In public schools, religion by any other name is still religion

I miss the days when we could get a christian - or really any religion would do - to come on here and debate us. I guess they just don't feel the need to spread the "good news"?
.
I mean clearly a belief that there is an allpowerfull, all knowing, all loving being that will grant you eternal rewards or punishment isnt enought for Bill or others to put up with our "cynicism" as Bill calls it - rationalism and it is known to the rest of the world.

billnewbie, just because you're able to see my posts doesn't mean they were the cause of that blog being deleted. (Although it is a fact that about five of your fellow believers were totally banned from this site for the very behavior [against me] that you accuse me of.) The blog was there for a long time after I left those posts. Nice snooping on your part, though. (I know for a fact that she reads the posts here.) If you would only put that much effort into studying science, you wouldn't come off as so uneducated.

On relativism: If you know anything about her, you'd know that you two are politically arch enemies. Therefore your adoption of her solely because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is extremely relativistic. Still you have no grip on the concept.

By the way, why don't you contact her so she can list you as a supporter.

And of course you're taking this tact because you are tapped-out on the real ongoing debates.

On thing is clear, Gazettefan understands who Maxdetail was talking to.
.
I noticed, Gazettefan, that Ms. Briarmoon has written 2, that's right a whole 2 comments under that moniker you cited. One was a story directly about her and the other about the police chief. In the story about the police chief (from January) you did not offer a comment until she did (and what an unpleasant barrage those 2 posts were) and she did not respond to you (in kind or otherwise). And in that story about her property on which she commented (from November), after your vitriolic tirade against her and some members of her family, the Gazette shut down the comment board (though neither yours nor her comments in your prospective archives were removed). In that story again she did not directly address your previous (and hate filled) comments, not did she respond to your vicious vitriol posted afterward. She made one comment and one only on each story. At no time did Ms. Briarmoon offer any comment below on this story, she has made no comments whatsoever since January and you, Gazettefan have no reason to think she has read anything hereon. And she has very good reason to ignore anything you have written. Therefore your comments about her are totally without justification and made at a person you have no reason to believe will ever read them and, in fact, have every reason to believe she will not. That makes your comment a cheapshot. The fact that you will not retract it and instead rationalize it proves you have no integrity, intellectual or otherwise, in spite of your hollow claims. And the fact of your justification of your hostility towards Ms. Briarmoon and your condemnation of the hostility you claim to see in my posts is proof of your relativism. Since you claim that my "hostility" is wrong but yours toward Ms. Briarmoon is right, there can be no other explanation for such a contradictory stance other than moral relativism, unless you are willing to acknowledge some serious personality flaws such as a conceit so large as to render you unable to retract your unprovoked attack on the unwary Ms. Briarmoon.

max....., the content of your post means you shouldn't have left it.

These threads would be so vastly more interesting and shorter if ya'll could learn the difference between logic and sarcasm, argument and personal attack. When you run out of argument, just stop typing.

billnewbie, your ability to endlessly go on about something you know nothing about is duly noted.

News flash: She reads the posts here and is as free as anyone else to respond. Her username is: kandreahbriarmoon.

She has carefully assessed what the responses to her screeds would be and has wisely chosen not to participate. Unlike someone else who will remain nameless, but whose initials are "billnewbie."

As for your "relativist" comment. You and she are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum but are united by the commonality of your obsession with your own lies and delusions. Perpetrators of such lies and delusions are never exempt from exposure. This is not relativistic, it is absolute.

Learn the meaning of terms before you use them!!!

Of course you do, Gazettefan. Anyone can see that you are much better at self-examination than I am. It takes great intellectual integrity to level cheapshots at someone behind their back. Certainly Ms. Briarmoon has earned every contemptible thing you care to say about her just as has everyone else who has had the gall to disagree with you even if she is unawares and therefore cannot defend herself. Silly me for not seeing that! And congratulations to Prounion for recognizing and defending Gazettefan's moral superiority!

Prounion, I'm sorry that my logic escapes you, I suspect that your hostility to God interferes with your perceptions. I also realize that you did not refer to me with that particular invective (someone else did), but I find it perplexing that you think that you can mock someone as crazy and then just shrug it off as "nothing personal". I find such a statement as very personal, and rather self-righteous as it allows you to dismiss without consideration what I've written. Isn't that why you and your cadre try to marginalize people you don't agree with, so that you can dismiss them summarily as intellectually inferior? Also, I would like to point out to you that I've addressed your contentions that a God of love wouldn't allow evil. I realize that my explanations can be rather long, but this isn't a simple subject and it requires complicated and lengthy answers. Perhaps you skimmed over those posts and missed the salient points, like you did about the virgin birth. I suggest you try re-reading those posts from my archive. It will take some effort, but if you are serious about seeking answers you may find my posts helpful.

Bill - why is Gazette fan's attitude such a barrier to the debate? I would ask yourself if maybe you need a stronger arguement?

billnewbie, I am infinitely more moral than you: I have intellectual integrity.

So you can justify your cheapshot, Gazettefan? At least this should put to rest the question of whether you are a moral relativist. It also dismisses yet again any claims you made to moral ascendancy just as they have before when you've engaged in similarly despicable statements and tactics.

Whythink: Wouldn't it be great if did live in an ideal world! Unfortunately we don't and I agree that there are alot of religious beliefs thrown around as well as other things and I understand the need to keep them separate but I also think each person gets to make their own choice on what they believe and that they shouldn't be ridiculed for those choices.

I too am a christian but I no longer attend churches because of the hypocrits and the "structured " rules that say you must do this or can't do that because I feel that in the end what I wear or say or do is between me and God and I don't think I will go to he-- for wearing pants although was told that in a Baptist church. Was also told I couldn't sit with one lady anymore because she couldn't have lunch with me because I was still associating with people who smoked and drank (didn't matter that these were people I have been friends with my entire life, guess I was supposed to dump them?) and that was a non-denominational church. I tried a Baptist church up here when we first moved and well that preacher said the congregation needed to give more money so he could be a full time pastor and not have to work outside the church, and I could go on with a few more examples of the way churches and their "structured religion" have disappointed me. No wonder people don't want to be christians when they see how some of the so called ones act and behave....

billnewbie, if B-moon and you had your ways, you'd each put the other in prison. The both of you are on the extreme opposing sides of the political spectrum but are so much alike.

I guess I was commenting on some of the earlier posts about creationism vs evolution.
+
I am a Christian who attend church but I don't like the religious beliefs being thrown into every aspect of our society.
+
Education, politics, science, etc...
+
Religion, in my opinion, should focus on educating myself and other followers about, well, religion. Then, after I have learned about that, I can make my own decision about stem-cell research, evolution, dems. vs. reps., etc...
+
That would be my ideal world. Trust me to get it right on these issues because of the Religious education I receive on Sunday.

Whythink? Actually the story was about religion in school but if you have read the posts most have been a debate over various aspects of religion and not alot of people complaining that they can't teach religion in school. Also freedom of religion is one of those freedoms you claim is interfering with your freedoms?? I think we are all entitled to all the freedoms listed in the constitution, While we may not all agree with each other, we are allowed to believe as we so desire and to choose our religion or choose not to have a religion...

As previously stated I told my kids when they were in school that the choice of what they believe is theirs to make.

I swear, some people want their religion to interfere with MY FREEDOMS!
+
Keep religion out of public school and if you don't like evolution being taught to your child, sex ed. taught to your child, Sally had two daddy's read to your child, etc... Send them to private school.
+
Public education is not religous ed. and if some of the curriculum goes against your religious beliefs then find an alternative.
+
Nothing being taught in the public schools is anti-christianity but it may not jive with christian beliefs. That is a reality that is unlikely to change.
+
People need to wake-up and realize that public education is run by the government and is non-religious so theories that may go against creationism may be taught even though creationism isn't.
+
Plenty of private school available willing to take your $$ and give them a christian education.
+
So stop complaining about public education being non-religious...END OF STORY!

Bill - sorry I misread your post on the virgin birth - May 13, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.
.
Your answer is somehow god did it, I won't post a response your own explanation of the theory of the virgin birth is beyond further head scratching.
.

FYI - Never called you a Jack(you know what) and yes I may have said your views were crazy. Please allow me to clarify my thoughts on your views - not on you as a person since this is an anonymous post and such discussions would be irrelevant.
.
By stating that your views are crazy I simply meant that they have no root in reality.
.
Nothing personal - I mean all the christians have stopped attempting to iron out the logic snares that are intrinsic to the bible. Which is wise - since its actually a collection of myths and history written by man as they saw the world thousands of years ago. There is really no way to correlate that to modern knowledge of the world or the view of god as all loving, all knowing.

fool-on-the-hill: I apologize if you thought I meant just you-I slipped from one part of my post to another without separating it clearly enough. By "you", I meant the "usual" ones who pose questions to billnewbie.

gazettefan, now I know how you feel when you think someone isn't reading/answering your questions the way you posed them. I thought what I said seemed quite clear, but somehow you misread most. I said to you that calling Mary "Virgin Mary" "doesn't necessarily mean her marriage hadn't been consummated." Then I went on to say that Jesus was the "anointed" son of God (i.e.: chosen, not to be confused with product of a sexual encounter). I, of course, cannot say with any certainty that he was or wasn't a product of Joseph, nor does it change anything for me.

I DID NOT say that religion was progressive, I said "religious UNDERSTANDING can be progressive." Lots of difference there.

"christian, catholic, it's all the same." So I CAN get an audience with the Pope? Nevermind, I don't think we'd see eye to eye, and I'm sure he wouldn't explain the Hitler thing to me. But, I'm hoping I am not on the same list with Hitler and witch burners in your book ("All the Same"), too.

The religion/bad deeds/good deeds question: Your answer disappoints me, but I don't feel like nagging. Have it both ways if you must (All bad things done in the name of God can be blamed on Him instead of the perpetrator, but no good things done in the name of God can be credited to Him, it is the individual), but I was sure you'd do better than that. (Yike-I'm learning from you guys....) Actually, it's the other way around for me. When I do bad stuff (nothing like our heinous examples of course) I know it is ME who's at fault, I can't imagine blaming the church, nor feeling like I'm encouraged by God to do those things. But many of the good things I do (yep-I've done some) were often inspired from my religious background.

Of course you are correct in that some choose religion for the fellowship. I am also sure there might be added benefits that weren't expected by a person who comes to the church for that reason. Good.

The sound in the forest question: My question was not that, I said it was LIKE that one in that it might also be considered a paradox. I did know that answer (and find it an interesting concept.) My question was serious, but maybe a little lighter than the others here. I meant-do atheists, if they are the cussing kind, ever say "damn you" or "go to hell."? And if they do, are they not really cussing (because it is meaningless to them)?

So, summary dismissal is all you have on my assessment of the virgin birth. Pity.
.
So just how would you characterize life from lifelessness in nature, particularly in light of the fact that it has never been observed, nor have the conditions been replicated in a laboratory, though not for lack of trying? Going out of your way to avoid a semantical term does little to alter the fact that life from lifelessness is a "violation" of the laws of nature (a miracle) as it has never been observed either. Yet life did come from somewhere. And if nature was responsible, it was life from lifelessness. If that’s not miraculous, perhaps you would prefer “extraordinary” or “stupendous”, maybe “unprecedented”, or “phenomenal”, perhaps “fantastic” or “unparalleled”. Whatever word you choose, it was a singular event without precedent. And as I said, according to evolutionary theory, nature produced life from lifelessness by complete and total undesigned and undirected accident. That qualifies as a miracle, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.
.
You know, you need to get over your hatred of Ms. Briarmoon. She’s not part of this discussion, and your unprovoked attack on her is uncalled for. There is no justification for it. You should retract it immediately and apologize.

Re: miracles. No violation of the laws of the universe have ever been observed or detected. Do you really need to be told that sometimes the word "miraculous" is used as a synonym for other words.

And if you think you've explained the virgin birth, you're right up there with B'moon when it comes to veracity. The real explanation of the "virgin birth" resides in the misogyny of your belief system.

Prounion, is it your cynicism that blinds you, or didn't you read my entire comment? For your enjoyment, here it is once again,
"It’s not unrealistic to me that the Lord God, Creator of the universe, who formed man from the dust and breathed life into him, is able to either fertilize the ovum of a virgin without using the usual means (sexual intercourse), or to create a fully formed embryo within her womb (however he chose to accomplish it)." Now I know you would like to irritate me with that old saw about God sleeping with Mary (you did mean sexual intercourse, didn't you?), but really, after being called crazy and a jack(you know what), I'm disappointed that you would stoop to such inanities considering the "high" quality of the invectives aimed at me of late.
.
So, Gazettefan, I've answered your question and posed a philosophical conundrum for you. If nature can be miraculous, why couldn't God? Have you nothing else but to add but summary dismissal? Or perhaps you've conveniently remembered that you don't answer questions?

RUSerious, according to Paul, Jesus is a blood descendant of Solomon and David because so is Joseph. What is it about you that can't accept that Jesus is the biological son of Joseph? Why the wall?

Go to billnewbie for knowledge?! Have you really read his posts?!

To say that religion is "progressive" is to admit that it and god are man-made. Think about it. There is nothing in scripture that allows changes. The clergy-class changes the meaning in order to maintain a power base.

To understand Hitler and his christianity, appealing to the pope is not required. Again the wall. Read some history. By the way, christian, catholic, it's all the same. Can't believe you people don't get along.

When someone does something bad in the name of religion, religion is relevant. How is that so hard to understand?

People are naturally prone to do good things. Why some of them need religion to be able to do good things is cause for concern. Some people need religion to prompt them. You might want to start considering the fact that many of the ones who are counted as christians are merely taking part in natural fellowship. Fellowship is probably the greatest appeal of religious groups -in the positive sense.

I'm sure the chipmonks hear the trees. But seriously, RUSerious, with no ears or mechanical devices to hear it there is no sound as we know it. Sound as we know it requires the mechanism of the ear or devices that are effected by disturbances in the air.

Your last few sentences about the cussing needs clarity -work on it.

You should use your powers of persuasion to straighten out billnewbie re: evolution.

Bill - your description of the formation of nucleotides in the primordial soup is a complete straw man arguement. Blam! oh Snap. I have been waiting to use that one.
.
So god then literally had sex with mary? Honestly I don't know a great deal about the trinity other than it was invented by a group of bishops in maybe 1000 AD?

RUSerious, it sounds like you might be confusing my posts with those of someone else. I don't recall even using the word "defeat" here. (BTW, I was referring to a cat metaphore Billnewbie used long ago, not recently.) In any event, I don't blame you for not wanting to waste any more time here.

fool_on_the_hill: You ARE civil (also responding to prounion), however, you asked me to speak for someone else and I already said I didn't know. It was only a guess. The "cat" analogy was off the top of my head-not billnewbie's. But I also find billnewbie to be generally civil, too, but also plagued to answer your questions over and over again, until he gets it right (YOUR idea of right), or else he is conceding "defeat". If you find no merit in his posts, (which you won't. Ever. It has been predetermined by you.), or he decides NOT to post for those reasons in parenthesis, or because he isn't even participating for any reason whatsoever at the time you want him to, then he is conceding defeat in front of some imaginary tribunal. (I, for one, have way overspent my "play" time here, and I wasn't even playing.)
gazettefan, as I said, I don't want to be drawn into this debate, but I can easily answer that question. Jesus is the annointed son of God. For further explanation, please refer to billnewbie's post from today, May 13, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. Also please read the entire post and its excellent comparison of Christian and scientific scenarios. By the way, it is my feeling that religious understanding can be progressive, just as science is.
On Hitler, and why he was not excommunicated: FYI-I have no communication with the present Pope nor have I had with any previous one; I am not even Catholic. If and when you find out, however, please pass it on. I also would like to know.
Now-can you answer something for me? How come, when some man-made human tragedy occurs, with or without some crazy guy saying it is in the name of religion, it is not the individual lunatic-it is religion that caused it. But when some man-made
event in the name of religion occurs, say a great charity event that feeds or otherwise helps humanity-it is not religion that causes it, it is a good-hearted individual? (I saw your comment on some recent Gazette article just recently stating that very thing about some religious based charity.)
Now, can I ask a question that I'm just curious about? Like the old question "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make any sound?" For atheists who swear (as in cuss), do they ever say "G** d*** you", or "Damn it", or "Go to hell!", or any thing like that? And if they do, is it not really cussing? Just wondering.

You're wrong about a lot of things Fool_on_the_hill. But admitting even the smallest error, even if that is an error too, is an act of humility you can build on. Still I find your propensity to kiss the Pope's ring disturbing. Hopefully one day you can separate yourself from your support group and take a fresh, unbiased look at your assumptions.

Gazettefan: I just have difficulty imagining how an internal debate on the subject at the Vatican might ensue. I suppose I shouldn't presume there was or is any such debate, huh? Interesting how nicely that exemplifies my concept of evil, though. I probably should just take your word for it. After all, you were right all along about Billnewbie but nooooooo... I wanted to give him the benefit of doubt. You were right and I was wrong, GFan.

I actually toyed with the idea of answering your last question to me, Gazettefan (“.OK, billnewbie, how did you come to believe that Jesus was produced by a virgin birth?”) in spite of your obvious underlying intent. Then I realized that you accept something far more unlikely.
.
It’s not unrealistic to me that the Lord God, Creator of the universe, who formed man from the dust and breathed life into him, is able to either fertilize the ovum of a virgin without using the usual means (sexual intercourse), or to create a fully formed embryo within her womb (however he chose to accomplish it).
.
Conversely, evolutionists believe (and I include Gazettefan among them) that nature, within a puddle of primordial soup ( the exact composition thereof is a complete mystery), devoid of life, absent even the most rudimentary DNA molecule (which all life contains), subjected that puddle to an energy source, either chemical, electrical (a bolt of lightning or perhaps some other static discharge) or some as yet unknown source, and produced fertile life, DNA and all, absent any intend, purpose or design, in short, produced life from lifelessness by complete and total undesigned and undirected accident.
.
Comparing these 2 scenarios, I find the similarities (that both require faith, for instance) intriguing. Yet atheists ridicule the idea that God can work miraculously with purpose and design, yet they embrace and defend the idea that nature works miraculously with neither purpose nor design.

Wow, billnewbie, are you at all capable of self-examination?! Your propensity for projection is prodigious!

foolonthehill, I know your question is rhetorical but here's a response anyway.

The failure of the church to posthumously excommunicate Hitler is evidence of the rot that resides at the nurtured core of the Abrahamic religions -including christianity.

One has to wonder in awe at the conceit of those who assume that my absence for a week and the absence of others is the result of "being driven out" by the "strength" of their argument. Most people find condescension repugnant and repelling so is it any wonder that they prefer to go elsewhere with their free time, or that they may simply have something else to do? That some would glory in those absences brings to mind an exultant schoolyard bully whose only claim to superiority is the power of his fist. That Gazettefan, Prounion, Darwin1 and yes, Fool_on_the_hill are great patronizers may be a quality in their minds with congratulations for each other when a particularly condescending remark is written, but most find such statements to be grating and without redeeming qualities and the “points” of such statements to be unworthy of serious consideration. It’s a rare debater who can abide hecklers. That debaters can be driven from a debate by such heckling is no credit to the hecklers whatsoever.
.
Still, I find Fool_on_the_hill’s reaction to my “hostility” rather puzzling. My rebuttal of his rather banal analogy was hardly a personal attack. I can see where the use of such words as “obnoxious” and “presumptuous” could be inflammatory, but only if they are not accurate, which I still contend they are. It’s interesting to note that all of the commentary about that post has been about its form and none about its substance.
.
As for ad hominem attacks, those, like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder, and their justification seems to hinge on just who’s ox is being gored.

...and therein lies the engine of cynicism, Gazettefan. What's to think over?

On a related subject, I watch "retired" Bishop Rembrandt Weakland on the news yesterday explain why he sent a known child sex-abusing priest --i.e. criminal-- to another diocese without informing them. With a straight face, Weakland explained that the new diocese simply wouldn't have accepted the deviant priest if he had told them the truth.

Maybe they need more time to think it over. It took them till 1992 to RE-communicate Galileo.

What could possibly be wrong with posthumously excommunicating Hitler and his crew? It would at least be a nice gesture; but nooooooo!!!

Yeah, Gazettefan, what's the deal with the Vatican and Hitler? How could anyone not be at least a little bit cynical about something that ought to be a no-brainer?

And, RUS....., the believers who dropped out here are in one way or another conceding the flimsiness of their belief system.

Have at it, Prounion. No one seems eager to open any 6,000 year old cans of red herring any time soon.

RUSerious, an accurate reading of the posts here will show that billnewbie lashes out without provocation. Especially against foolonthehill, whose posts are in no way provocative in the negative sense.

Was Mary's husband, Joseph, the biological father of Jesus?

Arbitrary interpretations of scripture are proof that god and religion are man-made.

An understanding of chemistry would disabuse you of your "divine hand" error.

And you can't give christianity a free pass by saying certain christians were or are not true chrisitians. Hitler, the Nazis, and the German people were abiding by scripture when they slaughtered millions of people. Hitler never renounced his Catholicism nor his christianity. The Vatican never excommunicated Hitler.

Don't forget about the "Joseph being Jesus' biological father" question.

FOTH was clearly civil. The end goal was the same for those that attcked him though - we stopped with the main debate:
.
You claim there is a diety at work - where is your evidence to back up your claim? Why your particular god as opposed to all of the others?
.
As far as moderate religion goes - the problem is that it breeds fanatics. The basic ideas of the religion are based on blind faith being a virtue. Combine that with the idea that those of other faiths face eternity in hell and you you will get violence springing forth from a group of moderates.

RUSerious: I see that you and Billnewbie both like cat metaphors. :-)

Billnewbie was MIA for over a week and hundreds of posts, then decides to return in the form of a feral cat focused on scratching the eyes out of the only atheist who has ever put out a saucer of milk for him. Just how is this rational behavior?

The only way one gets backed into a logical corner is when that corner is one they have created for themselves.

prounion-I'll have a hard time talking to you-when you speak to Gazette-reading believers as if they not only would condone, but would even have a hand in anything like the Salem witch trials. Which, by the way, was an event that had a lot more than religious connotations attached to it. Why would an authentic "God-fearing" man rape someone he truly believed was a witch before burning her? They have the free will to do so, but it would not go unpunished. Sounds like someone with more self-serving motives. Many Christians have been figuratively "burned at the stake" for causes that were actually politically or otherwise motivated. Weren't these same witch trials and murders stopped by a Christian? And Hitler?? How many Christians (or anyone else!) do you know that identify with him? And did you know that many Christians hid Jews during that time, at great risk to themselves? Couldn't it be that a TRUE Christian wouldn't do acts such as these for the cause of his beliefs, any more than a non-believer would? But maybe these are insane individuals who are using religion as a reason to commit their atrocities when it is really personal gain (for themselves or some persuasive, hypnotic leader) they are after? I do know that many humans, believers or not, who can be whipped into a frenzy when the circumstances are right. But it is the strength or weakness of the INDIVIDUAL that determines his actions. You'd have to be insane to do that "stuff", so it follows that those who do those things ARE insane. Would it make you less hateful toward me as a Christian if I were to tell you that I would not follow any deity who gloried in such activities in his name? I didn't say "would not interfere"-if that were the case, and we were all pre-programmed robots, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Think about it.
fool_on_the_hill, I did look at some of billnewbie's posts. I'm thinking he was just trying to give back what he got. To be honest, though, I can't read 'em all, so I'll just say-if you back someone into a corner, you're liable to get scratched. I've personally tried to keep my claws in. It's not always easy.
Ok guys, have at it. There’s more to it than you’ll obviously ever want to know, but this is what you asked, for reasons that will soon be apparent.

(I'm not able to reply in one post. Imagine that.)
gazettefan, I'm not sure what you what you mean by "spinning-out" so I can't speak to that.
Also, I don’t wish to debate here, because I know what the real intentions are, as I have stated. However, I can tell you that I have never interfered with medical advancements like stem cell research (like I really could), nor do I have a problem with research using adult stem cells; the potential of such research is exciting.
I DO believe in evolution. But I also believe that the primordial soup was inspired, if not actually stirred, by a divine hand. As far as the virgin birth of Jesus, I realize, as you said, that "virgin" may have been interpreted from "young woman", but another interpretation can also be "chaste" or pure. We wouldn't have expected any other vessel than a chaste or pure one, which doesn't necessarily mean her marriage hadn't been consummated. As far as the Bible itself, it has a lot of historical reference as well as spiritual allegory.
gazettefan-you say those who aren't keeping up are "conceding". What if they just don't want to play with you guys? And insults? You don't think Christians have been insulted? What have I ever done to any of you to be compared to a person who burned people at the stake? I don't even swat flies.

RUSerious: Billnewbie's hostility toward ME is unwarranted and unjustified. Starting with his lengthy rant and ad hominim attack for my May 11, 5:08 a.m. response to you about my perspective and relationship with believers (so you didn't have to go back and read every one of my posts just to understand where I'm coming from). Next, read the first three posts http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/may... (the article on about Francis Collins). The first post is Prounion's; the second post was my gentle suggestion to Prounion about why he should back off Collins; the third post another one of Billnewbie's unjustifiable ad hominim attacks.

Gazettefan is right on the mark about Billnewbie spinning out of control. Collins has destroyed his straw man argument that science is an evil conspiracy perpetrated by athiests under the influence of Satan. He can't even bring himself to comment on Collins. Please don't enable Billnewbie's irrationality, RUSerious, especially if Dr. Collins really is your new hero! :-) Collins thinks Christians like Billnewbie are dangerous idiots.

RUserious - really - I guess I do owe an apology - sorry that folks that believe as you do used to burn witches but would rape them first because thier belief system leads them to believe they have a terrible fate of eternity being tortured by satan. I hope you accept my apology and lower yourself to give an answer to the questions related to your ridiculous claim that there is a loving god that that not only created but influences reality here on Earth.

billnewbie is spinning-out and you, RUSerious are only enabling him.

It is my understanding from my vast studies that Paul didn't mention anything about a virgin birth. It seems that the idea was contrived and has no basis even as a false claim during the time of Christ's life.

But I could be error. What's the explanation for the virgin birth claim? What is the source?

And foolonthehill is on the mark. You people are now claiming you don't have to state your case; if that's true then you have no basis for interfering with medical advancements like stem-cell research or for damaging young minds by lying about evolution.

And, again, billnewbie, the people who can't keep up here are conceding something you have yet to accept about your belief system. And the ones who come here and don't even attempt to engage in debate but instead only leave insults deserve no sympathy.

Perhaps so, Mr. Hill, and as I said before, you seem to be a generally pleasant sort, but I only highlighted you in the quoted post to billnewbie. Do you honestly mean to say that billnewbie's post, or posts, are more hostile than others in this thread, especially some from the opposing side of this "debate"?

FYI, RUSerious, I've never asked any believer to prove or justify his/or her religious beliefs, only his/her assertions of a scientific nature.

fool_... says, re: billnewbie: "your hostility has been unwarranted and inappropriate".
billnewbie, if you've been trying for hostility, I have a 3 week old kitten that can out-hostile you in a minute. Now, if you want to be a member of the "hostile" department, you need to emulate the PRO in their UNION. A real hostile la beastie, (baby).
As far as having to PROVE anything to this group for your beliefs to be valid....for Christians to be valid....who are they to demand that? If understanding is what they want, "Get thee to a Bible study!" If it's a need to mock, did it ever occur to them that satisfying their need to mock Christian beliefs is not a prerequisite of Christianity? And certainly NOT your job.
ALL of your posts, billnewbie, from the 11th and 12th were so well spoken, but you hit the nail on the head when you said: "Of late, your coven has spent most of ts posts patting each other on the back and building up each other's vanity, not that you need that built up any more than it was." I would like to see credentials from these demanding that you either must satisfy with words, here and now, in this blog, (the fact that they choose not to be satisfied is a foregone conclusion) or else they have the credentials (otherwise known as cajones) to deem the whole body of the faithful to be invalidated.
Debate? I refer back to my quote of billnewbie's post, and the despicable post by prounion of May 11, 2009 at 7:15 p.m.
In the words of our own gazettefan (who CAN be amusing, interesting, and a true gentleman when he wants to be, his atheism notwithstanding): "You guys just can't let it go, can you!"

Why don't you just state you opinion Gazettefan, after all, you are a "bible expert". You don't need my answer unless you have some ulterior motive for seeking it, like your need to heap scorn on those you detest thereby assuring yourself of your own superiority. Is that why you ask such questions? Do you need a little ego boost? You've boosted you ego at the expense of so many people on these discussions that you can hardly get anyone to respond to you but for new posters who haven't yet experienced your vitriol and some long-suffering types that hope to break through your cynicism to their credit. But I admit it, your cynicism is too tough for me. So I'll pass at answering your disingenuous questions since I am convinced you only want to ridicule the answers.

OK, billnewbie, how did you come to believe that Jesus was produced by a virgin birth?

Two amateur psychologists on one blog! You 2 ought to go into business together. Maybe you could give Dr. Phil a run for his money!

Very interesting you made the comment about psychological dysfunction, Gazettefan, because I've been getting that exact same impression lately. I wasn't going to mention it but, since you already did... Seriously, Bill, I'm not being facetious. You might consider looking into it. Among other aberrations, your hostility has been unwarranted and inappropriate.

Bill, were you sending a message to us when you called us a coven?
.
Exodus 22:18 says, "Suffer not a witch to live."
.
Please don't burn us alive Bill, which reminds me - Dr.Talk are we to take this verse as literally as the ark verses? Should we be killing witches - did they go extinct with the dinosaur/dragons/unicorns?

It's simple Gazettefan. When people like you stoop to personal attacks, that's a declaration of a lost debate. So any who need to may feel free to email their invectives since they cannot admit the vacuity of their positions any other way. It's a public service, you see, since I'm unusually thick skinned.

Mmmmmmmm, you are being particularly evasive during this session, Mr. billnewbie -interesting. Please, continue.

Elaborate your desire to be verbally abused.

Practising psychiatry without a license again, Gazettefan? Physician, heal thyself!

billnewbie, how can you not realize that you are manifesting a severe psychological disturbance with your last post?:

You've taken deliberate action and made a specific request for the purpose of having people verbally abuse you!

---

Maybe it would help you if we can get back on point:

How did you come to believe that Jesus was produced by a virgin birth?

Yet more name calling, Fool_on_the_hill? Your sanctimony is breathtaking! But hey, at least you have your support group in place. Of late, your coven has spent most of ts posts patting each other on the back and building up each other's vanity, not that you need that built up any more than it was. Still, I've arranged for a way for you to make yourself feel better. You can email some more colorful invectives to me at billnewbie@live.com. That way you need not risk the wrath of the censors while you vent and adjust the p.s.i. of my inflated ego.

DrTalk & GFan: Thanks for clearing that up! Hydrant, indeed. :-D

Yes, DrTalk, just as long as he continues to spread the fact that Yoko Ono looks like a fire hydrant.

Gazzfan - really why would you not rape a witch before your murdered them? Or really anyone that did not believe as you do. Think about it - they are going to burn in hell for all of eternity because they believe in a slightly different god than you. Or in the case of witches they were single women that may have had a child out of wedlock(wedlock what a term), anyways what's a little rape compared to eternity, in fact whats being burned alive compared to forever in hell. God loves us and is a really great guy.

gazettefan,
Can fool_on_the_hill still listen to Paul McCartney?

Clergy used to rape the 'witches' before they murdered them.

Bill, were you sending a message to us when you called us a coven?
.
Exodus 22:18 says, "Suffer not a witch to live."
.
Please don't burn us alive Bill, which reminds me - Dr.Talk are we to take this verse as literally as the ark verses? Should we be killing witches - did they go extinct with the dinosaur/dragons/unicorns?

Oh yeah, he got it bad!!!

No, Bill, not to intimidate. Maybe so you might pause just long enough to realize that you're making a jackass out of yourself.

If you think you've got me all figured out, then what "results" have you convinced yourself I am trying to achieve here? That I can be a better "Christian" than you without believing in God or even trying? Sorry, pal... my Christian friends agree that ship sailed long ago.

You seemed compelled to respond to posts I have directed to others. I sure hope your super-inflated ego hasn't convinced you it has anything to do with you, Bill. (Hey, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins, Gazettefan?) Or, could it be some other result I have stated quite clearly, perhaps? WWJD

ROTFL!

Should I be intimidated into submission by your threat of option #3? Blast away Fool_on_the_Hill. The results you get will be just as disappointing for you as they have been for the rest of your coven, now that you have been officially readmitted to it by Pope Pious.

foolonthehill, the ad hoc committee has been disbanded and a decision has been made.

You have been reinstated. Further, the meeting ended in a heated debate as to whether you should be awarded the RCAU&C Honorable Mention (Third Degree) or the much coveted Certificate of Merit (First Degree). It is my privilege to inform you that cooler heads prevailed and you will soon be receiving the C of M (First Degree) in the U.S. Mail -C.O.D.

Your C of M was skillfully printed from a state of the art (circa 1963) mimeograph machine recently purchased from the Carosel on Main Street.

You are hereby instructed to make a new RCAU&C identification card from a hitherto unused 5 by 7 card (no erasures) -attach a recent photo and sign it.

You are also instructed to forget all billnewbie's posts (no exceptions -even the ones where he misstates and misquotes Shakespeare).

In conclusion, during your exile there has a been a minor but important change to our secret handshake. Follow the instructions on our website. You password has been reactivated.

Welcome back, buddy! See you at the annual human sacrifice in July!!!

I'd say that was definitely worth reinstatement, GFan!

Bill, you are clearly not keeping up to date with the discussion. We've been off Dawkins, Smith, Rand and onto Collins for ages now. (Did you think I'd forgotten your avoidance of my question to you re: Collins?)

As for your critique of my "analogy", I'd say you are trying to usurp it for you own purposes. I intended only as an exercise in empathy when one relates to it literally. Why don't you give it a try? If it makes you feel better, it won't alter its meaning if you replace "child" with "playmate" or "classmate". Is that better?

In any event, your hostility toward me is totally uncalled for. I genuinely like you. (DrTalk, too.) Go visit Dr. Collins' website. If you follow the links, one of them eventually ends on this op-ed piece in the NY Times by Charles Blow: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinio... He explains this stuff much better than I.

If you still don't get it, just keep it up and leave me no choice but to start operating under option #3) instead of #2) and give you a REASON to be hostile! Your choice.

;~)

That was easy.

As for the atheists’ ridicule of “dogma” and of religions in general and Christianity in particular, sadly, there is some basis for the atheistic ridicule. Nearly all religions throughout the world are human constructs for the purpose of making themselves acceptable to God through some type of ritual or another. Even among Christianity, which is the exception as it claims that God has done something extraordinary to make humanity acceptable to Him (grace), there are many sects that blend ritual with that grace since it is part of human nature to want to assert our own authority, dictate our own terms for that grace. In many such sects of Christianity they use “sacraments” which are rituals renamed. In all those cases, the atheist recognizes at least to some extent the absurdity of the effort to make oneself acceptable to God through ritual. And when one considers the additional absurdity of the clergy, a class of people who demand acknowledgement of their own superiority and monetary contributions which allow them to live well with many of them living like royalty (which is antithetical to the life of Christ and His disciples), the contradictions of those sects become all too easy for atheists to attack and not without a certain measure of justification. Yet the atheists exceed that justification with their attacks, claiming that the misdeeds of the “clerics” and even the sinfulness of those who call themselves Christian disqualify Christianity as genuine, remarkably like the inquisitors of old who set themselves up as religious judges of humanity and condemned those they found wanting on the strength of their own authority. They seem to want to displace the perceived autocracy of religion with their own intolerant brand.

Fool_on_the_Hill’s latest analogy fails on 2 grounds, one, that he fails to realize a fourth possibility, that the “imaginary” friend is actually real and that FOTH’s powers of perception are faulty, and secondly, that he is not dealing with children here, but adults. Both of these failures of his analogy are indicative of the atheistic mindset. As FOTH has written on another occasion, he is of the opinion (belief) that if there were a God, FOTH would have seen Him by now. And, as FOTH’s omission of that 4th possibility illustrates so clearly, since he precludes the possibility of the supernatural, and he relies so completely on his own powers of perception, he is satisfied that there is no God. FOTH and others even go so far as to contend that people who teach their own children what they believe abuse their children unless they teach what the atheists find acceptable, a particularly obnoxious supposition indeed.
.
Obnoxious supposition seems to be the mainstay of atheistic argument, belittlement of those who think otherwise their staple, which goes to the 2nd failing of FOTH’s analogy, that he is not dealing here with children. The presumptuousness of the atheists’ here of the intellectual capabilities and experiences of theists is breathtaking. The assumption (faith) of their own superiority speaks volumes both of the appeal of atheism and the type of person it draws. As I’ve written on a number of occasions, the primary reason an atheist rejects God is that he rejects God’s authority, His sovereignty, His superiority. Ultimately, an atheist chooses not to believe in God because he does not want to recognize an authority higher than himself. Even in his own philosophy, though he relies somewhat on the arguments of fellow atheists and enablers such as George H. Smith, Richard Dawkins, Ayn Rand and Charles Darwin, and draws solace from those and other “sages”, the atheist rejects the existence of an atheistic creed or hierarchy, as that is antithetical to the concept of the superiority of their own authority even of the superiority of themselves. Add to that the fact that they have not seen God (in spite of the fact that they reject any sightings as “natural” occurrences) and that sums up at least a large part of the appeal of atheism.
.
It's true Foll_on_the_Hill, atheists aren't going to convince those who believe in God that there is no God when their primary methods of persuasion are cynicism, ridicule and derision.

kinsohn, your self-condemning comment collapses under its own weight. (That is: if you label all non-believers as being on the left or far left.)

I try to avoid these discussions because I find the intolerance and close-mindedness from those on the left to be distasteful. Unfortunately, I was right (again).

foolonthehill, the annual plenum is in session. There will be a special meeting regarding the matter.

RUSerious, if having the truth on our side makes us look like jackals, then certainly we've made no progress with you -give it time. But since the other apostles have fallen by the wayside, it is a sign that they are going through some agonizing reappraisals.

RU Serious, dude its an anonymous blog at the end of an article in the local paper. You are being dramatic - "Were you trying to "save" a Christian (or the world's multitudes of Christians), or SLAP them into submission?"
.
I was going for a holy slap. A logic smackdown and/or wakeup call. Feel free to hit me really hard in the face with some concrete answers.

So, do I get my atheist's union card back, Gazettefan? ;~)

I'll take that as a compliment, RUSerious. I'm not really so hard to figure out, though. Let's say your child has an imaginary friend. Do you,
1) Tell them you can see their imaginary friend and play along with them?
2) Tell them that you believe they believe, while staying alert for something potentially destructive, such as them acting on the words of the imaginary friend over their own senses and good judgment?
3) Tell them there is no imaginary friend so, therefore, they are either an idiot or insane?

prounion-Are you REALLY serious? You say "I am not sure its really my goal for both sides of this discussion to feel good about it....slapping (Christians) with reality would not be as much fun as it has proven to be."
"....stir up a good debate there with some fresh christians that have not heard the good (?!) news yet."
Were you trying to "save" a Christian (or the world's multitudes of Christians), or SLAP them into submission?
And you really think we want to grow up to be just like you? Think again. Your attitude would turn most people the other way.(prounion especially-a "schoolyard bully" type, taunting and deriding NOT for the sake of the debate.) I bet I'm not the only one saying you've just strengthened our resolve and beliefs.
gazettefan-"good work"? And what has been accomplished? You really think these 2 have saved the world or even changed the minds of those they've debated with? They've made atheists look like jackals, and that's too bad because the ones I know personally are not. (Not sure about fool_on_the_hill...haven't read enough of his posts here, but he sounds like a decent guy who just doesn't believe what we do. I don't have the time or temperment to read the whole thing through.)

LOL, prounion. Great work, you and foolonthehill.

I suggest we swithc to FOTH's posted link - maybe we can stir up a good debate there with some fresh christians that have not heard the good news yet.

I gues the debate is over - no more BillN and DrTalk talking about the ark full of dragons with only the unicorns to keep them in check?.
.
RU serious - I am not sure its really my goal for both sides of this discussion to feel good about it - if that was my goal then slapping them with reality would not be as much fun as it has proven to be.

RUSerious, I brought up Dr. Collins in this blog (below) a while back as an example of "rational religiosity" that Christians might feel comfortable learning from and emulating, at least with regard to the separation of faith and science into their proper, respective realms. Believe me, I am fully aware of the limited influence an atheist has on a fundamentalist's belief system. :~)

interesting reading fool_on_the_hill. What do you think of that? Collins=my hero.
gazettefan-I agree on the profound statements in this thread. But both sides should feel better for the discussion, even when they "profoundly" disagree. But-I think you're practicing some good natured teasing with your last comment.
If so, :-)
If not, :-p
In other words, in the equally profound statement of the illustrious Rodney King....oh never mind.

It was a put-down to the profoundly articulate anti-superstition posters here for you describe this debate as a p contest.

ok-so it was not exactly "Mark Twain" or "your favorite humorist". (the pun: babble on=Babel/Babylon) At least I didn't put you down for not understanding my pun as you did me for supposedly not understanding the mechanics of "debate". When I added your comment from another story that went something like "You guys just can't let it go, can you!" I just meant you apparently sometimes had the same feeling.
But yes, I have to admit, I was a little put off by the constant adversarial (as opposed to friendly) exchange. I know it's none of my business because I was not participating, but it's just my nature (just like poor puns). I do enjoy reading and learning from friendly exchanges of information, but it's more difficult when I (and those who believe as I do) are supposed to end up feeling foolish or moronic. On the other hand-we are in extremely good company in our beliefs.
(You-gazettefan-have been more the exception lately, and it is usually much easier reading.)

RUSerious: According to Dr. Francis Collins the evangelical Christian, evolutionist, geneticist, scientist, "Whatever one’s stripes or lack thereof, helping fundamentalists evolve can only be good for civilization—a cause in which even the faithless can believe."

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/may...

RUSerious, your 10:25 post fails to accurately describe your 1:19 post.

gazettefan-and my post was a pun-mostly for the sake of a pun. (It kind of evolved in my head after the recent discussion of Noah and what followed. See, I even read here from time to time to see where this discussion is going.)
I realized it was a debate-but the "snideness" here, like in your comment to me ("If it's too difficult for you to understand..."), is a little unsportsmanlike, and that's why it's not "fun" to me. Although-I do recall recently that you had a comment under a story that went something like "You guys just can't let it go, can you!" Is there a difference? (I'm sure there will be.)

It's called a debate, RUSerious. If any of it is to difficult for you to understand, get someone to explain it to you.

As evidenced by the number of posts under this heading, (most for the sake of one-up-manship rather than sharing), you have all, apparently, studied extensively about the Tower of Babble On?
(I can say that with impunity, because I do admit to doing the same at times.)

I am. If DrTalk is right the upheaval in society and the academic world will be massive on a number of levels. In fact once he proves it here I will be enrolling in a creationist PhD program so I can slide right in to a cushy academic job. Since virtually the entirety of all scientific knowledge the human race has collected to date will need to be thrown out, I should have a jump start.

Thanks for your support, Prounion. (I hope you're not holding your breath.)

If you ever do present the Theory of Noah's ark, DrTalk, I promise to give it fair and reasonable consideration. In the mean time, since your presentation doesn't even qualify as scientific hypothesis, you have a very long road ahead before it can be given due consideration as a theory. If and when that happens, be prepared for global fame as millions of scientist-believers are very anxious for reason to accept it as truth.

And yes I am now convinced that unicorns are real.

DrTalk. Fair enough on the one person thing - I am suprised that both god and the local christians are yielding this forum to satan.
.
As far as the ark goes - are you not going to answer FOTH's question?

prounion,
"Since he only replies to a proportion of questions..."
.
As much as I'd like to answer all your questions, I'm only one person. And with more than person asking me more than one question at at time it makes it even more difficult. I'll get to them when I can.

fool_on_the_hill,
It was not a red herring. At least it wasn't intended to be. It was just a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that you don't have to accept the ark theory. You can accept whatever theory you want.

prounion,
Read this article regarding the unicorn:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

FOTH - I am also eager to see Talk's answer on that one. Since he only replies to a proportion of questions, I will simply state that I am also waiting for his reply to yours as well.

DrTalk: Nice try with your "belief" red herring but we all know the concept of belief is irrelevant to any rational discussion of reality and science. You have already stipulated to this by agreeing that truth is objective.

With your abominated use of the word "theory" now exposed, you continue to make your case by way of confounding the definitions of other essential terms. Since you seem so fond of the word "axiom", DrTalk, here's an axiom for you: In making the case either for or against Noah's Ark as myth, only one side of the argument will ever be forced to avoid truth.

Incidentally, how are you doing on that scientific explanation of Noah's magical generic canine breeding pair? I can't wait to see their lineage depicted in the form of an evolutionary tree. Then we can really get down to business in this discussion!

prounion,
Firmement means expanse or sky. If the firmament divided the waters from the waters, there's no way they thought the sky itself was water. It probably just meant the clouds.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...

fool_on_the_hill,
I think you should read that Wiki article on scientific theory again. Remember what I told you about presuppositions and axioms?
.
I've also explained before that the word evolution is deceptive. Does it mean change over time? is adaptation really the same thing as evolution? does it mean new information being added to cause those changes? does the word evolution mean chemical evolution? does it mean cosmic evolution? does it mean micro evolution? does it mean macro evolution? or does it mean all of those things put together? I think just using the term evolution without qualifying what you meant by it is a little deceptive.
.
You don't have to believe the ark theory. You have the right to believe whatever you want.

"Religion has no place in public schools, just like facts have no place in religion." - The Simpsons

If you want to learn about religion, there are places for that.

ncpanfan, I don't recall reading anything in any of your posts that led me believe you were a truth-avoider. What you told your children about creation vs evolution indicates to me that you probably are not. Some comments on your use of the word "theory", though.

Creationists latched onto the word "theory" to construct a straw man argument by implying its common use definition and scientific definition were equivalent. They are not even close, as I and others have tried to explain here.

The Wiki page on "scientific theory" is good enough and explains the significant differences between scientific and philosophical theories, with links to other pages on scientific hypotheses, scientific law, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

The short version is, every bit of technology we enjoy today is the practical application of one or more scientific theories. If these theories were merely fanciful, then nothing would work and we'd all still be living in the horse and buggy age. The theory of evolution is no exception and is being supported by new science on a daily basis.

Dr Talk:
.
Psalm 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
.
How many unicorns on the ark? or would these have been bred latwer from horses and/or a rhino?

Prounion: Having been on both sides I myself in my own opinion think it takes courage to make that leap of faith and step into the blind faith. It is hard to be human and see and know things and question things and yet find the strength to totally put yourself in God's hands and believe in something and someone you cannot see or prove. I think it is an excellent quality when done in the appropriate way. My blind faith has gotten me through alot and gives me hope. I think that you can have blind faith in others as well as in God. When you marry you are putting your faith and trust in another person and hoping that it is not in vain? To me that is also blind faith (trust).

Prounion:
In response to 1)churchgoers and church "religion" tend to impose alot of things on people which is why I no longer attend a church. I am a faithful believer in God but not in the "structured religion" with all it's hypocrites. I know not all churchgoers are that way but I have seen more than my share enough so that I stopped teaching sunday school at the last church I attended and chose instead to make it all between me and God. The bible tells us we are to spread the word of Christ but it doesn't say force it down their throats. I choose instead to do it by my actions and trying to treat all others as I want to be treated. At the church I was attending when I let Jesus into my heart I was told by a woman there that she couldn't eat lunch with me anymore because I was still associating with people that smoked and drank, etc... Also that I would go to he-- for wearing pants, and a few other things. Hello, read the bible, Jesus came and befriended everyone, not just the "perfect (ha ha, sarcasm) people" so needless to say didn't go there anymore.

2)I understand what you are saying but my faith is not like that. I don't think God wants me to kill anyone.

P.S. The church probably condemns me because I don't attend and if they knew I watched Charmed every week when it was on because I loved those witches, well they would be SO disappointed!! LOL

NCPfan - read Drtalk's view of the world - unflappable even in the light of his learning facts his church had not exposed him to, even we he learns that he has been clearly missled by his leaders, yet he plugs on. If a few church leaders pulled him to the side, spouted off a few choice violent passages from the "good" book, he goes from a moderate follower to a deadly weopon, and it all starts when we teach our children that blind faith is an excellent quality to have.

Pasta: Don't worry me matie, I never told anyone ever that it was a scientific fact. I did however tell my children when they were taught evolution that it was a theory and they have a choice in what they choose to believe.

I honestly wish they would offer classes on all the different theories and religions so that people could learn about others and be more tolerant to the fact that people should be allowed to have their own beliefs (whether they can prove them or not, hee hee).

MCpan - as far as harm goes there are really two concerns.
.
1. eventually it seems that the name of god is used to block either equal rights or scientific progress. As you state there is no proof for the wildly mystical claim of god, but church goers tend to want to impose what they think is god's will upon policy for the rest of us.
.
2. Monotheisms at their base believe that we have but a spec of time on this planet but eternity awaits. Eventually out of the group of moderates like yourself this idea springs forth as subgroups of followers that get the idea that people will be converted or executed. Today it might be strapping on a bomb, yesterday it was burning witches - cause really "you will not suffer a witch to live" according to the good book. So children grow up in the ingnorance being taught that blind faith like yours is good, someone says god wants you to strap this on, run next to that family and blow yourself up, that's faith, not logic.

ARRRGH! ncpanfan, Me thinks it be good you be peaceful in your faith,but don't be teachn it as scientific fact in public schools. RAmen

I always found Greek Mythology interesting in school also... :)

Pro: :) Thanks. See why it would be hard for a believer not to take the Bible to heart especially when some things have been proven or found?

NCpan- Artifacts, landmarks, and some people in the bible have been verified as existing by either being found or from other sources. Same is true for the artifacts, landmarks, and characters from even older works.

I am a believer, but I don't think that makes me a truth avoider. I can't explain it. I can't answer your questions, which are really good ones and believe me I would be a liar if I told you that I have never had some of those same questions. Trust me, I have. All the wonders of this world are truly amazing and one can't help but question things (it is the human in me, ha ha) but I just have to keep plugging along and holding onto my faith which has helped me through many good and bad times.

I can't prove God exists to you but I can't be convinced that He doesn't exist. People say there is no proof of God but on the other hand there have been artifacts, etc... found that seem to go along with the stories from the Bible. For example, the Ark possibly being found but no one has ever been able to go any further into the area to try to prove it is indeed the Ark. I also think I heard once that they thought they had found the ark of the Covenant?

One could argue that they are only stories and that might be but I choose to believe they are true and that brings me faith and hope and happiness and as long as I am not hurting anyone with my beliefs and faith then what harm does it do to embrace this faith? It has blessed me in many ways.

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. Mal 3:10.
.
See DrTalk - if you provide resources to god's house, in reality to the scammers of that time, god will open one of the floodgates and allow it to rain, pouring forther the waters that he seperated in Genesis. Then you can toil about like you do today to provide your ten percent to the people that have been fooling you into do so.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
.
Genesis1:7

Dr Talk - Genesis 1:6:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

prounion,
It's you that misinterpreted the Bible verse. They didn't think the sky was water. That was just another way of saying it started raining. As far as the fountains of the deep that were broken open, there is evidence of this: the fault lines.

Katy: I agree with you, except for the time wasting part. You yourself gave the best reason why it isn't a waste of time. For any fence-sitter reading this blog, that extreme absurdity making you cringe is its own best case against religiosity.

Personally, I'm fascinated by what makes truth-avoiders tick because it doesn't seem to correlate with intelligence or education. Consider the difference between having faith and avoiding truth. Faith is believing in something despite any rational basis FOR having such belief, while truth-avoidance is believing in something despite overwhelming evidence AGAINST having such belief. A battered woman is a classic example of a truth-avoider. Con artists prey on truth-avoiders and, without the support of mass numbers of them, political tyrants like Adolf Hitler would have lived and died in total obscurity.

It should be obvious to most people reading this blog that DrTalk consistently avoids providing any sort of reasonable answer to my question on how a mating pair of generic canine could beget mating pairs of foxes, coyotes, dogs, etc. within a relative cosmic instant of time. My most logical hypothesis to date is that truth-avoiders must assume that everyone else is a truth-avoider, too.

It has been absolutely entertaining to read these posts. I'm not sure why all the logical people are wasting so much time and effort trying to reason with DrTalk. The assertions he or she makes are absurd in the extreme and not worthy of such exertions. This kind of "Christian" is never going to change his or her mind. There are many scientists who profess belief in a higher power. It's these spurious "arguments" made by rabid believers that make most of us cringe to be associated in any way with them.

Dr Talk- Also from your post.
Vast herds of enormous, well fed beasts not specifically designed for the extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures.... Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved. This fits in with what happened in the great Flood. The Bible describes it in these words: "All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
.
Yes the floodgates of heaven were opened - see the folks that wrote the bible thought that the sky was water. god made and measured the water on the earth, then thier was the firmament - stationary in space, held up on pillars in some passages, and the sky was water. Myth my friend - myth.

Dr Talk - also from your link:
The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh an ancient flood story on a series of clay tablets from the library of King Ashurbanipal of Nineveh is one of the best known. Since all races descended from the sons of Noah, it should come as no surprise that they handed the same story to their children.
.
Wierd though that it is very clear that the Sumerian civilization was around before the time you state the flood was around. Evidence points to 5000BC, Babylon is alive and well at about the time of the flood. For arguements sake lets say thier massive civilizations were somehow established after being flooded out, the number of generations between them and the ark 8 would have surely have been christian. Instead it looks like they were totally uneffected by the flood. How odd.

Dr Talk also from your non reviews "scientific" link which just seems to be some dude rambling on:
.
Terms and phrases such as anarchy, destruction, dark ages, breaks in continuity and major population reductions keep cropping up for this time period-the time of the biblical deluge!
.
Really - did the flood happen during the dark ages, after the fall of Rome in 409 AD?
.
You have been bamboozled by these guys dude.

Dr.Talk -
.
Thick layers of silt and clay have been found in numerous Babylonian excavations were unquestionably deposited by flood waters.
.
From your post - pretty easy to spott a massive flood in the geological record - so why is it not everywhere - for cripes sake it was only a few thousand years ago.

Let me add one more thing to my 5:26 post.
.
There's plenty of evidence for losses of information in genetics. There also could have been a loss of genetic information that prevented members of the same species interbreed, thus someone classifying them as species.

prounion,
Here's more information on the mud:
http://toptenproofs.com/article_youngear...
.
http://www.towards-success.com/dejnarde_...

Bubs:"Nice try. We are talking about biology here. You cannot walk up to a biologist, ask them what the definition of "kind" is, and get them to give you your definition of kind."
.
You can't even walk up to a biologist and ask him how many genuses or familes there are. One constant them on the articles I found:"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial", "There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing a genus", "There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing a family"

didn't deflect your question. I answered it.
.
"How did 8,000 kinds become 100,000,000 species over the course of a few years without anyone noticing?"
.
First, it wasn't a "few" years. It was 4,400 years. Second, read my post about the population of the earth. Given the human population of the earth back then and given the fact that animals can reproduce more, there would be a reason why no one would notice.
.
One thing I forgot to mention: Noah only took the land animals. All the marine animals would survive the flood just fine.
.
As far as the rest, let me give you the Biblical explanation:
God told the animals to be fruitful and mulitply and fill the earth.
.
You may be closer than you think with your orgy theory, fool_on_the_hill.

How much food did Noah have to pack to feed Og, the giant who rode outside the ark? Supposedly his legs were 27 feet long. Of course, Noah was 500 years old, and 15 feet tall. These stories come from Jewish literature, the people who kept the Bible before Christianity.

Prounion, DrTalk has already made a statement about how the various kinds became the plethora of species we know today. He made it long ago in another blog in the context of his own faith, which I respectfully accept. (I'll bet you thought I'd forgotten about that, huh DrTalk?) However, we are now in the realm of reason, where no one is allowed to claim his own facts.

Dr Talk - I can't wait to hear how you get out of the logic trap with the species vs kind debate you have going. I think your answer will involve that one breeding pair evolving into many many distict species.
.
If so the irony of your insane accelerated evolution idea will be...well I guess not, let's face it after the dinosaurs and humans living together you have ceased to amaze.

DrTalk - you dodged my question. According to you Pangea was the state of the continents preflood, the animals walked to the Ark, the flood came, the continents drifted during the flood, how did the animals come to be redistributed after the ark came to rest on the mountain?
.
Why no layer of mud as would be expected?

DrTalk, it is perfectly reasonable for Bubs to expect you to be knowledgeable about the present number of "kinds" in existence, as "kinds" is essential to your own assertion. As the one making that assertion, you are the one obligated to prove it. No one here is make any assertion about the numbers and divisions of lifeforms today, beyond there being 100,000,000 distinct species, to which you have already stipulated. You are the only one claiming 8,000 kinds spawned 100,000,000 species, not us. You are the one claiming to have the answers, not us.

DrTalk,
Nice try. We are talking about biology here. You cannot walk up to a biologist, ask them what the definition of "kind" is, and get them to give you your definition of kind. You claim that there were only 8,000 of these "kinds" of animals on the Noah's imaginary ark. You also claim (see your post at 8:10am on 5/6) that animals bring forth their own kind. This would seem to imply that no new kinds can come into existence. Following this train of logic (which I know is probably hard for you), there must be fewer "kinds" of animals now than there were when this imaginary flood occurred. I can name AT LEAST one "kind" of animal that no longer exists. You are the one with the extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to show us the extraordinary proof that there are approximately 8,000 classifications of animals that can interbreed. If, for example, the smallest number of groups capable of interbreeding you could show us is 100,000, we would have yet more proof that your ark myth if untrue.
Your time would be better spent examining the number of interbreeding-capable groups than "debating" on this website since your knowledge and rhetorical skills are severely lacking.

Bubs,
Let me go out and count all the kinds. Be right back...
.
In the meantime, if you could answer these questions for me I'd appreciate it.
.
How many genuses are there?
How many families are there?
How many orders are there?
How many classes are there?
How many phyla are there?

Yet another failed attempt to deflect, DrTalk!

How did 8,000 kinds become 100,000,000 species over the course of a few years without anyone noticing? Just outline the major milestones, 2) through n1-) If someone needs more detail, they can ask.

fool_on_the_hill: "So, how did 8,000 kinds become 100,000,000 species?"
.
I've explained this before, but let me try to explain it a different way. Animals are the same KIND if they descended from the same ancestral gene pool. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals are SPECIES of the canine KIND. I'm sure you've heard the story of "The birds and the bees." Animals reproduce, and there offspring reproduce, and then those offspring reproduce, etc.

DrTalk,
So how many "kinds" are there?

Excellent, DrTalk!

So, how did 8,000 kinds become 100,000,000 species? My question still applies, simply substitute "kind" in 1) and "species" in n-1), fill in the missing sequences so we will all know what you know. Thanks!

Apologies, fool_on_the_hill.
I strongly suspect, however, DrTalk will attempt to play semantic word games no matter what words are use.

fool_on_the_hill,
Nice try, but there are not 100,000,000 "ancestrally categorized biological entities" or KINDS. There are 100,000,000 SPECIES.
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8...

Bubs, my purpose in creating a new term for each named biological "group" was to nullify DrTalk's ability to play semantic shell games.

Thanks for the link but I already understood the definition of a straw man argument. That is why I am able to assure you that my argument is no such thing. Furthermore, your "proof" about the validity of your usage of the word "kinds" is a website, in English, that does not give me the original word (in the original language) nor a reputable tracking of that word through its various translations to English.
Your arguments continue to rely, not on a definition based in biology, science, or logic, but rather on a convenient definition that YOU (and some crazies like you) think proves the flood myth is true. Pointing out what your definition lacks is NOT a straw man argument.
You still haven't gotten around to showing me a study that shows that there are at most 8,000 (approximate) "kinds" currently living on our planet. Since "kind" only produces "kind," the truth of your flood myth should be easily demonstrable by showing that the number of "kinds" has decreased.
The fact that you constantly avoid dealing with the question of the current number of "kinds" strongly suggests that you are either wrong or knowingly lying.

DrTalk, therefore, your assertion is, there are in fact only 8,000 not 150,000,000 ancestrally categorized biological entities in existence today. Correct?

fool_on_the_hill
.
2) Animals reproduce after their kind
3 - n) repeat step 2

With my new theologically neutral terminology (below), DrTalk, your semantic deflection tactic is now moot. Do you need a more elaborate definition of the term, "ancestrally categorized biological entity" or is it self-evident?

prounion: "How would they have spread back to thier original continents?"
.
Someday I'll teach you how to Google.
.
You're forgetting that Pangea or Rodinia was one big continent. The post flood world was completely differnt than the pre-flood world.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents...

Bubs:"I doubt that the bible used the word "kind" since the bible predates modern English"
.
Here's proof that the Bible uses the word kind:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/...
.
So now that you have that wrong, you misrepresent my position when you use the word species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Also DrTalk as long as we are taking the Noah myth so literally (dinosaurs and humans living together, thus the term dragon, ect)then do you also believe in this? If so can you do this stuff?
.
Mark 16:18 ~ Jesus said, They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
.
There should really be no shortage of valid scientific research to prove this. Jesus did not seem to qualify it with sometimes or maybe if the person had enough faith, or did he? please explain.

Dr.Talk - this should help you to explain to FOTH:
.
Genesis 30:37-39 ~ Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks at the watering troughs where the flocks came to breed. Because they bred in front of the rods, the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted offspring.

DrTalk, since your understanding of the subject is so clear, you should have no trouble completing a summary outline so that everyone else here can understand it, too. Please complete the essential missing steps, 2) though n-1), of the sequence, below:

Step 1) Circa 2,400 BC: Approximately 8,000 pairs of ancestrally categorized biological entities leave Noah's Ark.

...

Step n) Circa 2,000 AD: Approximately 150,000,000 ancestrally categorized biological entities have been identified on planet Earth.

How about the plants? Same thing - Kinds? How did they get on the ark - obviously they could not have walked. How did they get back?
.
Lets go with your best kind example so far - the canis. How would they have spread back to thier original continents?

Claiming my argument is a straw man does not make it so. Your argument is flawed and ridiculous; there is a difference between a straw man and pointing our the flaws in your logic.
***
To be precise, I doubt that the bible used the word "kind" since the bible predates modern English. Giving the benefit of the doubt that it used a word that roughly translates as kind, you have no evidence that it meant "kind" the way that YOU define it.
More importantly, it's still a myth. It didn't happen. Simply because you can come up with some ridiculous psuedo-scientific "reasoning" does not make it so. Your lack of ability to show that there are at most 8,000 "kinds" of animals currently living (if I understand your convenient definition of "kind," "kinds" cannot be created, only die off) shows a major flaw in your reasoning.

prounion,
"Instead of two horses, and two zebras, they would have just brought one horse and one zebra:
.
Not likely. He would have taken just two of the horse kind. Zebra would be an offspring of the horse kind taken on the ark.
.
Another example:
Noah would not have taken 2 red wolves (Canis rufus), 2 grey wolves (Canis lupes), 2 dogs (Canis lupes familiaris), 2 coyotes (Canis latrans), 2 jakals (canis ?), and 2 dingos (canis lupes dingo). Noah would have just taken 2 canines. The variety of canines we see today would be offspring the canines taken on the ark.
.

gazettefan~ Make a good case first. All you've ever done is attempted to prove to everyone that you're intellectually superior to them. I have no problem coming to grips with my need for wisdom and I'm embracing that journey....I'm not like you and annoint myself as the scout leader on that journey! To share wisdom, you must first have it. OUCH! That must have really left a mark!

Bubs,
Enough with your straw man argument. The Bible does not say that Noah took two of every species. The Bible uses the word kind.

So how many "kinds" of animals are there currently on our planet?
***
You are accurately using the word kind to describe animals of the same trait, namely the ability to interbreed. That doesn't make your usage meaningful, correct, or universal. It's still just a convenient definition to get around the inability of anyone to build a boat large enough to hold millions of different species. If evolution does not produce new species, the ark would have had to hold more species than currently exist today (dodos, saber tooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.).
You start with the presumption that the bible myth is true and attempt to build a pseudo-scientific language around it. You can do the same thing with the beliefs of any myth from any religion. If the creation and flood myths are true, fine. However, you can't warp science to try to fit your twisted beliefs. It just doesn't work.

Dr.Talk - you seem to be using "Kind" to cut down on the number of species that would have needed to be on the Ark. Can you give some examples - you mentioned horses, zebras, mules, donkeys - how does that work? Instead of two horses, and two zebras, they would have just brought one horse and one zebra and that would have covered two species.
.
Species means they can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Bubs:"If great white shark and a camel managed to get it on and produce one semi-viable lump of cells that lived for a couple hours, does that mean that they are the same "kind"? If science manages to produce a shark/camel F1 hybrid somehow, will you then consider them the same "kind"? Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise cannot interbreed, does that mean that they are not the same "kind"?"
.
I think you've seen "The Island of Dr. Moureau" one too many times.

Bubs,
Kind: 4 a: a group united by common traits or interests : category b: a specific or recognized variety
.
Now that you know that I'm using an ACTUAL word and I'm not using it to fit my perceptions, then I'll continue to use it.
.

So how many "kinds" of animals are there today?
Are you ignorant of the answer (I don't intend the negative connotation here, since you are completely willing to change the definition of words, I'm sure you will understand me focusing on the denotation of a word rather than the connotation), too unintelligent to understand and explain the answer to us, or too intellectual dishonest to admit that you are completely full of it?
***
It would, however, be much more effectual if we all used ACTUAL words and definitions rather than making them up to fit our perceptions.
If great white shark and a camel managed to get it on and produce one semi-viable lump of cells that lived for a couple hours, does that mean that they are the same "kind"? If science manages to produce a shark/camel F1 hybrid somehow, will you then consider them the same "kind"? Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise cannot interbreed, does that mean that they are not the same "kind"?

DrTalk, please add the word "logic" to your semantics assignment. Also note the the qualifying phrase, "as I see it", informs the reader that the statement is from the writer's viewpoint. Nice attempt at deflection but I stand by the statement.

Wow, this is the first I've read of this story as long is it has been on this sidebar.

I'm sure it has been touched upon in this thread, but has Madonna ever heard of the tower of Babel?

Her religion may be different than mine, and there may be a bit of satire here by the writer, but man... When You're a celebrity it is as easy to preach your beliefs as it is to stick your foot in your mouth.

(It's also as much fun to poke fun at celebs)

DrTalk, did you get caught snatching an extra cookie in the chow line at the seminary and posting here is your penance?

Prounion,
I found this link which says KIND would be more closely associated with the evolution taxonomy rank FAMILY.
http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds....
.
Could find much on how many families or genuses there are. Everyone seems to want to talk about species.
No one at this website has answered the question yet:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_famil...

DrTalk, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

But wait, it's not so funny if you're going to be teaching this stuff to kids!!!!!!!

DrTalk said:

"No, dinosaurs were not wiped out in the flood. Noah took them on the ark. But he was smart enough not to take the adults. He would have taken the young ones."

You are joking right? Please tell me this is your funny reply and not your serious answer.

realitybytes,
OK, but that still doesn't do any thing to discredit the flood theory. The flood would have been mostly fresh water. If the oceans are only 3.5% salt, that would be small amount for the fish to adapt to after the flood until today.

Realitybites - this reminds me of when Talk learned that Galileo had been imprisoned by the church for heresy.
.
Talk - the truth AKA reality is out there. Those folks you have been giving ten percent of your wage to don't want you to know that.

Dr.Talk - you can make up a word like Kind if you like. OK - again we ask how many Kinds are on earth today?

DrTalk,
I think you need to study the water cycle a litte closer. The oceans are not getting saltier because they have reached an equilibrium. Today, rivers running into the oceans are making making the ocean less salty, not more salty (you can't make the ocean more saline by adding river water that is less saline..its a salt concentration issue) Melting glaciers are making the ocean less salty. Evaporation of the oceans is currently the major means of making the ocean more salty. There is a balance between these forces.

Bubs: "... the definition of genus has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the ability or inability (or desire) to breed."
.
Then until you come up with a word for different species that can interbreed regardless of the fertility of the offspring, I'll use the word KIND since everyone will know exactly what I'm talking about. If they can interbreed, they are the same kind of animal.
.
"You consider horses and Zebras the same "kind" but that really has little to do with their taxonomic classification putting them in the same genus."
.
No, it has to do with the fact that they horses and zebras can interbreed.
http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybri...

fool_on_the_hill,
Thanks for distorting my point of view. But it's the millions of years advocates that have the problem. The oceans are roughly 3.5% salt. If the earth is millions or billions of years old, why aren't the oceans saltier?

prounion,
No, dinosaurs were not wiped out in the flood. Noah took them on the ark. But he was smart enough not to take the adults. He would have taken the young ones.
.
The word dinosaur was not invented until 1841. They wouldn't have been called dinosaurs back then. The Bible certainly describes dinosaurs, but the 1611 King James Bible translates the word dragons. These dragons would not be the mythical flying reptiles we think of when we hear the word dragon. They would be dinosaurs. The diosaurs became extinct the same way many animals become extinct today: people hunted them, competiion with other species, or maybe because of the harsh environment after the flood.

Dr.Talk as I was attempting to visualize a 600 year timeline for the earth it occurs to me that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Then I wondered if it was your contention that the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood?

To echo Bubs: Out of curiosity, how many "kinds" of animals do you claim currently exist on our planet?

Kleej, does having JC in your heart cause you to respond with insults rather than counterpoints? If so, tell him to take a hike once and a while. Especially while you're posting.

DrTalk's ocean salinity links have nothing to do with inconsistencies. His logic as I understand it, goes something like this:

Geologists state that ocean salinity is the result of geological process occurring continuously over a period of several million years. However, their statement remains true even when the 100 million year conditional, upon which the truth of their statement is conditioned, is factored downward to 4,400 years, despite the fact that another hundred million or so years would still be required to double the ocean's present concentration of salt. That conditional remains, otherwise salinity would have doubled just since the birth of Christ and would be measurably increasing during our lifetimes. So, does everybody understand now?

That is the same logic that states each of the 8,000 distinct varieties of lifeforms in existence 4,400 years ago transformed into the present 300,000,000 distinct varieties by metamorphosing 3,750 TIMES EACH and then multiplying to present day population levels over the course of a few years. Man, now that must have been SOME orgy!

gazettefan~ I've got Jesus Christ in my life.. My cup is very full. Nice try.

You call animals that can interbreed "kind." You then said that genus might be a more accurate synonym for "kind" than species. This would imply that animals of the same genus can interbreed. However, your usage of "kind" is not the same as genus since the definition of genus has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the ability or inability (or desire) to breed. You consider horses and Zebras the same "kind" but that really has little to do with their taxonomic classification putting them in the same genus.
You could continue to make your statements more consistent under your definitions but it will not make them any more reasonable nor accurate.
***
Out of curiosity, wow many "kinds" of animals do you claim currently exist on our planet?

Bubs: "Mules and horses are in the game genus but a male mule and a female horse cannot breed."
.
Yes, but I said horse(E. ferus) and donkey(E. africanus) not horse and mule(E. caballus).
.
Horses can also interbreed with Zebras (Equus zebra).
.
They can interbreed because they are the same kind of animal. Oops, sorry, I meant that they are the same genus: Equus, which is latin for horse or steed. So they are part of the horse kind. I mean horse genus.
.
"Do you happen to have a reputable source that either defines genus as species able to interbreed or shows that all species in a given genus can reproduce?"
.
First of all, I didn't say ALL SPECIES within a given GENUS can reproduce. Some can, some can't, some choose not to. Anyway, here are some links:
.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
.
You can also look it up under species and genus on Wikipedia if you consider that to be a "reputable" site.

prounion,
I only attending private school for 2 years. All the rest was public school. But even at the private school I was still taught evolution(which should not really be all that surprising to Christians or secularists). I was constantly questioning it because I found it lacking. The teachers couldn't answer most of my questions about evolution, and the ones they did answer just raised more questions which they couldn't answer.
.
And for the record, I also questioned a lot of stories in the Bible as well. In fact, I asked a lot of the same questions that you're asking me now.
.
And so, after the first 30 years of my life of asking questions, one just made a lot more sense than the other.

We are discussing and debating biology, it would generally be considered logical, appropriate, and polite to use actual terms from biology. I would love to make up words and classifications that I can PRETEND make my point, but I prefer intellectual honesty in my discussions.

Just because I am calling your reasoning out as BS does not mean that I am incapable of understanding.

Do you happen to have a reputable source that either defines genus as species able to interbreed or shows that all species in a given genus can reproduce?

Mules and horses are in the game genus but a male mule and a female horse cannot breed.

Kleej, you are an empty vessel.

Bubs: "Unfortunately, you are so scared of using scientific terms (or so ignorant regarding biological functions), that you have to make up your own words."
.
No, that is not the case. The average person would know exactly what I meant when I talk about the "same kind of animal." Besides, I've already mentioned what I meant by that a number of times. Try going through the other posts before jumping into a discussion.

Wow, DrTalk you just flat out don't have any knowledge of biology. I don't mean this to be cruel, I am guessing you went to private school?

Dr.Talk - lets see if I can understand yet again:
.
4,400 years ago massive flood over the entire earth, but the earth was still in pangea mode - so that way all the kinds (which seems like species but you won't define it, possibly has something to do with mules), walked over to the ark. All insect, animal, avian, reptilian, plant, bacterial, viral life that would have been wiped out by such a sustained flood were saved ont he ark. The flood seperated the continents and all of the "kinds" somehow were redistributed back to thier home areas in such a way as to not have disturbed the apprent history of the species in a specific area. They then evolved, each "kind" into different species. Meanwhile the oceans, switched from fresh water to salt water, which explains why they did not have to also haul along fresh water on the ark. Somehow, even though today salinity and ph factors can decimate aquatic populations, back then they just toughed it out. Not to mention that There is not a huge layer of mud over the earth, as would have been expected with such a huge flood.

Bubs: "So your little word, "kinds," is based on what sort of scientific reasoning?"
.
Are you familiar with what evolution teaches beyond species? Look up the work genus. A horse and a donkey are different species (Equus feris and Equus africanus), but the are the same genus (Equus) and they can interbreed. Would you understand if used the word "genus" instead of "kind?"

Thank you Bubs,
that is exactly what I was trying to point out.

You claim those websites can't accurately compute the age of the planet but we can trust them to tell us why the oceans are salty? That's a little inconsistent.

DrTalk,
So your little word, "kinds," is based on what sort of scientific reasoning?
Essentially, it seems like you are implying that there were 8,000 species on the ark that evolved into the current plethora of species that we see. Unfortunately, you are so scared of using scientific terms (or so ignorant regarding biological functions), that you have to make up your own words.

fool_on_the_hill,
Those articles may have mentioned millions of years, but that wasn't the point. Realitybytes wanted me to site sources as proof that the oceans become salty as are result of rivers dumping salt into them.

lakennedy,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

"There are many more websites that say the same thing. Just Google it." --DrTalk.

Your recommended links that specified any time frame say it was in the hundreds of millions of years, correct DrTalk?

lakennedy: "She hasn't studied anything at UW-Madison that would verify the truth behind Noah and his ark..."
.
UW-Madison? You almost made me laugh.

Bubs,
SPECIES is your term. I said there were 8,000 KINDS of animals on the ark. If animals can reproduce, they are the same KIND of animal.

realitybytes,
I don't use the term "evolve." I say the fish adapted to salt water.
.
Here are several links that show how the oceans became salty:
.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/whyoceansal...
.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pujana/oceans/w...
.
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-the-ocean...
.
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/...
.
There are many more websites that say the same thing. Just Google it.

DrTalk,
I almost overlooked part of your quote. Do you mean to imply that fish "evolved" to be able to live in the salt water?

DrTalk,
you said "The pre-flood ocean was fresh water. Today the rivers running into the ocean are what's causing the oceans to become salty. They pick up mineral salts on their way to the ocean. The fish in the ocean adapted to the salt water."

Would you please provide a link to backup your statement about rivers being the reason for the salty oceans? I would specifically like to see a study in which the salinity of a river is measured from it's headwaters all the way to to the ocean.

gazettefan~ u r hopeless.

Kkeej, if you were to search for a system to live by in scripture, the best you would do would be to find communism. There's no trace of democracy in scripture.

I can't decide if this blog is becoming more hilarious or more pathetic. (I know, Gazettefan, children are at stake.)

*

My understanding is, at last count, about 150,000,000 identifiable species of lifeform have been identified, with 300,000,000 or so being the estimated total.

*

Yes, DrTalk "truth" is most definitely an objective quality. However, lying is always meaningless but rarely pointless. (Pathological liars notwithstanding.) Also, I echo Gazettefan's suggestion to reread Lakennedy's post.

*

No, Gazettefan, a better plan would have been getting HER drunk. ;~)

gazettefan~ against democracy, NO. Against communism, YES! What's your next angle? History never happened?

tjncj, for one, you miss the entire point of the Book of Job.

But good for you for accepting evolution.

As a Christian who believes in science as well, I have my own theories on the bible and evolution:

I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I also believe in evolution. The early bible passages referring to Adam and Eve are simply stories to show the evolutionary stage of when people first had conscience and reason and began believing in a Higher Being. I also believe many of the early First Testament Bible passages such as the often quoted Job are also parables to show the faith and dedication that should be given to the Lord. The flood? It may have happened on a smaller scale, regionally but I doubt it covered the entire earth. The one thing I am convinced is that there is a higher power and how men have written and interpreted the history (Bible)through out the years is subject to the frailties of men.

prounion,
"the water alone would be enough to overfill the ark would it not"
.
The ark was on top of the water.
" - how long were they on it? A year? 6 months?"
.
About a year
.
"Did the flood make all of the oceans convert from salt water to clean water?"
.
The pre-flood ocean was fresh water. Today the rivers running into the ocean are what's causing the oceans to become salty. They pick up mineral salts on their way to the ocean. The fish in the ocean adapted to the salt water.

"Cripes its like asking how santa can go visit each house in just one night, you have got to be joking?"
.
Nope. Still not joking. It all makes sense when you follow the evidence.

That's funny, because lakennedy is a history major. She hasn't studied anything at UW-Madison that would verify the truth behind Noah and his ark...

DrTalk,
Prounion was pointing out species diversity, not the number of animals of all species. Animal population is not the same as animal diversity.
The question was how did we get from 8,000 species to the current number in such relatively short span of time?

DrTalk, I said, "...repeatedly until you get it."

gazettefan,
I read lakennedy's post and there is no reason to it. She needs to study history to find out that the stories in the Bible are true.

DrTalk- the water alone would be enough to overfill the ark would it not - how long were they on it? A year? 6 months? Did the flood make all of the oceans convert from salt water to clean water? Cripes its like asking how santa can go visit each house in just one night, you have got to be joking?
.
Why did god have to kill the innocent puppies in the flood, or the newborn babies - was there really no other choice? Is your god really a loving caring god?

Keep religion out of public school and if you don't like evolution being taught to your child, sex ed. taught to your child, Sally had two daddy's read to your child, etc... Send them to private school.
+
Public education is not religous ed. and if some of the curriculum goes against your religious beliefs then find an alternative.
+
Nothing being taught in the public schools is anti-christianity but it may not jive with christian beliefs. That is a reality that is unlikely to change.
+
People need to wake-up and realize that public education is run by the government and is non-religious so theories that may go against creationism may be taught even though creationism isn't.
+
Plenty of private school available willing to take your $$ and give them a christian education.
+
So stop complaining about public education being non-religious...END OF STORY!

DrTalk, read lakennedy's post repeatedly unitll you get it.

There really isn't any "reasoning" involved when it comes to religon, though, is there? I mean, would a rational person believe half of the stories in the bible?
+
If you want to believe, by all means go ahead. Just don't bring terms like: logic and reasoning into your justification for doing so. They simply don't belong there.

prounion: "Why does your god hate intellectuals so much that he would allow or cause such an extended conspiricy to take place, resulting no doubt in many many souls being tortured for all of eternity forever and ever?"
.
I never said God hates intellectuals. But a lot of problems have occurred because of man trying to use his own reasoning. I would call it rationalizing. Adam and Eve tried to rationalize that they knew better than God, and they ate the forbidden fruit. God had his reasons for telling them not to eat the fruit the same way we tell our kids not to do certain things. You tell your kid not to touch the pot on the stove. But he/she gets burned when he doesn't listen to you. There's consequences for our actions. There's a reason why God said "Thou shalt not..." He's not preventing us from having fun. He's says those things because he knows that we will suffer consequences if we do. God is not causing souls to be lost in hell. Our own reasoning is if we think that we know better than God does.

prounion,
"Evolution" and "species" are your definition, not mine. I'd say they are variations of the same kind of animal.
.
Let's take the population of humans. As of 1999, there was 6 Billion people. In 1985, the population reached 5 Billion. That an additional 1 Billion in 14 years. Historians would agree that the human population was 1 Billion in in 1800. There was about 250 Million people on Earth 2000 years ago. So in 2000 years, the population went from 250 Million to over 6 Billion.
.
So are you saying there is no way the animal population could be where it's at today considering it's been over 4,000 years since the flood?

Dr.Talk - you realize that if you ran down the list of departments at any major university you theories would indicate that many of them are completely and utterly on the wrong track. Thos people have wasted thier lives under a huge mistake and all thier work is just not reality. Furthermore the students and majors that have passed through that system have been wasting thier time as well. In fact, the entire system, under your theories, has been designed to steer the intellectually curious away from god. Why does your god hate intellectuals so much that he would allow or cause such an extended conspiricy to take place, resulting no doubt in many many souls being tortured for all of eternity forever and ever?

Dr Talk - your hypothesis is that 8,000 "kind" were on the ark - do you realize how many species are on the planet currently? The rate of evolution would need to be vastly accelerated under your hypothesis. Yet you mention in you next post that evlution would be impossibly slow.
.
Also the flood caused the separation of the continents, so then plate techtonics is yet another scientific area that is invalid?

Dr, Chuck Darwin predicted that the remains of ancestors to the human species would be found in Africa. He was proven right.

foolonthehill, if she was smart she would have insisted that you say it while you were drunk!

;~)

fool_on_the_hill,
I have to agree with you and disagree with your ex-girlfriend. Just saying it and not believing it would have been pointless.
.
As far as truth goes, and based on your past posts, I'd say that you think that truth is objective and not subjective. I also think the same thing. That being said, I have to give the standard dictionary definition of truth:
.
1a. archaic : fidelity, constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard 4capitalized Christian Science : god

"Theory" in this sense means: predictive, useful, demonstrable, and replicable."
.
Since animals reproduce after their kind, let's say elephants, I PREDICT that their parents were the same kind of animal, elephants, because that's how elephants reproduce. Now if we could go back in time 1,000 years, I PREDICT that there would be elephant kinds because that's how elephants reproduce. Let's go back in time 4,000 years. I PREDICT that there would be an elephant kind because that's how elephants reproduce. Now, let's go back in time 1,000,000 years (hypothetically of course in case the earth really isn't that old), I PREDICT that there would be an elephant kinds because that's how elephants reproduce.
.
Now I'm not saying that previous generation of elephants would look exactly like we see them today (there's obviously variations within kinds), but they would be recognizable as elephants.
.
No one's going to say that there aren't changes over time. But it's not the type of change that evolution requires. The evidence for the type of change that evolution requires is lacking. Especially since the oldest DNA found is supposedly 800,000 years old.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
.

"For many people, to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is to acquire license to reactively disagree with reason." -- Gazettefan

You've no idea just how true that is, GFan. I once had a "born again" girlfriend. We got along very well, except for her obsession with religion, of course. Her pastor reminded her that she was, "forbidden to become yoked with non-believers", if I recall that quote accurately. Her solution to this dilemma was for me to pledge, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior!" Of course, I reminded her that would be a lie and totally meaningless. She said she didn't care, just as long as I actually spoke it. I went on to explain that I would never knowingly lie, especially about something so essential to my character. Her response to that? "Just SAY it!" I continued to refuse and we broke up.

That is my favorite story about truth and intentional self-deception. What is most interesting is how the tragic irony is so obvious --not to mention hilarious-- to a typical atheist, while it seems to escape those who so self-righteously claim to be of "pure heart".

By the way, DrTalk, how are you doing on that definition of "truth"?

Kleej, democracy flourishes to the degree that it is distanced from religiosity.

Admit it: You are against democracy.

"FEASIBILITY STUDY"!!!

LOL

;~)

prounion,
Yes the transition from the pre-flood world (you might call it Pangaea or Rodinia) to the world as we see it today would have been the result of a global flood.

Dr.Talk - and this would have happened during the Pangea time frame? So the continents drifted apart at some point after the flood, less than 4,400 years ago?

Darwin1: DrTalk isn't stupid. He is plenty smart enough to understand that ignorance is the lifeblood of any erroneous belief system. He knows exactly what he is doing. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

prouion,
I'm not shying away from anything. I already explained the difference between species and kind. The Bible says that animals BRING FORTH after their KIND. So if animals are able to BRING FORTH, i.e. reproduce, then they are the same KIND of animal.
.
As far as how many KINDS of animals that where on the ark, a feasibility study has been done and it's estimated that there were roughly 8,000 kinds of animals.
.
They would not have taken the biggest ones they could find, i.e. the adults. They would have taken the young ones of each kind.
.
Yes, the flood was in the last 6,000 years. It was roughly 4,400 years ago.
.
If you want to read the entire feasibility study that was done, here's a link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-Feasibil...

I've explained this before: the word "theory", as in the theory of evolution, does not mean "speculation" as believers like to insist.

"Theory" in this sense means: predictive, useful, demonstrable, and replicable.

"....its ok to answer the questions we ask - otherwise you are really fighting for satan."

Prounion, that has my vote for the most profound philosophical argument ever in a blog on this subject. Maintain course, Captain!

"You make it sound as if they are used differently in science than the standard dictionary definition. Is that what you are saying?" -- DrTalk

Now, if you had actually done your homework assignment instead of arguing against its utility, then you would have learned WHY those words have very narrow, strict definitions in the context of science, wouldn't you?

There is no research in the Journal of Creation it is a critique of the research of actual research by actual scientists. Have you actually read the research? You may want to actually read the actual research for yourself before you buy some lie.

It comes down to this:

For many people, to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is to acquire license to reactively disagree with reason.

It's a form of functional confabulation. It's an elaborate way of announcing to world that a person just doesn't fit.

Drtalk - as usual you have shied away from crushing my fragil beliefs which I have fought so very hard to uphold. I was asking for an elaboration on your distinction between species and kind in the ark myth - which apparently you are off of now. OK how many Kinds were on the ark? Also was this within the last 6,000 years? Seriously dude - slippery is not winning any converts - its ok to answer the questions we ask - otherwise you are really fighting for satan.

darwin1,
Yes, it is peer-reviewed and No, it is not given away. On the other hand, the theory of evolution would not survive without tax support. Do you honestly think the majority of people would send their kids to school if they had to pay the private tuition rates?
.
The day evolution is not tax supported is the same day when churches will start paying taxes.

You will notice that the Journal of Creation is worthless because they have to give it away. You can't get Nature or Science for free because it is actually valuable.

The "Journal of Creation" is a peer reviewed journal? Nice try. Peer reviewed by whom? Snake oil salesmen peer reviewing snake oil salesmen doesn't count.

prounion,
No, I'm not saying it's the "equivalent of an ape giving birth to a human" Humans and apes cannot interbreed because they are not the same kind of animal (if you consider humans to be an animal).

fool_on_the_hill: "you do not understand the meaning of the words "evidence", "truth", "fact", "theory" and "assumption" as they are used in science."
.
You make it sound as if they are used differently in science than the standard dictionary definition. Is that what you are saying?
.
Here's 2 aricles about ice cores taken from a peer-reviewed science journal:
http://creation.com/wild-ice-core-interp...
.
http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cor...

Dr.Talk - OK I will bite. You did quite a bit of lead up to this. Here it goes - the kind instead of species distinction relates to your previous interest in donkeys? Please don't tell me that in order to accomodate the impossibly short timeline of 6,000 years and the need to reduce the number of species down to ark levels that you are going to resort to the equivalent of an ape giving birth to a human? The irony of that would be too much for me.

There are many reasons for the decline and fall of a nation, but an important (and often overlooked) reason is its abandonment of religion. Russell Kirk has said that the roots of "culture" come from the "cult." In other words, culture (cult-ure) is based upon some form of religious or spiritual worldview. Egypt was a religious society founded on the worship of nature gods and goddesses. Greece and Rome had their pantheon of pagan deities. And the list of nations in India, China, and other parts of the globe all demonstrate the principle that civilization arises from religion.
And the opposite is also true. When the traditional beliefs of a nation erode, the nation dies. Religion provides the set of standards that govern a nation. Historian Will Durant said, "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."... Kirby Anderson
(100% correct!)

DrTalk, you have demonstrated --quite consistently I might add-- that you do not understand the meaning of the words "evidence", "truth", "fact", "theory" and "assumption" as they are used in science. Moreover, you stubbornly refuse to educate yourself on their proper use in this context. Therefore, it is not possible for you and me to have a rational discussion on the subject.

If and when you've mastered the proper use of the above terms, I will reiterate my request for your scientific theory explaining how a 6,000 year old planet is able to produce 750,000 years of ice core evidence. You theory should present your alternative explanation of how evidence found in DNA, geological stratification and layers of ocean floor sediment --all of which corroborate ice core evidence beyond your scientifically determined 6,000 year epoch-- have been able to fool the global community of thousands of scientists for so many years.

(If you chose to mention religion or scripture anywhere in your scientific theory of a 6,000 year old Earth, be sure to reference one or more scientific papers --published in a credible scientific journal-- that also cite scripture.)

Talk - pangea or a 6,000 year old earth - can't really have it both ways.

Talk - the bible is clearly a collection of myths. Move on, take off your jesus glasses and look around. You have been scammed. Its not your fault, we are exposed to it all our lives. Pastors and priests and churches telling us that god is real. In the past athiests have sat relatively silent. Schools would teach that god was real and evolution just a theory. Its hard to wake up to reality. Evidence comes when you take off your bible glasses and realize that attempting to fit the whole of reality into the stories from a collection of old myths does not help to undertand the world. This is why you and others have skipped over the harder questions we have posed, you just plain old don't have the answers and it must get tough stating you gotta have faith in the lord or we are not meant to understand god's plan. I understand - I understand that religion is a scam.

prounion,
First of all, there were not 2 of every SPECIES on the ark. There were 2 of every KIND. The Bible says that animals brought forth (reproduce) after their KIND. And as I pointed out earlier, there are animals that are the same kind, but are different species and they can reproduce.
.
Second, Noah did not have to go around and gather up all the animals. God sent all the animals to Noah. (Genesis 6:20)
.
Third, the animals wouldn't have had to been separated. Genesis 1:29 says that humans and animals were all vegetarian originally. It wasn't OK to eat meat until after the flood. Genesis 9:1
.
Fourth, there were 8 people on the ark.
.
Fifth, they would not have had to venture to continents to put all the animals back. Let's take the Pangaea theory for example. If there was one big continent that ended up separating, that would explain how the animals ended up where they are today. Something like that happened after the flood.
.
Sixth, no I'm not messing with you.

prounion,
1. Yes, I am aware that there are over 270 stories from other cultures that tell the exact same thing: one family and animals aboard and ark to survive a flood.
.
2. There are many historical records that support the events in the Bible. But the real evidence comes after accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Dr.Talk - If at some point in recent history (last 6,000 years) There was a flood that temporarily reduced each and every species down to one mating pair or 7 in some cases, the evidence would be unequivical - we would be able to see that on a number of levels.
.
Do you have any idea how big of an ark it would take to pull that off (I guess so if I remember right the number of cubits for this and that is in the bible)? Not to mention the massive undertaking of getting all the species from the Amazon rain forest alone? Do you have any clue as to how many different species of plants and animals would have had to have been on that ark?
.
The redistribution and seeding of said species would have been a massive undertaking as well. Separation of the species during thier time on the ark would have been a huge undertaking.
.
There were maybe ten people on Ark?
.
I am not saying this out of malice but taking the Ark story literally is roughly equivalent to saying Santa really does visit each house on Christmas. More so in fact as he would have had to venture to continents that had not yet been discovered at least twice, once to get the animals, and once to put them back.
.
Are you serious about believing that our are you messing with us?

"7 of some kinds"? It's starting to make sense now!!!

fool_on_the_hill,
There is scientific evidence and then there is the interpretation of the evidence. The interpretations are based on presuppositions, axioms. I'm willing to acknowledge my presuppositions. You seem to have a problem acknowledging yours.
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe09_a...

gazettefan,
There were not 2 of every kind of animal on the ark. There were 7 of some kinds.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...

DrTalk, get to the part where all the animals board the Ark two-by-two.

I don't think that a wikipedia entry's poor choice of words proves anything except that it was a poor choice of words.

Callit..... is on top of his literary game today!

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah.......

Dr.Talk - yes floods happen. Ok and lets for debate's sake say that the world was completely flooded as your latestwebsite suggests. I have two questions:
.
1. You are also subscribing to a literal interpretation of the ark myth? Would it suprise you that other cultures/religions had that myth before yours?
.
2. How does evidence, I use that term loosely since there really is not conclusive evidence for the type of flood you are suggesting via the website, but how does it for arguement's sake lead to a belief in your specific god?

Someone's assuming that I consider all science to be assumption.

So true, foolonthehill. Behold their newest stuff. It's falderall bordering on flummery.

Gazettefan, I would really like to hear one of them make their case without abominating the definition of words critical to understanding the debate. For example, the assertion that scripture is "truth" and science is "assumption".

Therein lies the essence of the child abuse of which I speak. Outside the protective cloak of religious freedom, any similarly irrational statement might get a person locked up for 72 hours of psychiatric observation. (Which is exactly what the colleagues of any "scientist" claiming the Earth was only 6,000 years old would recommend for him or her.)

Prounion,
With the earth being 70% water, you don't see evidence of a world wide flood? Yet scientists claimed evidence of flooding on planets with little or no water.
.
Here's a list of evidence for a world wide flood:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...

gazettefan:May 5th 8:10am,
Man wrote that.

The following is quoted from the evoluion article on Wikipedia:
"Indeed, the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."
.
Can you read that and then honestly tell me that no assumption is being made?

fool_on_the_hill,
So you think it's child abuse to point out assumptions?

foolonthehill, we are in total agreement on that score. Child abuse, indeed.

The impositional believers here are accustomed to filling the heads of children and a few disoriented adults with the "science" of scripture and god. When they go up against clear, mature thinkers like us, they sustain the shock of reality -their artificial power stance doesn't fly here.

Gazettefan: As the discussions digressed, I forgot to comment on something relating to my position on educating children about various religions and their historical roles, versus your oft-stated "child abuse" thesis.

On April 30th, 1:54 p.m. (below), Prounion posted a quote from a referenced website. Now, if those quoted words were taught to any child by any adult in any authoritative capacity, then I would most definitely consider that an act of child abuse as potentially damaging as criminal child abuse.

I hope this helps to clarify my position on the subject.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Matthew 10:34-39

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other.

Understood, GFan. I was speaking philosophically. As a practical matter, you are probably right.

foolonthehill, even though none of the religious stories in the Gazette deal with the issue of god's existence or non-existence and the violent, irrational nature of religion, the blogs and posts that follow from those stories always deal with such and are always very heated.

Imagine what would be the case in elementary and high schools. Factor in that pre-college schooling is where parents, for better or for worse, are more involved with and most sensitive to what their children are exposed to - especially factor in the religiosity of some of those parents.

Leave anything to do with religion to university life. I think the University of Chicago has a Psychology of Religion course.

(Forgive my denseness, Gazettefan. I know we're on the same page vis-a-vis religion as "science". I am trying to relate this to my own personal experiences.) Are you saying that merely acknowledging the existence of religion in the context of formal or public education elevates it to a status it doesn't deserve?

"Paranoia" makes reference to staticrush's 4:13 post. Believers are paranoid that teaching the disciplines without teaching religion will cause the insanity and inanity of religion to be exposed. And they are right.

Sorry, Gazettefan, I didn't follow that last post. Especially, the last sentence. Could you elaborate?

Bill - Part 2 retort. You claim government and conscience as proof that god is not cruel. Do you have any evidence that this sociological phenomenon are artibutable to god?
.
I like to give bill multiple choice - not as a far as answers to the questions rather he gets more than that - he gets multiple questions to choose from - lets face it he is not really going to answer all of them- that would test his faith - and its not like Janeville has more that one christian so really we need to roll out the theological red carpet to bill. In my opionion.

God does not change, but he appears to from the old testament to the new?
.
Is god not more apt to petty emotions like jealousy than I am now? If he is should I really look up to him as a role model?
.
When he hardend pharohs heart and then took the first born of all of Egypt - was there concern about the folks that had nothing to do with and no control over the exodus? If not does he really love me? Or am I more colateral damage since he knows already what I will decide with my "free will."
.
Dang that was a rough post for christians huh? I susspect all of my questions will not be answered - maybe one if I am lucky.

Schools are for the teaching of the disciplines. Theistic religion is superstition, irrationality, and anti-educational; it has a violent history and violent dynamic -it especially has a violent dynamic toward outsiders. Religion would only clutter up truly important curricula.

Parents can take their children to church or Sunday school or send them to religious schools.

The real paranoia of this issue is that teaching the disciplines without religion will enlighten students as to the inanity of religiosity.

Gazzetefan is right as usual - the evolution of religious doctrine should be a red flag to any believer. The church states this - then evidence crops up that is impossible for a reasonable human to deny and all of a sudden - the church backtracks, the bible didn't mean to say the first thing at all.
.
Funfact! The highest concentration of gold on the planet - you guessed it - the big house o' god.
.
Judeism, Chritianity, and Islam. Why did you just pick the middle one - god was writing before christ and his was writting after christ. So why stop there. I will tell you because you were born in an area where the middle faith was practiced. Why not Islam and does your answer make any more logical sense than the reason why Jews have ruled out christianity?

Hi Bill -
yes I was once a two celled organism - is this where god exerts his influence nowadays? At the embryo stage? That way our free will is intact? But satan of course still has freedom since most embryos the body aborts naturaly? But god stops some from aborting like you and me?

Staticrush: If an equal overview of each and every major religion, including native American, Aztec, Myan, Greek myths, etc. were taught in the context of the history of humanity, then yes, I agree. However, no religion should ever be taught under the broad umbrella of "science", whether public or private school.

I meant to say informed opinion, sorry I mistyped.

Like it or not, religion is a part of the history of humanity and should be taught in public schools. I really do not see why people are so paranoid that by discussing religion; could it be that students may actually make a personal and informed choice? Isn't that why we send them to school in the first place, to be educated?

billnewbie, apply your skepticism to your adopted doctrine and scripture and you will find that your entire belief system is baseless.

That's why you nit-pick subjects that are over your head like a maladjusted teenager nit picks the logic of having to clean his room.

The above is a simile. But know this: Your reliance on metaphors like the one with the driver and the vehicle reveals that you are unable to close the distance between yourself and the very thing you are attempting to talk about. That stuff might work in Sunday School but in the real world it just comes off as sad.

bill scientific progress is a good thing and has improved peoples lives as a matter of fact. Stating over and over that it is a herd mentality, or your persecuted doesn't change the fact that science is good and does good and provides proof of it. You provide nothing except some pathetic diatribes that blather on and on and make you look like a fool.

All you have done is reject my question, Bill. How do you suppose this respected scientist reconciles his publicly stated support for both Darwinian evolution and Christianity?

(Incidentally, I never characterized Dr. Collins as an idiot. I only asked if you did. He is apparently a pretty bright fellow. I presume those who put him in charge of managing the genome projects agree.)

That last post was in response to Prounion.

In my latest posts, I have not attempted to make a case for my particular beliefs, I have been trying to make the case for its most basic foundation, the existence of God.

Prounion, having at one time been a two celled embryo, I do not. Weren't you once a two celled embryo , too?

Re-read it, Fool_on_the_Hill. Your misinterpretation suggests a willingness to see only what you want to see. If what you said were true, Gazettefan would have crowed like a rooster at dawn about it, but instead he simply dismissed it out of hand as he does with all other opinions he doesn't like.
.
Perhaps you want to characterize Dr. Collins as some kind of idiot because it’s easier for you to dismiss his opinions without consideration. It’s a pity that you attempt that self-deceiving tactic. Then if I defend Dr. Collins you claim I must accept evolution because he apparently does. I reject both alternatives. You'll have to do better than that to trap me into some undefendable statement. But if you were a sincere seeker of truth, why would you try such a thing? How disappointing that you now resort to cynically insincere questions, too.

Billnewbie, your 11:12 post just might be the best case FOR atheism I have read here. Thanks!

Getting back to Dr. Collins, I had a feeling you might relate to him, Bill. So, which is it? Is Dr. Collins --poster boy for religious scientists-- some sort of idiot or have you been wrong about evolution? (Remember, Collins is a Christian so the atheism straw man doesn't apply in this case.)

Bill- lets see if we can clarify.
.
What proof do you have that there is a god?
.
Once you have provided your proof - what is your evidence that the proof you provided is attributable to your particular belief system as opposed to all of the others?
.
The problem we have is that we look at the world and ask why? And we see the answers, we talk about them with each other, sometimes we are right and sometimes wrong. We use logic and reason to figure things out and the overwelming evidence points to evolution and natural selection as the source of life on this planet and that religion is simply a byproduct of the social interaction that resulted from the evolution of the cerebral cortex.

Excellent Bill - thenyou see no differece between yourself and a two celled embryo?

Bill if somehow the theory of evolution were to crumble into dust that doesn't mean that the athiests become christians. You still have the fundamental problem that there is no evidence to indicate the existence of god. Even when you do attempt to provide some there is no evidence that it is your particular god that exists even if we were to take and accept ID as a valid hypothesis.

Prounion, this is an official notice from the CDC (not really!). A type of cell has been discovered at the center of the brain of people your age that we believe may well lead to cures for many diseases. The retrieval of these cells unfortunately is lethal to the donor. By lottery (with ourselves excluded from the drawing as we are much to important to the cause), you have been selected to donate said cells. Report forthwith to the nearest CDC human vivisection laboratory. Please spare us the usual appeals to morality as scientific and medical advancement is at stake and we know that you wouldn't want to set back that advancement even 1 minute, now would you? Thank you in advance for your generous self-sacrifice and please note that if you fail to report we will hunt you down anyway, so don't be needlessly obstinate, do your duty, report forthwith!

billnewbie, with your quote below you finally seem to have gotten it right. Too bad about the rest of your post, which reveals more and more of your inability to focus; such inability brought on by your need to settle for a childish explanation of reality.

"Oh I see, the scientific herd [dynamic] is always going in the right direction. Just follow that herd [dynamic] and you won't go wrong. Yet the theistic herd always goes in the wrong direction, follow that herd and you can't go right."

Oh I see, the scientific herd is always going in the right direction. Just follow that herd and you won't go wrong. Yet the theistic herd always goes in the wrong direction, follow that herd and you can't go right. And you people claim a monopoly on reason!
.
"Erroneous hypotheses or specious reasoning have a short life expectancy in the field of science." That statement is contradicted by history.
.
"While scientists are frequently mistaken in perception and understanding, scientific fact is never wrong." That is until an error is discovered, sometimes centuries later. Which facts that are embraced now will be refuted long after we've passed away? The statement “scientific fact is never wrong” is a statement of faith, faith in the integrity of scientists and the accuracy of their observations. As I said before, that faith is misplaced.
.
"The fact the some scientists need religion is evidence they ARE imperfect and fallible." So, you accept that some scientists are infallible but the only standard of fallibility you accept is a need for religion? The reality is that all scientists are fallible. To claim that atheistic scientists are not is indeed a fantasy. Some of the scientists quoted in that article exhibited acute arrogance. And arrogance is the surest way to fall into error.
.
Isn’t it curious that the atheists’ who claim to have a monopoly on reason depart from it so often? They condemn faith as the crutch of the ignorant yet they resort to it with absolute statements that they view as self-evident but are really only supported by their assumptions (faith). And their reliance on science is their holy scripture. They need something to assure them that they are right which seems strange to me in that if there is no explanation of our origins, no scientific theory to reinforce the choice to reject God, so what. Why should that make a difference? The reason must be that they need some validation of human reason to assure themselves that it is reliable enough to discern that God does not exist. That explains their scientific fanaticism, their inability to acknowledge the fallibility of science since they have so very much invested in it.
.
Oh yes, atheism in its present form crumbles to dust if evolutionary science is found to be erroneous. However, theism can survive even if evolution is found to be true (which is far from certain to ever happen) in that all we have discovered is the instrument by which God brought forth life. It’s as though an archaeologist has found a pot, and nearby he found a potter’s wheel. An atheist is like an archaeologist that claims the potter’s wheel created the pot, but the theist is like an archaeologist that recognizes that the potter’s wheel is a tool, and that the tool was used by a potter to make the pot, even if there is no other evidence of that potter other than that potter’s wheel.

Academics love to find inconsistencies in thier counterparts work. Its not the world's largest conspiricy out there. In fact publishers pay scientists to critically review works before they are published. If one could find a hole in the logic of another it would be quickly pointed out - if one were to find a fundamental flaw in human understanding, one would be rewarded greatly.
.
On the opposite side is the church which continues to attempt to block human progress. How is it that the US is relegated to the back seat in the field of biotechnology? God apparently would be offended if embryos were used in research. Nevermind that most embryos are nonviable anyway. How many years did they set us back on that one I wonder?

"Humans are fallible but it is the institutionalized use of the scientific method that weeds out falsity and produces ever increasing reliable descriptions of reality." --Gazettefan.

Bingo! With "ever increasing" being the operative phrase. (Exponential is probably more like it, though.)

The anti-evolution contingent refuses to acknowledge the breadth and depth of knowledge that spans dozens of independent fields of science: archeology; anthropology; molecular biology; genetics; oceanography; climatology; and so on. The scientific evidence is nothing less than OVERWHELMING in support of evolution being the obvious, rational explanation of all life on Earth.

In fact, that was my earlier point (which seemed to fall on deaf ears) with regard to denialists being dragged kicking and screaming for centuries, only to finally acknowledge that the most rational explanation of their OWN observations was a heliocentric universe. That same flat-earth mentality is alive and well today in the form of creationists. They clamp their eyes shut, jam their fingers in their ears and yell, "lalalalala..." every time another chunk of evidence contradicting their unsubstantiated belief gets piled onto the already enormous heap of scientific knowledge.

Having a bias towards facts is a good bias? Your arguments are almost always based on assumptions that are foolish.

foolonthehill, your statement below is brilliant:

"The fact that some scientists need religion is evidence they ARE imperfect and fallible."

billnewbie's recent blather is a monumental job of projection. To point out that scientists are imperfect while his own mental stability depends on a malignant fairy tail is the height of a failure to have insight.

Humans are fallible but it is the institutionalized use of the scientific method that weeds out falsity and produces ever increasing reliable descriptions of reality.

NotUnderHypnosis(butpossiblyhighonreefer), as a fellow human being it is my duty to inform you that your statement below makes no sense:

-----"The point I'm making is that God already knows what choice you're going to make because it already happened according to God. There is still free choice, and people are (obviously) still responsible for their actions."--------

If god already knows what you're going to do in the future, then you can't possibly choose to do anything contrary what he already "knows" (obviously). Remember, this is how you explained the Holocaust.

You need to organize your thoughts.

Billnewbie, my hope was that those parts of the article you found most supportive of your beliefs might encourage you to ponder other parts that feel less comfortable. Like those who echo my "different realms" philosophy of faith and reason, for example.

Scientists are human beings. Your point that scientists are subject to the limits of human shortcomings is not at issue. (By the way, science's term for that is "pathological science".) That is precisely WHY the scientific method is integral to scientific knowledge: to discover and understand truth. Erroneous hypotheses or specious reasoning have a short life expectancy in the field of science. Moreover, intentional fudging of data or lying will bring the end of any scientist's career. While scientists are frequently mistaken in perception and understanding, scientific fact is never wrong. Scientists may hold strong political and religious beliefs but science, per se, is both apolitical and atheistic. Repeat: science is atheistic. The fact the some scientists need religion is evidence they ARE imperfect and fallible. Dr. Collins is a classic "lost soul". Religion fills a void in his psyche.

Of course I read that entire article, Bill. Do you think I would have posted the link if it refuted any position I've taken in these discussions? Perhaps you misunderstand me. I have no problem accepting the existence of religious scientists. Why do you have such a problem accepting the existence of scientists like Dr. Collins who understand and contribute to the body of scientific knowledge on evolution? Better yet, how about a friendly wager on Dr. Collins' estimate on the age of the universe? I'll give you 6,000:1 odds. ;~)

Part 2
The following is the last of the interview and it stands for itself, “Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.
But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

.
I wonder, Fool_on_the_Hill, did you read past the first page of that article where you found your quote? Perhaps these scientists don’t understand science either.

I read Fool_on_the_Hill’s article, and the scientist he quotes seems to agree with me. The writer of the article said of Dr Collins attitude about religion while he was still an atheist, “He said he realized then that he had never considered the matter seriously, the way a scientist should.” The writer continued about Dr. Collins, “Colleagues sometimes express surprise at his faith, he (Collins) said.”They'll say, 'how can you believe that? Did you check your brain at the door?’ ” It seems that scientists are also prone to cynical defense mechanisms to protect fragile belief systems, too.
.
Another scientist quoted about from the same article “ Dr. Noah Efron of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said scientists, like other people, were guided by their own human purposes, meaning and values. The idea that fact can be separated from values and meaning "jibes poorly with what we know of the history of science," Dr. Efron said.” This also looks familiar to one of my rejected contentions.
.
Yet another scientist, a Nobel laureate named Herbert A. Hauptman was referred to in that article - “Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race." With this kind of bias demonstrated by an award winning scientist, it seems certain to me that to win awards and the approval of scientific peers, one must demonstrate that same bias if one expects to achieve any recognition within the scientific community, and the grants (and therefore the income) one needs to do research. With guys like Hauptman driving the bus (reference my previous post’s vehicle analogy), would it be any wonder if the scientific community suddenly found itself in the twilight zone?
.
The article also refers to a survey “reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray ‘in expectation of receiving an answer.’ “ The article goes on to report “Others play down those results. They note that when Dr.(Edward J.) Larson (of the U. of Georgia) put part of the same survey to "leading scientists" - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.” Isn’t this proof that to be a “leading scientist”, one must conform to conventional wisdom?

I can see why my opinions about the shortcomings of science and the unreliability of human reason would bother some so much. Their fragile beliefs would crumble if they were to acknowledge it. Yet characterizing what I said and attempting to discredit it and me are not much of a rebuttal. Whether I know or understand scientific methodology doesn't really address the points I made, that humans are prone to wishful thinking, peer pressure, inability to gather all the facts due to the limitations of our senses and faulty reasoning warped by personal bias, and that scientists are also human. Science is a vehicle, the operator, scientists. If a vehicle travels in the wrong direction there are only 2 possible reasons. The vehicle has a defect that prevents it from going in the right direction, or the operator has steered it in the wrong direction. So it is with science and scientists. In science, there are no paved roads and no maps. The only reference point is in the past. If the vehicle (science) has a defect (an incorrect assumption) it can take a very long time to discover the misdirection. If the operator (scientists) is steering according to an incorrect assumption, an assumption arrived at by committee, it may take very much longer to correct the error due to the egos involved and the peer pressure exerted on the few who suspect the truth. To pretend this cannot occur among scientists is a fantasy.

Gazettefan (who must not read any other newspapers because he's a fan of the gazette), you don't understand what I'm saying. The point I'm making is that God already knows what choice you're going to make because it already happened according to God. There is still free choice, and people are (obviously) still responsible for their actions.

I know I'll be challenged on this believe because it seems atheists have a lot of time to debate on a newspaper forum than believers do. I'm clearly outnumbered here, but I'm sticking to my belief. If you really want to have your questions answered, go to a priest. They have a lot more knowledge and credibility than I do. To be honest, I'm not that great at debating the existence of God because, as I said, it gets us no where and I honestly don't care if you don't believe. The only way I can really prove the existence of God is by the way I live my life.

GFan, the anti-science contingent might adjust their stance if they truly understood the scientific method and heard what religious scientists have to say on the subject.

Here's a very interesting NY Times article from 2005 about scientists and their religious beliefs. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/nation... One interesting fellow is Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Dr. Collins is a genetic researcher and faithful Christian, having authored books on the subject of science and religion. Here is what Dr. Collins had to say about DNA and Darwin:

"As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals, tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities "are absolutely compelling," Dr. Collins said. "If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove that they really do love God - what a horrible choice."

So it seems Dr. Collins, scientist and Christian, just might concur with your thesis on religious extremism and child abuse, GFan.

Yes, foolonthehill. billnewbie's explanation as to why creationism and ID doesn't get the respect he believes it deserves is paranoid.

It would take the largest and most well performed conspiracy in the history of humanity for the scientists to pull that one off!

NotUnderHypnosis(butpossiblydrunk), I made my Hitler statement because your explanation for the Holocaust is precisely that of the Nazis.

If someone committed the same acts on any of your friends or family members would you have the same explanation? Because if you did, you'd take away the culpability of whoever caused the harm.

Now you can say "No, the people who caused the harm should be punished under the same explanation I supplied in my previous post."

The problem then becomes: you group the innocent with guilty with your magical train that somehow enforces the fate of people.

This renders your god as either insane or non-existent. I choose the latter.

"NotUnderHypnosis, you must be saddened that your fuhrer's one thousand year Reich only lasted ten years"

Hahahaha, I challenge your laughable Holocaust argument, and you accuse me of sympathizing with Hitler. Way to go. You're not convincing me that God doesn't exist. Try harder.

Gazettefan, your 3:10pm post makes a very important point that gets far too little attention: The belief that science is somehow biased against religion. False! Science is not biased against any scientifically valid evidence. With all of those religious scientists in the world, you can bet your boots that every single one of them has one eye open for that very proof. It would be the scientific and religious announcement of all time: "Science proves existence of God!" Talk about your Noble prize and Sainthood all in one fell swoop!

And still, despite such an overwhelming force of motivation...

billnewbie, you have it backwards: If legitimate scientists saw any scientific merit in creationism or I.D., they'd gladly say so and pursue and acquire grants on that basis.

There's nothing about creationism nor ID that survives the test of the scientific method.

Look I said it before I will say it again. I am an athiest and we are willing to admit when we are wrong and our conclusions are not valid. Looks like the majority of my previous posts were incorrect:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508304/?GT...

Gazzetefan is right as usual - the evolution of religious doctrine should be a red flag to any believer. The church states this - then evidence crops up that is impossible for a reasonable human to deny and all of a sudden - the church backtracks, the bible didn't mean to say the first thing at all.
.
Funfact! The highest concentration of gold on the planet - you guessed it - the big house o' god.
.
Judeism, Chritianity, and Islam. Why did you just pick the middle one - god was writing before christ and his was writting after christ. So why stop there. I will tell you because you were born in an area where the middle faith was practiced. Why not Islam and does your answer make any more logical sense than the reason why Jews have ruled out christianity?

Doctor billnewbie, it is the BELIEF in god that's the problem. That's what we are criticizing. And your previous post unwittingly reveals that belief and non-belief are subjective and that therefore god is man-made.

God is supposed to be involved in everything yet there is no evidence of him at all. During the early era of theism belief in god was based in "clear-cut evidence" -actually delusions and lies which were thought to be reality.

As the human intellect matured, species-wide, increasingly elaborate explanations as to how god manifests himself and how god does not manifest himself were contrived to foster and encourage belief. Those who nourished this after-market religiosity became known as clergy and theologians.

They contrived different causes for human suffering and different interpretations for scripture. They also wrote new scripture and doctrine. Your current explanation for god (which includes his non-involvement where he should be involved) is state of the art theology. Theology has lagged behind the evolution of the human intellect but has nonetheless progressed to the point where it virtually states that god does not exist.

This truth is tugging at your consciousnesses and has driven you into the hellish world of psychoanalysis.

NotUnderHypnosis, you must be saddened that your fuhrer's one thousand year Reich only lasted ten years.

"notunderhypnosis, to believe that the Holocaust isn't proof that god doesn't exist is to not understand the issue at hand here.

God is supposed to answer prayers. Would god choose to ignore all the prayers of all those victims? It is reasonable to believe that no one heard those prayers."

I'm gonna attempt to explain this, and it make me so happy that you're gonna hate this explanation.

The truth is that, as sad as it is, the people who died in the Holocaust were meant to die in the Holocaust. That was their fate. That's where their path led them. Why? I have no idea. It's kinda difficult to derive the motives from an all-knowing and all-seeing being.

I know you're gonna ask about free choice, so I'll address it here. There is still free choice. We've already made all the choice we're going to make in our lives we just haven't come to the point where we make them. In a word, God already knows what decisions we make, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a choice in making them. Time doesn't exist for God. The past and the future are both present for him.

For most of the questions you have, I'd suggest you check out "Mere Christianity" by a former atheist, C.S. Lewis.

At issue here is "state of consciousness", Billnewbie. You make perfect sense to me when you speak from the state of consciousness of your 3-part explanation. I would even go so far as to say that is a good example of the "proper" expression of religious faith. (Ever wonder why I never take issue with anything you've every written from that state of consciousness?)

However, whenever a believer "wanders from the reservation" to invalidate something they clearly do not understand --as your last post demonstrates-- they are perceived as pathetic, desperate and irrational. If you can't take my word for it, then consider how you feel whenever some atheist claims that God couldn't possibly exist is because no real God would behave like such a dufus. That is how you guys look to atheists whenever you desperately attempt to appear "rational".

Stick with your faith state of consciousness, Bill. It's actually quite becoming, in its own way. (Also appreciate that I am going to catch hell for saying that.)

So what is it about this supernatural being that’s so hard to understand? I’ve been mocked for believing in something I cannot fully explain. God, by His very nature is beyond our observation. All we have to assess His nature and motivations is in His creations and by what He tells us. Is it so surprising that God hasn’t told us everything? Is it so unlikely that we cannot know everything about Him by observing His creation considering our limitations?
.
The atheists mock belief in God partly on the grounds that we don’t fully understand Him. Yet they willing embrace the latest scientific theories about our origins even though those theories are incomplete, and can never be complete because the origin of the species cannot be observed but can only be speculated about by what little evidence remains. Evidence that has often times been fraudulent, or found by people who are not always reliable. Atheists say that theism is made up by untrustworthy humans, yet they are willing to put their trust in scientific speculation as if the scientists are not drawn from the same human pool as the theists. And when one considers the conventional wisdom factor that works against dissent among evolutionary scientific research circles (only devote evolutionists get research grants), the peer pressure that is exerted on scientists and the need of humans to be accepted by their peers, then it becomes evident that evolutionary science is not as reliable as devout atheists would like to believe.
.
In short, atheists put their faith in the ability of humanity to correctly discover and analyze through human reason all that is or can be known. History is full of examples that human reason is faulty. I contend that their faith, even though they deny it as such, is misplaced.

Yes Darwin1, I am the train that wrecks your assumptions.

Again Gazettefan, you struggle to deny what is so obvious to all, your hostility to God. Your body of comment contradicts you. You struggle with yourself.

Darwin1, I wasn't stating a value judgment. Religion serves no purpose in my life, therefore its value to me is zero. However, that does not mean I am incapable of understanding how others might perceive its value in their lives. My point, and my only point, was that reason is as irrelevant to one's practice of religion as scripture is to one's practice of science.

billnewbie, what you don't understand is that the universe and the human experience are just as they would be if god didn't exist. Your defense of god proves this. You define god as though his existence makes no difference.

That's why it is such a struggle for you to even present false counterpoints to the proof for the non-existence of god.

And, again, when we use the word "god" we are really saying: "...if god existed (which he does not)...."

notunderhypnosis, to believe that the Holocaust isn't proof that god doesn't exist is to not understand the issue at hand here.

God is supposed to answer prayers. Would god choose to ignore all the prayers of all those victims? It is reasonable to believe that no one heard those prayers.

Your assumption that both science and religion are equally valid is false. Science is a method that has been effectively used to explain the natural world. Religion simply says "God did it".

From the fool on the hill's perspective, attempting to invalidate religious scripture by means of rational analysis is just as pathological as attempting to invalidate science by quoting religious scripture.

Bubs,
The point is not whether the offspring of a species is infertile or not. There is a language barrier problem. I'm trying to use terms that you and others would understand so that I don't make "rediculous" sounding statements. Obviously members of the same species can interbreed. But it's also clear that members of the same genus can interbreed. But apparently I sound rediculous when I say that the same kind of animal can reproduce. Hopefully that clears up what I'm trying to say.

Ok, I just have to say one thing. The argument that God doesn't exist was the Holocaust? You couldn't come up with another reason? You're not convincing me that God doesn't exist.

We point out the inconsistencies of the whole "god" story and somehow we are inconsistent? You are the train wreck.

Actually, I'm trying to be about as subtle as a train wreck.

Your point was perfectly clear to this atheist, Bill. So was the subtle sardonic humor. LOL

The point is pretty clear. Anti-theists want it both ways. They castigate what they characterize as God's "vile acts of injustice", then they castigate God's reticence to interfere with our exercise of free will. No matter what He does, you would find some way to complain about it.

Maybe I was a little harsh.

But what's the point? That we have bad reasoning because if god existed we would complain because he didn't kill the Craig's List killer before he, the CLK, killed anyone?!

Are you kidding me? Get to the point. Your last point means that god cannot understand the perceptions of humans, meaning he has no empathy for anyone but himself and his point of view. I don't think that describes a divine being, it describes you!

God is your claim. Your claim your proof, otherwise your just another fraud selling snake oil.

To whom it may concern:

ARE YOU NUTS?!!!!

Part 3:
So why does God take what looks like innocent people and allows them to be hurt or killed such as with Job’s children? Again, it has to do with sovereignty. If God has a purpose for what seems like a senseless death, the senselessness is only in our perception, or lack of perception. We are limited in what we know by what we see, hear, feel, taste and touch. A good illustration of that is the “Craigslist Killer” which is currently in the news. No one who knew this man had any suspicions that he is the cold blooded killer that he actually is. If God had stricken him down 2 months ago, people like Gazettefan and Prounion would protest that this is yet more evidence of the evil of God. But now that we know the real character of this man, perhaps Gazettefan and Prounion are outraged that God didn’t strike him dead 2 months ago. Humans are in no position to judge God as we do not and cannot have all the pertinent facts, and very often our judgment is clouded by what we want to believe.

Part 2:
Concerning God’s various acts of supposed cruelty, His commanding that people be put to death, even His condemning to hell any who displease Him, there is no denying, or need to deny that these things have or will happen. The contention is that a loving God would not do such things. But again all the writer of such a contention is claiming is that “I wouldn’t do that if I were God”. Atheists (anti-theists) have zeroed in on one particular aspect of God (Love) because this is the one divine aspect that nearly everyone agrees on and it is one they think that they can exploit. And while love is a very important aspect of God, it is not his only one, and as such, cannot be the only one that matters or even the one that matters most. Ignoring the other aspects of God is the deception in trying to hold God accountable for His actions.
.
So what could possibly justify these “terrible” divine or divinely directed actions? Again, if one believes that there is no God, this question is moot, but if one accepts, even if just for the sake of argument, that God does exist, then one also must accept that He created us and that as Creator, He has total authority over us, that He is sovereign. As part of human nature, God endowed us with free will, but he also gave us law which he “wrote on our hearts” (our conscience) and instituted within government which He authorized with governmental sovereignty, that is the authority to govern, and therefore impose and enforce the law on us whether we agree or not, which is similar to His own sovereignty though on a smaller scope. So, since He created us, has sovereignty over us, has given His law to us so that we know how to behave, He therefore has the authority to judge us and the authority to condemn us according to another of His aspects, Justice.
.
It has been well established that humanity, when it rebels against God, does so on the grounds that we reject His sovereignty. As Americans particularly, we relate well to the revulsion we all seem to have by our shared nature to authority. This is the main attraction that atheism (anti-theism) holds. If there is no God, there is no one to answer to, no judgment to face. We each become our own gods, determining for ourselves what is right, judging our own motivations without regard to any deity outside ourselves, except of course (thank God) for government which is necessary to restrain the other humanistic gods from acting without regard to us. As Satan said to Eve in Genesis when he urged her to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit, “in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods”, this choice to be as gods is appealing to our character. And it is what leads us to do great evil. But it is a choice we can, but do not have to make, yet we all at one time or another do make that choice to some degree or another. That is why the bible says that our condemnation is just.

So the Holocaust and the Inquisition are held up as proof that there is no God. What I see in all these comments below is a common thread, a declaration by the persons who make these kinds of statements that this is not how they think God should behave, as if saying “If I were God I wouldn’t allow that”. Of course the whole argument is moot if one contends that there is no God because then there is only humanity to which we can credit all the evil that is or ever was in the world, which is not the contention here of those who make these arguments. The argument that “religiosity” is the root of all evil is also nonsensical in that there is plenty of evil in the world that is not related to “religiosity”. Then there is the contradictory argument that “religiosity” tries to force its morality on humanity, a contradiction they seem oblivious to, as if making whatever charge may work is an acceptable practice even if they do contradict (throw it up against the wall and see what sticks), as atheists know that they need not prove anything, that their goal isn’t to build, but to destroy.
.
So what is it with God? Why does He allow evil to exist? We’ve all heard of free will as it exists in each of us and its existence is therefore undeniable. Therefore, to have free will means that we all must have the freedom to behave very badly, for if there were any divine limits set on free will, then in fact free will would not exist. Yet God does provide some deterrence to evil. He has established government and he has endowed each of us with a conscience. These 2 devices work remarkably well in restraining the tendency for great evil in most of us. But they do not stop the worst of us, especially when the worst of us gain control of government as the Holocaust and the Inquisition illustrate. So, whether one is a theist or an atheist, the blame for these exercises in evil can only be blamed on the humans who perpetrated them, and the inaction of the humans who could have acted and chose not to.
.
So why would God create such human beings with such capacity for evil? Apparently, because these human beings also have a great capacity for good which their free will also enables. If God had made us as automatons, to act only in pre-programmed ways, then what ever we do would have little meaning, particularly on a spiritual level. As an example of that, consider the relationship between a husband and a wife. Their greatest joy in such a marriage occurs when each gives oneself totally to the other, a voluntary subjugation of self for the wellbeing of the beloved, and act of free will. If instead, that husband imprisons his wife, thereby assuring himself of her exclusively and therefore precluding any possibility of infidelity, he may accomplish a similar effect as her free will choice would, but that effect would be hollow, without meaning. His wife must be free to chose or reject fidelity for her fidelity to have any meaning. So it is between God and humanity.

Sorry to be repetitive but the following three posts were already posted on another story, yet they have equal significance for the discussions here.

The fact that there is DNA in each of these organisms and that the amino acids in each are the same demonstrates that they are related. Evolution has shown time and again that when given an opportunity life will find a different solution to the same problem such as flight, locomotion, poisons, even breathing under water. The fact that hereditary uses the same solution in every organism and that there are no other solutions to the problem is evidence that we are all related.

Not all female mules are infertile.
Again, your point is....?

Dr Talk - I really don't know. A mule can be referred to as the infertile offspring of any two different species but I don't know about the common name for the species - maybe family? To further things along we can call them non-viable breeders if you like?

prounion,
Is the term I'm looking for "genus"? If horses and donkeys can interbreed but they are a different species, are they the same genus?

prounion,
According to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule ,
Horses and donkeys are a different species but they can interbreed. When they breed they produce an infertile mule. They are obviously the same kind of animal since they can breed, but they are considered different species. What's the term for species that can breed regardless of the fertility of the offspring?

Dr Talk - check this out - you can see species becoming different species right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_specie....

DrTalk, as in mathematics, there is no reason to believe that the chemical composition of the universe was different in type billions of years ago.

This is verified by the fact that the past chemical nature of the universe is observable by way spectroscopy. Spectroscopy is the method by which the chemical nature of stars is determined -atoms, molecule, and chemicals emit particular light waves. The light from stars was emitted billions of years ago.

Dr. Talk -
.
There is other evidence than that found on other planets in the solar system. Here is a link, also gas pockets in rock, volcanic history. You can tell by the growth of what type of foilage was growing at the time. ect.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/20...
.
You are correct on the species, interbreeding with fertile offspring is the definition.

Bubs,
I think the term I should have used instead of phylum would be species.
From Wikipedia: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
.
So as I understand it, dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackels are the same species because they can interbreed. So I'll use the term species.

prounion,
I think I found the answer in the biblical creation article you linked to. What scientists think that what the chemicals in the Earth's early atmosphere were is based on the study of other planets in the solar system. Is that correct?

prounion,
I need an article that explains HOW they came to the conclusion of what the chemicals in the early atmosphere where. The article was started from the point as an established fact.
.
Thanks for the explanation of a common ancestor of a dog and human. But I need more than that. Is there fossil evidence and/or DNA of the common ancestor of both dogs and humans?

Bubs,
You are right. Apparently I don't have my definitions correct. Apparently scientist don't either. This is from Wikipedia:
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists."
.
I use the word "kind" to explain exactly what I see today. If they can interbreed, they are the same "kind." Dogs and humans are not the same kind because they cannot interbreed. So I attempted to use a word, "phylum", that would help you understand what I meant. So I guess phylum isn't the right word. Eventually I'll understand this evolution stuff.

Dr. Talk,
You do realize that canines, apes, and humans (which are often considered apes) are in the same phylum, right? Obviously, biology is not your strong suit but still. In your bizarre forest/tree analogy, this makes canines, apes, and humans part of the same "tree."
Evolution does suggest that canines and humans have a common ancestor. Again, your point is.....?
Yes, "kind produces after it's own kind" (who talks that way, seriously?). The differences between each consecutive generation are relatively small. Over time, however, large differences will eventually appear. While the difference between two consecutive generations will usually not be enough to classify them as separate species, the differences between two relatively distant generations may.

Dr Talk - on the composition of early earth atmosphere:
http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/ea...
.
Compared to:
.
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scien...

Dr.Talk - sure thing - we have the answers to your questions - let me take a shot.
.
Over the hundreds of thousands, millions of years tiny variations in the genetic code, as they are now, are passed on from individuals to their offspring. So one mechanism for the divergence of species is that if a group is separated for a sufficient period of time by a sufficient barrier, distance,mountains ect. then these variations can build over time to the point where individuals from the population seperated from the other population can no longer interbreed. Natural selection continues to "select" the genes are are best suited for survival in thier individual environments. Had you traveled back along the ancestor trail to the time when humans and dogs shared a common ancestor, you would not see a half dog half human walking about barking at you in broken English, rather you would see their common ancestor.
.
Nowadays through Mitocondrial DNA sequencing we cna be very accurate as to where in branch species share a common ancestor.
.
Remember it is not the individuals that evolve it is the individual genes inside the individuals that are passed on to the next generation and over massive time frames.

This was taken from Wikipedia which says that species descended from a common ancestor:
.
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[1] Indeed, the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."
.
Now that were all on the same page, I'd appreciate answers to my question. Thanks.

gazettefan: "DrTalk, how do mathematicians know that 2 plus 2 equaled 4 billions of years ago?"
.
You'll have to tell me.

To anyone other than fool_on_the_hill,
I thought evolution taught that everything had a common ancestor, but according to Bubs and fool_on_the_hill, apparently I'm wrong. Prounion does agree that there is a common ancestor. So if anyone can tell me about the DNA evidence for this I would greatly appreciated. Thanks.

DrTalk, how do mathematicians know that 2 plus 2 equaled 4 billions of years ago?

DrTalk, you compare an alleged event of unsubstantiated, supernatural phenomena to the body of scientific knowledge, claiming each to be a "story" of equivalent value and credibility. You take my comments and inexplicably draw an irrational inference, which you know contradicts the position I've argued elsewhere in these blogs.

I share Bubs' sense of bewilderment in trying to make sense of your nonsense, DrTalk. The discussion is becoming increasingly pathological. Therefore, I ask that you direct any future comments to someone else.

prounion (and the school system) does not have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that evolution happened exactly as prounion explained. Rather, what the science courses need to teach is what the VAST MAJORITY of the scientific research shows to be the most likely way things happened.
A variety of different scientific methods point to the Earths age at approximately 4.5 billion years. These methods are not as inaccurate at the creationists would like us to believe.

realitybytes,
I'm just trying to understand what prounion says really happened.

DrTalk,
I think you truly believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's the only explanation I can think of why you would ask such a silly question (dog/human fossil). No..wait...Prounion can't provide a dog/human fossil so clearly the Earth is only 6000 years old. I can't believe the proof was staring me in the face this whole time.

prounion,
How do scientists know what the chemicals were in the atmosphere billions of years ago?
.
What fossil evidence is there of the dog-human ancestor?

DrTalk - there is hope for you yet! Ok if you take the basic atmosphere that was around back then - and shoot some electricity through it you get some amino acids - the building blocks of life. Check it out - google should provide a ton of independently reviewed studies.
.
Yes dogs and ancestors did have a common ancestor - way back longer than 6000 years ago. So did apes and humans a little closer - still much longer than 6K ago.

gazettefan,
Where did the chemicals come from?

Bubs,
Don't evolutionists believe on common ancestry? Then you'd have to believe that dogs and humans once had common ancestors, right? There's even a debate about when that occurred on Richard Dawkin's website: https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop...
.
The problem is that there is no evolutionary "tree of life." It's more like a Forrest. Each phylum would be a separate tree. Each kind reproducing after their own kind.

DrTalk's is off eating a banana somewhere.

DrTalk,
Is your assertion that evolution claims that at some point in history an ape gave birth to a human being based on an unfamiliarity with evolution, an inability to understand it, or the intentional misrepresentation of it since you are unable to raise a decent defense to what it actually says?

Correct, lakennedy. DrTalk forgot that thing about the church torturing and imprisoning Galileo. Yes they removed his excommunication in 1992. To this day he has been unavailable for comment.

Hitler has yet to be excommunicated by the Vatican. He, no doubt, is romping around in heaven.

DrTalk, I guess all your erudition still manages to leave you unaware of how certain chemicals formed amino acids: the building blocks of life.

lakennedy,
You bring up an excellent point. The Catholic Church should have apologized to him a long long time ago. Now take the case of Ernst Haekel. 150 years ago he admitted in a court of law that he faked his drawings of embryos. But you'll find his drawings and his beliefs in science text books today. I'm still waiting for proponents of science to take that information out and start apologizing...

fool_on_the_hill: "But ask yourself if, in 2009, some folks made claim to a similarly fantastic and remarkable person and event, supporting such claims with an equivalent body of evidence and testimony, would you believe them, too?"
.
What goes on around the world today? Humans give birth to humans, apes give birth to apes, canines giving birth to canines...But supposedly sometime in the past this didn't occur - something didn't reproduce after it's kind. Let's go back even further. It rained on the rocks for millions of years and produced a this soup. Suddenly life came from non-life and started evolving. But ask yourself this question: Would you come to that conclusion if no on ever told you that story?
.
You are free to believe whatever you want.

I've always been disappointed on how Galileo was treated by the Catholic church officials...when did they decide that he was indeed correct, that the earth was not the center of the universe? 1992?

Arrgh! It be fooolish ta think we be thee only ta be havin trobbls wit this. www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/... RAmen

fool_on_the_hill,
You must have overlooked the word re-emerged. Meaning it wasn't the Catholic church that started it.
.
And I've also said this before: It took godly men like Copernicus and Galileo to bring the truth to light. But you still give the impression that people who believe in God can't be scientist.

True, and it is infinitely more interesting without the stultifying effect of religiosity.

Reality is out there DR.Talk - join us. They have been filling you with BS.

DrTalk, why do you continue to cite pseudo-scientific biblical references? We haven't been discussing the topic of religion for several exchanges now. We have been discussing the nature of scientific knowledge and your abominated interpretation thereof.

From the physics department at Purdue (with references cited):

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr263l/S...

"If it were not for the Catholic Church the heliocentric solar system would have re-emerged as the dominate view."

"Many scientists that antagonized the authority of the church were imprisoned or burned at the stake during the inquisition."

"The Church demanded that Galileo denounce his writings and they imprisoned him until his death."

Dr.Talk - Galileo was sent to prison for heresy because he announced that the earth was not the center of the universe according to the interpretation of the bible at the time. Here is an excerpt of the order to condemn him:
.
by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

Dr.Talk excerpt from the first link - I love it! "The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science” that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word."

DrTalk, are you kidding?! Your belief system has stalled medical advances and other scientific advances back by centuries. Where do you get this stuff?!!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-...

This link has some interesting reading regarding the age of the Earth. If you choose to believe the Earth is the center of the universe, that the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is only 6000 year old...fine. Just don't expect everybody else to believe it. And don't expect to teach your beliefs as "Science".

fool_on_the_hill: "I assume nothing with regard to ice cores. You are the one assuming a convenient rationalization to defend your indefensible claim of a 6,000 year old universe"
.
I didn't say you assumed it; I said scientists did.
.
I pointed out before about the assumptions that are made in radiometric dating.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

"...convoluted logic and bizarre explanations used by the church for centuries in their foolish claim of a geocentric universe"
.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: The church went along with what the scientist of that time believed. But you like to conveniently blame it on the church instead of on the scientist of that time. Same thing with the "flat earth" belief. That was blamed on the church as well. The Bible clearly teaches that the earth is round, spherical and the Christians of that time knew that.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.h...

RSR, I also enjoy reading George Will for the same reason I enjoy reading your posts: to learn some new fact or perspective on things. You may not share his politics but he is one very smart dude.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1....

DrTalk, you are conveniently using the term evolutionist at though it were somehow distinctly different than scientist. Evolution is not a belief system. Your persistent and willful denial of the established body of scientific knowledge pushes me closer and closer to accepting Gazettefan's characterization of "dangerous".

I assume nothing with regard to ice cores. You are the one assuming a convenient rationalization to defend your indefensible claim of a 6,000 year old universe. There is no scientific evidence to support such claim, only reams and reams of documented evidence to dispute it. In fact, much of what we as humans accept, know and rely on today would need to be discarded in order to support any belief in a 6,000 year old universe. You rely on the same sorts of irrational arguments, convoluted logic and bizarre explanations used by the church for centuries in their foolish claim of a geocentric universe. You have every right to believe in a 6,000 year old universe if you wish, DrTalk. However, to claim it as scientific fact is beyond absurd and irrational.

As to Jesus as Savior, son of God, you are free to believe whatever evidence you wish, DrTalk. But ask yourself if, in 2009, some folks made claim to a similarly fantastic and remarkable person and event, supporting such claims with an equivalent body of evidence and testimony, would you believe them, too?

FAN, but see there is no scientific proof of christianity, so there are no 'absolutes', so in there mind that gives them the right to have numerous answers, but if only they would apply that to all and not just to suit them. Boy, I am starting to wonder if I shouldn't have been born Native American.

Fool, and really do any of us REALLY know what LOVE is? That is a emotion used quite loosely. I getcha! As I always say, the definition lies in the interpreter. And if you don't understand, the teacher, always ask for clarification! I remember in college in my Communications class, I ALWAYS had a dictionary. My professor used to crack up and would pretty much be able to call when I would pull it out! I still to this day run to the library and get oodles of books if something new comes into my life I "need" to understand. You should have seen the books I brought home when I was learning how to be a bargain hunter!!! LOL. Now you have me intrigued with the Goerge Will Character. :/

LOL! That is my point of hypocrisy! Talk the talk, but oh when the walking starts, the talk all of a sudden doesn't exist.

RummageForSale, yes, I ask a reasonable question or make a reasonable point and all of a sudden the christianity of some christians goes right out the window!

DrTalk, that empty grave story was made up decades after it supposedly happen. And even if an empty grave turns out to be true, why would a supernatural explanation over-ride realistic ones?

If I were god I would have smited that darn devil a long time ago. He's been a pain in the keister long enough!!!

DrTalk, please apply your nitpickery to your own crazy beliefs. Do those cores reveal anything about a worldwide flood?

At least you've given up on the flagellar motor ruse just like you've given up on the irreducible complexity of the eye ruse.

RSR, one reason I enjoy reading George Will is because it forces me to keep a dictionary handy. But I digress...

I wasn't criticizing you. You impress me as someone with a healthy perspective of reason and faith. You stated that faith is belief in the unseen, but that is inaccurate. We don't see oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, gravity, etc. What assures us they exist is knowledge and understanding, not faith. Faith is belief that isn't directly dependent upon reason or logical analysis. For example, try to prove or disprove the existence of "love" using logical analysis.

For me, the word transcendent fits quite nicely when describing faith. (I also use the words alogical and arational with regard to the realm of faith but you won't find those words in most dictionaries.)

Dr.Talk - Why don't we start with this - are thier any constants that we can use to describe our surroundings? Plank's constant? The speed of light? Are there any that if we used that constant to show some evidence that contradicts the bible - that you would not say - "well it is not true because you assume that god did not alter that constant?"

fool_on_the_hill: "Why in the world do believers have such an obsession to find scientific support for their beliefs, when any theologian will tell you that religion is based on faith not reason?"
.
First of all, when you say "any theologian" you are making a generalization. I wouldn't make a statement like "all scientists believe in evolution" because that would be a generalization. It's also not true. About 60% of scientist believe in evolution and not all of them believe in Darwinian evolution.
.
Here are 3 facts: There was a man named Jesus who walked the earth about 2000 years ago. He died after being crucified. Somehow His tomb became empty.
.
The only debate is HOW His tomb became empty and the only reasonable explanation is that Jesus is who He said He was. There is no way His disciples would have gotten past the Roman guards and stolen His body. Plus many people saw Him alive after His crucification and burial. There's historical evidence for my beliefs, yet you claim that I have faith without any evidence or reason.

There it is - the devil caused the holocaust. God had nothing to do with it. I just wonder if there is an all powerfull god out there we can worship instead. One that has some control over what happens here on earth?

fool_on_the_hill: "The last time I checked, the deepest ice core evidence comprised 750,000 thousand annual layers"
.
The problem is that scientists are assuming that those are annual layers. Those rings don't represent summer, winter, summer, winter. They represent warm, cold, warm, cold. During WWII, there were some planes that crashed in Greenland in 1942. They dug up the planes in the early 90s. With the rings found on the ice, an evolutionist would think that the planes had been there for thousands of years. But a scientist would know that the planes had only been buried in the ice for about 50 years. They are clearly not annual rings.

GAZETTEFAN ~ You crack me up~ I don't know why people get so mad at you! I bet you would be a hoot to have holy water cocktails with.. :) Honestly, people just need to get there are things people are destined to keep personal, religion (or lack of), polotics and wages. Those are things that are not expected to be disclosed or agreed upon, so I don't know why people think that their business belongs in others.
*
Nope, no morels, it was raining by the time I drug my rear end out of bed. Oh, but tomorrow they should be all over.

FOOL, HELP~ I don't understand your post. Seriously! Your words were too big for me...lol. Really, help. :) But if you mean faith is from one's own heart and mind, that is EXACTLY how I live my life. Therefore, that is where MY GOD resides. Faith comes from within, where else could it come from? I can't borrow someone else's faith, it has to be my own. So, maybe according to the all knowing Bible readers I am considered the new ager and my God isn't "THE GOD", but hey, it works for me, and isn't that all that matters? I would much rather be a 'new ager' than live life in fear. I did enough of that as a child. Yuck!

...and now the semantic pedant descends upon RummageSalesRock. Faith is believing in something that transcends reason or logical analysis. Confidence in one's own intuition could be considered faith. Some folks maintain faith even when evidence and reason tend to indicate such faith is irrational.

Twisting what words? Misspelling what names?

purposefully mis-spelling people's names and twisting words doesn't make someone intelligent. In case you are wondering, I am talking about you. Childish behavior is indicative of a childish mind.

RummageSalesRock, keep in mind that god has the power to stop satan -god is all powerful, it's in the bible -ask Job.

If you're reading this in the morning, I hope you found plenty of morels.

The Holocaust would be evidence that the devil exisists. G-FAN, I hope you knew I was poking fun with my last comment.... :) Good night my friends. I have to get to bed so I can get up before the rain and search for some more morels....I am going on a good hundred or so already. Woohoo! I enjoy finding them more than actually eating them.

Nice try, lovestocrap, but I can tell you're starting to think about how intellectually challenged you are. ;~)

Even billnewbie has abandoned you.

LOL...you continue to amaze me gazette. You are an interesting source of entertainment. I think you know exactly what I mean...and so does everyone else :)

lovestocrap, your previous post has all the intelligence of a cantelope.

I may owe all the cantelopes an apology for that remark.

See if there's someone in the house who can explain to you that your comment makes no sense.

Evidently those 40,000 Japanese were "theoretically" vaporized by Nuclear Theory at the end of WWII. No one can actually see the fission or fusion of atomic nuclei but we can see the results of it. Just as we can see the results of evolution in the toxicity of animal and plant poisons.

The holocaust? This proves that God does not exist? If this is the type of proof you need it's no wonder you believe in evolution.

Yes, The Holocaust is proof that god doesn't exist.

Now make way for the jibber-jabber about how The Holocaust was god's way of:

Testing our faith

Punishing people for their sins (including the lie that the Jews deserved to be punished for killing Christ).

God's way of losing an occasional battle with satan or demons or whatever.

Allowing free will to take its course.

(Insert other idiotic reasons here.)

kinsolia and RumageForSale, here is proof that god doesn't exist:

THE HOLOCAUST

KINSOLIA.......OH! You totally just said something! Gazettefan, I totally just figured it out! God is all about faith, and faith is believing in something that can't be "seen". You believe that God DOESN'T exsist, therefore you believe in something that can't be proven, hence you have faith! LOL ;o) I couldn't resist. At the end of the day it all comes down to if you can look at yourself in the mirror and say "you did good!" Whether you chanted in tongues all day or spewed the f bomb all day, as long as your heart is free of guilt, I'd say your doing OK! In my book anyway.... Does neighbor Paul's sins really have anything to do with us? Nope, so why fret about them.

Gazettefan, I just have to ask....how can you prove god doesn't exist? You keep saying that. Did I miss it? Just for the record, I am a very proud atheist. I don't want to join the debate, I'm just curious.

lovestocrap, you can't make a prediction with creationism and ID. Based on evolution, Darwin predicted that the remains of ancestors to the human species would be discovered in Africa. He was proven correct.

Lovetoscrap,
Your ability or inability to see a theory at work does not make it any less or more likely true. I have never seen any god create a human out of thin air (or a rib, or corn or clay or anything else), does that convince you that Creationism and ID are false? Have you ever SEEN a bacteria infect someone? Have you ever SEEN the effects of traveling at speeds close to the speed of light? Have you ever seen electrons?
You can drop something and watch it fall and attribute that falling to gravity. It could be "intelligent falling." Scientists tell us that things close to the surface of the Earth will accelerate at approximately 32.2 ft/(s^2). Do you believe them even though you have never measured the acceleration of every object on Earth from every point on Earth's surface? It is, after all, "just a theory" that this acceleration is global, constant, and not related to the mass of objects.

What is the point? That god had to torture his son and make other people feel guilty for it, all for the purpose of saving humanity?

According Loves to SCRAP:
+
To save the passengers on the train.
+
Pay attention.

lovestocrap, read RummageSalesRock's post carefully. She doesn't condemn anyone to hell.

Even Jesus had the smarts to second-guess the whole thing:

"Father why have you forsaken me?"

lovestocrap, the difference between the train story and the crucifixion story is that "god" had total control -"god" made it all happen. Why oh why does this have to be explained to you?! Not being analytical toward the crucifixion story has damaged your ability to think clearly. Anything more complicated and grounded in reality can't seep into that noggin of yours now.

And as for babies and other non-christians burning eternally in hell, they most certainly do -according to scripture. Your haven't read scripture. And you are certainly in holy terror of death; that's why you need the belief in an afterlife.

You probably even got billnewbie shaking his head but he'll support you because he really needs support himself.

This is not cynical...although I'll admit that I usually am. It is a joke. This entire conversation is a joke. I can't help but deal with it by attempting to make a joke...

Why didn't Jesus follow through as he said he would? He makes it pretty clear in Matthew, Mark and Luke that he is coming before those he is speaking to die, in their lifetime 2000 years ago.

Loves to SCRAP - I couldn't get an answer to this last time around, maybe you could take a shot. Also Why the bible? I am guessing thaty is the source of your faith. There are older books, and older beliefs out there - why did you chose the bible?

LOL - how awesome is that - I had been misreading it all this time until Bill pointed it out - Loves to crap! Sorry loves to Scrap - that was unintentional. Bill - even if it wasn't it would not have been cynicism - it would have probably been sarcasm? Humor? At any rate - I don't really worry about my dignity or being a serious truth seeker, so take it easy Bill, switch to decaff, and feel free to make fun of me or my views at will, I won't be offended.

LOVESTO....as much as I respect your philosophies on life and your beliefs, the depth of 'your' interpretations are what turn people away from faith. When you dig so deep into something that even you, who has read the book, and claims to know the ending, can't prove and basically make is sound like having faith and being a Christian is more like a curse than a blessing. It is all about don't's and you shouldn'ts etc.... Here is a concept, there are many believers that believe in your fashion, and there are many avenues to discuss those beliefs, and that is exactly what you should do if that makes your cup full, but, for those of us out there that are Christians and just enjoy being 'us' and know God loves us no matter what, why do you think it is your "RIGHT" to tell us our way is wrong? When in actuality, we could tell you the same thing. Right? Just because two people end up at the same destination by different means doesn't make one better than the other. When people such as yourself interpret the love of Our Father as being basically a life condemned to restrictions, how could a person walking the tight rope of should I or shouldn't I believe choose to believe? Life should be lived basically by the ten commandments, which are also the law of man, and from there on, the fillers of my day are between me and God, not you or anyone else. You are not the authorized interpreter of the bible. The reader and only the reader is. So, please keep that in mind when you choose to live the life of the word, the word is not suppose to be all punishing!

OK, I see, of course there's nooooo cynicism here. Lovestoscrap was just asking for his/her name to be twisted into a form that should be beneath the dignity of a serious truth seeker which Prounion is so obviously not. It's a pity that Lakennedy has allowed herself to be sucked into this cynical vortex. It seems like every time I think that perhaps my assessment of some of the writers on here may be inaccurate, they seem to stand up en masse and reinforce my confidence.

Bubs...I can see gravity everyday. I can drop something and watch it fall. I have yet to see an ape turn into a human...nor has anyone else. It is a THEORY.

Pro...you are most welcome. A baby is not yet at the age of reasoning. They are not able to understand and comprehend salvation, nor do they recognize the fact that they have sin. God, when judging man takes into account all things. He sees the heart of man like no one else can. A innocent baby will spend eternity with God. He/she will not be separated from God. I do not have all the answers regarding why people die. Except death is a part of life. We cannot really live if do not accept that death is inevitable. I will die someday. It may be today...it may be 30 years from now. I do not know when. It may be because of choices I make. It may be because of a choice someone else makes. I may over eat, or smoke, or drink or do any thing else that hurts my body. Someone else may drink and kill me while driving. Those are choices that are made every day by all of us. We all make different choices. Some good. Some bad.

Imagine perfection. It is almost incomprehensible to us. We do not know what perfection is. God is perfect. We are sinners. A sacrifice was necessary because of the chasm between us and God...sin. We have it...He doesn't. In the old testament, lambs were sacrificed for the temporary atonement of sin. The ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate act of love was Jesus' willingness to go to a cross and take our punishment for us. This act, was an act of love. I saw a clip at church this past Sunday that helped explain God's great love for us. It was a clip from a film entitled "Most". It was about a father and son. They had a very close relationship. The man was a bridge operator and every day the train would come and he would lower the bridge so the train could pass. One day the train comes early. The boy, who is outside sees this and tries to get his father's attention. Failing to do so, the little boy opens the control door and trys to reach the lever by which he can lower the bridge. All during this time the cameras are switching back and forth between the passengers on the train who are oblivious, and the little boy. The father hears/sees the train and looks out just in time to see his son fall into the underworkings/gears of the bridge. He has to make a choice. He must either save his son and let the train crash or save everyone on the train and sacrifice his son. It was very moving and brought many to tears. How would we choose in a situation like that? Would we save our son? All his life he would know that because of him hundreds of people died. Could he live a life without guilt? Then we take this and compare it to what God did for us when He allowed Jesus to die on the cross. Knowing everything, knowing that Jesus would spend eternity with Him and that life on this earth is but a vapor conpared to eternity, He decided to save mankind. His love gives us the way to spend eternity with Him.

Loves to crap - You say that we are not meant to understand his ways. Why? If you could also answer if it makes sense that god would point all physical evidence on the planet to point away from him and toward evolution, give me free will to evaluate my environment and make sense of it myself, then punish me severely for eons and eons then for another few eternity's because I didn't buy it when I was on earth? Rationally I don't see how you can buy it either, Talk posts his most scientific paper to date and the references lead back to creationist sites, its sad really.

I'll take this one, loves to preach:
+
I think God did all of those things so that we'd have something to talk about here on Gazettextra.com...And yes, that poor baby will probably be in hell with you and me. Forever.

Loves to crap - thanks for sharing the gospel. I have a question about the sacrifice. Why? Same question about the war and battle you mention.....why? God created everything, he loves us, he is all powerful, he loves his son, he created the devil, he has control over earth...why did he need to torture his son, why does he need to battle satan? Why does he allow a baby to die every four seconds? What if the baby does not accept the lord by word of mouth asd you mentioned? Will it be in hell with me? Forever?

Are you against teaching scientific theories in general or only ones that you have a religious basis for disagreeing with?
I believe that I first learned the following in a public school: Germ THEORY of Disease, Atomic THEORY of matter, THEORY of gravity, special THEORY of relativity.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It is accepted as fact by non-Creationists only so far as (and for essentially the same reasons) that we consider gravity a fact. You may believe that Creationism (or it's pseudo-scientific counterpart, ID) is fact due to your religious convictions but that does not make it a valid scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.

proartist and gazette, why do you feel the necessity to read my posts when you know what they are basically going to say? I was replying to a post of prounion's. Please read to whom the post was directed and then, if you are interested read what was posted previously so you are informed.

Gazette, I see I hit a sore spot. Kind of testy aren't we?

Pro...they are MY PUBLIC schools as well and I would rather MY children not be taught the THEORY of evolution. So, the logical choice in this situation would be to recognize in the classroom that evolution and creation are both theories and begin with classroom instruction after man appears on earth. Simple. Even though I do not believe creation is a theory and you do not believe evolution is a theory.

lovestocrap, do you talk that way when you're drunk too?!

lovetoscrap: Hmmmm....is it Christian to continue to annoy, generate animosity, and quite literally CREATE "sinners" when you have been clearly informed that others would prefer you politely keep your religion to yourself; who don't want tax dollars spent on promoting your particular beliefs in our PUBLIC schools; who don't mind if you feel called to preach but ask you to please refrain from doing so when you know it's not welcomed by a give person/population? Granted, you are free in this nation to pontificate as much as you want but so is everyone else and it is simply common sense that in a polite, multi-faithful nation under a secular Constitution, simple courtesy should prevail. I'm glad you faith gives you comfort and excites but please let others decide for themselves without constant undue pressure and in-your-face demands for inclusion in our public schools, for, by doing so, you invite ire and discord rather than demonstrating your Christian love.

Prounion, you are misled. It is not my job to save you. That is the Holy Spirit's job. My job is to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Which I have. It is up to you as to whether or not you accept or deny Jesus Christ. Only you are responsible for your actions. Your forum for getting information is nothing more than a spectator sport in the general likeness of throwing the Christians to the lions. You try and convince us you want to hear us convince you of the validity of Christianity when all you want to do is have more opportunities to try and convince yourself that God is for weaklings and the uneducated. The simple message of the gospel is this...God sent His Son Jesus to be born of a virgin, grow up sinless and to die on a cross for you and I. When He did this, He carried the sins of the world upon His shoulders. If we confess with our mouths that He is Lord, ask forgiveness, believe in Him with all our hearts and change our wicked ways, we shall be saved. He became the ultimate sacrifice. He came to seek and save the lost. There is the gospel in a nutshell. It is for you to either accept or deny. He chose to astound the wise with the simple. It is a matter of faith. Understanding in not a requirement for no one could ever understand His ways.

Do as Dr. Talk recommended and go to the answers in genesis link he provided. You will find some scientific information there.

BTW...I already read the book and satan doesn't win :)

Yes, foolonthehill, he and his ilk certainly can compartmentalize -or they are just knowingly making stuff up. Either way: Dangerous. Very dangerous

Gazettefan, the creationists' flagella motor assertion was refuted in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District. Besides, that is just one more example of, "You can't explain it, therefore, it HAS to be God's handiwork." (Also, notice how the scientist's burden of proof is so much higher than the theist's? What's up with that?)

One by one, every mystery of the natural universe previously believed to be an effect of divine intervention is understood and explained in consistent, rational and understandable terms via the scientific method. For those questions not yet answered I am perfectly content saying, "Sorry, we just don't understand that one... yet."

Ncpanfan, I've read your posts and understand. Religious belief serves different purposes for different individuals at different times of