection!) In any case, Steiger continues:
    The application of energy can reverse a spontaneous, thermodynamically “irreversible” reaction. Leaves will spontaneously burn (combine with oxygen) to form water and carbon dioxide. The sun’s energy, through the process of photosynthesis, will produce leaves from water vapor and carbon dioxide, and form oxygen.
    Apart from his ostensible intention to portray these two processes as “reversals” of one another, it seems to have escaped Steiger’s notice that the process photosynthesis does not function apart from the complex cellular apparatus inherent in leaves—it does not “produce” leaves, but is an inherent function of them. To postulate photosynthesis as a non-biological, independent “leave-producing” phenomenon is to misrepresent it entirely.
    Now we come to some of Steiger’s best material. Still emphasizing the possibility of reversibility, he tells us:

    If we unplug a refrigerator, heat will flow to the interior from the surroundings; the entropy increase inside the refrigerator will be greater than the entropy decrease in the surroundings, and the net entropy change is positive. If we plug it in, this spontaneous “irreversible” change is reversed. Due to the input of electrical energy to the compressor, the heat transferred to the surroundings from the condenser coils is greater than the heat extracted from the refrigerator, and the entropy increase of the surroundings is greater than the entropy decrease of the interior, in spite of the fact that the surroundings are at a higher temperature. Here again, the net entropy change is positive, as would be expected for any spontaneous process.
    While serving as an excellent model of thermodynamics in action, Steiger’s refrigerator does still more in that it demonstrates the need for an energy conversion mechanism before a deliberate, sustained decrease in entropy is possible. Furthermore, the starting and stopping of the machine’s compressor can hardly be described as “spontaneous” events—they are the planned, willful, and deliberate actions of intelligent agents, executed with a view to accomplishing specific end results.
    As if this splendid refrigerator weren’t enough, Steiger also shares the following model (popular among evolutionists) with his readers:

    If a water wheel is connected by shafts, belts, pulleys, etc. to a pump, the pump can raise water from the downstream side of the water wheel to an elevation even higher than that of the upstream reservoir. Some of the water would spontaneously raise itself to an elevation even higher than original, but the rest of it would end up below the water wheel on the downstream side.
    While it is not possible for all of the water to raise itself to an elevation higher than its initial elevation, it is possible for some of the water to spontaneously raise itself to an elevation higher than initial.

    Once again we are looking at a carefully designed and implemented mechanism for creating and sustaining an apparent decrease in entropy. One is compelled to wonder why Mr. Steiger must rely only on man-made mechanisms to illustrate his claim that “spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time”—ostensibly requiring neither design, plan nor storage or conversion of energy!
    But wait! There’s more! Not only are we invited to pretend along with Mr. Steiger that he has demonstrated spontaneous generation to be thermodynamically possible—even probable, but we are quickly assured that we need not concern ourselves with the details of “how”:

    The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system…
    Here Steiger blithely excuses himself from facing a most profound fact: Spontaneous, sustained decreases in entropy do not occur in nature apart from the presence of a design or plan and a means of storing and/or converting energy. To declare that this “has no bearing on the case” is to betray (or feign) an utter ignorance of the roles played in biological processes by energy and the work that produces organized complexity—matters that most certainly involve thermodynamic relationships (particularly involving the “generalized 2nd law” and informational, as well as statistical entropy, as discussed above).
    Complexity Simplified(?)
    Now Steiger takes on the task of redefining complexity so that his readers will find the improbable at least believable—if not inevitable:

    A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane…
    …A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics … all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other…

    What Steiger fails to tell his readers is that the airplane/junkyard scenario stands up to probability analysis, as indicated by his need to substitute a block-stacking illustration, completely side-stepping the thermodynamic improbability of evolution. Having briefly alluded to the problem, he quickly and effectively ignores it by changing the subject!
    In concluding his “Probability” essay, Steiger asserts that:

    …The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.
    This accusation finds no support in the balance of his essay, so one wonders on what basis Steiger feels qualified to register it. This writer knows of no “creationist position” concerning thermodynamics other than the classic understanding. That creationists point out the conflict between thermodynamics and evolutionist doctrine is no more a questionable “position” than if on a similar basis they were to say that boulders are unlikely to spontaneously levitate.
    Steiger’s own distortion of the facts of thermodynamics and biological process seems to indicate that it is in fact his “position” that challenges reality, for if he were right, such things as turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc., would require no design at all, and would function satisfactorily with no energy storage or conversion devices!

    To more accurately restate one of Steiger’s parting shots in the essay:

    evolutionism (in the guise of “scientific fact”) doesn’t have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
    Attributing (More) False Attributes to Thermodynamics
    Although much of what is said in Steiger’s second essay (“Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics”) has already been dealt with above, some of his claims deserve special treatment.

    Briefly, in the “False Attributes” essay Steiger repeats the error of blurring the distinction between the high-energy growth process of living organisms (“seeds growing into trees, eggs developing into chicks”) and low-energy formation molecular crystals (“crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules”).

    In this essay, however, he goes a step further, claiming falsely that creationists insist that for both of these phenomena “there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.” Thus, having confused two very different processes for his readers by describing them as similar, he falsely accuses creationists of a sweeping generalization which they do not make—effectively setting up for his personal refutation a straw-man postulate.

    Next, attempting to relegate “changes requiring human thought and effort” to a place outside the realm of thermodynamic analysis, Steiger attempts to ridicule the prospect that systems concerned with “constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed… etc.,” involve thermodynamics, implying that the changes in entropy inherent in the associated systems and processes are not covered by the science of thermodynamics. (Apparently Steiger does not believe the laws of thermodynamics to be universal.)

    Among the claims attributed to creationists, Steiger says the “energy conversion mechanism” required for biological life (as described above) “comes from God.” Note that neither Steiger, nor any evolutionist, has produced a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of such a complex and essential biological process as an energy conversion mechanism (e.g., photosynthesis in plants, metabolism in animals).

    [These (and a host of other no less complex, highly integrated, biological systems and structures) bear every indication of functional, purpose-oriented design. But this completely escapes the notice of the likes of Steiger, whose apparent commitment to defining “science” as the application of only naturalistic philosophy to the study of the natural world forbids them from seriously considering the logical implication of the evidence.]

    Another claim of Steiger is that “The ICR chapter [chapter 3 of “Scientific Creationism,” edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research] states flatly that entropy can never decrease.” This is an outright falsehood. Whether deliberate or not, it is an indefensible misrepresentation of the publication cited, the author of the publication, and creationists in general. (Noteworthy is the fact that Steiger’s essay conveniently “neglects” to cite the page on which Morris supposedly “states flatly” that “entropy can never decrease”—most likely due to there not actually being such a page in Morris’ book.)

    Again refusing to face reality, Steiger claims that:

    There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved… Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.
    First we are told that no energy conversion mechanism need be accounted for. Then it is inferred (again) that the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes are somehow outside the realm of thermodynamics. Next comes a concession that, okay, it is “reasonable to assume” that such conversion mechanisms “actually exist” (whew!), yet we are now firmly assured that the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes are surely “outside the scope of thermodynamics”—and to disagree with Steiger here is to “distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics”!
    What’s wrong with this picture? Since when do the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes (e.g., photosynthesis and metabolism) fall “outside the scope” of thermodynamics? Under what branch of scientific analysis are these thermodynamic relationships to be understood if not that of thermodynamics? By what natural laws are they governed, if not those of thermodynamics?

    It seems that it is not the creationists who “distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.” At least they recognize the universal application of thermodynamic principles to all processes involving heat, work, and the relationships between the two—both on paper (i.e., mathematically defined) and in every real-world process in which they are found.

    Tired as it is, Steiger’s effort to define molecular biological processes as “outside the scope” of thermodynamics is renewed in his claim that:

    The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations… There is no provision … for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics… Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics… If it can’t be expressed mathematically, it isn’t thermodynamics!
    It seems fair to say at this point that Frank Steiger hasn’t done the math (or his biology homework)—and this seems to be his sole basis for these declarations, designed to evade entirely the perennial issue of life’s ability to thrive in apparent contradiction to thermodynamic law.
    Finally, Steiger concludes by erroneously claiming that “Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors… Creationists have created a ‘voodoo’ thermodynamics … in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.”

    Let the reader be the judge. If the laws of thermodynamics are universally applicable to all processes and systems (and according to respected science authorities they are), by what right does Frank Steiger selectively label as mere “metaphors” those highly complex processes and systems which produce and sustain the even more highly complex, integrated machinery of biological life?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Both Cannot be Correct
    Back To Top
    That someone is practicing “voodoo” thermodynamics is not at issue here. The question is who? The following statements—complete with metaphors(!)—from respected (evolutionist) scientists don’t seem to reflect Steiger’s perspective, effectively indicating that it is he who has resorted to distorting and perverting the true nature of thermodynamics in order to convince his readers that his naturalistic religious views have scientific validity:

    “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that … biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
    [C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

    “We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.”
    [G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

    “Closely related to the apparent ‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.”
    [J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]
    We are faced with a choice between accepting the universal applicability of the laws of thermodynamics as generally understood, or believing that the likes of Frank Steiger are justified in their efforts to drive a wedge of semantic confusion between those laws and the postulates of evolutionism.

    We have seen that (contrary to Steiger’s false accusations) the principles of thermodynamics are neither ignored nor altered by those creationists who describe them as universally applicable, demonstrating their relationships with biological processes.

    We have seen how Steiger has repeatedly attempted to blur the distinction between dramatically different processes; has denied the applicability of thermodynamics to heat and work relationships within biological processes; has ignored the applicability of informational entropy and statistical entropy to the biological processes and properties of all living organisms; has falsely attributed obviously erroneous statements to creationist publications; and has generally turned a blind eye to the challenge posed to evolutionism by the realities of thermodynamic principles.

    It must be emphasized that Frank Steiger is not alone. The above practices are not uncommon among many hard-core evolutionists. Whether theirs is at all a reasonable, rational faith seems clear in the methodologies they employ in its defence. The plain facts of science will remain neither ignored nor hidden in the long run, however, and many respectable evolutionist authorities resort to neither tactic, preferring to acknowledge such problems as those raised by the science of thermodynamics.

    Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.

  78. DA Says:

    Well, I’m done.

    All you are doing is lieing [I am now asking you (or any evolutionist) to back up their proofs of evolution with genuine examples from respected science journals, encyclopedias, or science textbooks].

    I listed you proof and you deleted it. Again, you are continuing to suppress arguments by censoring posts. The fascist christian governments of the middle ages would have been proud of your ability to censor all relevant arguments.

    I’m sure you will censor this, also, but maybe you will at least read it.
    Eternal Fascism:
    Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
    BY UMBERTO ECO
    1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
    Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages — in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.
    This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice;” such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
    As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
    If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge — that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
    2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
    Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
    3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.
    Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering’s fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (“When I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” and “universities are nests of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
    4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
    In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
    5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
    Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
    6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
    That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
    7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
    This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.
    8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
    When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
    9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
    Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such “final solutions” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.
    10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
    Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.
    11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
    In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte (“Long Live Death!”). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
    12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
    This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
    13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
    In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
    Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
    14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
    Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

    I’m done too – Your belief is weaker than the water in an Appalacian outhouse


    You may be a fundy atheist if….
    You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven’t changed since.

    You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
    You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn’t want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

    Although you’ve memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn’t exist, you still think you’re God’s gift to the ignorant masses.

    You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

    You think questions like, “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?” and, “Can God will Himself out of existence?” are perfect examples of how to disprove God’s omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God’s omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

    Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.

    You declare on a public forum that you are “furious at God for not existing.”

    You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means “without a belief in God ” and not just ” belief that there is no god” as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

    You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

    You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.

    You insist that “the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses”, and “it’s impossible to prove a negative”, then state “That’s what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists.” When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, “Well, prove Christians don’t lie!”

    You adamantly believe that the “God of the gaps” idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.

    When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites….all that is except for your friend who died.

    You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public “common sense”.

    You’re a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, “I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I…hold on. My cell phone’s ringing.”

    You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the “belief that there is no god”, calling them “liars,” and state that, “I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don’t believe in any.” Then you tell someone that their God is “made up.” When someone calls you on this, you state, “I never made such a claim.”

    Going with the definition of “without a belief in God”, you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, “My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief.”

    You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians “narrow-minded”.

    You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.
    While you don’t believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn’t exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness!

    You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for lack of belief in God. Origins

    You may be a fundy atheist if….
    You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were “all obviously designed,” yet the human body, being intricately more complex was “obviously a product of biological evolution.” It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the “fact” that it was not designed.

    You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

    As a member of the Skeptic’s Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

    Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

    When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.
    When you’re discussing the origin of the world, the phrase “uncaused cause(God)” is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for “uncaused effect(the world without God)”.

    You descended from apes.(Think about it.)

    You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)

    You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

    You love to castigate Christians for being “anti-science” if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the “science” of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

    You think that some guy named “Dr Dino” with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.

    You claim poker-faced that “social Darwinism” and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

    You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.

    You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin’s theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

    You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that “Evolution does not have moral consequences” despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.

    When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he’s just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

    Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don’t believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, “I didn’t throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth’s gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head…Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way.”
    When you’re shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, “Well…at least it’s better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!”

    When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a “God of the gaps”. YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke “Evolution of the gaps” (i.e., we don’t know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)

    You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.
    You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities — except creationism and/or intelligent design.

    You claim Creationists don’t research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.

    You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a “kook,” but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the “theory” of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life – see the movie “Mission to Mars”), is a great evolutionist scientist.

    • Lithp Says:

      You may be a Fundie Christian if your idea of debunking atheism-evolution (which are of course the same thing) is to copy/paste a TL;WDR list of straw men ad hom attacks that have been circulating around Christian sites for as long as I can remember.

  79. Lithp Says:

    I submit proof to the world that Christians attack and mock atheism:

    This blog.

    MY WORK HERE IS DONE!

  80. neil reis Says:

    because i don’t believe there is a teapot orbiting planet earth am i now defined as an “a-teapotist”

    perhaps i’m an “a-peter-panist” because I believe peter pan’s existence is myth too.

    It’s completely illogical to define a group as the opposite of some made up concept. That’s why this article is completely pointless.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: