Quoted: Evolution is a science. It is not a religion.

No, it is a religion.

Further, by denying Christian Theism, you are left with no absolute truth, no pou sto, therefore, you have no philosophical  or epistemological grounds to make any sort of truth statement. Absolutes are a necessary prerequisaiste to making truth claims - and if you deny the Absolute, you are left with no basis for making truth claims.

I dont capitalize "god" when refering to any god. I do capitalize "God" when refering to the Christian God out of respect for people here. I dont have to do that you know....

Whether you captialize His Name isn't realy the great issue here - the point was your reverence for 'science'.

So I am just supposed to know that God did it because a random book tells me so?

No, you know because you were BORN knowing.

For many, thats not enough proof.

It's more than enough proof for you to hate God. As for 'enough proof' to make you want to believe in Him, there's not enough in the world, because of man's fallen nature.


The problem - haven't I stated this before - is not a lack of proof, it's a lack of desire.

Really, there is a clear historical record???

Yes, there is.

I must have missed that, all I have heard about is that there have been archaeologists searching the desert, Isreal, etc for many many years and they have found NOTHING.

Here's a hint that might save those guys millions of dollars in the future: They're not gonna find Him. He's not there anymore.

People were supposed to have roamed the desert for 40 years and left NOT A SINGLE shread of proof. Truly a miracle ().

What sort of 'proof' do wandering people leave? You expecting the ruins of a city?

NOT ONE PERSON SAW JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD.

~512 people saw Him live after He had been most certainly dead. Some of them saw angels proclaiming His Resurrection to them.

They only discovered him gone in the morning. Come on, quit making stuff up.

Irony: An evolutionist telling someone to stop making stuff up......

arowner-
I'd like to get a better understanding of your views on adaptation (and how they clash with the theory of evolution).  You've mentioned previously that you believe animals to be capable of adapting within their "kinds," but not changing from one kind to another.  I believe you also mentioned that a "kind" is similar to the "family" taxonomic classification. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Could you expand on this?  I'm still having a hard time understanding what constitutes a "kind."  

Quoted: If evolution was dismissed, what do you think we should put in its place?

Scripture. Think how many billions of tax dollars would be saved if you guys weren't trying to prove what we know to be false......think how much better use could be made of those research dollars.

Quoted: Quoted: If evolution was dismissed, what do you think we should put in its place? Scripture. Think how many billions of tax dollars would be saved if you guys weren't trying to prove what we know to be false......think how much better use could be made of those research dollars.

Are you implying that the world would be a better place without the progresses we've made in science?

Quoted: Snip.....

The biggest problem I have with the stuff you say is that you continually claim things that are just IMPOSSIBLE to know. You claim to know what God thinks, wants, says, etc. Thats impossible. Many have claimed that God is outside the realm of science, but here you are claiming to know what hes thinking.

You claim to know what every man is thinking spiritually. Are even the Chinese desiring your Christian God too? Thats impossible to know, but I bet you will give me an answer.


Your attacks on evolution are comical. You expect us to just throw away something we can actually see with our own eyes, and replace it with something thats impossible to EVER see. Thats absurd, and we would still be living in caves if we did it that way.

Quoted: arowner- I'd like to get a better understanding of your views on adaptation (and how they clash with the theory of evolution).  You've mentioned previously that you believe animals to be capable of adapting within their "kinds," but not changing from one kind to another.  I believe you also mentioned that a "kind" is similar to the "family" taxonomic classification. (please correct me if I'm wrong) Could you expand on this?  I'm still having a hard time understanding what constitutes a "kind."

What specifically do you want me to clarify? I'd be happy to - within my ability, of course, so some answers may take some digging.



In general, though, think of it this way:


Wolf - produces dogs, etc
Some sort of big cat produces other cats
some sort of 'grandaddy finch' produced other finches (a la galapogos islands).



Basically, it boils down to this:

microevolution = observeable = natural selection = adaptation = usually a loss of genetic information

versus...


macroevolution = unobservable = would require new genetic information assembled in a rational form by non-rational beings = untestable, unproveable, untenable.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If evolution was dismissed, what do you think we should put in its place? Scripture. Think how many billions of tax dollars would be saved if you guys weren't trying to prove what we know to be false......think how much better use could be made of those research dollars. Are you implying that the world would be a better place without the progresses we've made in science?

No - I made a statement. I dind't imply anything - but I would say that the money wasted on 'science' that started with macroevolutionary presuppositions could have been better spent.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort. Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it. You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs. This is the way science works.   A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it.  The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being. Evolution is science.  ID isn't testable, and therefore isn't science. Tolip has a point. arowneragain, you should consider the "problem" that God gives us (and which has no solution). God said, "I created the world in this manner", and then tells us how He did it. Then He makes it so that there is absolutely no way to "prove" how it happened. We are expected to believe because we love Him and have Faith in Him.  I do, and so do you. But He has made it so that others must do the same thing.....Trust Him in Faith. The "scientists" in this debate have already decided that they will not do that.  Therefore, it is a closed question as far as they are concerned. Beating them about the head will not change their minds.  They believe in "science" more than God.  That is their decision.  They are responsible for their decision. Just as you and I are.

This is another theme presented in the movie, that all scientists are somehow atheist, and only suppressing ID as part of their agenda. The producers specifically wanted that theme to resonate. It is the reason the avoided many of the top evolutionary scientists that are not atheists and only interviewed the outspoken atheist ones.

Just one more way the film attempts to mislead.

Quoted: The biggest problem I have with the stuff you say is that you continually claim things that are just IMPOSSIBLE to know.

Let me try and explain this slowly - and let me state up front that no amount of mere explanation can ever convince you of this.

You claim to know what God thinks, wants, says, etc.

To the extent that He has given us these things in Scripture, yes, of course I can.

Thats impossible.

Not at all.

Many have claimed that God is outside the realm of science,

Here's something important that must be said:


There is a very real difference between the God described in Scripture and the 'god' many people try to argue for.

The former is the God presented by those in the reformed school of Christian thought. This God is transcendent, and fallen men are spiritually incapable of 'reasoning up' to a beleif in this God.

The non-reformed evangelical, or the Roman Catholic, will present a very different view of this God.

This is one reason why O_P and I disagree on how to go about these conversations. His comments are consistent with a non-reformed view of God. Mine are consistent with a reforemd view.

That doesn't mean we don't consider each other 'brothers' - it just means we get our apologetic methods from very different viewpoints.


Now....the God I present isn't outside the realm of science...He is outside of the realm of natural man's ability to grasp. So He's outside the realm of any scientific endeavour undertaken by non-Christians, or inconsistent Christians.

but here you are claiming to know what hes thinking.

Read Scripture.

You claim to know what every man is thinking spiritually.

No, that's not what I claim at all.

Scripture teaches us much about anthropology. It teaches us not what any given person is thinking, but rather it teaches us HOW all men think.

You hate hearing this, but the ironic truth is that these threads actually confirm what Scripture teaches about natural man.

Are even the Chinese desiring your Christian God too?

I never said any (natural) man desires God. On the contrary, because of the fall, natural man is spiritually dead. He may have religion of some sort - to hide form God - but He hates the true God, wants nothing to do with Him, and is morally incapable of loving and serving HIm. This is a consequence of the fall.

Thats impossible to know,

To a natural man, yes - but it's obvious prima fascia to any genuine Christian.

but I bet you will give me an answer.

I'll always give you an answer - and you'll always reject it unless God intervenes.

Your attacks on evolution are comical.

Your belief in it is tragic....

You expect us to just throw away something we can actually see with our own eyes

See it with your own eyes? Ahhhh...the emperor's new clothes.

, and replace it with something thats impossible to EVER see.

This might be a good time to mention that none of us can 'see' the past. But since you mentioned it, yes, we will all one day see God. The question is - will you see Him as Savior, or as Judge?

(He'll be Lord either way...)

Thats absurd, and we would still be living in caves if we did it that way.

Your statement revelas an absolute lack of understanding of both Christianity and history.



Possibly the best work ever to deal with the actual impact of Christianity on culture (i.e.....not forcing people to live in caves) is Francis Schaeffer's How Should We then Live?

You can read a few pages of it here:

books.google.com/books?id=9bR8xRzvNpQC&dq=schaeffer+how+we+then+live&pg=PP1&ots=e1cfDAMAXS&sig=v4vevY7TGz_ziVQDd6KXqoNo7_I&hl=en&prev=www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-46,GGLD:en&q=schaeffer+how+we+then+live+&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

or buy it here:

www.amazon.com/How-Should-We-Then-Live/dp/1581345364


(side note: any Christian who has never read Schaeffer needs to do so immediately!)

Quoted: Quoted: Evolution is a science. It is not a religion.   No, it is a religion. Further, by denying Christian Theism, you are left with no absolute truth, no pou sto, therefore, you have no philosophical  or epistemological grounds to make any sort of truth statement. Absolutes are a necessary prerequisaiste to making truth claims - and if you deny the Absolute, you are left with no basis for making truth claims.

False presupposition that we are all idiots and will believe anything you say.
Science is not a religion.
Christianity is not the only religion on earth.
Christianity is not even the oldest religion on earth, there are many that pre-date it.
Other religions also claim to be the only true path and to deny other false religions.

Quoted: False presupposition that we are all idiots and will believe anything you say.

I don't presuppose that you'll beleive anything I say.

Science is not a religion.

That's right - but evolution is!

Christianity is not the only religion on earth.

I never said it was.

Christianity is not even the oldest religion on earth,

Christianity is 6000 years old. Humanism is a few minutes older.

there are many that pre-date it.

There are really only two religions on earth - worship of God, and worship of Man.

Other religions also claim to be the only true path and to deny other false religions.

Yes, but we're not dealing with mere claims here.

Quoted: ID is very much about a god (usually the christian God). Thats why I bring it up, people seem to forget that.

Exactly. IDers of today are simply the young earth creationists of not-so-yesteryear. Their attempts to weasel supernatural explanations into the public policy sphere were rightly shot down.

Now they are back, because they are convinced that they must beat science and society into their supernaturally-derived mold of reality. A mold that has not one bit of testable, observable physical reality associated with it.

Observations and testing of the available evidence usually doesn't lead toward the IDer's faith-derived outcome. An outcome they are in a cold panic to avoid, methinks because they are deep-down afraid of what science might reveal to them.

If your entire world view is built upon an unflinching acceptance of ancient texts being 100 percent factual and authoritative, having impartial science poke around the edges of your world view is a frightening thing. And the believer insists that this poking around must be stopped at any cost. The psychic damage potential to them is horrifying. And they believe inquiry is driven by the devil himself.

I understand it because I was raised in it. But even as a child, being told to "not question, just accept and believe" struck me as a terribly wrong thing to teach an inquisitive child. I tried the southern Baptist thing in my teens and twenties, then converted to Catholicism. But now, I'm somewhat agnostic. We don't know, and we may never be able to know. But we damn sure should try our best to try to find out. I would think a creator god would much rather prefer his creation use the reason and intellect he gave them to explore and test the boundaries of the universe he placed us in, instead of simply slouching through unthinking blind unquestioning acceptance.

Far better to strive to know, than to just believe.

Quoted: Quoted: So I am just supposed to know that God did it because a random book tells me so? No, you know because you were BORN knowing.

so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God?

Quoted: so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God?

Yes.

Quoted: Quoted: so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God? Yes.

I was watching this movie about Hercules the other day. There were a lot of people believing in Zeus. They did so for thousands of years. Then Greece was surpassed by Rome and, guess what, no more Zeus.

Then I watched this movie about Thor, Odin and the rest. OOPs, Norse civilization was eclipsed and it was bye, bye Odin.

But then there were the Pharaohs in Egypt and everyone was sure the Ra ruled the universe. Uh Oh, Egypt fell by the wayside and it was goodby to Ra.

And then there was Rome. Jupiter, Juno and the rest. Well that was OK for Rome but when conquering other people in other lands you need a new religion that is adaptable. A religion that you can invent as you go along. And so Constantine called the Catholic Bishops together in Nicea and they created a religion that could be adapted to changing times and different cultures. A religion that could embrace pagan feasts in Germany and England. Hey, you can still worship trees, but they'll be Christian trees that we'll call Christmas trees!

And you you can still have your spring equinox feast, we'll call it Easter. And Pan will become the devil because after all, we want to keep a tight rein on anything fun. We'll dole it out so you can refer to us about everything you want to do.

And that wasn't good enough for the Mormons, they took it a step further because they thought old guys with money should have hot young babes. And if you tie it to religion, the original wife can't say squat.

And then we L Ron Hubbard who figured out the quickest and easiest way to part the rubes from their money wasn't writing science fiction books, it was in another sort of fiction: Religion! So he started his own and loaded it with mumbo jumbo that only a real wacko could believe and even that attracted millions. Thetans. Barnum had it right.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

I saw the movie, thought it was good. I agree that there is no discussion on this subject. There is plenty of reason to doubt evolution, but it seems fine for evolutionists to sweet such things under the rug in the name of science.  You have to believe in evolution, and we've been pumping it into people's heads for the last 50 years. I dont' believe in Macro Evolution, microevolution is not possible to argue with but does not prove anything regarding darwin.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God? Yes. I was watching this movie about Hercules the other day. There were a lot of people believing in Zeus. They did so for thousands of years. Then Greece was surpassed by Rome and, guess what, no more Zeus. Then I watched this movie about Thor, Odin and the rest. OOPs, Norse civilization was eclipsed and it was bye, bye Odin. But then there were the Pharaohs in Egypt and everyone was sure the Ra ruled the universe. Uh Oh, Egypt fell by the wayside and it was goodby to Ra. And then there was Rome. Jupiter, Juno and the rest. Well that was OK for Rome but when conquering other people in other lands you need a new religion that is adaptable. A religion that you can invent as you go along. And so Constantine called the Catholic Bishops together in Nicea and they created a religion that could be adapted to changing times and different cultures. A religion that could embrace pagan feasts in Germany and England. Hey, you can still worship trees, but they'll be Christian trees that we'll call Christmas trees! And you you can still have your spring equinox feast, we'll call it Easter. And Pan will become the devil because after all, we want to keep a tight rein on anything fun. We'll dole it out so you can refer to us about everything you want to do. And that wasn't good enough for the Mormons, they took it a step further because they thought old guys with money should have hot young babes. And if you tie it to religion, the original wife can't say squat. And then we L Ron Hubbard who figured out the quickest and easiest way to part the rubes from their money wasn't writing science fiction books, it was in another sort of fiction: Religion! So he started his own and loaded it with mumbo jumbo that only a real wacko could believe and even that attracted millions. Thetans. Barnum had it right. Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

Hmmmm....

I see it now. You're saying man has always invented religions to satisfy his desire to worship, answer his questions, and control other people?



WOW!




You just demonstrated exactly what Scripture teaches about the nature of man.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I am just supposed to know that God did it because a random book tells me so? No, you know because you were BORN knowing. so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God?

Not it at all......You are born knowing right from wrong.....who teachs a small child to steal and to lie?......my parents never taught me that..I knew it was wrong..and did it anyway.

I don't give a shit WHAT Ben Stein says: the "theory" of evolution is as close to FACT as you can get, folks. Get over it.

And, just because Mankind wasn't truly and literally "made from clay by some Almighty deity" doesn't mean we don't have purpose or value - or shouldn't live our lives morally, ethically and within the bounds of accepted social behaviors. ("Made from clay" COULD be a euphemism for Evolution, though. If you think about it . . . !)

I'm often stunned that I can have so much in common politically with some folks - yet, be so far apart scientifically/religiously.

It's amazing. And kinda' sad, too.

Probably why politics and religion are considered taboo subjects; in "polite" conversation.


****This post isn't intended to belittle or insult anyone. Facts are facts. That's all.

Quoted: I don't give a shit WHAT Ben Stein says: the "theory" of evolution is as close to FACT as you can get, folks. Get over it.

Ah...so your mind is made up already......remind me again which side is 'scientific', will you?

And, just because Mankind wasn't truly and literally "made from clay by some Almighty deity" doesn't mean we don't have purpose or value

That's false.

If God didn't exist, there would be no demonstrable purpose to life. Further, even if there was, you'd have no platform on which to stand and say there was such a purpose.

- or shouldn't live our lives morally, ethically and within the bounds of accepted social behaviors.

Good qualification there - but pray tell, what determined 'accepted social behaviors'? Society? If so, that amounts to 'mob rule'.

Don't expect anything resembling civilization to last long with that...

("Made from clay" COULD be a euphemism for Evolution, though. If you think about it . . . !)

Actually, no, it couldn't.

I'm often stunned that I can have so much in common politically with some folks - yet, be so far apart scientifically/religiously.

Same here!

It's amazing. And kinda' sad, too.

If you think it's sad now, wait till eternity......

Probably why politics and religion are considered taboo subjects; in "polite" conversation.

There's another euphemism I don't get:

Why is it considered 'polite' to NOT warn people about the Hell they're headed for? I don't think that's 'polite' at all!

****This post isn't intended to belittle or insult anyone.

And it certainly wasn't taken that way be me.

Facts are facts.

And opinions are opinions...thanks for sharing yours!

That's all.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God? Yes. I was watching this movie about Hercules the other day. There were a lot of people believing in Zeus. They did so for thousands of years. Then Greece was surpassed by Rome and, guess what, no more Zeus. Then I watched this movie about Thor, Odin and the rest. OOPs, Norse civilization was eclipsed and it was bye, bye Odin. But then there were the Pharaohs in Egypt and everyone was sure the Ra ruled the universe. Uh Oh, Egypt fell by the wayside and it was goodby to Ra. And then there was Rome. Jupiter, Juno and the rest. Well that was OK for Rome but when conquering other people in other lands you need a new religion that is adaptable. A religion that you can invent as you go along. And so Constantine called the Catholic Bishops together in Nicea and they created a religion that could be adapted to changing times and different cultures. A religion that could embrace pagan feasts in Germany and England. Hey, you can still worship trees, but they'll be Christian trees that we'll call Christmas trees! And you you can still have your spring equinox feast, we'll call it Easter. And Pan will become the devil because after all, we want to keep a tight rein on anything fun. We'll dole it out so you can refer to us about everything you want to do. And that wasn't good enough for the Mormons, they took it a step further because they thought old guys with money should have hot young babes. And if you tie it to religion, the original wife can't say squat. And then we L Ron Hubbard who figured out the quickest and easiest way to part the rubes from their money wasn't writing science fiction books, it was in another sort of fiction: Religion! So he started his own and loaded it with mumbo jumbo that only a real wacko could believe and even that attracted millions. Thetans. Barnum had it right. Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Hmmmm.... I see it now. You're saying man has always invented religions to satisfy his desire to worship, answer his questions, and control other people? WOW! You just demonstrated exactly what Scripture teaches about the nature of man.

You need scripture to teach you something that all cultures knew even before your bible was even written?

Thats like me writing a book saying that all matter is made of atoms, and peopple saying that I am so great for pointing that out.....


In other news, did you know it is moraly wrong to steal? Good thing the bible pointed that one out too.......

Quoted: You need scripture to teach you something that all cultures knew even before your bible was even written?

No - I needed Scripture to point out why men do this.

In other news, did you know it is moraly wrong to steal? Good thing the bible pointed that one out too.......

Speaking of morality, do you realize that there is absolutely NO WAY to explain morality apart from Christian Theism?

No God = no morality.

Apart from the existence of God, the concept of morality is absurd, illogical, and contrary to everything we know about God. Apart from God, no human being has any right to make any sort of moral declaration. Apart from God, you have no right to even say it is 'wrong' to steal. As such, you're at the end of your line of argumentation- not that I expect you to give it up....

However, Scripture does teach that all men everywhere do have a sense of right and wrong. This isn't some evolutionary phenomena, of course. God has written His Law on men's hearts. men know their behavior is inherently bad.

Thanks for reminding me of another evidence of Creation.

Quoted: Quoted: You need scripture to teach you something that all cultures knew even before your bible was even written? No - I needed Scripture to point out why men do this. In other news, did you know it is moraly wrong to steal? Good thing the bible pointed that one out too....... Speaking of morality, do you realize that there is absolutely NO WAY to explain morality apart from Christian Theism? No God = no morality. Apart from the existence of God, the concept of morality is absurd, illogical, and contrary to everything we know about God. Apart from God, no human being has any right to make any sort of moral declaration. Apart from God, you have no right to even say it is 'wrong' to steal. As such, you're at the end of your line of argumentation- not that I expect you to give it up.... However, Scripture does teach that all men everywhere do have a sense of right and wrong. This isn't some evolutionary phenomena, of course. God has written His Law on men's hearts. men know their behavior is inherently bad. Thanks for reminding me of another evidence of Creation.

Maybe I should go get some slaves.....the bible says that is OK too...


Further, you DONT need God to be moral. I am as big an atheist as they come, and I dont even step on ants when I am out walking. Everything has a right to live and unfortunately the bible doesnt feel the same.

How many people did God and Moses kill??? 3,000 was it......after he came down off the mountain and saw everyone sinning???? Truly sad that you follow THIS type of message.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort. Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it. You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs. This is the way science works.   A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it.  The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being. Evolution is science.  ID isn't testable, and therefore isn't science. Tolip has a point. arowneragain, you should consider the "problem" that God gives us (and which has no solution). God said, "I created the world in this manner", and then tells us how He did it. Then He makes it so that there is absolutely no way to "prove" how it happened. We are expected to believe because we love Him and have Faith in Him.  I do, and so do you. But He has made it so that others must do the same thing.....Trust Him in Faith. The "scientists" in this debate have already decided that they will not do that.  Therefore, it is a closed question as far as they are concerned. Beating them about the head will not change their minds.  They believe in "science" more than God.  That is their decision.  They are responsible for their decision. Just as you and I are.

For me its not a real matter of trust but a matter of wanting to know more. The bible itself is full of mysteries - as is the faith. If everything was clear and picture picture perfect we would have no questions about it and we would not have 150 different Christian sects running around.

But its not. There are different interpretations. The passages on transubstantiation seem pretty clear to me - yet are rejected by most people. Many people take genesis literal - while others see it as a symbolic tale.

I don't doubt God created the universe and earth - but as we live in a world of physics and chemistry I think he used the natural laws he created to make it. Thus we will probably never see his direct hand in anything. But thats ok. People with faith find God even more wonderful through the knowledge they gain.

ol' painless - If you haven't read my long post at the bottom of pg 9 = it sums up my feelings on the matter better.

Quoted: Quoted: Science has been around a lot longer than Christianity That's right. God is the original scientist - Christianity as we know it is only 6000 years old. ;)]

You mean 2000yrs? You couldn't be a Christian before Jesus died for your sins, you were just a Jew.

How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe?

[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]

Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]

Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data.

Quoted: Maybe I should go get some slaves.....the bible says that is OK too...

Hermeneutics isn't your strong point, eh?

There was a time and place when slavery was OK. That time is gone. Regrettably, it took some of us a while to grasp that.

Further, you DONT need God to be moral.

You presuppose your ability to define 'moral' however you want. That is patently false. Patently.

Like I said, you have no further argument here. None.

I am as big an atheist as they come,

So you say.....

and I dont even step on ants when I am out walking.

Which has nothing to do with morality.

Everything has a right to live and unfortunately the bible doesnt feel the same.

Nothing has a right to live in God's eyes.

We have no right to murder people, of course - from a societal standpoint, everyone has a right to life - but in an ultimate sense, life is a priviledge granted by God.

How many people did God and Moses kill??? 3,000 was it......after he came down off the mountain and saw everyone sinning????

More than that if you add them all up...

Truly sad that you follow THIS type of message.

First of all, you have no right whatsoever to make any sort of moiral judgement if you insist on an atheistic position. I know this won't stop you from falsely robbing God of His perogatives - and usurping His absolutes when they suit your purposes - but you have no right whatsoever to make any sort of moral pronouncements.  

Further, you're making an additional error when you claim that I have some sort of 'kill them all' mentality.

Then there's the fact that all those God ordered killed had EARNED death.

God never ordered any INNOCENT person killed. He only ordered that justice be carried out on those who had committed crimes.

Take away that principle, and our legal system falls apart.





(But I appreciate your posts - they consistently give me opportunity to demonstrate the impossibilitites of atheism)

Quoted: arowner- I'd like to get a better understanding of your views on adaptation (and how they clash with the theory of evolution).  You've mentioned previously that you believe animals to be capable of adapting within their "kinds," but not changing from one kind to another.  I believe you also mentioned that a "kind" is similar to the "family" taxonomic classification. (please correct me if I'm wrong) Could you expand on this?  I'm still having a hard time understanding what constitutes a "kind."

Four colors of cats from a common mother cat is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. It is evidence for Intelligent Design. Can you wrap your mind around just that single observation+ conclusion? If so, then you can continue. You can screw around breeding dogs, salamanders, corn, bacteria etc, for decades and unless you start sucking nuclei out of cells you will not grossly effect the kind of animal. Plugging in a variable of millions of years does not help the situation unless you also add faith in a process that caused it. Nature does not breed diversity, it stifles it. If you turn 20 breeds of dog loose in the wild, you will end up with one dog breed, a mixture of them all, best suited to the task of survival. Oh, crap. I am not going to invest any more time in this.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Science has been around a lot longer than Christianity That's right. God is the original scientist - Christianity as we know it is only 6000 years old. ;)] You mean 2000yrs? You couldn't be a Christian before Jesus died for your sins, you were just a Jew.

No, I mean 6000 years.


(And I *am* a Jew - have you never read Romans chapter 2?)


Nobody in the OT was saved by anything other than Christ. People in the OT looked forward to Christ in the same way that we look back.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I should go get some slaves.....the bible says that is OK too... Hermeneutics isn't your strong point, eh? There was a time and place when slavery was OK. That time is gone. Regrettably, it took some of us a while to grasp that.

NO, NO, NO, every word of the bible is absolute fact!!!! We can have slaves according to the bible. The bible doesnt discriminate on time and culture, I have been told this before.


Anyway, I will have to address the rest of your post later. I am heading to Roswell.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: so the kid that is born in a tribe in South America or some other  boonies "KNOWS" about God? Yes. I was watching this movie about Hercules the other day. There were a lot of people believing in Zeus. They did so for thousands of years. Then Greece was surpassed by Rome and, guess what, no more Zeus. Then I watched this movie about Thor, Odin and the rest. OOPs, Norse civilization was eclipsed and it was bye, bye Odin. But then there were the Pharaohs in Egypt and everyone was sure the Ra ruled the universe. Uh Oh, Egypt fell by the wayside and it was goodby to Ra. And then there was Rome. Jupiter, Juno and the rest. Well that was OK for Rome but when conquering other people in other lands you need a new religion that is adaptable. A religion that you can invent as you go along. And so Constantine called the Catholic Bishops together in Nicea and they created a religion that could be adapted to changing times and different cultures. A religion that could embrace pagan feasts in Germany and England. Hey, you can still worship trees, but they'll be Christian trees that we'll call Christmas trees! And you you can still have your spring equinox feast, we'll call it Easter. And Pan will become the devil because after all, we want to keep a tight rein on anything fun. We'll dole it out so you can refer to us about everything you want to do. And that wasn't good enough for the Mormons, they took it a step further because they thought old guys with money should have hot young babes. And if you tie it to religion, the original wife can't say squat. And then we L Ron Hubbard who figured out the quickest and easiest way to part the rubes from their money wasn't writing science fiction books, it was in another sort of fiction: Religion! So he started his own and loaded it with mumbo jumbo that only a real wacko could believe and even that attracted millions. Thetans. Barnum had it right. Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Hmmmm.... I see it now. You're saying man has always invented religions to satisfy his desire to worship, answer his questions, and control other people? WOW! You just demonstrated exactly what Scripture teaches about the nature of man.

I see a race of scientists ranging from geologists to astronomers who make a good living off government money.

Quoted: Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space] Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data.

It's been done - but you're still unwilling to beleive it.


Quod volumus, facile credimus

Quoted: Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space] Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data.

We are working on it. It is tough when you have to pay your own way though.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space] Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data. It's been done - but you're still unwilling to beleive it. Quod volumus, facile credimus

No, they are unwilling to consider even the possibility of another explanation, because the one they have works for them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I should go get some slaves.....the bible says that is OK too... Hermeneutics isn't your strong point, eh? There was a time and place when slavery was OK. That time is gone. Regrettably, it took some of us a while to grasp that. NO, NO, NO, every word of the bible is absolute fact!!!!

A breakthrough! That's the smartest thing you've ever posted.

We can have slaves according to the bible.

Slavery isn't wrong per se. I was born a slave myself. But Christ came and died for freedom.

(Odd that gun owners hate the most 'free' people on earth...)

Slavery was permitted in the OT - but if you'll notice, God's people weren't usually the owners, they were the slaves. And you're correct that Jesus never specifically spoke against slavery of the physical sort. Neither did Paul, for that matter. That doesn't mean it's OK for us to have slaves today.

The bible doesnt discriminate on time and culture, I have been told this before.

Let me try to clarify:

It's God's perogative as to how He wants to deal with men. He has, in some ways, changed His dealings with us over time. Scripture makes this clear. But the perogative is His, not ours.

So, *our* time and culture don't change God's precepts.

But *God* is free to do so as He sees fit - provided, of course, that those precepts remain within His character.

Anyway, I will have to address the rest of your post later. I am heading to Roswell.....

Take your time.

While you're there, see if you can find a way to account for morality.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space] Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data. It's been done - but you're still unwilling to beleive it. Quod volumus, facile credimus No, they are unwilling to consider even the possibility of another explanation, because the one they have works for them.

this is a lie.

Quoted: the one they have works for them.

But only temporarily......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space] Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data. It's been done - but you're still unwilling to beleive it. Quod volumus, facile credimus No, they are unwilling to consider even the possibility of another explanation, because the one they have works for them. this is a lie.

Thank you. I was too brief; Most are unwilling to consider even the possibility of another explanation because the one they have works for them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How does one go about falsifying a process that requires millions of years to observe? [words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space]A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....[words, viewed from an oblique, streaming away into space] Easy....back up a different claim with evidence and data. It's been done - but you're still unwilling to beleive it. Quod volumus, facile credimus No, they are unwilling to consider even the possibility of another explanation, because the one they have works for them. this is a lie. Thank you. I was too brief; Most are unwilling to consider even the possibility of another explanation because the one they have works for them.

tell you what, you come up with a new theory within the bounds and rules of science, write it up and then submit it for peer review. then we will see how it does. If it proves to be true through experimentation and observation, and describes more accurately than evolution the origin of the diversity of life on our planet then it will replace evolution as the explanation. it will be taught in schools and science classes and so on.


This is how science works. It is not exclusive to evolution. it is the reason why astrology is not taught in science class.

evolution is not a religion. it is not a social agenda.

ID is nothing like evolution. ID is a social agenda aimed at getting creationist / religious ideas taught in public schools. ID is not a science. ID offer no scientific evidence, instead it only attacks parts of evolution that are misunderstood by most laymen.


It smells just like the liberals' revisionist versions of history and political correctness that have already permeated public schools.

Quoted: Ben Stein also utilized the same tactic Michael Moore used against Charlton Heston. Moore spliced together different speeches of Heston to form a totally new speech as if it was one continuous clip.  Stein used the same tactic by omitting sentences from a Darwin quote to allude to Nazi connection/master race idea. This is what Stein reads in the movie, With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. Now this is the full and complete Darwin quote, With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Will someone that liked the movie comment on this please ?  I would love to hear your opinion and if you consider that a defensible act.

Quoted: Quoted: ol' painless - If you haven't read my long post at the bottom of pg 9 = it sums up my feelings on the matter better. I read it when you posted it. It seems like a couple of weeks ago. I don't agree with you, but I understand your position.

Ha - it does seem that long. No one commented on it and I don't want to keep typing the same stuff over and over. And it was conveniently on the bottom of the page.

Quoted: <snip> evolution is not a religion. it is not a social agenda. ID is nothing like evolution. ID is a social agenda aimed at getting creationist / religious ideas taught in public schools. ID is not a science. ID offer no scientific evidence, instead it only attacks parts of evolution that are misunderstood by most laymen. It smells just like the liberals' revisionist versions of history and political correctness that have already permeated public schools.

Well said...  This is the only rational conclusion that can be reached when you actually examine the evidence, but some people simply refuse to do so, as evidenced by the numerous fallacies about evolution that permeate these threads.

Quoted: Quoted: Evolution is a science. It is not a religion.   No, it is a religion.

Quoted: Quoted: If evolution was dismissed, what do you think we should put in its place? Scripture. Think how many billions of tax dollars would be saved if you guys weren't trying to prove what we know to be false......think how much better use could be made of those research dollars.

Quoted: Quoted: Science has been around a lot longer than Christianity That's right. God is the original scientist - Christianity as we know it is only 6000 years old.

Sounds like it's time to move this one to the religion forum.  There is no discussion here about science, just one man proselytizing his religion.  There can be no meaningful debate when you don't understand the meaning of the words 'science' and 'religion' and the differences between them.  And to categorize evolutionary theory as a religion in order to demean it is disingenuous and ironic in its own rite.

Quoted: Quoted: I updated my previous post with a little bit more info. If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites. take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure. Yep, I read it back then. It is a one-sided opinion. I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side. Maybe there's another side of this story.

Expelled (exposed) is the other side of the story.



You've got the movie (one side), and you've got the website Expelledexposed (the other side).  There's your two sides to the story.

Please try to think more critically before posting.

Quoted: Sounds like it's time to move this one to the religion forum.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?

There is no discussion here about science, just one man proselytizing his religion.

That's not true. There are dozens of people trying to discuss the religion of evolution.

There can be no meaningful debate when you don't understand the meaning of the words 'science' and 'religion' and the differences between them.

I know - but I keep trying anyway.

And to categorize evolutionary theory as a religion science in order to demean it is disingenuous and ironic in its own rite.

Yep.

Quoted: Quoted: arowner- I'd like to get a better understanding of your views on adaptation (and how they clash with the theory of evolution).  You've mentioned previously that you believe animals to be capable of adapting within their "kinds," but not changing from one kind to another.  I believe you also mentioned that a "kind" is similar to the "family" taxonomic classification. (please correct me if I'm wrong) Could you expand on this?  I'm still having a hard time understanding what constitutes a "kind."   Four colors of cats from a common mother cat is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. It is evidence for Intelligent Design. Can you wrap your mind around just that single observation+ conclusion? If so, then you can continue. You can screw around breeding dogs, salamanders, corn, bacteria etc, for decades and unless you start sucking nuclei out of cells you will not grossly effect the kind of animal. Plugging in a variable of millions of years does not help the situation unless you also add faith in a process that caused it. Nature does not breed diversity, it stifles it. If you turn 20 breeds of dog loose in the wild, you will end up with one dog breed, a mixture of them all, best suited to the task of survival. Oh, crap. I am not going to invest any more time in this.

I wish you would.

Evolution would predict the interbreeding of dogs as you describe, resulting in dogs that are more alike.  If two groups of these similar dogs were isolated from eachother, though, given enough time, they will become different species.

I see that you have a grasp of natural selection, but not genetic diversification...



What confuses me the most about the "kinds" idea is how different it proposes that the kinds of creatures are from eachother.  

For example, gerbils, rats and mice are the same "kind" of animals, but hamsters are a different kind? What is it that distinguishes them?

Evolution would tell us that the only distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is time.  I'm trying to understand how this could be disproven.

Quoted: Evolution would tell us that the only distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is time.  I'm trying to understand how this could be disproven.

Loss of genetic material over time vs. gain of genetic material over time. is a big part of the distinction between micro and macro.

Wolf------> poodle = loss of genetic material
Wolf------> bobcat = gain of genetic material


Those who (falsely) claim to have observed evolution in a lab forget that they've never seen the production of new, useful genetic information. The best they've seen is freak mutations that do NOT contribute to the viability of a species.


If you want to actually 'prove' macroevolution, you'll have to start with non-life, produce life (remember...you guys are STILL building a house without a foundation....you need to work on your foundation first) and then make that new life turn into a middle-manager with an MBA and a mortgage.

Further, you'll have to do this without borrowing any material tied to Christian Theism.....this includes, of course, the entire earth and everything in it, including the air you're stealing from God.