But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked. 'It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?' Said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley. 'Like Sunday school with statues.

Jun 30, 2009. Ham President and Chief Executive Officer of Answer in Genesis stands with a mechanical Utahraptor at The Creation Museum in Petersburg. Said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to 'the lay of the land' and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited.

This is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history.' The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a 'creationist Disneyland' has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to 'bring the pages of the Bible to life.' Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values. Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.

Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution. 'I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me,' said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church. 'I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message. I find it a malicious manipulation of the public.' Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.

The museum argues that the has been misinterpreted and that was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple. Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers. 'I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong,' Jardine said. Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to 'the lay of the land' and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community. 'I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things that are inaccurately portrayed,' he said. 'And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized -- that if you don't accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth and life, you're contributing to the ills of society and of the church.' Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.

'This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science,' he said. 'It's not your old-time religion by any means.' (c) 2009 AFP Explore further. Why are we so 'astounded' by brain-dead religionists? They are children. They like funny stories and murder mysteries, like when their 'god' killed all the 1st born males because the father of the household did not kill a lamb and wipe blood over the door!?! Talk about asleep at the wheel, hehe!

They are the idiots of the world. Geez, so many crazy people. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're automatically a religious-text thumping psychopath. Most people are just fine. It's the fanatical freaks with nothing better to do that are the problem (a small percentage).

Actually, it's your kind of thinking (stereotyping, dehumanizing, antagonizing) that is the exact problem. • 4 / 5 (20) Jun 30, 2009. Why are we so 'astounded' by brain-dead religionists? They are children. They like funny stories and murder mysteries, like when their 'god' killed all the 1st born males because the father of the household did not kill a lamb and wipe blood over the door!?! Talk about asleep at the wheel, hehe! They are the idiots of the world.

Geez, so many crazy people. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're automatically a religious-text thumping psychopath. Most people are just fine. It's the fanatical freaks with nothing better to do that are the problem (a small percentage).

Actually, it's your kind of thinking (stereotyping, dehumanizing, antagonizing) that is the exact problem. It's really the other way around. All religion is false, it's fanatics are not nescessarily the worst because it's really the masses of those you call 'just fine' that uphold and maintain this religious nonsense that has made the human race as a whole suffer through the ages. • 3.2 / 5 (24) Jun 30, 2009. 'All religion is false' - what an astounding display of sheer arrogance embodied in this statement!! Looks to me like a case of going from the frying pan (religion) right into the fire (fanatical intellectualism), if we are to substitute the positions of people like Palli for 'all religion'.

While agreeing that religion is not science, neither are people who take a few facts and decide henceforth that they know enough to declare that 'all religion is false'. As vast and largely unknown as this universe is, I cannot accept that anyone can be right is asserting 'all... Is false (or true)' about anything. IMHO, that kind of person is at least as dangerous as the religious types, fanatical or not. I think it is more scientific to admit 'I don't know' than to act like I know something that I really haven't got a clue about. • 3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2009.

Creationism as presented by this museum is definitely wrong and silly. In my opinion, the belief that God created the Universe and set it in motion with the laws we know would be a better theology and that is my type of philosophical (emphasis here) thinking. Attacking science and portraying scientists as demons is ridiculous. However, burning that place down would be criminal and fanatical in the other hand. Letting them, the biblical creationists, 'educate' our youth with wrong doctrines without a strong voice of protest would be irresponsible. On the other hand, we have to respect all types of oppositions in a democratic society.

And thanks God for the democracy. Going around telling that anyone who cares about religion is crazy or idiot is, well, foolish. Many scientists, in the past and today, were and are very religious or mystical without compromising their scientific work. We must neither be fanatically attached to religion nor to scientism of any form.

Nobody knows what ultimate nature of the Universe is. • 3.8 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2009. Creationism is a sad attempt to defend institutionalized ignorance. I don't normally approve of such actions, but burning that place down would be doing every thinking person in the world a favor. A far more effective strategy would be to send representatives of the real scientific community to the Creation Museum on a regular basis to challenge the nonsense spouted by their tour guides. It would be good training for the future, when such confrontations will be much more common.

Of course the Museum will kick out the scientists, but if you send a different person each time, there can frequently be someone to challenge these people's deceptions. Think of it as a graduation exercise. • 3 / 5 (15) Jun 30, 2009. 'All religion is false' - what an astounding display of sheer arrogance embodied in this statement!! Looks to me like a case of going from the frying pan (religion) right into the fire (fanatical intellectualism), if we are to substitute the positions of people like Palli for 'all religion'. While agreeing that religion is not science, neither are people who take a few facts and decide henceforth that they know enough to declare that 'all religion is false'. As vast and largely unknown as this universe is, I cannot accept that anyone can be right is asserting 'all...

Is false (or true)' about anything. IMHO, that kind of person is at least as dangerous as the religious types, fanatical or not. I think it is more scientific to admit 'I don't know' than to act like I know something that I really haven't got a clue about. Do you say 'I don't know if Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are real'?

No, because you know the likelihood of it all being a figment of someone's imagination is too great to think differently. There is absolutely NO objective reason to consider any other concept of 'God' or religion under a different light, because there is absolutely NO evidence supporting even the slightest bit of rational belief in ANY kind of RELEVANT god or gods. Absolutely NONE.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, in which case, by all means, bring it up. • 2.7 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2009. Do you say 'I don't know if Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are real'?

No, because you know the likelihood of it all being a figment of someone's imagination is too great to think differently. There is absolutely NO objective reason to consider any other concept of 'God' or religion under a different light, because there is absolutely NO evidence supporting even the slightest bit of rational belief in ANY kind of RELEVANT god or gods. Absolutely NONE.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, in which case, by all means, bring it up. As computing technology advances we will be able to fully simulate human consciousnesses. Each of these simulated humans will believe their reality is 'real' and each will have a creator. Are you real or a simulation? Do you have a creator or not?

The only reasonable answer is 'I don't know.' • 3.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2009. Creationism is a sad attempt to defend institutionalized ignorance. I don't normally approve of such actions, but burning that place down would be doing every thinking person in the world a favor. Call me crazy:), but not just creationism, religion in general is for this exact purpose.

EDIT: although assorting to viloence is never the answer. LariAnn, if there was a god of some sort, then all existing religions would be wrong, except for possibly one - as they clearly state that there is only one god, well all the big players (at least christians and muslims to my knowledge) say so. I find it sad that people seek solace in religion that shoves fear and makes little of actual life on fake promises of a richer after-life. Being enslaved to a mind dulling institution is not something I wish for others. This is not arrogance, but telling it as it is. • 3.6 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2009. Of course we should continue to tolerate religion.

But we must not tolerate its intolerance of the truth. We are failing to address the real damage that the ignorant, irresponsible side of religion is doing to our collective wisdom. We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'. It is doing real damage, and desperateley needs real action. I'm not sure I understand, we should tolerate other people's beliefs, but we shouldn't tolerate their resistance to theories that contradict said beliefs? Whatever happened to live and let live, I seriously fear the world is becoming a dangerous place to openly express your beliefs/ideas. As time goes by, the more anti-religion zealots I see fanatically cramming their opinion down peoples throats.

Suggestions of 1984-esk roundups of the religious and their related books and artifacts, laws against verbalizing scripture in public. Believe me, someone is listening to these suggestions, you may just get what you all want one day, and you'll sadly find the rest of your rights being thrown in the garbage.for the greater good. • 2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2009. There is absolutely NO objective reason to consider any other concept of 'God' or religion under a different light, because there is absolutely NO evidence supporting even the slightest bit of rational belief in ANY kind of RELEVANT god or gods. Absolutely NONE. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, in which case, by all means, bring it up. As I have said in the past, you could no more convince me of the NON-existence of God than you could convince me my skin color was black.

While I cannot necessarily 'prove' anything to anyone on this thread, at least in a way that you would accept, I can nevertheless recount personal experiences which are more than sufficient for my own needs. The atheists often asks things like, 'Why doesn't God heal people today?' The answer is, he does. I have personally witnessed irrefutable miracle healings (i.e. Stunted limb growing out to full length spontaneously in a matter of seconds,) in respone to prayer in the name of Jesus. I would guess there were close to 40 witnesses to this miracle healing, many of whom, including myself, were standing only 2 or 3 feet away from the man who was healed; some of whom I still know by first and/or last name. I have also experienced at least 3 prophetic visions which have come to pass a day, a week, or a few months later which were accurate and detailed to a degree rivaling even those in the Bible; this to the point of knowing the EXACT path and landfall of both Hurricane Katrina days ahead of time, and Rita weeks ahead of time (and I told people), knowing the exact content of a conversation, and the exact text on a document I had never seen before ahead of time, and accurately describing a room I had never heard or seen described nor even visited, one week ahead of time.

All of this was by Jesus Christ, not anything that I did. Now, you don't have to believe that if you don't want to, you can call me crazy if you like, but I am telling the truth. === Previously, some idiots have tried to tell me that this is 'deja vu,' but such a claim is simply absurd and irrational. I literally SAW in a dream the paths of Katrina and Rita plotted out on a tracking map ahead of time EXACTLY as the actual course of the storms went. You want to talk irrational? Irrational is believing that the dreams I had were merely coincidence.

Irrational is believing that the healing I saw was somehow coincidental or naturalistic in nature. There were no mirrors or gimmicks. It was a small gathering and as stated, I was standing about 2 or 3 feet away from the man when he was healed, and there was no possibility of a hoax. ==== But now let us examine a brief debate I once had with an atheist on youtube.

&feature=email === Here, I present the real problem of atheists and agnostics, which is that for them, it really is not a matter of 'proof' that God exists. It is the fact of moral depravity.

The agnostic (who later changes his position to hard atheist,) goes as far as to say that even if God show up and proved himself, and then stated that such and such was a sin, that he would tell God to go 'f' himself. Thus we see the real problem is not even one of 'proofs' but rather one of morals. The atheist finds fault with God for not 'proving' himself to the atheist on the atheist's terms, yet he directly says he would not serve God even if proven, and would infact tell God to go screw himself. So why SHOULD all powerful God bother 'prove' himself to such a person, since he has as much as vowed to rebel all the more anyway? We belong to God whether you like it or not. Once a person can begin to acknowledge that moral fact, then their eyes will be opened to the truth.

==== As it regards physical scientific proofs and theories, and how they relate to Christian theology, I do not necessarily agree with 'answers in Genesis' on very many things at all. In fact, I have only ever read a few articles by them, and disagreed with them as often as agreeing. 'Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.'

This statement epitomizes ignorance. Anyone who claims to be a Christian by definition must be a Creationist, or else they simply know so little about their own beliefs that they are just a complete fool. The term 'Christian' means that one is a follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and that the individual believes that this Jesus is and was God incarnate in the flesh and died on the cross to redeem sinful man to himself. Thus, anyone, including the scientists who were involved in this article, anyone who claims to be a Christian while at the same time claiming not to believe in creation is quite literally insane (just as isovine suggested above,) and holds foundational beliefs that directly contradict one another. • 3.3 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2009. LariAnn, if there was a god of some sort, then all existing religions would be wrong, except for possibly one - as they clearly state that there is only one god, well all the big players (at least christians and muslims to my knowledge) say so. Jesus specifically stated that there is only one God, and there is only one way to right relationship with God.

He also specifically stated that the way was straight and the gate narrow which leads to eternal life, the way broad and the gate wide which leads to hell, this in response to his disciples asking him, 'Are there only a few which are saved?' The answer, according to Jesus, is 'yes'. I find it sad that people seek solace in religion that shoves fear and makes little of actual life on fake promises of a richer after-life. Being enslaved to a mind dulling institution is not something I wish for others.

This is not arrogance, but telling it as it is. There is nothing mind dulling about Biblical christianity. Pay no attention to the CRAP you see on television or even in most local churches, as it has little to nothing to do with God or the Bible. They are apostates, and you are half right about THOSE people, as they have nothing but 'clouds without water,'(see Jude,) as they are all teaching false doctrines, namely the prosperity and 'Word of Faith' doctrines which are entirely un-biblical and have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Unfortunately, 'Many false prophets(and false christs) shall arise and deceive many.' Jesus was again very much correct when he said, 'The children of the world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light.'

Because any idiot can see that these doctrines are false, but the so-called Christians fall for them by the millions. ---- I find it ironic that a person who does not believe in God should even care what another person does with time.

If you believe there is no God, then you ultimately believe everything has no purpose whatsoever and is merely vain. Thus why should you care what I believe? • 1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2009.

Simple answer. Religion should not meddle in science and science should not meddle in religion. Whatever the religions say about origin of spiecies should be deleted from the religion as unecessary specultation of our ancestors before the time of scientific discovery.

Whatever science has not been able to figure out. That is the realm of faith and religion. Mainstream crackpottery called 'science' makes so many unsubstantiated claims about various types of origins as to be laughable. They do not believe in God, but they have no trouble believing in the Big Bang, panspwermia, and spontaneous generation(a.k.a.

Abiogenesis.) Isn't it the atheist and the agnostic who are irrational, having believed that highly ordered systems come about through accident, even when all physical evidence and experience prove otherwise? Your computer didn't appear spontaneously or accidentally, nor does any other machine, and for the most part, those devices are of an almost infinitely less complex than multi-cellular organisms. How then can one possibly believe life to be a cosmic accident or coincidence? The atheist can see a simple wrist watch, even an old fashioned pocket watch, and instantly recognize it as having been created by a human being, because it is too complex and too ordered to have appeared randomly through any imaginable process. Yet the same person believes living organisms millions of times more complex appeared accidentally.

'Fools and blind' indeed describes people who hold such a view. • 2.3 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2009. I've done a good deal of research on both sides of this issue over the past 5 years (since it seems many evolutionists do not bother to know what creationists believe and many creationists do not bother to know what many evolutionists believe). A few things that I have concluded: 1.

Both evolution and creationism require a certain degree of trust since neither one can be proven outright. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you cannot also believe in evolution. The Bible is based on the assumption that God exists. If God exists, his existence cannot be disproven by science and/or the scientific method. God, by definition, is a supernatural being that the repeatable laws of science cannot test. I just wanted to give all of you a little food for thought for the day! For the record, I used to be an evolutionist but am now a creationist.

• 3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2009. 'As I have said in the past, you could no more convince me of the NON-existence of God than you could convince me my skin color was black.' I think that his point is that there is NO evidence whatsoever for any god, therefore it is ridiculous to believe in the concept. Could I convince you of the NON-existence of the inter-dimensional purple elephant with 10 trunks who travels over the roof of each person who drives a car and only protects those he deems worthy? I shouldn't have to convince you of the fallacy of that statement because there is no evidence at all for it. I can think of countless things that are not based on our observable reality which you should not believe in and your concept of god is one of them.

Sorry, but it is time for humanity to drop this little bedtime story and move forward. • 3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2009. Stop ripping on Agnostics, you're pretty arrogant if you believe we're all absolutely that ridiculous.

By the very definition of the word Agnostic you're saying it's a person that believes you can not prove or disprove the existence of God. So yeah, if I got whisked off to another dimension I sure as hell would believe in a God. But that has never happened. I doubt it ever will. Scientists use the Scientific method, which allows them to develop theories based on repeatable data. Creationists are just arrogant people that refuse to think critically. Creationists want to tell you that because the human body is so complex there is no other explanation, and instead of using their brain to search for one, they make up any reason and call it a divine power.

Science has proven the church wrong on many occasions, that's probably why the Vatican doesn't deny the possible existence of extra-terrestrial life. • 3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2009. /sigh 'The atheist can see a simple wrist watch, even an old fashioned pocket watch, and instantly recognize it as having been created by a human being, because it is too complex and too ordered to have appeared randomly through any imaginable process.' How many times does this have to be explained?? Natural selection is not 'accidental' it is not 'random'.to say that it is so is not just wrong it is the absolute opposite of what it actually is.Because it is in fact a VERY imaginable( not to mention verifiable) entity which allows order to be imposed on a random scenario without the need for intelligent design.

Your argument based on personel incredulity is incredibly weak,not least because you paint yourself into that old proverbial corner with that maloderous chestnut about the complex watch. The classic reply of course is that if the watch is too complex to come into existance without a designer,then surely the designer must be even more complex. So who designed him???

On so on in infinate regression to the point of nonsense. 'Mainstream crackpottery called 'science' makes so many unsubstantiated claims about various types of origins as to be laughable.'

This merely belies a deep lack of understanding of how the scientific model works,as no claim can be deemed scientific unless it is in fact substantiated,facts and conclusion arising from this can be challenged with a view to testing its validity.This as opposed the the religious dogmatic approach which claims to be absolute in its ascertions and will react very negatively to any who challenge its TRULY unsubstantiated claims. As u have just demonstrated with aplomb. • 3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2009.

Creationism, the irrational religious belief of the Christians, is almost harmless. The irrational religious beliefs of the socialist atheist; of anthropogenic global warming and a magical interpretation of evolution, has lead to a world wide financial crisis and the largest tax increase in US history.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. They should also learn a little of a science called 'cultural anthropology' so that they understand the importance of religion. • 3.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2009. As Archie Bunker said, 'Faith is when you believe in something no one in their right mind would' Only people with weak minds believe in god.

They don't have the guts to think for themselves and so want to belong they will do, believe anything to belong. For instance Christians say they follow Jesus but Christianity was founded by Paul who never knew Jesus and was brought back before James, Jesus' brother and others of the early church for lying 3 times and the third he was almost killed for it until the Romans saved him. Jesus was killed because he hated people/priests from making money off of god and why he overturned the moneychangers tables. He believed people should take 10% of their money, time and help poor people, not give it to preachers and build churches which he hated. So what is Christianity today but a bunch of churches and moneychangers, just what he hated so much he was willing to die to get rid of. • 2.3 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2009.

To stir up the hornet's nest just mention religion or evolution. I'm of a live and let live, multiple truths mentality. If you believe in a creator or divine spirit, then great. If you don't, that's great too. There's obvious pros and cons to both beliefs, and for the whole gradient between. The conflict between the two isn't an inherent clashing of the ideals*, but rather a clashing of the people who think them. From a scientific standpoint we can neither prove nor disprove a god.

If something without a physical manifestation can be proven to exist i.e. Intangible ideals, can it be said there is no way for something sentient/divine/omniscient/omnipotent to exist in such a way?

And on the reverse, if you take a religious standpoint, even if your chosen deus does not exist, your belief has given you hope and strength and fortitude where before there may not have been any, and it stands to argue that humanity may have torn itself apart without a unifying principle like your belief and those similar. As long as people attempt to think and empathize, humanity can minimize conflict, because whichever path you choose you can still achieve harmony with a polar opposite as long as you have a mutual understanding and respect for one another. It's funny because, if you keep asking 'why?' Or 'what came before that?'

A scientist will ultimately have to venture into the unknown, and it's the unknown where all gods tend to exist. Likewise, evolution is apparent in religion in that the beliefs that center around a single, strong deity are the children of previous religions that have gone extinct by their hand. It's two sides to the same coin I think, and so, my only beef with this article is the hostility between the two sides. My personal oppinion is that the physical world and its laws are far too perfect for there not to be some sort of god, but if there is one, I could not hope to fully comprehend him/her/it. I could only hope to understand the parts of this being that are exemplified within myself, and thus, only a large gathering of humanity, taken together, can discover the face and nature of a creator, and perhaps we as a race are only a small fraction of that total picture.

Anyways: dont rock the boat, play nice, love and peace, etc. That's my two cents worth. *I dont know for certain, but some religious texts seem to have a 'spread the word' and 'death to nonbelievers or you fail at this religion' clause in certain places, probably as an evolutionary trait developed for survival/propagation (lol) • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2009. In my opinion (not necessarily fact), religion and science are supposed to go hand in hand, at least from the religious point of view. Christian's are supposed to love and respect everyone, which very obviously doesn't happen in most places. Science in a religious point of view is supposed to be a path or a way to discover the truths that God left behind for us to discover. All points of view should be respected, not ridiculed as it seems this museum does.

The theory (Definition: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact) of evolution is viable, but is incomplete and still subjective in many ways. Evolution is not complete hence the 'Theory' of Evolution'. Evolution is quite factual in nature, but also has discrepancies that people who may have been of questionable nature made subjective ideas that are now believed to fact. Subjection is not fact and is many a time believed to be truth. Evolution and the scientists who study and add to it need to rid the theory of discrepancies and subjection and rely purely on scientific fact.

This theory needs to be completed before it can be presented factually. Religion and Evolution both have subjection as their base core, but both have some fact to them. Believe it or not religion is historically correct for the most part (Nothing is perfect), even secular sources have corroborated this. Fossil records also have their truth, but dating systems are imperfect and are not necessarily factual. I'm sorry if this upsets anyone.

• 2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2009. I am a strong believer in evolution as a useful theory in understanding our universe. However, creationism is far more benign in its influence than the Athropogenic Global Warming alarmists. Nowhere have I seen creationists frantically demanding we raise taxes and throttle our economies for their beliefs with trillions of dollars in artificial markets. You want to see 'wack' look at the AGW insisting that it is all 'settled' and trying to suppress opposing points of view.

The creationists have odd ideas but are far less dangerous than the zealots insisting on their right to regulate our cars, homes, light bulbs, and even the number of squares of TP we can use. • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2009. I enjoy the community aspect of religion. My parents go to a unitarian church and they basically just talk about how to be a better person. No particular beliefs are required for that.

I like the wisdom in some buddhist thinking. Religions CAN organize to do very constructive things. They can also Carry a sense of superiority, (ok to take advantage of non believers).

Put incredibly stupid people in the white house. Have a mindset that makes them vulnerable to misinformation. Forget the message of compassion and focus on conformity. • 3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2009. I have personally witnessed irrefutable miracle healings (i.e.

Stunted limb growing out to full length spontaneously in a matter of seconds,) in respone to prayer in the name of Jesus. All of whom wanted desperately to believe. You do know about stage and street magic don't you? You seem so unaware of how illusions can be created right before your eyes.

Try looking for street magic on Youtube. Perhaps then you will stop believing everything you see.

I have also experienced at least 3 prophetic visions which have come to pass a day, a week, or a few months later Start logging them when you have these alleged visions. Check the actual vision vs.

Keep track of those that FAIL as well as those you think came true. Otherwise you are simply backwards filtering. Post them somewhere that people can see BEFORE the events. Till then we only have your word and frankly I haven't seen any reason to consider you reliable. Was standing about 2 or 3 feet away from the man when he was healed, and there was no possibility of a hoax. You simply have no idea what can be done right before your very eyes. Again try looking up street magic on the web.

Angel&search_type=&aq=0&oq=chris an Sorry if the link doesn't work, I suspect that it will break at the '?' Heck you could just watch Benny Hinn. The man is a blatant fraud.

Marjoe Gortner would be educational as well. He got the same exact results as Benny the Fraud does. Only he admitted he wasn't a real faith healer. Gortner&search_type=&aq=0&oq=marjo go But now let us examine a brief debate I once had with an atheist on youtub What debate? I saw one person. A person that looked quite upset. Upset people have trouble arguing rationally.

On either side of any question. That would include you as you seem quite upset in this post. Calm down before you reply.

Take a day or two if you have to. Here, I present the real problem of atheists and agnostics, which is that for them, it really is not a matter of 'proof' that God exists. Well since I see no such proof that IS the matter. It is the fact of moral depravity.

I am sorry you are so depraved as to assume those that don't agree with are depraved. However you might try checking the contents of prisons. Sure are a lot of Christians there and very few atheists or agnostics. The agnostic (who later changes his position to hard atheist,) goes as far as to say that even if God show up and proved himself, and then stated that such and such was a sin, that he would tell God to go 'f' himself. I see, you make up your opponents arguments for them. How convenient.

That way you have no need to deal with real opponents. And no I don't care if some 14 year old said that to you. None here have. I sure haven't. The atheist finds fault with God for not 'proving' himself to the atheist on the atheist's terms, I don't ask a god to prove itself. I as YOU to prove your beliefs before I can consider them as even remotely valid. No agnostic and few atheists would ever ask for proof from a god since they don't actually believe that one exists.

It would be like demanding that the Easter Bunny come to me and prove it exists. I only ask that the believers in the Easter Bunny show some evidence. So why SHOULD all powerful God bother 'prove' himself to such a person, since he has as much as vowed to rebel all the more anyway? You sure are desperate to paint all non-believers with a brush of your invention aren't you? We belong to God whether you like it or not. Like, don't like, it doesn't matter.

We can not belong to something that doesn't exist. Show evidence. I am asking YOU not your hypothetical god. I do not necessarily agree with 'answers in Genesis' on very many things at all. In fact, I have only ever read a few articles by them, and disagreed with them as often as agreeing. That is twice as often as you should.

They are wrong pretty much all the time. Do you actually believe that the Earth is young? If so your beliefs are wrong.

Do you actually have a problem with evolution? If so your beliefs are wrong. Do you actually believe that Genesis has everything correct? If so your god is does not exist. It is possible that there is a god but the god of Genesis isn't it. The evidence against that god is overwhelming. This statement epitomizes ignorance At least for America that is true.

Twenty five percent of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true despite the evidence against Genesis. Anyone who claims to be a Christian by definition must be a Creationist, or else they simply know so little about their own beliefs that they are just a complete fool. Speaking of fools. Many Christians would disagree with you.

Even many American Christians. Especially non-Baptist Christians. The term 'Christian' means that one is a follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Yes, so that would mean that many that don't except the Bible as the literal word of god would qualify as Christians. You don't appear to agree with that. Thus, anyone, including the scientists who were involved in this article, anyone who claims to be a Christian while at the same time claiming not to believe in creation is quite literally insane That statement shows you are out of touch with reality. Which is often used as a definition on insanity. Of course I could be misinterpreting your definition of creation.

If you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis than I am wrong on that. Sorry if that is the case but you do seem to be a literalist. And holds foundational beliefs that directly contradict one another.

I have yet to meet(in person or online) a literalist that doesn't have contradictory beliefs. It just takes a while to find them. The contradictions in belief usually show up when the believer attempts to patch the contradictions in the Bible. Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 01, 2009. Both evolution and creationism require a certain degree of trust since neither one can be proven outright. Evolution has a lot of evidence supporting it.

None against it. Creationism COULD be proved outright if it was accurate. It can be disproved outright. The world is very old therefor the Universe was not created a mere 6000 or so years ago. There was no Great Flood or the evidence would be everywhere and the Egyptians would have noticed it since it is supposed to have happened about 4400 years ago. Right in the middle of the time the Egyptians were building pyramids. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then you cannot also believe in evolution.

True as far as I can see. Many Christians however do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is based on the assumption that God exists. Its not an assumption in the Bible. It is quite evident that the authors BELIEVED.

Belief in the Bible is based on the assumption that Jehovah, not simply god, exists. If God exists, his existence cannot be disproven by science and/or the scientific method. That depends entirely on your definition of god. Jehovah as described in Genesis can be tested against the real world.

The existence of Jehovah should be provable. The evidence it overwhelmingly against Genesis as being an accurate portrayal of reality. So that god does not exist. God, by definition, is a supernatural being that the repeatable laws of science cannot test. So you don't really believe in Genesis? You either believe in or you don't.

If you do then you should believe that the world should match the world described in Genesis. Since it doesn't I don't see how you could believe but I guess you just to engage in bogus claims like the one above. For the record, I used to be an evolutionist but am now a creationist. Which means that you likely never understood evolution. You seem to have problems with logic as well. Any god that is sufficiently well defined can be tested against reality. Any such god can fail or pass the test.

The world of Genesis simply is not the world we live in. Ethelred • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2009. Yay, yet another battle about God. My solution is simply this, if I am to play a game in which the ultimate outcome is for my eternal soul then I expect to be given the rules in person by the referee himself.

I do not trust a single person, who themselves is just another player, to deliver the rules and expect them to be 100% accurate, or even relevant at all. If you are are playing for your eternal soul don't you at least owe it to yourself to get the frigging rules right from the game makers mouth directly so there is absolutely no doubt? If your answer is I have, I got them from the bible, then you dont even know the history of the book and that is not getting the rules directly from the horses mouth. When God actually tells me what the rules to the game are then I will believe in him. Until then I will keep playing the way I see fit, just in case we only go around once. That said believe what you want to, just dont expect me to believe what you do and I will do the same. • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2009.

Ethelred the infidel: shalom shazbot shazam 'All religion is false'- is a true statement. God dont need no religion to be God.

People need religion because theyre scared to death of dying. God tells them death is inevitable, they dont like that.

Their religions give them elaborate loopholes. Religions divide the people up and set them against one another in an orderly way; stability and progress are the result. The Bible is an Ark.

It tells us how things work. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.' • not rated yet Jul 01, 2009. 'All religion is false'- is a true statement. God dont need no religion to be God. That isn't true.

First, some religions are so nebulous that they cannot be shown false even if they are false. Second, some ideas of gods have them needing worship to exist at all. The Christian god is not the only way for a god to be. People need religion because theyre scared to death of dying. Not all religions have an afterlife. There is no sign of an afterlife in the Old Testament, at least in the early books.

The Bible is an Ark. It tells us how things work. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.' 'I find that such a strange phrase'. To paraphrase Magneto in the first X-Men movie after asking the Senator 'Are you a God fearing man?' Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 02, 2009.

Ethelred & sloppy, Ironically, with your (godless, materialist) auto-genesis belief (evolutionism or otherwise), to justify the existence of the God (how He came to be), is a lot more trivial, than justifying the existence of our own Universe 'godlessly.' Then, the question that is whether the God has no hint for us to know Him, and that is the point of having holy books.

Find the most accurate text, then. Ethelred, I wish you would list cite some sources about what is inconsistent in genesis in the Bible/Torah.

I'm a muslim, but unlike what you might guess, muslims believe that those books were (in their first shape) sent by Allah (Yahweh), but those books were changed. (The Quran is kept, literally. See the commentary I wrote, in, too.) Ironically, those who changed their texts in those old times, might have been exactly like the clergy/people who bow to the evolutionist myths, today. Perhaps, they were not able to refute some hypocrites (or, tyrants), and they thought they would rather hack the text.

Ethelred, you seem to have blind faith in evolutionism. There, you fall with Dobzhansky. Thus, see review--1973-Dobzhansky.htm' title='rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>Worse, you allege some falsehood in your opponent, but without noticng that evolutionism is a ludicrous faith. Most so, with the faith in 'parallel evolutionism' (sequential contradictions).

Wherever you see the oxymorons 'convergent-' or 'parallel-evolution', you know that you were in probably orse shape than even Ptolemaios. That belief is totally magical (or, auto-magical) stuff.

(( And actually, I was probably never willing to live eternally (unless going to heaven, that is). In contrast, that might be why some people want to believe in atheism? To deny hell? )) Oh, am I talking, again? Keep posting. I might trackback within a week. For now, I prefer finally finishing & posting the documents to slam the NAS booklet(s) evolution-vs.-creationism ( through ).

Ironically, big 'brothers' wrote the first of that in 1984, to have people's faith, in shape. That booklet (in 1984) was containing the gill-slits hoax, too. They should know better. Oh, then why I came to this thread. The title of this news, was ironical. That is because, scientists believe that some others have faulty theories.

Falseness, is what people keep committing. (Where in the Torah/Bible, was the word about dinosaurs?) In contrast, the genesis is telling that whales were created before people. How was that knowable, back then? • 4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2009. Ronically, with your (godless, materialist) auto-genesis belief (evolutionism or otherwise), to justify the existence of the God (how He came to be), is a lot more trivial, That make no sense at all. Oh dear you linked to an Islamic nonsense site. I find that ironic that, in forums, most of the times, that is the evolutionists who ask that question ('For existing, if we need the God, then how did the God came to exist?'

Why would they not guess that with their ideology that, Allah might have just evolved? Sorry but that still requires an infinite regression of gods.

Allah has no more substance than Jehovah by the way. The name is irrelevant as long as you insist on Genesis. Funny how even the Moslems have the same false statements about evolution. Merely billions of millenia (our Universe) is too short a time for us to evolve by chance Sorry evolution is NOT dependent on chance. It is dependent on natural selection. Which is in no way chance. But for Himself, Allah had 'infinite time' (as He was not bound by time) Sorry but Genesis disagrees and I am not beholden to the beliefs of Mohammed, assuming he actually believed what he wrote.

That is, in Genesis the Earth is pretty young. Our DNA/RNA (with the sophisticated mechanism in that), is pointing to the Creator False, it clearly points to evolution. All those flaws and all. Not exactly something that a all-knowing creator would produce.. But nothing is similar to Him -- and probably there was never a sophisticated-similarity What the heck is that nonsense supposed to have to do with evolution?

# Allah has no functional-dependency to some else -- while we need our enzymes, etc. Allah has no reality if the world is old and it is. Enzymes evolved. Allah is most likely creatively developing Himself. Thus, Allah is self-made. Well the Bible claims he is perfect and unchanging.

You believers need to get your stories straight. That is enough of that nonsense. Then, the question that is whether the God has no hint for us to know Him, and that is the point of having holy books. Find the most accurate text, then. Well we already know that Genesis, Exodus and the Koran don't match the real world. I wish you would list cite some sources about what is inconsistent in genesis in the Bible/Torah.

I was waiting for Quantum to ask that. He hasn't replied on this thread but he is calling me an idiot on another thread. Perhaps he didn't like me saying he was gullible.

Sorry but he is. I have had similar moments of gullibility myself. I try to keep it to a minimum.

All right then. First and second Genesis have mutually contradictory descriptions of the beginning of life.

Cain is condemned to wander for all his life. Then, usually on the same page, he founds a city, he gets married and has a lot of children. They are kept track of for, I think it was, 12 generations or there about. No one has seen the face of god is stated in several ways and places in the Bible. Yet Abraham invited Jehovah to eat and drink and he washed Jehovah's feet. It failed to state that he kept his eyes closed the whole time.

I think it would mention a little thing like that. There are four versions of Jesus's last words on the cross. Two conflict with each other. If you want a huge list: Sorry but I can't speak on the Koran.

However that site you linked to was not exactly a paragon of reason. Ethelred, you seem to have blind faith in evolutionism. There is no faith needed. I understand how it works fairly well. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

Only a desperate need to believe otherwise could close your eyes to this. Sorry but that link is broken. I have yet to see any member of Islam manage to out reason the Christians on this.

Lots of the same exact unreasoned thinking though. I managed to find what were linking to. What a load of crap. Dobzhansky's bigotry finds its full supplement in his profanity. Never trust anyone that uses special definitions. The author of the review doesn't like the guy I haven't heard of so he calls him a bigot. Funny use of that word.

Typical in a religious argument to distort English. With evolutionism, Dobzhansky is lobbying to retire God, or else, Dobzhanky is willing to be pejorative, by calling Him various foul names -- (hasha) 'senseless operation,' 'in a jocular mood,' 'blind process,' 'cheating,' 'absentminded.' Sorry but those are not pejorative towards any god. Its pointing what it would mean if the beliefs were true. That is, for instance, a god that put your and my blood vessels in front of our retinas is clearly incompetent. That is not an insult to a god since I don't believe in a god.

Believers have a great deal of difficulty with this concept. You can't insult something if it doesn't exist. If reflecting honestly, even anthropomorphism would suffice to empathize that Allah is sensible, programming/crafting the processes/hardware marvelously [modularly]. If Allah exists he is a lousy designer. Otherwise I wouldn't need glasses to write this. Sorry if you find this insulting but it is just trying to point out that we evolved.

Nothing biological makes any sense otherwise. The author of that review is so blinded by belief that he has no idea how silly he looks to non-believers. His entire review is based on a false assumption.

That his god exists. If his god existed the world would be very different. Do not mistake this for a claim that no god exists. I have never done that nor will I. Not intentionally anyway. Worse, you allege some falsehood in your opponent, but without noticng that evolutionism is a ludicrous faith.

It is too bad that you too are so blinded by your beliefs. The evidence for evolutions is the entire universe.

None of it makes any sense if Genesis is literally true. Its either Genesis is wrong or the whole universe is wrong. I go for Genesis being wrong. At least that way I don't have to believe in a god that would create a universe that looks exactly like it is billions of years old and the Earth is a place where life evolved. Wherever you see the oxymorons 'convergent-' or 'parallel-evolution', They aren't oxymorons. Similar environments are likely to result in similar animals given enough time.

You really need to learn something about evolution. Something that didn't come from a fundamentalist. In contrast, that might be why some people want to believe in atheism? To deny hell? )) Funny how the religious try to invent reasons that require belief in the unbelievable. There is no reason to believe hell if Genesis is wrong. And it is wrong.

Falseness, is what people keep committing. (Where in the Torah/Bible, was the word about dinosaurs?) Doesn't matter, the Creation Museum put them there. I suppose it is because they couldn't pretend that they never existed.

The problem they have is that they believe that there was no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. So they try to pretend that that 9 inch steak knife teeth belonged to vegetarians. Go ask them why they have such silly beliefs if you really need an answer. They ARE aware that the evidence is against them. Well at least some of the people that designed the place. See this review by John Scalzi for the source of that last remark of mine.

Yes John is also an unbeliever. I think he is an atheist, unlike me, I am agnostic.

In contrast, the genesis is telling that whales were created before people. How was that knowable, back then? For shame, you have denied the word of Jehovah. Surely you have read Genesis 2 where it clearly shows men being created before all other animals. Of course Genesis 1 has it the other way around but that is your problem and not mine. I don't feel the need to handwave away contradictions in the Bible.

After all I go on the real world and not what men wrote in their ignorance of science. Sorry but you simply aren't going to make the evidence for evolution go away in a puff of extremely bad logic.

Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 02, 2009. Of course we should continue to tolerate religion. But we must not tolerate its intolerance of the truth.

We are failing to address the real damage that the ignorant, irresponsible side of religion is doing to our collective wisdom. We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'. It is doing real damage, and desperateley [sic] needs real action. What an ignorant and dangerous statement! 'We must legislate controls that forbid 'education of falsehoods'.' And who then decides what 'falsehoods' are?

The government? A body of corrupt scoundrels without an iota of scientific education each with a political agenda? Isn't North Korea currently doing the same. This would open a whole Pandora's Box. It is sad there are people out there like you.

Obviously you yourself are lacking in education to make such a statement. I fear you far far more than those naive enough to believe in Creationism. Stupid speech, hate speech, provocative political speech etc. Are all protected, as it should be, by the American First Amendment. The only role of the government is to be sure some speech isn't being limited and that the 'other side' has adequate time to respond. In a free society one combats ignorance and falsehoods with Truth openly in the arena of ideas. Eventually the correct side should 'win'.

Did the Enlightenment not happen. There will always be a harmless minority that believes in all sorts of things most consider crazy (Flat Earthers) but it isn't necessary to persecute these people for their beliefs or make their beliefs illegal! If their ideas are false then they can be demonstrated as false and vanquished. Sometimes I wonder whether the Enlightenment for nothing when I come across such idiotic statements. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2009.

State-sponsored religions tend to offer you eternal life because they can get the most mileage from it. I don't see much relevance there. I live a country that tends to frown on State sponsored religion.

Well the Supreme Court still does anyway. The bible is an ark- it is not about saving your eternal soul in the next life, it is about how that promise can be used to establish stability and progress in this life.

That is true for the Old Testament, at least to some extent. Doesn't seem to hold for the New Testament. That was no more pro stability than Lenin was. At least until Constantine co-opted the religion for his own needs. A message for eternity (or until we see heaven here on earth) Could you try to be a bit less cryptic about your intent?

You know, just put an idea out in a clear and precise manner. You tend to write like believers do when they don't have the guts to say they are believers. Hinting around and pretending its profound and meaningful while not actually saying anything. -or maybe it was a large Eucharist They aren't that large. Not pillow sized anyway. Perhaps if you cut back on all that roughage in your diet you would write more clearly.

That constant need to void indigestible fabric has got to be affecting you. Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 03, 2009. Ignorance on both sides of the camp, among both scientistic and religious fanatics. The big bang theory offers interesting evidence for the divine creatio ex nihilo.Evolutionary theory offers interesting evidence for the '7 days of labor' from which God created the world, the Genesis. It all depends upon how you want to look at things, upon how myopic or broad minded you wish to be. Today we are all aware of the dangers of religious fundamentalism, but what of fundamentalism in science.

Be careful 'scientists' lest you place your foot in your mouth - materialism IS a fundamentalist belief - just as scary, ignorant, and foolhardy as any other. • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2009. The big bang theory offers interesting evidence for the divine creatio ex nihilo. No, it doesn't. There is no evidence of 'creation'.

If you want to 'look at things' as you please, by all means do so. But don't presume they rationally qualify as 'evidence' to anyone else. Personal and whimsical interpretations of something don't mean squat to someone that understands a single perspective is untrustworthy. That's why the scientific method is reliable, and the 'feelings' of someone that thinks that just because something is there it had to be intentionally put there, isn't. The physical existence of something (as opposed to just conceptual existence) doesn't depend on how you want to 'look at things'. • not rated yet Jul 04, 2009. Perhaps some of those fanatics would like to comment on the scripture in Genesis that says 'Let the Earth bring forth [the animals]'.

I guess that particular scripture is the only one not to be taken literally? Acarrilho, thank you for your response, rude, but you point out that my remarks deserve explanation.

Now, allow me to explain. Evidence comes in a number of forms. For example, that I see a tree before me is a kind of evidence.

We call that empirical. Such evidence has yet to become 'scientific', however, for it first needs become universal law, which, ironically, isn't empirical at all, but quite rational.

Now consider this question - is there scientific or simply empirical evidence for the law of gravitation? You will have to admit to the latter ONLY, that in fact, there are only measurable instances which we then formulate into a rational law (whether by induction or falsification - both proceed similarly). So one can imagine that in some future time, new empirical instances will produce a 'new' physics which might actually disprove the law of gravitation, showing that, under certain circumstances, differing masses fall at different accelerations. Now, as you can see, things start to get complicated. What is scientific evidence?

Something other? Consider then the following - background radiation gives 'evidence' for the big bang.

What kind of evidence? A universal law, or specific instances which must be rationalized in order to become universal? As a scientist - you must admit to the latter view only. Accordingly, you take empirical instances as your starting point, and from there you attempt to draw universal rational laws on their basis.

Now I'll clarify on my previous hypothesis - instances of background radiation offers evidence for the existence of God. What kind of evidence is this? Well, quite the same as the 'scientific' evidence for the Big Bang Theory. From the empirical, I proceed to the rational, to the universal, that - because there is background radiation, there must be some originating point in the universe. I simply make the further leap on the basis of rational evidence. What is rational evidence? That A B = C.

In this case, if there is a point A, then either A accounts for its own existence or it must be caused by B. I therefore assert B, that, possibly, a divine existence was the cause of A, being the universe.

And that the universe having an originating point, and this being gathered from instances of background radiation given by - empirical - evidence, therefore, I say, God. May well exist. Do I know this? No - I only assert this on the basis of empirical evidence and rational grounds.

Is this just 'looking at things' as I please? If you admit that, then you must admit the same of the entire scientific program. Make your choice. • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009. I guess 'rude' depends on how 'you look at it'. If the claim is that 'there is a tree', than the 'fact' that 'you see a tree' (your word being accepted for what it is) is evidence that you see a tree, period. It's not evidence the tree is physically there, which would be the relevant point to someone other than yourself, in support of the claim.

No one has to believe in someone else's word that gravity exists as something that produces the effects we can ALL feel. This typical analogy does nothing to support the case for rational belief in 'God'. 'Expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry'.

There's NOTHING complicated about scientific evidence, and there's NO scientific evidence supporting rational belief in 'God'. The FSM may well exist. The human concept may very well coincide with a real entity. That alone does not warrant rational belief in its existence.

The claim 'it does not warrant rational belief' does not equal 'it does not exist', no matter how much some people choose to pound that straw man. • not rated yet Jul 04, 2009. There's nothing to think over.

'God' does not logically follow from any scientific evidence. The evidence is only as complicated as one is uneducated. The more one understands what the evidence actually refers and does not refer to, the less prone to 'logic leaps' you become. 'Leaps of logic' are 'leaps' because they are NOT rationally supported. They may be accurate in the end, but as far as another person in concerned, they do not warrant rational belief. So until you can backup your leaps with scientific evidence supporting the ACTUAL leap, you are left with 'faith', meaningless to anyone who requires reason behind their convictions.

• not rated yet Jul 04, 2009. I think you and I believe the same things.

I believe humans have to find their own solutions and the only way to do this is trial and error, repeatability, the scientific method. Since we don't yet know all there is to know, I have faith that this method will provide; and so do you.

But I think the bible describes how to herd and husband the human race brilliantly which is essential to providing the stability and progress needed for innovation [but don't tell the zealots] Why do we come to this site anyway? Because we hope to see how the latest research is going to extend our lives and give us unlimited room to live in peace. But it ain't here yet. Nevertheless it gives you and I comfort. Is it all hype, the new religion? Maybe we don't care as much as we think.

I like black metal how about you? • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2009. A leap of logic tells me that the next number in the ordered sequence should be 5. A is B, B is C, Therefore. A leap of logic tells me that it A is C For all A, B results. A leap of logic tells me that therefore A is the cause of B An essential cosmological argument for a primoridial cause goes the same way.

EVIDENTIAL FACT: A universe exists in time which seems to have an origin at some point (e.g. Now everyone, scientists, theologians, philosophers, with a mind, must consider the following question: What CAUSED the point? No one has the answer - YOU seem to say nothing, that's your LEAP of logic, I say maybe a First Cause.

Your position, however, actually represents an ILLOGICAL leap, for you fail to acknowledge the inherent problem here -- HOW CAN SOMETHING COME FROM NOTHING? In fact, this IS the BIG joke of the big bang theory whenever anyone provides this for the CAUSE of the universe - and materialistic-atheistic scientists or scientist wannabes, generally unversed in philosophy - fail to see this basic error. And one final point, because I growing weary of schooling you - If you'd like to suggest that the universe always was, then you simply face the old problem of Aristotle and the Scholastics - how do we get to this present moment from an infinite past?? Present moment But the infinite is infinitely far from the present - therefore the present could never be reached from an infinity Therefore the universe must have been created or come into being (since we don't know the answer) AT SOME TIME. So again the question - what's the cause????????????? • 4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2009. That the wording of the so-called 'days' of creation is far more cryptic and ambiguous than other words referring to real 24-hour periods by the same author, And the morning and the evening was the second day is somehow terribly cryptic?

I don't think so. Nd that the order of the types of life created just happens to be exactly that of evolutionists. Genesis one and two have contradictory orders. Haven't you read them? But lets use Genesis one. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Yes light without the Sun. OK so you are pretending that this the Big Bang I suppose. So we can say that line is right. But the Big Bang was over 13 billion years ago. And light came 300,000 years after the Big Bang began. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And the evening and the morning were the first day. This before the Earth so mornings and evenings would be a tad hard to define. And it is hard to call evening and morning a 8 billion years but I guess we can pretend for now since this is just the order. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Still no actual Earth so where was the water going to.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Yet another day without benefit of either Sun or Earth. So cool how this fits exactly nothing. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Ah the Earth appears. Sans Sun so now we have clear error in order and only two sets of mornings and evenings are done. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. More errors in order. Grass came much later. After the dinosaurs died out.

Herbs is ill defined so it OK to have it with trees BUT trees and plants came later in the real world, well after fish who have yet to appear in this Biblical order. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Fruit came before grass but after a lot of things that are still to come on this list so that is wrong also. All these plants are too early in the order and therefor wrong. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Amazing the way evening and morning gets rewritten to eons when it is inconvenient to your belief. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [qAnd God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.[q/] Ah finally we have a Sun.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. At last a morning and evening with a Sun, I guess Jehovah took down the giant fluorescent light fixture that was keeping all those plants alive before then. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Finally some animals.

A tad late on the seen of course since grass was already around in the Biblical order. And flying creatures came MUCH later in the world we actually live in. So another error in the order. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. You do know that fish really came before fowl don't you.

Yet you called the Biblical order right. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Yes another morning and evening and you are in denial about this. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Finally we the stuff that really came before flying life. You know, that stuff that actually trods or even creeps really came before anything got of the ground in the real world.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Hey something that is right. Humans came late.

Except that Genesis two has humans before animals but I guess you and I can just pretend that Genesis two doesn't exist. Well I guess you can but I tend not to pretend about things like that. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. And another of those messy evenings and mornings you try to ignore.

Along with all those inconvenient errors in order. Like four days without a Sun. Flying even before fishes. Grass before fishies. I am so unimpressed by this order. It gets so much so very wrong. Sorry but I have seen that ludicrous claim of yours before.

You really need to learn something about reality. You might try reading Genesis one again as well. It just does not match the real world. Your next paragraph is purely a matter of doctrine and that doesn't conflict with reality so I will leave you to thrash that out with your fellow Christians. Try not to get any blood on the floor.

Ethelred • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009. As a scientist - you must admit to the latter view only. Accordingly, you take empirical instances as your starting point, and from there you attempt to draw universal rational laws on their basis. In general, Laws are what is used to show how things seem to work.

Theories show WHY things work that way. Think of Kepler's laws as opposed to Newton's theories.

Both were close enough for the evidence at that time. Neither has actually been shown wrong within those limits. They have not been replaced so much as they have been refined. Now Lamarck's ideas on evolution have been replaced because his model doesn't fit the facts at all.

Now I'll clarify on my previous hypothesis - instances of background radiation offers evidence for the existence of God That is a fantasy. What kind of evidence is this?

Well, quite the same as the 'scientific' evidence for the Big Bang Theory. I think it is more like saying 'look at the world. That is evidence for god'. Which to me is not too far off from saying dog is god backwards therefor Jehovah exists. Yes, its nonsense.

I therefore assert B, that, possibly, a divine existence was the cause of A, being the universe. Yet there was nothing of the divine there at all. You just added in to fit your needs. It doesn't follow from the evidence in any way. It is just another case of 'look at the world therefor my god exists'.

And this being gathered from instances of background radiation given by - empirical - evidence, therefore, I say, God. May well exist. Or you could say you exist, therefor your god may exist. Your belief clearly follows only from belief as that logic you use isn't really remotely related to actual logic.

It is indistinguishable from this slightly modified classic: God is love Love is blind Ray Charles is blind Therefor Ray Charles is God I've seen Ray Charles on TV a few times, so therefore God must exist. Oh, I promised the person that posted this years ago that I would give someone besides myself credit. 'I read that someone said.' Yes that IS what I promised.

No - I only assert this on the basis of empirical evidence and rational grounds. That is not rational. It is clearly rationalization based on your beliefs.

Is this just 'looking at things' as I please? You have the idea now. If you admit that, then you must admit the same of the entire scientific program. Make your choice. No, I don't have to agree with such faulty logic. Take a class if you have to.

The key idea is that you can't reach a valid conclusion from faulty premises. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009. Therefore the universe must have been created or come into being (since we don't know the answer) AT SOME TIME. So again the question - what's the cause????????????? What is the cause of your god? That is a unavoidable question if we are go along with your thinking.

Let me make it clear. If the Universe must have a cause then the cause must have a cause. There is one exception that I can think of and a god is not it.

As far as I can tell the principles of math would be valid even if there was no universe. Useless of course but still valid. Ethelred • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009. A leap of logic tells me that the next number in the ordered sequence should be 5. A is B, B is C, Therefore. A leap of logic tells me that it A is C Where do you presume the 'leap' is? Quite logically, by their own definitions, '5' follows '4'.

The other is quite logical as well. There is no 'leaping' involved in that logic. An essential cosmological argument for a primoridial cause goes the same way. No, it has nothing to do with your examples. EVIDENTIAL FACT: A universe exists in time which seems to have an origin at some point (e.g. 'Origin' of what, exactly? As far as I know, the Singularity WAS the Universe, in a different form.

If you want to argue the Universe 'as we know it' had an origin, than fine, but that doesn't address the issue, now does it? Now everyone, scientists, theologians, philosophers, with a mind, must consider the following question: What CAUSED the point? Assumes anything was 'caused' in the first place, which is an unwarranted assumption, in light of current knowledge. No one has the answer - YOU seem to say nothing, that's your LEAP of logic, I say maybe a First Cause. 'I don't know' isn't a leap of logic. It's intellectual honesty. Saying 'maybe a First Cause' is also honest, but you're going a few steps further.

Your position, however, actually represents an ILLOGICAL leap, for you fail to acknowledge the inherent problem here -- HOW CAN SOMETHING COME FROM NOTHING? How many quantum events do you know of that are caused? In fact, this IS the BIG joke of the big bang theory whenever anyone provides this for the CAUSE of the universe - and materialistic-atheistic scientists or scientist wannabes, generally unversed in philosophy - fail to see this basic error. I always thought the Big Bang was the sudden expansion of the Singularity, i.e.

The Universe in a highly condensed form, which logically means the Big Bang is NOT the 'cause' or 'origin' of the Universe (in whatever shape or form). So don't pin that position on me. And one final point, because I growing weary of schooling you - Spare me. If you'd like to suggest that the universe always was, then you simply face the old problem of Aristotle and the Scholastics - how do we get to this present moment from an infinite past?? Present moment But the infinite is infinitely far from the present - therefore the present could never be reached from an infinity Therefore the universe must have been created or come into being (since we don't know the answer) AT SOME TIME. I'm not arguing for an 'infinite past'.

That's another straw man you pulled out of your ass. So again the question - what's the cause?????????????

I don't know if there was one, but I do know one isn't required. • not rated yet Jul 05, 2009. You spoke of dishonest, well, its dishonest to be a narrow minded skeptic. By its nature, a skeptic must have the broadest of all possible minds.

Limiting oneself alone to what is empirically verifiable is akin to admitting only visible light because you can SEE it. What about x-rays, gamma rays, etc.? Well, we can measure those, right? But what about those that we have yet to measure or simply cannot measure? Shall we be 'honest' with ourselves and say 'I don't know', or perhaps stretch our minds more broadly into possibilities?

Now, the cosmological argument is really nothing like this, since its much more reasonably sound (note - not demonstrative, just sound), but it offers a good example of where skeptics such as yourself go wrong (and I know you don't like being told that!). The fact of the matter is that almost all major scientific breakthroughs were achieved by minds which looked beyond the barriers limiting what was known or even measurable. They made assumptions which, at the time, were often considered ludicrous, fanciful, even theological (e.g. The quantum assumption, Pauli and Schrodinger). The scientific method, the process of hypothesis, experimentation, discover, and theory --- is NOT materialism - but you seem to think they're one and the same.

Now, I could be wrong here - perhaps your not quite the skeptic that you make yourself out to be. Well in that case, I'd have to say that I'm much more a skeptic than yourself. I just DON'Tt enjoy following the status quo of the 21st century - 'Either materialism or nothing'. That's a trap and if science keeps it up, its going to find itself in another dark ages, which it seems to already be falling into. Science needs to reopen its mind - see possibilities where it only sees limits and barriers. That doesn't mean following crackpot ideas proposed by literalist creationists, but it does mean reconsidering the extent of our ideas, the scope of concepts, the possibilities of logic, and of course, where nature fits in with it all. As far as I can tell from your rather irascible attitude - you're just going to remain a narrow-minded skeptic because you think you're smarter than everyone else.

Well then, they do say that ignorance is bliss. Ealex Jul 05, 2009. Ethelred, You seem to have missed the point - I do not, nor cannot admit to the actual EXISTENCE of God or a first principle or what have you on the basis of evidence of background radiation. As you note, that would be illogical. But empirical evidence is distinct from the science which describes it itself. You rightly distinguish between a physical theory and its interpretation, yet you fail to recognize that although the first is much more direct than the other, both are actually indirect rationalized abstractions (or constructions if you prefer) on the basis of our intuitive and quite empirical experience of the world. To get to the point - the phenomenon of background radiation is a kind of empirical experience of our world (albeit measured).

From this experience we then rationalize about this world. Science has its own process of dealing with this datum.

Accordingly, it is argued that such phenomena is evidence for what is scientifically developed into a theory of the 'big bang', and fine, I'd agree with this to a certain point. Now when I suggest that this same empirical phenomena of background radiation (which gives evidence for the big bang) gives further 'evidence' of a first cause, there is nothing illogical in the statement at all. It is simply dealing with the evidence differently - using a different method. For example, if background radiation were such that it indicated that the universe always has been, or has subsisted as an eternal vacuum fluctuation (for which no evidence is given, however, certain scientists do use this argument), then I would say that their is NO empirical evidence for a first cause - the world is simply eternal, no first cause can be inferred. The scientific method is certainly much more direct in the manner in which it deals with the empirical evidence, that's why its science. Nonetheless, there are other ways of dealing with evidence - and these need not be illogical, nor simply positing existences like some deus ex macchina.

All of your examples are moot since you misunderstood the first point to begin with. • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009. You spoke of dishonest, well, its dishonest to be a narrow minded skeptic. By its nature, a skeptic must have the broadest of all possible minds. Limiting oneself alone to what is empirically verifiable is akin to admitting only visible light because you can SEE it.

What about x-rays, gamma rays, etc.? Well, we can measure those, right? You DO understand to some degree. But what about those that we have yet to measure or simply cannot measure? Shall we be 'honest' with ourselves and say 'I don't know', or perhaps stretch our minds more broadly into possibilities? Stretch all you want. A lot of people do a lot of 'stretching' and believe in things you do not believe in.

Oddly enough, people like you do not understand that the difference between them and a 'sceptic' is that the 'sceptic' doesn't have double standards in their appreciation of evidence, or lack of it, that substantiates rational belief. Now, the cosmological argument is really nothing like this, since its much more reasonably sound (note - not demonstrative, just sound), but it offers a good example of where skeptics such as yourself go wrong (and I know you don't like being told that!). I don't care. You don't substantiate anything you say. The fact of the matter is that almost all major scientific breakthroughs were achieved by minds which looked beyond the barriers limiting what was known or even measurable. They made assumptions which, at the time, were often considered ludicrous, fanciful, even theological (e.g.

The quantum assumption, Pauli and Schrodinger). Their assumptions are based on experimentally verified data made available by previous scientists.

There is ALWAYS objectivity supporting their subjective speculation, and that's why it's scientific. Scientific speculation isn't just 'looking beyond the barriers limiting what was known or even measurable'. It works on top of things that ARE known and measurable.

There is a logical sequence. 'God' doesn't follow logically from ANYTHING. The scientific method, the process of hypothesis, experimentation, discover, and theory --- is NOT materialism - but you seem to think they're one and the same. Now, I could be wrong here - perhaps your not quite the skeptic that you make yourself out to be. You're wrong. Well in that case, I'd have to say that I'm much more a skeptic than yourself. I just DON'Tt enjoy following the status quo of the 21st century - 'Either materialism or nothing'.

That's a trap and if science keeps it up, its going to find itself in another dark ages, which it seems to already be falling into. Science needs to reopen its mind - see possibilities where it only sees limits and barriers.

That doesn't mean following crackpot ideas proposed by literalist creationists, but it does mean reconsidering the extent of our ideas, the scope of concepts, the possibilities of logic, and of course, where nature fits in with it all. As far as I can tell from your rather irascible attitude - you're just going to remain a narrow-minded skeptic because you think you're smarter than everyone else.

Not necessarily 'smarter'. But I'm definitely not as gullible as you, nor as prone to attacking straw men. Well then, they do say that ignorance is bliss. That's why you should stay away from these websites. If I needed a delusion to provide me with comfort and 'happiness' (intellectual integrity makes ME happy) I wouldn't want to lose it either.

• 1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009. Paragraph one noise without actual semantic content. Paragraph two ditto. To get to the point Learn to drop the part before that.

I occasionally erase MANY paragraphs before posting. The phenomenon of background radiation is a kind of empirical experience of our world (albeit measured). Never mind paragraph three also has no actual content. Accordingly, it is argued that such phenomena is evidence for what is scientifically developed into a theory of the 'big bang', and fine, I'd agree with this to a certain point. Four paragraphs to say you agree to admit to reality.

Now when I suggest that this same empirical phenomena of background radiation (which gives evidence for the big bang) gives further 'evidence' of a first cause, there is nothing illogical in the statement at all. Nor anything logical either. Background radiation gives evidence for a Big Bang or something akin to it. Anything else is philosophy. I have no problem with philosophy except when someone is pretending that it somehow is reality. It is simply dealing with the evidence differently - using a different method. It is pushing a religious agenda as opposed to dealing with how the Universe may actually work.

For example, if background radiation were such that it indicated that the universe always has been, If so the sky would not be black. Hen I would say that their is NO empirical evidence for a first cause - the world is simply eternal, no first cause can be inferred. The catch is you are NOT talking about a first cause. You and I both know that you are coming from a religious and not a scientific point of view. As such you are using evidence to support your beliefs rather than to understand reality. Nonetheless, there are other ways of dealing with evidence - and these need not be illogical, nor simply positing existences like some deus ex macchina.

If you aren't using scientific methods it is unlikely in the extreme that actual logic is involved. As for Deus Ex Machina that is exactly what you seem to striving for.

All of your examples are moot since you misunderstood the first point to begin with. Avoid actual reasoned discourse as it never gets believers to their goal.

Teach the controversy and never never ever actually provide support or evidence for your own position. Not a surprising tactic since there isn't any evidence. So you wrote all that meaningless content just to evade.

What a surprise that the noise was to cover the lack of content. Again your first cause needs a first cause.

Math doesn't. YOU are the one that didn't get the point. Or perhaps you did and that was the real reason for all the static masquerading as a reply. Ethelred • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009.

But then again some people just likes ta argue. Perhaps all the dumping above is not just evidence of chemical imbalance but also the need of people to draw conclusions- to decide and move on. Both scientists and religionists do this and then waste lives and careers refuting evidence. Was there something before the big bang?

Maybe not let's look. Does inflation really make sense? Don't really know yet. It's the need to assert authority I guess.

Teachers and priests especially are compelled to say 'because it is written.' As to genesis, even Jesus hisself said you can't just tell people things, they'll only want to argue. You've got to wrap the truth up in a parable. The bible is [very] soft science- sociopolitics. • not rated yet Jul 05, 2009. Get real pythagoras, and take a class beyond freshman (high school?) logic You aren't interested in reality and we both know it. You aren't going to engage in real dialog because you know can't.

I have been discussing the sort of stuff for a decade online and studying it for over 45 years. You aren't likely to give a real response but here is the question again just to make it clear to everyone besides the two of us that you don't want to answer it. If the Universe needs a first cause then your not really a first cause needs a real first cause. So what is the cause of your god? If you can't answer that how about this one?

You are the only one here that insists on the using the phrase 'empirical evidence' when everyone else just says evidence. Keep in mind that I am pretty sure that I know the reason already. Your style is familiar. If you aren't the same person you learned the same techniques. People using these techniques never actually engage in real discussions.

How about you surprise me and stop the evasions? You have plenty of time for a well reasoned reply as I as I will be shutting down soon.

So try actually thinking before you respond. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009. And really Ethel- ad hominim? You know better than that- Bull. He is trying to evade. I didn't call him anything.

I am pointing out that he is just evading. I will continue to do so until he stops the evasions. I expect him to disappear rather than stop evading but I would like to be surprised. Its not like I haven't seen this behavior before.

I am wondering if the similarity is coincidence or if we have tangled before. I have used the same handle online since 2000 starting on the Maximum PC Commport forum. Ethelred • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009.

This is interesting. Seasoned interlocutors who yet resort to insults and diatribes. You know nothing of me, nor my argumentation, though you imagine you might.

In spite of what the bible says, there are new things under the sun. Your problem, and it seems to me that the problem with the rest of you here is that your just used to the same old arguments, going back and forth on the same old ideas. At this forum, as I can see -- there is nothing new under the sun, and nothing new is desired.

First of all, whether I believe in God or not has never been stated once by me, whether in argument or anywhere else on this forum. Second, empirical means visible before the senses, an impression of the world AS IT IS, the dawning of reality, experience.

Third, evidence is what lies both directly as well as within the periphery (as measured) of the empirical. Fifth, on the basis of the empirical every science finds its foundation. Sixth, human reason has the capacity to move beyond empirical experience. In doing so, it becomes capable of formulating a science.

Seventh, in itself scientific knowledge is universal. The law of gravitation) Eigth, universal knowledge is not empirical - it only has foundations within the empirical - it is rational, abstract, conceptual. Ninth, on the basis of the universal, using logic as its guide, the human mind may speculate upon the nature of things which have yet to enter within the purview or periphery of human empirical experience.

Tenth, the concept of a multiverse or vacuum fluctuation is an example of number 9, and so too the theory of a first cause. Each responds to essential questions about the universe --- arising on the basis of our basic and very real, experience of the world. Now - I recognize that none of you will be persuaded by anything that I've written here - you'll probably just toss in more of your bullshit antics, but the fact of the matter is that none of you, not a single one, has produced a single idea - you just excel at the use and abuse of the ideas of others.. • 1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2009.

It is interesting that evolutionists never try to argue their case based on facts but rather simply attack creationists and make the claim that anyone who believes in God is obviously insane or mentally challenged. Which takes more faith to believe, that God created the Universe and life as we know it, or that a giant explosion produced a molten planet that then cooled, all of the right elements happened to come together to spontaneously create a single celled life form, and that life form then proceeded to continuously change to eventually create all of the diverse life that exists on our planet today? As much as evolutionists say that creationists are blind to the truth because their claims cannot be substanciated, evolutionists try to pass off their theories as facts. The day that evolutionists admit that they are argueing to defend their theories and not scientific fact then a real debate can begin.

Until that time comes evolutionists will only be doing what their assumed ancestors(the monkey) would do.throw shit at the things that they fear. • not rated yet Jul 05, 2009. This is interesting. Seasoned interlocutors who yet resort to insults and diatribes. Don't be a hypocrite, you've been no less abrasive. You know nothing of me, nor my argumentation, though you imagine you might. In spite of what the bible says, there are new things under the sun.

Your problem, and it seems to me that the problem with the rest of you here is that your just used to the same old arguments, going back and forth on the same old ideas. Yours ARE the same old arguments. You've said nothing new here. It's the same old dancing and word juggling. First of all, whether I believe in God or not has never been stated once by me, whether in argument or anywhere else on this forum.

It's quite logically inferred from 'CREATED Universe'. Third, evidence is what lies both directly as well as within the periphery (as measured) of the empirical. Because you say so? I'm not at all surprised to have you presume to define 'evidence' in such a personal and whimsical manner, because I suppose you also get to define what falls inside the 'periphery' and what doesn't. That is NOT objective evidence (the only kind there is that is relevant to more than one individual), and no one else is bound to your whimsical understanding of the word.

Fifth, on the basis of the empirical every science finds its foundation. Sixth, human reason has the capacity to move beyond empirical experience. In doing so, it becomes capable of formulating a science.

Seventh, in itself scientific knowledge is universal. The law of gravitation) Eigth, universal knowledge is not empirical - it only has foundations within the empirical - it is rational, abstract, conceptual. Ninth, on the basis of the universal, using logic as its guide, the human mind may speculate upon the nature of things which have yet to enter within the purview or periphery of human empirical experience. Tenth, the concept of a multiverse or vacuum fluctuation is an example of number 9, and so too the theory of a first cause. Each responds to essential questions about the universe --- arising on the basis of our basic and very real, experience of the world. Now - I recognize that none of you will be persuaded by anything that I've written here - you'll probably just toss in more of your bullshit antics, but the fact of the matter is that none of you, not a single one, has produced a single idea - you just excel at the use and abuse of the ideas of others. Personally, I excel at sniffing out bullshit.

And yours is quite odorous. You haven't presented a single piece of objective evidence to support your claims. • 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009. Don't be a hypocrite, you've been no less abrasive You want abrasive - fine, let's play hardball. Time to give you a piece of your own medicine. I've answered your questions - you just don't like what you read so you carry on like a baby, whining about everyone else, saying nothing of your own, and when you do actually have something to REPEAT or QUOTE - not offering a single iota of sense or argument to back-up other people's claims.

Tell me genius, what's experience? What's evidence? Likely you'll balk at answering or find some wiki quote or text book answer from a better man. Your like a school girl with a big mouth, a bitch in heat, a mosquito sucking blood for nourishment leaving a disease in its wake, a 250 lb bugbear, worn out, crippled by life, waiting for scraps at forums, hiding behind your c o m p u t e r screen, moving round the mouse, writing this, erasing that, scurrying into www-holes and toilet bowls. So is this what you consider accomplishing your goals? Is this what you mean by sniffing out bullshit?

Smearing the stink of your own intellectual impoverishment, covered perhaps by a physics degree, maybe a professorial seat and a book or two with your name in the roster - effecting nothing more than a fleas nest to bother dogs. And believe me, I'm not bothered - this is all game to me. But tell me - are you having fun any longer?

So go ahead, get your fill of 'Bewundrung von Kindern und Affen'. This is your moment of glory, soak it in minute man - cause its all your ever gonna get. And by the way. Are quantum events CAUSED or UNCAUSED?

Answer that yourself - @#$hole. • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009. AdseculaScientiae you prove my point. You post no facts, yet as I predicted, you are fully capable of throwing 'poop'. Lucky for you there is no requirement for intelligent debate on this site.

Your selected name (AdseculaScientiae) accurately reflects your status as a follower of science, not a leader or one who can think on their own. Listening to someone else's theory and then accepting it as stated is an indication of an inability to think for one's self. The fact that neither believers in God nor believers in evolution are able to produce scientifically acceptable evidence to prove they are correct should not result in outright rejection of either theory. To reject a theory solely because you do not subscribe to that theory does not prove you are correct.

It does prove that you are narrow minded. If you are capable of flinging more than shit, then why not make a legitimate arguement, based on facts and not unproven theories or the rantings of an immature mind? • 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009. You want abrasive - fine, let's play hardball. Time to give you a piece of your own medicine.

Oooh, what a rush! I've answered your questions - you just don't like what you read so you carry on like a baby, whining about everyone else, saying nothing of your own, and when you do actually have something to REPEAT or QUOTE - not offering a single iota of sense or argument to back-up other people's claims.

Tell me genius, what's experience? What's evidence? Likely you'll balk at answering or find some wiki quote or text book answer from a better man. Your like a school girl with a big mouth, a bitch in heat, a mosquito sucking blood for nourishment leaving a disease in its wake, a 250 lb bugbear, worn out, crippled by life, waiting for scraps at forums, hiding behind your c o m p u t e r screen, moving round the mouse, writing this, erasing that, scurrying into www-holes and toilet bowls. So is this what you consider accomplishing your goals? Is this what you mean by sniffing out bullshit? Smearing the stink of your own intellectual impoverishment, covered perhaps by a physics degree, maybe a professorial seat and a book or two with your name in the roster - effecting nothing more than a fleas nest to bother dogs.

And believe me, I'm not bothered - this is all game to me. But tell me - are you having fun any longer? So go ahead, get your fill of 'Bewundrung von Kindern und Affen'.

This is your moment of glory, soak it in minute man - cause its all your ever gonna get. I'm strangely unaffected. And by the way. Are quantum events CAUSED or UNCAUSED?

Answer that yourself - @#$hole. Whining over? Alright, now enumerate some objective evidence supporting rational belief in a 'created Universe'. Still waiting.

• 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009. I don't think I said I believed it was or was not caused. Notice the question was 'what rational justification is there to assume the Universe is caused'? I didn't say you believed in it, but apparently the shoe fits, in which case I'm giving you a chance to present something objective that might convince me.

You can assume I don't care about evidence contrary to my mindset, but I can assure you that it wouldn't classify as 'evidence' to begin with. I'm bound to factor in objective evidence in my perspective of reality. At least in my case, it's not a matter of choice. • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009. You two seem to just want to play games, but I'm actually being serious.

And I'll repeat myself. I cannot help but to factor in objective evidence into my perspective of reality. Someone else's experience and unwarranted assumptions works great for THEM and eventually leads them to finding objective evidence that others can benefit from. Until they do, what they say has as much credibility as their own reputation for doing just that, bringing up objective evidence from their speculations. Unless you presume to have that kind of reputations, your speculations don't mean anything to me. • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009.

Don't think so acarrilho - you're creating your own comedy - reading into words too quickly without attempting to understand the meaning of the author. For example, you referred to point two of my earlier argument as follows: Because you say so? I'm not at all surprised to have you presume to define 'evidence' in such a personal and whimsical manner. Now there's nothing whimsical about defining 'evidence' in terms of empirical experience. The problem here is the word 'experience', by which I certainly don't mean to include, e.g., inner spiritual experiences, visions, encounters, or whatever, but plain and simple EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE, meaning experience by the senses, pure sense-perception. Every level-headed scientist agrees and affirms this. So, this is a problem regarding terminology and also making assumptions, which you seem to do left and right, not just of my own but of everyone elses arguments.

• 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009. Don't think so acarrilho - you're creating your own comedy - reading into words too quickly without attempting to understand the meaning of the author.

'Reading into words too quickly' is generally what I think I'm a victim of. But it's good that you bring up an example. For example, you referred to point two of my earlier argument as follows: 'Because you say so?

I'm not at all surprised to have you presume to define 'evidence' in such a personal and whimsical manner.' Now there's nothing whimsical about defining 'evidence' in terms of empirical experience. The problem here is the word 'experience', by which I certainly don't mean to include, e.g., inner spiritual experiences, visions, encounters, or whatever, but plain and simple EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE, meaning experience by the senses, pure sense-perception. Every level-headed scientist agrees and affirms this. No, they don't.

It's not the 'experience' that stands as evidence. It's what is experienced. Very big difference, and assuming differently IS whimsical. Something that can be experienced empirically can stand as evidence of something.

Semi-empirical is also up for debate, but any 'God' or 'Creation' theory doesn't even qualify as that. So, this is a problem regarding terminology and also making assumptions, which you seem to do left and right, not just of my own but of everyone elses arguments. Anything I assume unwarrantedly stands there to be corrected. • not rated yet Jul 05, 2009. Come the revolution all those religious nuts will get lined up against the wall. First the politicians then the lawyers then the religious peoples of the world oh and other thieves too like actual bandits, corporate managers - there must be other categories nearly as bad. I know - you think there will be no one left?

Well don't worry about it, I think there will still be plenty when the dust settles we may have to look for some others. Like those people with an unnatural affiliation with dogs and cats. Yep when the above have gone I think we can take out all those crazy animal loving loonies, better than cleaning up after them. • not rated yet Jul 06, 2009. But I think the bible describes how to herd and husband the human race brilliantly which is essential to providing the stability and progress needed for innovation [but don't tell the zealots] as sheepl? Nevertheless it gives you and I comfort.

And there is no 'phenomena is' or 'agenda is'. There were/are no infinities or points. The univers is finite in time and room and work, forever. It may look so neat or few%u2014notwithstanding BinaryArtist's ignoranse/nesciense%u2014but clear (dark) matter drove former's order with its messy ash. If he wants facts, why doesn't he read talk.origins or the sites about evolution? He's afraid of them, how every faith's creation story has been debunked.

He doesn't even know all theories are proven already; otherwise, they'd be hýpotheses. BinaryArtist, why do fossils make a neat and smooth cladoghenetic timeline of tacsa rather than randomly or a burst of fossils which look lik God-poofing? Any jumps in the timeline are linked with natural environmental disasters. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009. This is interesting. Seasoned interlocutors who yet resort to insults and diatribes.

Interesting, more evasion. By someone that is insulting people. You know nothing of me, nor my argumentation, Really. Then I guess you haven't actually argued here. No wait you haven't, you have pontificated and then evaded.

I recognize the style even if you are yet another person than the previous evaders. In spite of what the bible says, there are new things under the sun. Well when you do something I haven't seen before I will let you know. And I really don't consider the Bible to a fount of wisdom so quoting it won't impress me. Paragraph 3 evasion by claiming others are going on old ideas. Interesting coming from someone that is getting his ideas from a 2,000 year old book. There is nothing new under the sun, and nothing new is desired.

] Sure there is. I am still waiting for you to say something new. So far you are pretty much boring since you truly have not said anything new. First of all, whether I believe in God or not has never been stated once by me, whether in argument or anywhere else on this forum.

It is a standard evasion. It is clear by your behavior. And your quoting the Bible as if it would have a standing in this discussion since there is no reason to think it is any more than the word of man with no education in science nor any special understanding of how the world came to be the way it is. Of course I could be wrong.

All you have to do is say what your beliefs are. I am Agnostic. Said before on this site but I just want to make it clear for you if you hadn't already figured it out.

Second, empirical means visible before the senses, an impression of the world AS IT IS, the dawning of reality, experience. Which is understood by all. The only reason to keep saying 'empirical' is if you think you have another source of evidence.

Sixth, human reason has the capacity to move beyond empirical experience. In doing so, it becomes capable of formulating a science. That is merely another way to say that evidence is what we base theories on and evidence is used to support or overturn new theories. Seventh, in itself scientific knowledge is universal.

The law of gravitation) Actually that is an assumption. We make that assumption because we wouldn't get very far if we assumed that universe worked differently elsewhere. However if we find evidence that other places and times had different rules than we would have to consider that assumption to only hold in special circumstances. Eigth, universal knowledge is not empirical - it only has foundations within the empirical - it is rational, abstract, conceptual. Another sign of religious thinking.

Special definitions that are not the same as used in science. He human mind may speculate upon the nature of things which have yet to enter within the purview or periphery of human empirical experience. That is not science. That is philosophy. Tenth, the concept of a multiverse or vacuum fluctuation is an example of number 9, Incorrect. The multiverse is philosophy and I do not deny it.

Vacuum fluctuations fit actual observations., and so too the theory of a first cause. Speculation and not a theory. The multiverse is an idea and not a theory. Although Wheeler has shown it to be mathematically valid and that it fits the Universe we live in. He did not show that it is only idea that fits.

The Copenhagen Model also fits and I suspect my other method of dealing with Uncertainty also fits but I haven't the math to check. I don't even think there is a way to figure which of those, if any, is true. Each responds to essential questions about the universe --- arising on the basis of our basic and very real, experience of the world. Only vacuum fluctuations fit that. The other two do not.

They are responses to questions we cannot answer based on actual evidence. Wheeler's idea of the multiverse is a response to the questions of probability in QM. You idea is based on religion. - you'll probably just toss in more of your bullshit antics, No antics just reason. You are the one that has been evading. Still doing it as well.

I have made my position clear. You deny that we can even suspect what your is despite the evidence of your behavior. But the fact of the matter is that none of you, not a single one, has produced a single idea - Now that is plain false. If the Universe must have a cause then the cause must have a cause. There is one exception that I can think of and a god is not it.

As far as I can tell the principles of math would be valid even if there was no universe. Useless of course but still valid.

I sincerely doubt you have seen that before. If you did then either we HAVE talked on the net before or you got it from someone that got it from me.

And I don't think I have convinced many of this since it seems to take years to become comfortable with the ideas. Ethelred • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009. Acarrilho (Ethelred - see below) It's not the 'experience' that stands as evidence. It's what is experienced. I fully concord with and appreciate your distinction, and admit that I hadn't seen this very important point before. If you don't mind, I'll make use of it in future discussions, since it does seem an excellent way to distinguish professed inner 'mystical' experiences, from what is termed scientific and empirical, at any rate what science accounts for its own evidence.

Indeed, it is the content of experience which determines what is and what is not evidence, not the content of my experience of this experience. Only one further point - I do not admit that evidence for God enters into the content of what may be accounted for as scientific evidence. My only contention was that from the scientific evidence, one may consistently reason to a first principle; and perhaps stating that there is 'evidence' for this is going to far - nonetheless, consistent reasoning is here valid, which doesn't hold for say 'unicorns' or some other fabrication - its rather a logical ascent from plurality to unity.

Ethelred - I appreciate your fully considering the above views and your critique. First of all, rather than evading as I may have done, I'll freely admit that regarding God, I am at this present point uncertain, so you might say I'm agnostic. I have inclinations toward belief, which is evident in my argumentation, but regarding the issue itself, I'm undecided, and my interest - as a philosopher (which you rightly discern) and as a philosopher of science - is to discern the truth in matters. If compelling reasoning and/or experience reveals the irrationality or nonexistence of God, then I will concede to a more athiestic view - though I strongly disagree with materialism.

There are many more intelligent views out there than materialism which have no god at source. Still at this point, I see no contradiction in adhering to a kind of 'creationism' (which in fact goes as far back as Plato and pre-christianity), though the views espoused by those having constructed the above 'creationist museum' ridicularize the entire program itself - which is sad for indeed one can think of a 'first principle' outside of the criterion of religion, which may very well have existence - in which case this principle would be more akin to a 'source' than a godhead, a kind of will-in-nature in a more Schopenhauerian sense. Again - the scientific evidence offers neither contradiction nor affirmation of such a view - and my interest is attempting to discuss what seems to me a CONSISTENT line of argumentation from the ground of empirical experience to the 'first principle'.

Now - this proves nothing, I freely admit that. It is a 'philosophical' idea akin to the concept of a multiverse (regarding vacuum fluctuations, I do not means those on the quantum scale, but views which attempt to remove the difficulty of accounting for the singularity of the big bang by asserting that the universe is simply an infinite series of vacuum expansions and contractions to singularity - which seems to me, as with the multiverse theory, to just beg the question).

Now, I did read your description previously of mathematics - and in philosophy, I have to admit that it is a rather old view, originally espoused by Pythagoras (all is number), and later described by Plato in terms of the Platonic heaven, wherein mathematics were considered 'eternal ideas' or just intermediaries between the first principle and the world (this debate rages on as to which view is correct). That does not mean that your own views are not novel (ok, I was word-spinning for a while), for indeed in modern times with modern ideas, the account of such entities would be radically different, and perhaps a book would truly be worth the effort here and necessary. At any rate, there - no evasion - but, I don't see your criticisms as having refuted my line of argumentation. Perhaps you've brought up difficulties, but it seems to me that the argumentation remains crystal clear. • not rated yet Jul 06, 2009. Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power. The truth is that there is a global moviment to de-christianise the world.

So everything that implies the existence of a God or a Savior is marked as dumb, silly, ignorant and is not heard or considered. The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's 'crap', so its better to believe in anything else. Some belive in fairy tales, others in infinite gods or godesses, I, as a super clever cientist, need a intricate and smart collection of beliefs to substitute that old god idea. I think evolution will suit;) • not rated yet Jul 06, 2009. All I want to know, is who created the Creator.

After all, the Creator -- who is even more complex and infinite than the universe -- can't have just always been there. The universe can't just have, according to the believers -- so the Creator can have even less. One other thing: any adherent to any particular religion automatically claims that the majority of humans are wrong (because the majority of humans believes something else.) So how is this any less arrogant than saying that I don't believe in ANY religion, because they are all EQUALLY wrong? In my opinion, the latter is a much more egalitarian and fair-minded point of view.:-P • 2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2009. Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power. One doesn't need faith to 'believe' in the Big Bang because there is objective evidence that corroborates the theory. Do you know what 'objective' means?

It means it's independent of your perspective and biases. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not. The evidence stands for all to acknowledge or refuse. No one says there isn't a measure of trust involved. But one simply has to look around to be reassured the scientific community filters itself.

'Superior Power' has no objective evidence corroborating it. I believe that's known as a 'no-brainer'. The truth is that there is a global moviment to de-christianise the world. We should help the addicted drop their habits. Unfortunately, some addictions are tougher than others. So everything that implies the existence of a God or a Savior is marked as dumb, silly, ignorant and is not heard or considered.

It's been heard ad nauseam, considered ad nauseam, and rejected ad nauseam. The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's 'crap', so its better to believe in anything else. Such hypocrisy. You already cherry-picked all the Christianity's 'dont's' according to your own personal 'version' of Christianity, which probably matches the prejudices of your community, haven't you? I could be a Christian like that, retrofitting the religion to my taste.

Some belive in fairy tales, others in infinite gods or godesses, I, as a super clever cientist, need a intricate and smart collection of beliefs to substitute that old god idea. I think evolution will suit;) 'Scientist'. • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009. The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's 'crap', so its better to believe in anything else. And why aren't you a Muslim, than? Far more 'do's' and 'dont's' for you to follow and prove your point.

Maybe you don't 'believe' in the Koran's divinity so you don't have to follow all their 'do's' and 'dont's', which are probably not to your 'taste'. Now tell me you're not a hypocryte. • 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2009. I dont know, hardcore Xians like most believers follow the First Mitzva, 'Be fruitful and multiply, fill up the earth [faster than the other side can.] Even your mission-specific religions like Mormon [populate the frontier, mine borax] or Sikh [guard the passes, fight the mongols] were designed around this.

The family enables this. Look at Islamic fundamentalism- everybody looks the same, women all covered up- no comparison shopping, no trading up- women make and raise children and thats it.

This is all fundamentalism IS- everything else is just talk and throwing rocks. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009. 'Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power.' Actually if you are referring to the big bang, no, it wasn't a gas explosion, it was an explosion of space-time. Although I am not a cosmologist, I apply the scientific method in my reasoning. I don't speculate on what caused the big bang because there simply isn't enough information. 'I don't know' is sufficient for me.

Further, from what I understand, even cosmologists don't theorize on what happened before the big bang since they don't have enough information. These scientists produce theories based off of mathematics and observable data.

They produce these theories to help explain the universe and discard them (reluctantly sometimes) when they are disproven. You on the other hand just want to believe something that is entirely untestable and that is where I draw my objections from.

You are free to have your opinions about your religion and I am free to have my own opinions (somewhere along the lines of better left on the shelf with the belief in Zeus and Oden). • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2009. First of all, rather than evading as I may have done, I'll freely admit that regarding God, I am at this present point uncertain, so you might say I'm agnostic. You were writing in manner that was indistinguishable from a fairly standard religious point of view. Generally I don't think of Agnostics as being ambivalent in religion. Just unwilling to say that there is categorically no god. Not all agree with me on this but, to me, many Atheists insist that there is no god rather then there that there probably is no god.

You could say I was a soft Atheist but I find the term Agnostic more fitting. I keep seeing people claiming to be ex Atheists. Ex-Agnostics are hard to find except as Atheists. If compelling reasoning and/or experience reveals the irrationality or nonexistence of God, then I will concede to a more athiestic view - though I strongly disagree with materialism.

I go for realism, if you want to call it materialism I will have to ask you to step outside. 'Materialism' has the feel of a Madonna video. One I actually like. Again - the scientific evidence offers neither contradiction nor affirmation of such a view Nor can it. Its too vague to be tested. The use of 'empirical', which seems redundant to me, implies, as I said before, that there is another kind of evidence. The most likely thing to be claimed as evidence in a discussion that involves religion is revealed truths.

Which aren't always truths and have yet to be shown as revealed, as in from a divine source. In at least one religion the revealed truths may have come from a psychiatric patient. But the Urantians refuse to reveal who the revealed truths came from. I have only run across one Urantian so far. No one has admitted to being a Scientologist in any discussion that I have been involved in.

Not even in those rare cases that I troll for one. And now for that Scientologist troll. Scientology has only one religious belief, L. Ron Hubbard shalt not pay taxes. So far not one bite. I am so disappointed. Perhaps you've brought up difficulties, but it seems to me that the argumentation remains crystal clear.

I think it may be clear in your mind. Its your writing that is unclear for me.

Carefully considered words and, more to the point, testing them in public can help refine what you write. Then again I have tried to refine some funny stuff and then wished I had kept the original since it didn't seem to work as well when looked at later. My humor works best when I short on sleep. Even when I look at it later. Most of the time. Several times what was supposed to be funny turned out to be incomprehensible the next day.

No drugs involved except fatigue. Then again maybe it was supposed to be a brilliant argument. It was that hard to tell. Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 07, 2009. Religion is fine, if you want to believe it, that's your business. However, when it pretends to be science that's another matter.

When it pretends to explain it's dangerous - it's like an alcoholic on meth. Still, science doesn't have answers for everything and it generates as many questions and problems, if not more, than it resolves. But that's fine, one can still take a critical approach to its findings. If religion wants to play science it has to be subject to the same caveats of refined criticism. The Bible is steeped in myth, not all of it Judaic. All peoples have their myths of origin, but we would be wise not to mix them up in our science because we would simply be leading ourselves astray, like people who are searching for Noah's ark in modern Turkey.

Nevertheless, science's idea how everything began is equally conjectural, one would be astounded if anyone came up with hard facts. When the chips are down on the table, a good scientist could declare the first moments of life went unrecorded, but that's just a sophisticated way of saying, 'We don't really know!' So, for anyone to get heated over the impasse between religion and science is a BIG laugh. Come on, people, who do we think we're kidding? • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2009. Did anyone else get a 419 personal message recently? Hello My Dear, My message may come to you as a suprise since is someone you have not meet before i am contacting you in this regard.

My name is Cecy Williams From ivoiry coast,i saw your profile and i decided to write to you concerning $16.500 Million U.S.A Dollars my late father deposited in a bank, here in Abidjan Cote D'ivoire. I will give you all details and informations about this when i receive your reply. Email: misscecywilliams@hotmail.fr Thanks you Cecy Williams. I have replied in a PM. Going to see if I can string it out but I suspect that the alleged Cecy will only reply in email. The only clever thing was that it doesn't claim to be from Nigeria.

I think the spammer is under the impression that Ethelred is woman's name. So it might the only apparent women will receive this 419 spam. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009. IMO it takes more faith ( in science ) to not be religous. It only takes a preference for reality. No faith is needed. To be quite honest, it isn't hard to see your Creators finger prints in nature.

Ignorance is ignoring them because of a grand theory that you're own eyes will never behold. I am not ignoring nature.

I am going on nature. I see no need in nature for a creator. In fact in nature we see evidence that a number of religions are wrong. All religions that think the world is young are wrong. All religions that insist that evolution doesn't exist are wrong. Now if you happen to know of a clear finger print of a creator how about you post it in this discussion. Then we can discuss its clarity or more likely what you are missing.

I have seen a number things claimed as evidence of a creator. I haven't see a single claim hold up under scrutiny. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009.

Yes,you need more faith to believe that a gas explosion create the universe than a Superior Power. I don't think that is quite accurate.

The faith required would be equal since there is no evidence for either. Now the Big Bang has actual evidence. He truth is that there is a global moviment to de-christianise the world.

I have news for you. There are 6 billion humans and the majority are not Christians despite the very long movement to Christianize the world. So everything that implies the existence of a God or a Savior is marked as dumb, I don't see anything the implies a god besides believers. However many believers are not dumb or even ignorant. Now the Creationists are ignorant in almost every case, keep in mind, ignorance is curable. A few actually know that their faith goes against the evidence.

Some even worked on that silly museum. The real issue is if it is possible to God to exist, then maybe the bible would be right, and then I cannot live my life anyway I want, I would need to comply to all do's and dont's 'crap', so its better to believe in anything else. Now that is a load of crap.

Look at the US prison population. Very few non-believers. Much less than in the general population. However Christians make up 80 per cent of the inmates.

Lots of moslems as well. So based on actual measurable morals the Agnostics and Atheists are far more moral than the Christians. Some belive in fairy tales, others in infinite gods or godesses, I, as a super clever cientist, need a intricate and smart collection of beliefs to substitute that old god idea. I think evolution will suit;) That is sad. Are you really that incompetent that you can't argue your side without resorting to straw men?

So far you only seem to be able to do that. Not just on this thread either. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009. Except that, the bible is wisdom itself Yeah that must be why it has light and morning and evenings and growing grass, And no Sun. That is so wise. T describes nothing less than how to save the human race from itself.

Actually it describes how to appease a non-existent god that is alleged in the Bible to have slaughtered all life on Earth except the contents of Noah's Big Ass Boat. Fortunately for many believers that don't go in for Genesis the Flood is only a tale told by ignorant men since it never happened. 'For God so loved the WORLD.' That he killed nearly everything in it. What is more profound than that?? The Entity that is alleged to have killed so many is just a fantasy.

That is profound. You can't have real promises from non-existent beings. Since the Jehovah you think you are quoting is supposed to be the same god as the Jehovah in Genesis we can be sure it does not exist since Genesis is just plain wrong about the world. Couldn't even get even manage to have a Sun for the light for three days. What could be sillier than that? All right the Fish Slapping Dance in Monty Python is sillier. I will give you that.

Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 07, 2009. Ethelred sir thanks for acknowledgement.

The flood story is a metaphor for something far more salient. In the original sumerian, the enuma elish, god decided to empty the world because the din of humanity became too loud- in other words, it became too overcrowded. Zeus created the Illyrian war to accomplish the same thing. I see the this story as a description of the inevitable flood of humanity upon the earth, and the ark as the preserver of knowledge, a priesthood of enochians dedicated to preserving it through this flood. To Xians, their religion offers an escape from reason, which most people have little capacity for. That's why you can't use logic against them, or point out for instance that archeology has pretty much proved Solomon, Moses, and Joshua didn't exist.

Better to make fun of them- • not rated yet Jul 07, 2009. So in case anyone cares, I actually have a decent logical argument against the notion of Creator. That is, the notion of Ultimate Creator of Everything: a Creator that exists before ANYTHING else, and from whom/which EVERYTHING else springs forth. And the argument is actually quite simple, relying on basic concepts like information and computation: An intelligent creator must have structure. After all, intelligence implies, at a minimum: long-term memory (as a repository of facts/knowledge), working memory (as contextual record of 'what I'm up to right now'), computational capacity (to string along concepts and thoughts), means for obtaining information (particularly if one is omniscient!) -- that is sensorium, and means for effecting change upon whatever is the surrounding environment -- motorium. All such faculties require an underlying structure that can encode state and support state transitions (interactions), and this underlying structure (e.g.

In case of humans, at a minimum: space/time, and atomic matter) is more fundamental than the intelligent entity constructed and operating on top of it. Thus, before any Creator can exist, the fundamental substrate of the Creator's existence must exist first. Ergo, any such putative Creator cannot be and is not the fundamental and primary cause and source of everything; even if it existed, it would merely be a consequence or side-effect of something even more primary and fundamental: something which I would call the Universe in its totality. • 1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009. I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator. That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith.

I too see that the world is incredibly old yet to say that the incredibly efficient natural world around us is nothing more than lucky happenstance over geologic ages is no less fantastic than the belief in a divine being. Furthermore, I would offer that the only way belief seems 'crazy' in reference to our beginings is if you are predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, which certainly no one here knows for beyond a doubt. Perhaps it is just as much that the learned don't *want* to believe in God as much as any evidence or reasoning. But in reference to the emotions running so high about it; that some marvel at the animosity the 'religious' of the world have for the learned astounds me.

The arguements are as much character attacks against the 'stupid hoi polloi' and their quaint ways as anything reasonable, perhaps more so. The irritating arrogance of the attacks of the intelligentsia, as if that were a group who could agree on anything, on people of faith conveys to me a disdain for any notion that might mean they are not better or smarter than other people and that they maybe, just maybe, might be be responsible for their actions and thoughts to more than their own excusatory selves.

Anyone who would claim the moral high ground over people of faith, his or her neighbors, family, and friends, yet disdains, mocks, and speaks with unconcealed contempt about them presents a very thin case for their own superiority. • 1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009. I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator. That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith. I too see that the world is incredibly old yet to say that the incredibly efficient natural world around us is nothing more than lucky happenstance over geologic ages is no less fantastic than the belief in a divine being.

Furthermore, I would offer that the only way belief seems 'crazy' in reference to our beginings is if you are predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, which certainly no one here knows beyond a doubt. Perhaps it is just as much that the learned don't want to believe in God as much as any evidence or reasoning. But in reference to the emotions running so high about it; that some marvel at the animosity the 'religious' of the world have for the learned astounds me. The arguements are as much character attacks against the 'stupid hoi polloi' and their%u201Cquaint ways%u201D as anything reasonable, perhaps more so. The irritating arrogance of the attacks of the intelligentsia, as if that were a group who could agree on anything, on people of faith conveys to me a disdain for any notion that might mean they are not better or smarter than other people and that they maybe, just maybe, might be responsible for their actions and thoughts to more than their own excusatory selves. Anyone who would claim the moral high ground over people of faith, his or her neighbors, family, and friends, yet disdains, mocks, and speaks with unconcealed contempt about them presents a very thin case for their own superiority. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009.

@LBrender I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator. That's certainly not much of an offering, guy. That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith. I'll grant you, that IS pretty unbelievable: like most other contorted misinterpretations of science by people who never bothered to first study that which they nonetheless endeavor to criticize.to say that the incredibly efficient natural world around us is nothing more than lucky happenstance over geologic ages is no less fantastic than the belief in a divine being.

Again, as fantastic as most other bunkum that comes out of people who never managed to grasp the concept of natural variation, nor the concept of natural selection. Concepts, incidentally, simple enough for a child to understand. Unfortunately, with no such grounding in reality, of course the rest of it all appears like a fantastic random happenstance.the only way belief seems 'crazy' in reference to our beginings. There are a lot of aspects to any religion, which are far more manifestly 'crazy'.

When it comes to belief in reference to beginnings, 'crazy' isn't the word I'd use. I think 'anthropomorphic', 'naive', 'solipsistic', 'egocentric', 'frivolous', and even 'capricious' would all fit the bill much better. Oh, let's also add 'ontologically worthless' and 'epistemologically counterproductive' to the pile.predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, which certainly no one here knows beyond a doubt. Where did this concept of 'a God' come from, if not from the human brain. Certainly nobody has seen this entity; it's certainly not an objective truth. We also can't be certain without a doubt that Leprechauns don't exist; but I think it's safe to assume they do not.

I'll also call your attention to your phrasing of 'a God'. What, so certain -- are we -- that it's just one God?

Why not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009.

Ethelred pretends to respond to what I said (July 2). Typical evolutionist. There is no infinite regression there. That is the point of the word 'godless' there.

There is no nonesense in what I link to. Vice versa, that lists the nonesense of evolutionists. Ignorance is your option, of course -- whether by not reading, or by getting lost in your own noise. Surely, Allah is Yahweh (Jehovah). But muslims maintain that those old books (other than the Quran) have been changed. Thus, not precisely reflecting what Allah (Yahweh, Jehovah, Rahman) told people wit His true words. So far, I have not read Bible or Torah fully (or, at any significant length), but so far as I have seen the first portion of genesis, that makes sense to logic.

(That is why I would like to have the list of objections, why people object to that, in the first place. Perhaps, just how Ethelred is thoughtlessly opposing what I wrote, people oppose genesis, just the same. Why should I take the loudest opinion as the truth?) Evolution is dependent on mutationgod.

Go to your local McDonalds, persist to have chinese food. If they would not change their menu to have chinese food, you have no chance of 'selecting' that there, naturally.:-)) There, you do not even have the chance -- surely, unles they would like to kick you out before midnight, but otherwise, thousands of millenia would not suffice. There need to be some chance. Furthermore, that needs to act in the time we have (merely billions of millenia, or perhaps less). Thus, evolution's mutationgod is essentially trying to rival Allah. (Allah provides our fate list of choices, but free-will is only for humans & genies.

The rest of the Universe live strictly by instinct, thus your mutationgod is only half-baked observations. With more data, the Universe will acknowledge the Creator even more. But your blind faith in 'convergent/parallel evolutionism' as if they were supporting evolution ('tree'), might keep you in your false belief.) Evolutionists believe in that most absurd (doublethink) chancegod, that is, mutationgod. That is your god-of-the-gaps.

Infinite time I'm referring to is, before the Universe, that is, the time for the Creator himself. Not bound by time, that is. Besides, couldyou cite the passage in genesis that tell the Earth is young?

I know a herd of simpletons (hypocrites) who try to poke to the Quran with absurd mockery. So, perhaps you thouht some wrong hypotheses about genesis.

How might I know that the genesis in the current Bible, is one of the changed portions? If not changed, and if translated right (or, kept in the Torah), then you are fooling yourself. This is the question. What flaws in DNA? DNA is a massively sophisticated system. (By 'flaws,' you might be referring to the dogma of mutationgod working wonders through flaws? That is your ignorance, your god-of-the-gaps.

Time might tell how things are even more orderly than we know today. Besides, satans/genies have free-will. The 'mutations'/cancer/abortions might have been partly satans' transgressions, that we counteract by praying (with words & manually). I hope, the satan will be pinpointable with instruments, too. (Nanowires of bacteria, have been in the report.) The text (I wrote) that Ethelred is quoting, is about times before the Universe, mainly. (The point in there, is about the path to perfectness. After becoming perfect, Allah might or might not have changed Himself.

How is that our business? Our question is about the godless genesis, without infinite regression.) Again, as I've said, all this 'cosmology' is in the face of materialists trying to suggest 'godless' scenarios. The true story of Allah existing first, miht have been through some story that we have no clue of (unless one of those we think about materialism now). I'm not telling a story, but telling the fitting logic concerning the pervasive stories materialists like to tell. Besides 'not changing' in the Bible, might refer to Allah keeping His word.

(Like how I'm firm, and not changing. But I'm getting white hair.) That is, Allah is principled. (But I have no opinion whether He would like to change Himself. He is perfect, but not restrictable not to shift to some vaious states of perfect looks/etc. No sense of talking what we do not know.) Ethelred is obviously lieing when listin the Quran, too. (But next, repents himself?

Confesses that he has not seen the Quran.) Where does he know the Quran not to reflect the real world? Cite examples? I guess, you would list what hypocrites (simpletons) like to guess about. If you do nt understand all of the content of the Universe in one pass, how would you know what all of the Quran is telling?

Time is telling that, the Quran is keeping fresh. (And Torah/Bible might not be entirely changed, either. Thus, there is life in portions of those, too.) The blunt opposition of Ethelred, coupled with his reservation that there might exist some god, suggests the old hat, masonic 'enlightenment' submission. ((BTW, when talking of (sunni) Islam, I'm not subscribing to submitters, alevi/qizilbash, 'protestant Islam,' wahhabi, or shia types of sects. Some of those might have similarities, but I might not know how they relate or not. The word 'moslem' that Ethelred is listing, is how some submitters talk.

That hints a type of misunderstanding. Likewise, next, I'm not expecting to get accusations of (heretically) suggesting all people being 'Allah,' because I've told that I'm not alevi/qizilbash, either.

Wikipedia lists their view, if you would like to know. That is not (sunni) Islamic, though.)) Thanks a lot for that list of 'Bible'-contradictions, but I have such lists/books (written by muslims) at home -- in the category of what the old books became, because of the hacks of old people. What you list, are heretical from Islamic point-of-view.

(Not interested in Cain's wanderings, though.) I was looking to find why materialists oppose genesis, with science. No, Ethelred does have blind faith in evolution. Belief in parallel-evolutionism, is blind faith. Fossil records show that. Dobzhansky (next, Ayala, and through support, Ethelred) swearing at the concept of the Creator, is a self-important, profane strategy.

That Russian bully (upon vodka?), then his student Ayala (wine?), keep telling lots of unjustifiable statements, together with calling foul names about the Creator. Trying to refute this point, is pointing at your self-centric faith concept. After foolng yourself with absurd evolutionisms, you start assaulting the Creator. What a profane thoughtlessness. Allah never told you that, you would be perfect in this world (but, the best of His creation).

Just the vice versa, about perfectness. Allah is perfect, not yourself. (But in the next world (for heavenly people), there is a perfect state of living.) What kind of religious reading told you that you would be perfect in this world?! What is the target you are objecting, that is? Interim summary: The list continues like this.

Ethelred is opposing all of what I've said, but thoughtlessly. If so, then do not read the Quran, either. There is more than enough a list of simpletons who tell absurd things about that, too.

That review I wrote, is a review (as the word is telling). Its target text is assaulting to the concept of the Creator (and Dobzhansky is profanely name-calling Him). Thus, appropriately, I point out that the concept of the Creator creating the Universe, is entirely sensible. Refuting Dobzhansky. The Universe is not a subject of evolution. (Big bang is a highly delicate process, people have been pointing out.) The evolution is thought to have been in this World.

Or else, you escape to some meteor, because of failing to support evolutionism in this World? Is that the 'Universe' thing about your evolutionism? Yet another god-of-the-gaps? By environment, do you think some templateod (world-wide standards committee)?:-)) Ludicrous. 'Convergent- & paralel-evolutionisms' have been your blindfaith. You accuse young Earth creationists (some of the christians) about merely opposing some geological dating techniques, but you commit to logical fallacies, and inventing lots of gods who were furthermore standardizing their products. That is ludicrous.

That is how (false) faith blinds people. Seeing how you fall to logical fallacies, even when I'm explaining those, supports even the young Earth creationists, unfortunately. If 'scientists' are so fanatical to believe in para-evo, how would ther reports be [entirely] trustable? They lack the most basics of the thinking ability. If 'para-evo' is your dogma, there is no type of 'test' to test the concept of evolution.

So, why was Sartre opposing the Creator? (The story of him involves having felt the God intensely when he was burning a carpet.

Just not willing to acknowledge the God, and he sought refuge in the infinite-regression problem, too.) Thusly, hell is opposing lots of bad behavior in this world. See, even 'ethicists' find causes to escape. (I'm not neglecing that Sartre or others, might have been opposing some bad church people, some hierarchies.

But, that is no problem of Allah.) Ironically, Ethelred's contrasting the genesis1 vs. Genesis2, in this case, reminds me of something else, that might help the genesis texts, too.

I have thought this for a lot more, but fits this, too. That is, I acknowledge that Allah is the Creator. For what we witness, the Universe (big bang), fossil records, that is the typical Creator's footprint. That is, He first created the plan (top-down, from humans (specifically, Muhammed (s.a.s.)) then to the Universe that would contain humans), next He kick started the big bang.

• 1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009. Ironically, Ethelred's contrasting the genesis1 vs. Genesis2, in this case, reminds me of something else, that might help the genesis texts, too. I have thought this for a lot more, but fits this, too. That is, I acknowledge that Allah is the Creator. For what we witness, the Universe (big bang), fossil records, that is the typical Creator's footprint.

That is, He first created the plan (top-down, from humans (specifically, Muhammed (s.a.s.)) then to the Universe that would contain humans), next He kick started the big bang. Building contractors work that way, too. (From the Bible, not reading first person, but I saw the like-minded, Perry White site, referring to 'first, there was the word.'

Thus, the Bible is actually telling the point, too. But hypocrites have some troubled double-standard in processing texts. (The sites for indoctrinating the evolutionists, which Ethelred lists are well-known, and widely ridiculed, already. I surely slam those, but without necessarily listing their names. They have no new opinion. Only dogma.) I surely respond to the tiniest shred of any evolutionist dogma.

I could list lots of aspects of how Allah is creative the way we know creativenes (and I keep telling those). For example, 1) fossi records in the rock strata are severely discontinuous and have lots of 'convergent/parallel-evolution' both of which point at the Creator. Some stack of old computers would have exactly that pattern, too. At the bottom, CP/M, and Unix, then MSDOS, then Win 3.0 & 3.1 with MSDOS, then Win95, then WinXP, and all with suitable, well-fitting (cohort similarity of) applications. All with massively sense-of-purpose.

2) journals/research ublish incrementally, too. Referring to the prior art modules, and having a sene-of-purpose with their time/cohort. Thus, all the data (beyond gaps of knowledge), certainly point to the Creator's past-&-living creatures. No doubt that, Allah is creating modularly, how we know in the software business. That is, what 'antropomorphism' I'm telling of, is fitting to.

But Ethelred might have been some bureaucrat somewhere, or secretary of some masonic lodge. Then, no sense of telling about creative people, perhaps. Thus, Allah is in the best tradition of the creators we know, and He has not hidden that.

Vice versa, Yasin(36):78 in the Quran, is fitting to respond to the evolutionists, too. (Evolutionism was old stuff, besides, Allah knew the future.) That ayet is telling that, in the context of fossils, 'he (either the opponent of afterlife, or, the evolutionist) struck an example, forgetting his creation.'

This responds to all of what Ethelred was supposedly responding to me, on July 2, 2009. But Ethelred is only heckling. Rather than post in this cacophony, I might list things in what I publish, because people would not like to go through all of such pretenses of responses, until they find what I'm telling back to that. (As I have told, I was trying to finish those texts (to publish through ). But came back, not to pass a week without responding back. Getting off, for another week now. See tweeting until then ) P.S: Worse, this list is too long to waste time.

If somebody posts something responding to something I wrote, then send me some e-mail pointing to the URL of this/that thread, so that I might zoom in quickly. Address to 'zilqarneyn' in your response, for me. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009. I would offer that evolution is certainly no more plausible than a creator. You can offer a 16 million dollars like the 419 spam that I recently received in a PM here but it won't mean anything more that the spam did. There is vast evidence for evolution and none for a creator.

That bodies as incredibly complex as a human's could spring from primordial amino acids, no matter the time frame, is in itself a dramatic leap in faith. The time frame is billions of years and I for one don't expect Humans to come out if the whole thing is done again. What evolves is what evolves. There is no map and therefor no specified complexity(a noise that means whatever Dempski wants it to mean). 3.8 billion years is a VERY long time. I don't go for amino acids only. RNA and amino acids both seems more likely to me.

However evolution is NOT about biogenesis. Its what happens after life gets started. Furthermore, I would offer that the only way belief seems 'crazy' in reference to our beginings is if you are predicated on the assumption that there just can't be a God, No. I see no need for a god to shape life. Evolution covers it quite well. Which certainly no one here knows for beyond a doubt. Sure are a lot of people on both sides that think they have no doubt.

You are seem to be one of those. Doubt doesn't really enter into it for me though as doubt implies that I care more than I do which way it is. There may or may not be a god. But there is no reason that I can see to believe in one besides wishful thinking. And I am not into wishful thinking. Perhaps it is just as much that the learned don't *want* to believe in God as much as any evidence or reasoning.

Or perhaps it the total lack of evidence for a god. That is the case for most Agnostics anyway and the majority of Atheists as far as I can tell.

Anyone who would claim the moral high ground over people of faith, his or her neighbors, family, and friends, yet disdains, mocks, and speaks with unconcealed contempt about them presents a very thin case for their own superiority. You seem to like straw men very much. How did you get so enamored with creating false opponents to attack? Any time you want to engage in actual debate go right ahead.

In the meantime I think I can point out a few problems with morals in that last bit. Christians make up the vast majority of the prison population. Unbelievers less than one per cent, a fraction of the percentage in the general population. Tens if not hundreds of millions of people have been killed for being a member of the wrong religion over time. Murdered by members of other religions. I think the fanatics of the past and the fanatics of the present that has lead some to a bit of hyperbole in regard to the hazards of religion.

Unfortunately it is only mildly hyperbolic as can be seen by a perusal of history and the frequent religious killings that are still taking place. So you might want to stick to physical facts and leave the moral questions alone as they do not speak well for religion in general.

I look forward to rational discussion with you without claims that I am immoral for not believing as you. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009.

Ethelred pretends to respond to what I said (July 2). Typical evolutionist. I can see that this is going to go well.

Right off the bat a false statement and a ludicrous attempt at a personal attack. You were the one that wanted this.

If you can't handle a reasoned and fact based response that is your problem. There is no infinite regression there. If the Universe needs a god a god needs a god. Its the exact same reasoning..

There is no nonesense in what I link to. ] Sorry but that site was loaded with bad pseudo logic. If you don't want it critiqued don't post the link. Vice versa, that lists the nonesense of evolutionists. It didn't do that. It made some false statements and made a lot of claims that did not proceed from any evidence at all or just plain ignored reality.

Ignorance is your option, of course -- whether by not reading, or by getting lost in your own noise. You are lost in your own unverifiable beliefs. This is going so well. Pure emotional reasoning on your part and no effort whatsoever to show any errors on mine. Just bare faced unsupported claims, much worse than I expected. Surely, Allah is Yahweh (Jehovah). Only if either exists and even then there are those that would disagree.

There is certainly a considerable difference in the rules of the two versions of the Middle Eastern god. But muslims maintain that those old books (other than the Quran) have been changed. Maintain what you like but you have to prove it to carry any weight in a discussion. Besides I don't really care about YOUR problems with Christianity as I find both religions to be at odds with reality.

But so far as I have seen the first portion of genesis, that makes sense to logic. There isn't a lot of logic in Genesis. Perhaps, just how Ethelred is thoughtlessly opposing what I wrote, people oppose genesis, just the same. Thoughtless is you.

I have thought rather a lot on Genesis. Please see the errors in the order of creation above. Why should I take the loudest opinion as the truth?) You shouldn't. So start by ignoring the Imams as they have the loudest voices. Next the Televangelists would be good to ignore. I go on facts myself rather than opinion.

True there are opinions involved and points of view but I try to base those on reality and not the teachings of people that haven't tested their beliefs against reality. Evolution is dependent on mutationgod. ] I don't quite get that last word. I am going to pretend that you meant to say mutations. There is no god involved. Just basic organic and bio-chemistry. Mutations are unavoidable so no god is needed.

And mutation is only part of evolution. Natural Selection is the real key and anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Ignorant is the cause in most cases but there are a few liars out there. Furthermore, that needs to act in the time we have (merely billions of millenia, or perhaps less) You really are ignorant on this aren't you?

Its time to learn something and fix that. I know that calling people ignorant tends to make them mad BUT ignorance is curable. You CAN learn if you want to. Only if I were to call you intentionally ignorant would it be an insult.

Then again many fundamentalist ARE intentionally ignorant. Not billions of millenia as that would be a thousand times the age of the universe.

Several paths of evidence show the Solar System to be around 4.6 billion years old and the Earth to be nearly that. The oldest known rocks of earthly origin are about 3.8 billion years old. Thus, evolution's mutationgod is essentially trying to rival Allah. You really don't get it. Allah or Jehovah are not involved so there isn't a rivalry as there is no god involved in mutations, just basic bio-chemistry. (Allah provides our fate list of choices, but free-will is only for humans & genies. Do let us know when you come across a Djan.

Thus your mutationgod is only half-baked observations. No half baked observations either. Extensive evidence and a lot of testing is the reality. How the heck can you argue that evolution is a crock when you don't know the first thing about it? Arguing from ignorance is a really poor path to wisdom.. But your blind faith in 'convergent/parallel evolutionism' as if they were supporting evolution ('tree'), might keep you in your false belief.) Its simply reality and not belief.

Evolutionists believe in that most absurd (doublethink) chancegod, that is, mutationgod. That is your god-of-the-gaps.

Sorry but the god of the gaps is for the religious. I don't have a god. I see no evidence for one.. Besides, couldyou cite the passage in genesis that tell the Earth is young? Really you should read it.

Six days and the days have mornings and evenings. A fairly simple counting of the ages of people in the Bible results in the age of the Earth being a little over 6,000 years.

But only if you take the longest versions of the ages as there are contradictory ages for some the people. Keep in mind that it is believers that have done the math not me. They just use the actual numbers from the Bible. Blame the Bible not me. So, perhaps you thouht some wrong hypotheses about genesis.

Perhaps you are engaging in wishful thinking. Go read up on it instead of making guesses and hoping I won't notice that you don't actually know what you are talking about. How might I know that the genesis in the current Bible, is one of the changed portions? Look at the oldest version you can find. They are alleged to be similar and of course believers in a revealed truth claim them to be almost exact. I have seen the rules for copying the Bible and they are exceedingly exacting.

The error rate is likely to be quite low. If not changed, and if translated right (or, kept in the Torah), then you are fooling yourself.

This is the question. More like an accusation but you are the one that has to check on this. I already did it but you clearly are unwilling to take my word despite the fact that I have been as accurate as I can be.

A good online collection of Bibles and tools for studying it. Found it years ago.

Genesis one King James version. Because you would be surprised at the way some people hate anything but the KJV. Positively toxic. &c=1&v=1&t=KJV#top Picking out one verse to show the tools available.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And the evening = `ereb `ereb eh'reb even, evening, night, mingled, people, eventide, eveningtide, Arabia, days, even, evening, evening, eventide So you can check what it really says in the original Hebrew.

I have done this for a number of verses in Genesis while discussing it with a guy called 68Nate on the Maximum PC Comport forum and occasionally with other since then. Then was 2000. What flaws in DNA? DNA is a massively sophisticated system. I am wearing glasses. Some people have one hit mutations and are choking on there own mucus BUT if they had only one copy of the mutation, as many do, they would be highly resistant to intestinal diseases.

If you think there are no flaws in anyone's DNA you simply don't have a clue. That is your ignorance, your god-of-the-gaps. Not ignorance. You really haven't taken a single biology class have you?

Not even read a book. OK I haven't taken any biology classes myself. But I have read a fair number of books.

Biology sucked when I was in High School so I bypassed it for chemistry. Besides, satans/genies have free-will. They also don't exist. You have hard time thinking in non-religious terms I see. That will make it pretty much impossible for you to discuss things rationally unless you start trying real hard.

The text (I wrote) that Ethelred is quoting, is about times before the Universe, mainly. Try being more clear then. However we know nothing of the times before the Universe. It seems possible we never will. After becoming perfect, Allah might or might not have changed Himself. How is that our business? For a guy that wanted a discussion you sure seem to be avoiding one.

Unless you can show evidence to support your god I am not interested in your beliefs as they depend on things that simply are not in agreement with the real world. Again, as I've said, all this 'cosmology' is in the face of materialists trying to suggest 'godless' scenarios. I will try to explain this to you. I fear that your religious thinking will get in the way but I will try anyway. Just for the moment try to think about something without bringing your religion into it.

It is unscientific to assume that a god did it. Whatever IT is. This is because such an assumption makes it VERY unlikely that you will ever find an answer besides claiming that god did it. That is not science that is avoiding finding the truth. If a god is not responsible for the way things happen in EVERY detail than it is possible to find out the laws for the way things work. But to do so you must first assume that there is something to find.

If you assume there is nothing except a supernatural being than you won't find the law that is there. Do you understand this concept? If you don't there is no way to discuss science with you because you won't be willing to explore the possibility that there are rules and laws for the way the universe works. Thinking that way was a large part of the Dark Age in Europe. They thought that everything was a separate act of god and that there was no way to understand anything except through religion. You seem to be this sort. Please surprise me.

Besides 'not changing' in the Bible, might refer to Allah keeping His word. Not a Christian belief. You are welcome to it if you want. Ethelred is obviously lieing when listin the Quran, too. Lying is for life and death. You are neither.

But next, repents himself? Confesses that he has not seen the Quran.) I cannot repent for something I did not do. The Quran was written by a man. We have only his word for anything in it.

It is clear that this concept is presently one you have extreme difficulty even understanding that others would ever feel that way. Guess, you would list what hypocrites (simpletons) like to guess about. You sure are into personal attacks aren't you? If you do nt understand all of the content of the Universe in one pass, how would you know what all of the Quran is telling? It is considerably smaller than the Universe or haven't you noticed. The blunt opposition of Ethelred, Blunt hell. Its sharp and well reasoned.

The list continues like this. Ethelred is opposing all of what I've said, but thoughtlessly.

Well THAT is a thoughtless statement. I have spent considerable time thinking of these replies. Even the mere word count should show that. If so, then do not read the Quran, either. There is more than enough a list of simpletons who tell absurd things about that, too.

You give me evidence that is the revealed word of a real god and then I will read it. In the meantime I have seen not a single reason from you. I have seen a considerable amount of unreasoned hate. I did not go looking for you. You came to me. Its target text is assaulting to the concept of the Creator (and Dobzhansky is profanely name-calling Him).

He can't profane something he doesn't believe in. Thus, appropriately, I point out that the concept of the Creator creating the Universe, is entirely sensible. Refuting Dobzhansky. You only flapped your fingers. And I see that I guessed right. It is your site.

With evolutionism, Dobzhansky is lobbying to retire God, or else, Dobzhanky is willing to be pejorative, by calling Him various foul names -- (hasha) 'senseless operation,' 'in a jocular mood,' 'blind process,' 'cheating,' 'absentminded.' I did this before and you seem to have missed it. There is nothing there that is an accusation towards any god. Just what people claim the god did. The Flood for instance is completely senseless. Fortunately it never happened. If reflecting honestly, even anthropomorphism would suffice to empathize that Allah is sensible, programming/crafting the processes/hardware marvelously [modularly].

Even if Allah existed that would not be true. There is nothing marvelous about having to kill to live. Its a pretty bad design.

Dobzhansky's evolutionism is probably following that of Henry F. Osborn (of the 'Nebraska man' blunder/hoax) Really. Then again anyone that has learned anything about evolution has NEVER used Nebraska-not-a-man for any scientific ideas. Indeed there never was a Nebraska Man. Even the man that found the pigs tooth knew that he might be wrong. The whole concept of Nebraska Man came from the news services. It wasn't a hoax and it wasn't even a blunder by scientists.

Just by the reporters. You seem to think that is all there is. His self-contradictions must have confused people sufficiently that, Dobzhansky is reporting that, Boy did you blow that one. He and especially Richard Dawkins are frequently quoted out of context or even misquoted to support Creationist ideas. The contradictions come from the Creationists. When evolutionists propagandize something as 'perfectly tuned by evolution', I trivially know that, they confess that, Allah created that phenomenon perfectly.

The way you are completely unable to read anything at all without putting a religious spin on it that turns it inside out. Sorry but your 'review' is even more ridiculous the second time around. One straw man after another and everything so distorted that even Allah, if he existed, would have difficulty figuring out how you managed to mess it up so badly. By environment, do you think some templateod (world-wide standards committee)?:-)) Ludicrous. Yes it would be ludicrous if I had meant that. Straw man straw man always you create a straw man Reason and logic do make you sick All of that of nonsense for you to pick 'Convergent- & paralel-evolutionisms' have been your blindfaith. Faith is not involved.

Just evidence and reason. Evolution cannot not happen. Mutations occur, that is a fact. All but the most intransigent Creationist has given up on pretending that it doesn't happen. Natural Selection is inherent when there are differences in the chances of reproduction due to those mutations.

That means pretty much in all circumstances. This is not faith in anyway. All the lying won't change that. Do try learning something about the things you rant about. It is ranting and not reason. You accuse young Earth creationists (some of the christians) about merely opposing some geological dating techniques, Oh no. I accuse them of much more.

They lie about Nebraska Man for instance. Thank you for bringing it up. But you commit to logical fallacies, Funny how are unable to show one. Go ahead, find one. And inventing lots of gods who were furthermore standardizing their products. Sorry but I don't invent gods. I leave that to believers and frauds.

Sometimes I can't even make a wild assed guess as to where your bizarre ideas come from. That is ludicrous.

That is how (false) faith blinds people. Indeed it is ludicrous the way you invent my position instead of quote me. Seeing how you fall to logical fallacies, even when I'm explaining those, supports even the young Earth creationists, Where did you do that? You haven't supported yourself much less others. If 'scientists' are so fanatical to believe in para-evo, how would ther reports be [entirely] trustable? Its just reality. You are so fanatical you can't see past your hatred for the truth.

If 'para-evo' is your dogma, there is no type of 'test' to test the concept of evolution. Never trust a religious fanatic when they use special words that no one else does.

'para-evo', really where did you come up with that garbage? Have you ever seen even one fossil? Apparently not. So, why was Sartre opposing the Creator? Sartre in his first book wrote about wrote about Pretty much nothing that interests me except that he inspired a good Monty Python sketch.. But, that is no problem of Allah.) Since there is no evidence for the existence of Allah I am not surprised that Allah has no problems. Things that don't exist rarely do.

Ironically, Ethelred's contrasting the genesis1 vs. Genesis2, in this case, reminds me of something else, that might help the genesis texts, too. I have thought this for a lot more, but fits this, too. That is, I acknowledge that Allah is the Creator. Talk about logical fallacies. Your acknowledgment in no way follows from what preceded. I can't even figure what strange idea passed through your head in claiming irony.

Gee that was a bunch of badly thought out crap you posted. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt that any thought besides religion was involved. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009. ' I can use logic. I just don't expect instant changes. Or frequent changes' -We bring the weapons we are good with to the battle. You may convert some and deter more but certainly not museum- and temple-builders.

I can imagine the concocters of the Xian variant: 'So we're agreed the 'love' angle will most effectively consolidate the Germanic tribes. But the Trinity? And really, how can the god of all have a mother?' 'Listen, if they accept Mary and the Trinity they will swallow just about anything we give them. It provides much work for future priests and the people will never stop fighting over it. How and when they're told of course.' Augustine, you have the stones of Jesus himself!

[laughter] -Get them to abandon reason [easy] for something they would die for [immortality]. Now that's funny. • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009. After all this, not one shred of objective evidence was put forth to support rational belief that a 'God' created the Universe. Here it would be understandable, but I spent over two years in the 'Debating Christianity and Religion' debate forum, and there was absolutely no difference even there. Either the believers that actually know something are all shy of sharing, or there simply is no rational reason to believe in 'God', and it really is nothing more than a mental virus, with the indoctrination of helpless children as the infection vector. • 1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009.

After all this, not one shred of objective evidence was put forth to support rational belief that a 'God' created the Universe. Here it would be understandable, but I spent over two years in the 'Debating Christianity and Religion' debate forum, and there was absolutely no difference even there.

Either the believers that actually know something are all shy of sharing, or there simply is no rational reason to believe in 'God', and it really is nothing more than a mental virus, with the indoctrination of helpless children as the infection vector. Who says beliefs have to be rational? Sorry, but you're not the thought or belief dictator of the world. You go in your little corner and pick your nose and believe what you want.the rest of us will believe whatever we want for whatever reasons we want. As an aside I find it hysterical that people talk about 'rationally' believing in the big bang without a first cause when thermodynamics clearly states that it's impossible.but BOY it sure 'shows' those God freaks doesn't it.*rolls eyes* • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009. Here it would be understandable, but I spent over two years in the 'Debating Christianity and Religion' debate forum, and there was absolutely no difference even there.

There is no way to prove the existence of a god if the god doesn't care about worshipers and created a universe that looked exactly like there was no god. Why anyone would worship such an entity is hard to comprehend.

On the other hand if the Universe had been created as described in Genesis the evidence would be there. We would all be descended from Noah.The Egyptians would have been drowned in the middle of building pyramids. The oldest rocks would measured in thousands of year and we wouldn't be able to see any stars farther than 6000 or so light years away. Ethelred • 1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009. As an aside I find it hysterical that people talk about 'rationally' believing in the big bang without a first cause when thermodynamics clearly states that it's impossible Thermodynamics may not be involved. QM of some sort most likely is. On top of which the first law of thermodynamics is just a law we made up to match what we see TODAY.

Which seems reasonable but there a number of ways that appear to allow for a Universe to come into existence. Nearly any first cause needs a cause. Your god requires a first cause and if the second law applies to the universe I see no reason for it not to apply to your god. In any case that isn't relevant to whether the Big Bang occurred or not. The evidence is that it happened.

How it happened may never be understood. Ethelred • 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009.

Who says beliefs have to be rational? I don't believe I said that. I'm aware you probably interpret anything you read in a highly personal manner, as you were probably indoctrinated that way. It is the sky-daddy believers that presume their beliefs are rational. Haven't met a single one that thought differently. Sorry, but you're not the thought or belief dictator of the world.

You go in your little corner and pick your nose and believe what you want.the rest of us will believe whatever we want for whatever reasons we want. I know you do not acknowledge the beliefs of everyone on this Earth, and their consequences, and that makes you an 'honest-to-God' hypocrite. • 3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009. I don't believe I said that. You sure keep asking for the rest of us to give reasons for our beliefs. I don't believe you HAD to say that. I'm aware you probably interpret anything you read in a highly personal manner, as you were probably indoctrinated that way.

It is the sky-daddy believers that presume their beliefs are rational. Haven't met a single one that thought differently. Oh the irony LOL.

I know you do not acknowledge the beliefs of everyone on this Earth, and their consequences, and that makes you an 'honest-to-God' hypocrite. I don't have to, all I have to do is tolerate them. It's much easier to tolerate some than others. The only ones I DON'T have to tolerate are those who demand intolerance themselves.like most MILITANT atheists for instance. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009.

@Modernmystic As an aside I find it hysterical that people talk about 'rationally' believing in the big bang without a first cause when thermodynamics clearly states that it's impossible.but BOY it sure 'shows' those God freaks doesn't it.*rolls eyes* Errrrr. Are you, by any chance, trying to use thermodynamics to argue FOR the existence of a 'God' -- an entity which utterly and consummately VIOLATES thermodynamics prima facie? I'm just trying to make sure. Are you REALLY that much of an idiot?? I don't know about 'big bang without a cause'; probably most people are inclined to believe there is indeed a cause, just that we don't have enough information (yet?

Ever?) to know what it was. But a 'first cause'? That is just as bad as 'big bang without a cause'. Every cause has its own cause.

As soon as you posit 'first cause', you've entered the territory of magic and fairies. • 1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009. Are you, by any chance, trying to use thermodynamics to argue FOR the existence of a 'God' -- an entity which utterly and consummately VIOLATES thermodynamics prima facie? Errrrr.a Supernatural being doesn't have to worry about thermodynamics. He can either follow or violate the rules at will.

The natural universe on the other hand DOES have to follow them.go fish for your explanation bud. OH you don't HAVE one.that's right. The only one you seem to spew is that God DIDN'T do it. I see.very logical, consistent.blah blah blah. You weren't trying to use thermodynamics to DISprove something that by its very nature as a concept CREATED thermodynamics were you. Or are YOU really that much of an idiot? BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters.

It's outside the realm of science until science has an explanation for it. Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW.it's what we call a cop out. • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009. @modernMastic I'm not sure but you are defending god right? If he's perfect and the laws which he created are thus perfect, why would you think he would have to break them from time to time to grant favors? And, if he gave us these senses and brains to learn about his creation, then why would he confound reason from time to time to betray them? Wouldn't that mean he's a deceptive god who wants us to have less confidence in his creation rather than more?

What's up with that? • 1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009.

The only ones I DON'T have to tolerate are those who demand intolerance themselves.like most MILITANT atheists for instance. I'm particularly 'militant' in what regards the perversion of Science, when god-followers presume their irrational beliefs are corroborated by the Scientific Method, which is why your analogy with a 'native american museum' is idiotic. BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters. It's outside the realm of science until science has an explanation for it.

I'll let that stand as a testament to your idiocy. Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW.it's what we call a cop out. No, my idiot friend. It's what ignorant people call a 'cop out'. 'Goddit' is a cop out, because it's used to avoid having to provide logical and scientifically corroborated explanations to events honest people can't explain yet, so the sheep don't get too critical about any lack of answers. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009. @Modernmystic a Supernatural being doesn't have to worry about thermodynamics.

He can either follow or violate the rules at will. In other words, don't argue with me because argument implies deductive reasoning, and my starting premises by definition violate deductive principles. Therefore, since I start with paradoxical thinking, I can arrive at any damn conclusion I want, by any chain of derivation I please, regardless of how ridiculous. You know, usually argumentum ad absurdum is used to DISprove assertions, not to argue for them based on an up-front acknowledgement that they are absurd to begin with. By the way, a Pink Elephant just told me that time and the universe began exactly 3 seconds ago, just as He was having a particularly satisfying bowel movement. The natural universe on the other hand DOES have to follow them.go fish for your explanation bud. OH you don't HAVE one.

'Explanation' by definition requires a precise statement of mechanisms involved. It REQUIRES laws, it PRESUPPOSES definable state, and PREDICTABLE state transitions; without laws all you have is CHAOS, and in pure chaos, no 'explanations' for anything are even in principle possible at all. Oh, and you don't HAVE one either. All you got is an obviously man-made fairy tale, and one of analogous thousands at that. Believing in unicorns is a very touching and delightful aspect of childhood; but when it comes to adults such beliefs are little more than mental masturbation. You weren't trying to use thermodynamics to DISprove something that by its very nature as a concept CREATED thermodynamics were you. To 'CREATE' something you must have a SEQUENCE of events.

Follow me here: 1) 'something' does not YET exist 2) an act is PERFORMED 3) 'something' NOW exists Such SEQUENCES require and imply the existence of TIME. TIME requires and implies existence of PROCESSES that unfold in time (if nothing at all happens, then there is no time.) PROCESSES require and imply STRUCTURE and RULES. STRUCTURE and RULES imply something akin to natural laws, or 'thermodynamics' as you call it. If you cared to analyze your own language and thinking a bit deeper, you would see it's riddled with such circular loops and logical fallacies.

You routinely contradict yourself with virtually every sentence you put down. BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters. My view exactly. As is ANY entity or event without a cause (your notion of 'God' inclusive.) Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW.it's what we call a cop out.

No, it's what we call intellectual honesty. Making up fairy tales out of whole cloth, on the other hand, and PRETENDING they are true, is what we call a cop out. • 1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009. I'm particularly 'militant' in what regards the perversion of Science, when god-followers presume their irrational beliefs are corroborated by the Scientific Method, which is why your analogy with a 'native american museum' is idiotic. Oh so they don't REALLY believe in their religion?

What if they did try to mix their beliefs and science.I've known several who do. Then that gives you the right to be an ignorant bigot with the manners of a chimp? No, my idiot friend. It's what ignorant people call a 'cop out'. 'Goddit' is a cop out, because it's used to avoid having to provide logical and scientifically corroborated explanations to events honest people can't explain yet, so the sheep don't get too critical about any lack of answers.

I see you lack an answer but you KNOW how it didn't happen. You lack an answer but have faith it didn't happen in thus and so a way. Did someone say testament to idiocy earlier? • 1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009. In other words, don't argue with me because argument implies deductive reasoning, and my starting premises by definition violate deductive principles. Therefore, since I start with paradoxical thinking, Not paradoxical.God has always existed. I've heard this used on the other side of the fence (ie the universe has always existed).it works well both ways.

'Explanation' by definition requires a precise statement of mechanisms involved. It REQUIRES laws, No it doesn't. You stamping your feet and saying it does doesn't make it so. Oh, and you don't HAVE one either.

All you got is an obviously man-made fairy tale, and one of analogous thousands at that. Believing in unicorns is a very touching and delightful aspect of childhood; but when it comes to adults such beliefs are little more than mental masturbation. It's at least more intellectually honest than saying I don't know how it happened, but I sure as heck know how it DIDN'T.

*rolls eyes* To 'CREATE' something you must have a SEQUENCE of events. Follow me here: No you don't. If something has always existed then by definition you need no sequence of events for it to have been created. Really it's not that hard a concept to grasp, oh and try not to have an anurysm explaining how you think things MUST be.all the tantrums in the world won't make you right. Incidentally were you one of those kids when you didn't get your way you'd throw yourself backward and hit your head on the floor?

If so it would explain many things. If you cared to analyze your own language and thinking a bit deeper, you would see it's riddled with such circular loops and logical fallacies. You routinely contradict yourself with virtually every sentence you put down. The only people contradicting themselves here are those who have faith in a naturally caused universe in which the laws of that universe clearly state it couldn't have had a natural cause. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009. @modernmystic --OK ive cleansed it of irreverence.

The question remains: If he's perfect and the laws which he created are thus perfect, why would you think he would have to break them from time to time to grant favors? And, if he gave us these senses and brains to learn about his creation, then why would he confound reason from time to time to betray them? Wouldn't that mean he's a deceptive god who wants us to have less confidence in his creation rather than more? -It is still rhetorical- this is a science website after all- but it is certainly not original and it is pertinent. We live on a finite world in a dangerous universe.

Why would god want us to waste our limited time trying to discover a physical basis for fatima or the Red Sea/Reed Sea phenomenon, when we need to concentrate on other things, like intercepting asteroids and defeating superbugs? • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009. Oh so they don't REALLY believe in their religion? What they 'really' believe in is irrelevant. What they pass off as compliant to the scientific method isn't. The fact that you don't even attempt to refute that suggests you agree, which is why I cannot understand your passive stance. Sadly, whether or not you care what is fed onto your children is your prerogative.

What if they did try to mix their beliefs and science.I've known several who do. They don't 'mix' their beliefs and science, they pervert science to accommodate their beliefs. I see you lack an answer but you KNOW how it didn't happen. Like you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the Universe. Because you know it's a human fabrication. You lack an answer but have faith it didn't happen in thus and so a way. No 'faith' is required to appreciate the available evidence, and see that none of it indicates a 'created' Universe, thus rendering belief in it, irrational and illogical, and not something that should be taught to impressionable children.

If a 'God' chooses to, it can allegedly manifest to each one individually. But of course, there is no evidence a 'God' ever did. • 1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009. If he's perfect and the laws which he created are thus perfect, why would you think he would have to break them from time to time to grant favors? Because we're not perfect. And, if he gave us these senses and brains to learn about his creation, then why would he confound reason from time to time to betray them?

Wouldn't that mean he's a deceptive god who wants us to have less confidence in his creation rather than more? It's only deceptive if you don't believe. If you do believe you EXPECT it.nothing deceptive, nefarious, or evil about it. Unless of course you're asking from your point of view I can see where YOU might feel this way. Why would god want us to waste our limited time trying to discover a physical basis for fatima or the Red Sea/Reed Sea phenomenon, when we need to concentrate on other things, like intercepting asteroids and defeating superbugs?

You're making a lot of assumptions about God for someone who doesn't believe. I don't know what he wants beyond a few things and I do believe.you sure you don't talk to him? • 1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009. Why there can be no such thing as 'the supernatural': To exist, is to unfold in time, to interact, to be defined within a context by contours within that context and effects upon that context. But an idealized 'supernatural' has no structure. It obeys no laws.

It is outside time. Therefore it is pure chaos. It is incapable of supporting any notion of 'entity' or 'concept', because all such things imply a coherent set of constructs that would defy the lawless, timeless, purely chaotic nature of the 'supernatural'. So for any kind of 'supernatural' to exist, it must admit structure.

It must obey laws. It must unfold in time. Only then can it have a definable contour, or have any veritable effect upon anything or even any part of itself. But then it is no longer 'supernatural' in an ideal sense. It may be outside of our thus-far known space-time-energy matrix; it may be 'supranatural' in that respect.

Yet, it must nonetheless be part and parsel of the Universe. And here I define the Universe not merely as everything we can currently perceive and presently know, but as EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (per prerequisites of 'existence' as outlined above.) Such is the only definition that makes any sense if we are to suppose that we cannot yet see everything there is, and that we do not yet know everything there is: both of which are manifestly and empirically true. But if the Universe is everything that exists, then by definition nothing can exist and yet not be part of the Universe. Then, if we define as 'natural' everything that is part of nature -- i.e. Everything that is part of the Universe -- then this time by definition there is and can be no such thing as 'the supernatural'. Quite simply, the Universe is all there is.

And no I DON'T know it wasn't a FSM.I BELIEVE it wasn't. As per wiki: 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion[1][2] 'The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'.[3] It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools.

Since the intelligent design movement used ambiguous references to an unspecified 'Intelligent Designer' to avoid court rulings prohibiting the teaching of creationism as a science, this presumably left open the possibility that any imaginable thing could fill that role.' You wouldn't regard anything else of this nature, something that isn't challenged by ANYONE else on the planet, as a 'belief'. You're doing it now, arbitrarily and whimsically, to fit a fallacious point you've been resuscitating for the last few posts. But it's dead, let it go. Unlike you I'm at least intellectually honest about my faith. By your own statements, you're anything BUT intellectually honest. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009.

@Modernmystic Well, I do believe, though i havent had an epiphany reboot as of yet. I believe we've been given everything we need to save ourselves in this world, including the ability to concoct religions which could begin to establish order in the midst of the chaos which was the ancient world. I believe that if either Christianity or the Enlightenment or the other man-created Agencies and doctrines hadnt occured, the remnants of a race with great potential would now be subsisting in small pockets amidst global ruination. Agencies which have fulfilled their Purpose need to end- people may not need Shepherds any more. Give up your penchant for belligerant overpopulating and maybe you can stay.

Or be like Shakers. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009.

You wouldn't regard anything else of this nature, something that isn't challenged by ANYONE else on the planet, as a 'belief'. You're doing it now, arbitrarily and whimsically, to fit a fallacious point you've been resuscitating for the last few posts. But it's dead, let it go. No I'm not the simple fact of the matter is that neither YOU nor I can say for certian what created the universe.as such nothing can be HONESTLY ruled out on a purely rational basis.FSMs included.

Simple logic, you may not like it, and you're entitled to your own opinion. The one thing your not entitled to is your own facts. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009.

No I'm not the simple fact of the matter is that neither YOU nor I can say for certian what created the universe.as such nothing can be HONESTLY ruled out on a purely rational basis.FSMs included. The FSM can and should be ruled out, because it's a factual human fabrication, and you're not even disputing that, because you know you don't have a case.

It cannot rationally be acknowledged as a potential creator of the Universe, anymore than you can. Simple logic, you may not like it, and you're entitled to your own opinion. Apparently it's not so simple, because you just don't get it. The one thing your not entitled to is your own facts. I never heard anyone else presuming that the FSM isn't a factual human fabrication.

It definitely takes balls to forsake any remaining intellectual integrity you might have had before this. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009. @Modernmystic No I'm not the simple fact of the matter is that neither YOU nor I can say for certian what created the universe.as such nothing can be HONESTLY ruled out on a purely rational basis.FSMs included.

If you're going to go that route, then nothing is certain. Every fact has a probability (however tiny) of being wrong. Including the fact that you yourself exist at this instant.

You cannot be absolutely, mathematically certain of anything. However, that level of certainty is usually not what is meant in vernacular use of the word.

In the vernacular, to say you're certain of something is equivalent to saying that the probability you're wrong is somewhere around 0.001% or less. So now, let's apply this heuristic to the notion of the FSM, or any other religious hypothesis.

How many possible religious hypotheses are there? Theoretically, the number of possible religious hypotheses is infinite, if we allow hypotheses so complex that they would take an infinite amount of time to even express. But for practicality's sake let's just limit our universe of speculation to 1 billion possible hypotheses (FSM among them), and postulate that one of them is right. Given one randomly chosen hypothesis out of that population, what is the probability THAT PARTICULAR ONE is the correct one? Well, lacking any empirical evidence to bias the odds in favor of any particular hypothesis, the probability is simply 1 divided by the total number of hypotheses.

So if there are 1 billion alternatives, then the probability of FSM being the right one is mathematically 0.0000001%. In most people's mind, that is as close to nil as it gets.

In other words, in layman's terms it is all but CERTAIN that the FSM hypothesis (and any given religious premise) is false. If you allow the universe of possibilities to grow by orders of magnitude beyond 1 billion in number, then the confidence for rejecting any particular one only increases.

In the limit of this process, we can confidently reject, out of hand, any groundless speculation on the matter. • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009.

You know, it just occured to me, that there is something of the Hand of Man in the verse I quoted earlier: 14 God said to Moses, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' ' 15 God also said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

-When Moses first meets God and receives his holy mission. God says 'I am what I am' or 'I am that I am'. God is nothing more and nothing less than all that there is. Further, He says this will be his 'name' forever. His 'name' will not change. To me this says that what 'is' is knowable as is a name, and it will remain unchanged forever.

I think we have here a disclosure of a faith in the immutability of Gods creation, by those who composed this magnificant work. He does say these things from the inside of a burning bush, but is that just to hold the attention of the hard-hearted? God is what is- a metaphor for a comprehensible and reliable universe in its entirety- now get to work and understand him.

-Another bible mystery solved in record time by OTTO the unhetzable Hetzer. Ich habe doch gut gemacht, nicht war? • not rated yet Jul 08, 2009. One more thing- you want a parable? Kirk and crew have found themselves trapped on an earth-like planet amidst two strangely familiar warring cultures.

Kirk realizes their holy book is an old earth document. Look at these three words written larger than the rest with a special pride never written before or since -- Tall words proudly saying.

'We the people'. That which you called Ee'd Plebnista was not written for chiefs or kings or warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people!

Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words 'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Do ordain and establish this constitution'. These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, - but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand? I do not fully understand, one named Kirk. But the holy words will be obeyed.

-I think your faith has obscured the true meaning, and I'm speaking to both sides of the debate here, of the bible. It is not about saving souls it is about saving the best of what we all are, and the best that we have produced, on this world, in this life.

• 1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2009. The FSM can and should be ruled out, because it's a factual human fabrication, and you're not even disputing that, because you know you don't have a case.

It cannot rationally be acknowledged as a potential creator of the Universe, anymore than you can. Just bluster and bull.you didn't even attempt to refute the point. Apparently it's not so simple, because you just don't get it. No you don't. I never heard anyone else presuming that the FSM isn't a factual human fabrication.

It definitely takes balls to forsake any remaining intellectual integrity you might have had before this. Uhhhh the fact in dispute here was that you can't rationally rule out a possibility of how something was accomplished if you don't KNOW how it was accomplished.period. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2009. Uhhhh the fact in dispute here was that you can't rationally rule out a possibility of how something was accomplished if you don't KNOW how it was accomplished.period. That settles it then. Guess I can't rationally rule out the possibility that I just flushed the creator of the Universe down the toilet.

Come on, just say it yourself so I can laugh some more. 'You can't rationally rule out the possibility that the turd you just flushed down the toilet was the creator of the Universe'. Logically, there's no rational reason to mock the 'Church of the Flushed Turd'. Simple logic, indeed. You're logically quite the buffoon.

I must say I'm very entertained by your stupidity. Please keep it going. • 3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009. Errrrr.a Supernatural being doesn't have to worry about thermodynamics. He can either follow or violate the rules at will.

It still needs a cause if the Universe needs a cause. The logic is identical.

Ryuichi Sakamoto Rain Pdf Download there. And yes I still say math covers the cause. The Universe exists because it can mathematically.

The natural universe on the other hand DOES have to follow them. Not if a supernatural being created it. Then there are no rules and math does not apply. BTW a Big Bang without a cause IS magic fairies and noodle monsters. There is no noodle monster there is only Zool.

Or perhaps the Invisible Giant Orbiting Aardvark.. Lack of an explanation isn't an explanation BTW.it's what we call a cop out. And saying a god did it somehow isn't a cop out? That IS magical thinking. Pretty much by definition.

Ethelred • 3 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2009. Not paradoxical.God has always existed. I've heard this used on the other side of the fence (ie the universe has always existed).it works well both ways. If it works both ways why are you claiming that the Universe requires a first cause? No it doesn't. You stamping your feet and saying it does doesn't make it so.

That goes for you as well. You stamp your feet a lot when somebody says something about religion you don't like. No you don't. If something has always existed then by definition you need no sequence of events for it to have been created. You could use some evidence for it. Of course we have mathematical and logical principles and I don't see how they need a creator to exist.

The only people contradicting themselves here are those who have faith in a naturally caused universe in which the laws of that universe clearly state it couldn't have had a natural cause. And since you are so knowledgeable about ALL the laws of the Universe how about you clue us in on what law makes the Universe impossible.

Thermodynamics won't do since Uncertainty means that we can't have absolutely nothing. That would be certain. Ethelred • 1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2009.

That settles it then. Guess I can't rationally rule out the possibility that I just flushed the creator of the Universe down the toilet. Come on, just say it yourself so I can laugh some more. Is English your first language or are you REALLY that stupid?

Did you read my post? Go back and re-read it. See the tiny difference here is that you DIDN'T flush the creator of the universe down the toilet, it's something that WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED therefore it's ruled out by definition.whereas the universe was created and therefore if you don't have and explanation you can't rule out anything. Apples and oranges moron. Can't you grasp the SUBTLE difference there? No obviously you can't and won't. Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest, AND an incredibly insulting jerk (like most atheists) that this conversation can serve no further purpose.

Oh and Ethelred I've red enough of your blowhard long winded screed on this board to know I don't want to get into a discussion with you about ANYTHING (might as well debate with a three year old about wether or not the sky is blue) much less this topic. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2009. Because we're not perfect.

Can a perfect god create imperfect beings and still be perfect? It's only deceptive if you don't believe. If you do believe you EXPECT it.nothing deceptive, nefarious, or evil about it. So then, if you believe, you expect the Universe to look exactly unlike the one described in the Bible. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were attempting to say.

That is a very strange excuse for reality and beliefs not coinciding. And I congratulate you on it for it is original. A very rare thing.

Its still crap but it is original crap. ---------------------------------------------------- Unlike you I'm at least intellectually honest about my faith. I think you would get upset less often if that was true.

Ethelred • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009. Oh and Ethelred I've red enough of your blowhard long winded screed on this board to know I don't want to get into a discussion with you about ANYTHING (might as well debate with a three year old about wether or not the sky is blue) much less this topic.

Yes, refuse to deal with logic and reason and the one person here that doesn't call you an idiot. Even after you insult me without call or reason. That makes just as much sense as many of your other posts. None whatsoever. Ethelred • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2009.

See the tiny difference here is that you DIDN'T flush the creator of the universe down the toilet, it's something that WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED therefore it's ruled out by definition.whereas the universe was created and therefore if you don't have and explanation you can't rule out anything. Apples and oranges moron. Bobby Henderson created the FSM in 2005 and satirically proclaimed it the intelligent designer of the Universe. According to you, we have to rationally acknowledge it as a potential creator of the Universe. Some hours ago, I created a turd and satirically proclaimed it the intelligent designer of the Universe.

Just so happened it was flushed, but that has little to do with the actual point, moron. It just makes it more humorous.

Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest, AND an incredibly insulting jerk (like most atheists) that this conversation can serve no further purpose. 'Incredibly insulting jerk'? As opposed to someone who wrote: Is English your first language or are you REALLY that stupid? Then that gives you the right to be an ignorant bigot with the manners of a chimp? Or are YOU really that much of an idiot? Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest I'm fairly sure you can't be simultaneously 'intellectually honest' and a 'hypocrite', except probably under your own twisted sense of 'logic'. I, for one, am quite aware of how insulting I'm being, you idiot.

I don't mind letting readers decide whether or not your stupidity deserves being pointed out. • not rated yet Jul 09, 2009. Can't you grasp the SUBTLE difference there? No obviously you can't and won't. Your intellect is pathetic beyond belief and your so totally self deluded, and intellectually dishonest, AND an incredibly insulting jerk (like most atheists) that this conversation can serve no further purpose. I, for one, am quite aware of how insulting I'm being, you idiot. I don't mind letting readers decide whether or not your stupidity deserves being pointed out.

-So does it always end in a slapfight, this noble dialectic, this ecumenical GUT? See, this is why Stalin never tried to reason with his opponents- he just KILLED them. See how easy it is? @Modernmystic It's only deceptive if you don't believe. If you do believe you EXPECT it.nothing deceptive, nefarious, or evil about it.

Unless of course you're asking from your point of view I can see where YOU might feel this way. These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, - but for the Kohms as well!

They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?

-The immutable laws of nature were written for everybody to understand, you as well as your enemies, in exactly the same way. 5'Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies.' We all sit at the same table.

• not rated yet Jul 09, 2009. Your donnybrook above is of the type well-predicted and often used to instigate armed conflict around the world, throughout history. Disputes over the status of the virgin Mary for instance, among other things, led to the Thirty Years War which killed over 30% of the Germans in Europe. I was just pointing this out. Maybe I said it wrong, or maybe not. Still feelin scrappy, eh? Lots is wrong with me, I admit that freely.

Doesnt mean I'm wrong though, does it? Theres lots wrong with most humans. We're the unfortunate result of a million years of unnatural evolution caused by endemic Tribal warfare. Our brains are far too large and fragile. Our immune systems are overdeveloped due to chronic overcrowding and disease, and attack healthy cells as often as bad ones.

We are conceived with defective genes, damaged in the womb by addicted mothers and after birth by idiots of all kinds, not to mention poisons, contagions, accident, etc. Maybe thats why we have a sense of humor. Maybe your opinions are only the result of relative damage to one side of your brain while Mr Mystics other half is dysfunctional. A battle of the hemispheres with the 2 of you relatively uninvolved? I see double all the time, SFW:-) Someday Man will establish heaven on earth and we will all be cured and comfortable forever. Its in the bible. • not rated yet Jul 09, 2009.

21'Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

34'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ' 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. -und so weiter.

-I know I'm just digging a deeper hole. Peace be with thee [and with thy Spirit] • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2009. And what exactly is wrong with you? Do you honestly think this is the appropriate venue for that kind of language? So what is wrong with YOU? With all your name calling. Yes Oxymystic(sorry but modern and mistic just do not go together.

Its worse than when I use Ethelred Hardrede) often has ill reasoned posts but that doesn't excuse all the name calling. Next time HE calls you names just point it out that it counts as surrender in any remotely rational discussion. And yes he surrendered to me again. I really don't feel like figuring out which of you surrendered first because clearly you both have. ---------------------------------- Otto, could you perhaps quit reversing directions. I am getting dizzy watching you spin in circles.

Ethelred • not rated yet Jul 10, 2009. So what is wrong with YOU? With all your name calling. Oh, I'm just communicating with Modernmystic in a language he apparently acknowledges. Is that inherently wrong?

One way or another our arguments are getting across to each other. I suppose others shouldn't judge either of us for the tone of our exchange. Someone told me in a discussion forum where I said I wouldn't go down that road that I was too sensitive, and that philosophers are typically abrasive. And I have to say it's rather fun. Gets the adrenaline going.

Particularly when you're not interested in upholding a reputation. Hasn't always been the case, and still isn't in other forums.

One has to 'vent', after all. No punching bag in my place yet, but I'm working on it. And yes he surrendered to me again.

I really don't feel like figuring out which of you surrendered first because clearly you both have. The appropriate word might be 'armistice'.

Otto, could you perhaps quit reversing directions. I am getting dizzy watching you spin in circles. I figure Otto subscribes to that weird 'universal perfection still liable to change' thingamajig. Think I met one of those before. But one could actually make sense of what he wrote, which is why his 'logic' could be seen to make little actual sense.

• not rated yet Jul 10, 2009. Ach du liebe Augustine- I think the People who actually run this world have a god far different than the gods they use for crowd control. This god is a truly fearsome god but to them he is undeniable. This god is 'that which is Inevitable'. They do not worship him but they do fear him, and this fear is only the beginning of wisdom.

Overpopulation is inevitable and the resulting wars and revolts are thus inevitable. Disasters are inevitable. Drought, famine, disease are all inevitable. At first they realized they would have to foresee these things, but at some point they realized if they could affect the timing or location or magnitude of these events then it could help them to protect the things which mattered most to them- their own families, and the accumulated store of knowledge which becomes impossible to replace. The strange mystery of this is that the process is described, in detail, in this wonderful doorstop of yours called the bible. Even more amazing is that this manual for the preservation of the species is ensconced within a collection of stories, parables, half-true history and such, which can serve as a basis for these crowd-control religions the public adores.

Their God is a metaphor for 'what is'. Scientists are those who are busy finding out what this means. Religionists are those who are keeping the people from breaking your doors down.

It might not seem so, but if the people were not so busy fighting each other they would be burning you all at the stake. And destroying the planet along with this civilization of ours.

Thank god for Jesus gentlemen, he is the greatest thing ever invented. But maybe his time is up. Ask nietzsche. I've talked about nothing else here. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2009. How terribly sad it is for me, an 18 year old girl, to find such hatred for the creation museum. Do you realize that evolution is the main stream education system?

I had to put up with that for 12 years of schooling. And you get mad for one Creation Museum being built.

How come we (christians) have to tolerate your religion (evolution) but you cannot tolerate mine? You really want to burn down the museum? I'd like to let you know that i am attending that Creation college 3 conference, and I will visit the Creaiton Museum for my second time, and I pray that I will be filled with knowledge, and that the Lord God will give me courage to stand up to people who believe that Christians and God are hurting the world. I am praying tonight for everyone who believes that the Creation Museum, and their organization should be annihilated. • 5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2009. How terribly sad it is for me, an 18 year old girl, to find such hatred for the creation museum.

Do you realize that evolution is the main stream education system? Do you realize that it is because tons of available evidence, with new stuff being discovered daily, corroborates the theory? I had to put up with that for 12 years of schooling. I had to put up with many more years of society's constant attempts to indoctrinate me. And you get mad for one Creation Museum being built. I've been mad at pseudo-scientists, perverting the scientific method, the compliance to which made this contact between us possible, and to which a lot of trust is due, for a long time. Hardly an issue of 'one Creation Museum being built'.

How come we (christians) have to tolerate your religion (evolution) but you cannot tolerate mine? Evolution is a scientific theory. Why would you call a scientific theory a 'religion'? This is typically done because you want to attribute the faults you recognize in religion to something that rejects its rational validity, and thus engage in a 'tu quoque' of sorts. Even as such, it would be fallacious. You really want to burn down the museum? Of course not.

I want it shut down, and the people responsible for it made accountable for its social irresponsibility. I'd like to let you know that i am attending that Creation college 3 conference, and I will visit the Creation Museum for my second time, and I pray that I will be filled with knowledge, and that the Lord God will give me courage to stand up to people who believe that Christians and God are hurting the world. I am praying tonight for everyone who believes that the Creation Museum, and their organization should be annihilated. You can pray, or you can read, and learn. • 5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2009. Oh, I'm just communicating with Modernmystic in a language he apparently acknowledges.

Is that inherently wrong? Generally yes, though perhaps not in all cases. I have seen a few people that I feel deserve exceptions, HOWEVER that doesn't mean the people reading this deserve it. I prefer making them FEEL like idiots to actually someone that. Someone told me in a discussion forum where I said I wouldn't go down that road that I was too sensitive, and that philosophers are typically abrasive. I might tell them that philosophers of that sort aren't invited to dinner parties. Except that I hate dinner parties and it might encourage me to be even MORE abrasive than I already am.

It reminds of the Word grammar check complaining about 'passive sentences' to which I responded(who me? Talk to stupid software. YES) Well it sure ticked people off for something called passive. Just look at how much ModernOxymoron doesn't want to deal with me and I rarely call people morons or idiots. Maroons maybe. Silly versions of their handle too often.

Humor is better. Particularly when you're not interested in upholding a reputation. Interested or not people get reputations. Of course online you can change your handle. The appropriate word might be 'armistice'.

That would NOT be appropriate. More like a shit smearing contest with bare hands and strong grips. I figure Otto subscribes to that weird 'universal perfection still liable to change' thingamajig. Well the weird part is certain.

Ethelred • 5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2009. How terribly sad it is for me, an 18 year old girl, to find such hatred for the creation museum. Generally people are more appalled by it than they hate it. I find it one of the silliest places on Earth. Accidental parody.

Do you realize that evolution is the main stream education system? If only it was. Unfortunately few are actually taught anything about evolution at least until they go to college. Clearly YOU haven't learned a thing about it, except from Creationists. Schools generally avoid it like the plague except for those that are trying to pretend that evolution is somehow controversial in biology. I had to put up with that for 12 years of schooling.

Now now don't exaggerate. I don't think anyone teaches evolution in first grade. Or pretty much any other grade in most schools. And you get mad for one Creation Museum being built. Just appalled at the astounding level of ignorance on display.

Even many of the people that worked on it k.

Driver's Ed is often a requirement to get a driver's license for teenagers and new adult drivers in Maryland. The rules of vehicle operation can be complicated.

That’s why we offer driver education courses in Suitland, MD to help you learn the laws and regulations governing roadways. The more you understand about how to safely operate a vehicle, the more confidence you’ll have behind the wheel. Enroll in one of our classes, and you’ll be on the right track toward becoming a legally licensed driver.

Our goal is to give you the best possible chance of passing your written and behind-the-wheel driver’s examinations. To help us achieve this goal, we work hard to provide you with the knowledge, confidence, and on-the-road experience you need to pass your road test. To get started, give us a call or visit us at 5623 Allentown Rd, Suitland, MD. A driver's education and training program will help prepare you to pass the written exam and road test administered by the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Revenue (DOR), Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), or Department of Public Safety (DPS). Along with preparing you for your driver's tests, taking Driver's Ed classes in Suitland will teach you the skills required to be a safe, responsible driver.

Completing a driver's education course will put you one step closer to meeting the requirements of your learner's permit and getting behind the wheel with your first driver's license. Even if you're an experienced driver or a parent getting ready to teach your teenager how to drive, a Driver's Ed course in Suitland can help refresh you on topics including: • Safe and defensive driving habits.

• Suitland, Maryland traffic laws and the rules of the road. • Sharing the road with other drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. • Handling adverse conditions and emergencies situations. Driver's Ed, whether it's a requirement or not, can benefit all drivers.