Over two years ago I did a post called Kirk Cameron: Lying For Jesus. It is still a popular hit on Google even though the video is no longer available. I get comments on the post now and again. But it looks like a Fundy now wants to engage me. So I will simply put up the last two comments by him with my one response sandwiched between it. I will also add a new comment at the end, addressing his or her last comment. Confused? It isn't confusing.
*************************************************************
hisway said...
Who is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in. In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close. When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you. Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind? Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking.
15 August, 2008 22:29
*****************************************************
Baconeater (aka The Atheist Jew aka me) said...
Who is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in.
**********************
I'm totally unbiased when it comes to facts. I used to assume God existed for example. I then asked questions and I found that God was not needed to answer any of them.
In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close.
***************************
Junk doesn't turn into a Porsche unless something supernatural were to occur. And I have yet to see something supernatural occur. It would go against science for that to happen. If it did, it would turn me into a believer.
When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you.
****************************
It is the side of Godidiots that would expect junk to turn into a Porsche, not anyone who understands science. They are embarrassments to rational human beings. I think they know they are lying, but their faith won't allow them to admit it.
Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind?
*************************
If there was evidence against evolution, it would be overwhelming by now. The fact is that there hasn't been one piece of evidence or scientific study that refutes evolution or that even leads to a possible other explanation. Again, there would be tons, if evolution were false.
Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking.
************************
Oh, I'm not close minded. If the earth was young there would be overwhelming evidence. Scientists would be able to show over and over again that the earth is young.
BTW, many people who accept evolution also believe in God. They are able to separate fact and faith.
It is disingenuous people like Kirk and Ray, who avoid the evidence to try to fit garbage into a book of crapola written by man for man.
Also, I doubt Jesus ever existed. You are wasting your time praying to a mythological figure. You might as well pray to the Cat in the Hat.
15 August, 2008 22:50
****************************************************
hisway said...
First off I thank you for your comments. I found them to be both challenging and invigorating. I enjoy stimulating logical thinking.
However even from your comments you have proved the bias in your conversation and comment regarding my statements by again refusing to accept any evidence for a young earth and just as something evolved from nothing my car should eventually turn into something better which I do agree it never will. As for your comment of Jesus never existing there is more evidence of His existence then what you would even like to acknowledge. His existence has been documented by many during His life on earth, not only by the bible but historians of His time, as well as governmental documents and if you are going to throw out the evidence for His existence you would have to do the same for Aristotle or Alexander. In many of the documentation written at that time they not only acknowledged His existence but also many of the miracles that He had performed even Pilate's own wife corresponded with a friend after their expulsion from Jerusalem regarding the trial. Evidence does lie within the eye of the beholder and while you choose to believe the evidence that you see to support your hypothesis I may see it as supporting my own beliefs. The truth is this, I can guarantee you one thing and that is this, it is a fact there is no denying it you will die. It is 100% proven that this will happen. At that moment you will know who was right. I am not trying to convince you of anything nor am I out to prove a point. I simply am stating that by refusing to accept ALL evidence, not just what is provided by the acceptable party you therefore limit your intellect and your wisdom. Then again the most obvious answers are not the first ones seen. Again, thank you for the discourse.
18 August, 2008 13:38
******************************************************
My newest response:
First off, evolution doesn't state that something evolved from nothing. You need to understand evolution theory before making claims that scientists don't make.
There is no evidence for a Young Earth. If the earth was young, there would be an over abundance of evidence, that could be tested over and over again and it would fit it with other sciences as well. The reality is there is no evidence whatsoever that indicates the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.
There is absolutely no contemporary evidence that corresponds with the existence of a historical Jesus. Now, it is you who is lying for Jesus. Just because you write something ie about government evidence, doesn't mean it is true.
No such proof of Pilate or Pilate's wife recognizing Jesus exists either. More lying for Jesus, perhaps???
We all will die. That is a fact of life. You can choose to waste your life worshiping a mythological figure. I choose to accept facts, and accept reality. That makes this life more precious for me, than your life on earth is for you....at least in theory.
For the record, an ancient earth and evolution being fact does not mean that Jesus didn't live or have special powers or that there is no life after death (though there is absolutely no evidence for either Jesus or life after death).
What are you doing about covering the bases if the Muslims are right? At best, Christians get to rot in limbo, if not hell, depending on the cleric you talk to.
Here is a refutation of the "laughable" lies the Comfort and Cameron spew regarding evolution:
Again Thank you for your response and while I thank you I am rather sad to see that you must resort to the tactics that you have. I have neither called you names nor have I discounted any evidence that you claim prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your thesis. At the same time you turn and deny that there is no evidence to what I claim therefore you must be omniscient since you know all things and have prove of all things, in which case you are older than dirt to have been there from the beginning of time or is it simply that your presupposed logic disclaims the possibility that you could be mistaken. Of course that also affects any evidence that does not support your stand. Any evidence for a young earth will not be accepted because it does not fit your preconceived notions. You see if all these things that you claim to be true are so then how can we be sure that the process that got us to those determinations are in fact accurate? After all many claim that it is simply best guess. We take what we believe to be correct and if the results do not add up then we multiply the percentage of inaccuracy to the data to come up with the best possible answer. Again, no evidence is acceptable to anyone who is not open to the fact that they may be wrong. I have no problem with being unbiased when I look at evolution or any other theory it is just when I finish looking at it I can't see the logic in the theory. Does that make me hurl insults at someone who chooses to accept it as absolute fact, no. I simply encourage them to open their minds to the possibility that the evidence that they are looking at might not make sense. Just as I look at the other side of your argument involving Jesus and I can see how it does not make sense to you therefore I leave that side out of this equation. Also please note that I do know that evolution involves matter, I just wonder where the matter came from. Again, thank you for your response and your time. It is very much appreciated. As I have some things to attend to I may not be able to respond until later.
ReplyDeleteThe tactics "I resorted to" bring out your claims and fallacies to a broader audience.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I called you names, only that you might be a liar for Jesus due to the fact that you have invented historical situations that are not backed up by any real data.
I don't say that my side with respect to a historical Jesus or proof God doesn't exist is conclusive. What I do claim is there is no evidence for either.
Again, you claim evidence for a Young Earth, but present none. And if you watched the videos I posted, you may understand that you can't possibly have any evidence because the facts are not on your side.
And don't use the word "guess" the way you use it. It is not a guess when it comes to the fact that evolution happens, and it is not a guess when it comes to the age of the earth.
Your long winded posts are very difficult to respond to, and you probably know it. Lets stick to one claim at a time.
Lets see your evidence for a Young Earth, and explain why everything on this planet cannot be tested to be under 10,000 years old.
I appologize if this offends anyone.
ReplyDelete1. big bang.
2. earths age.
3. first week of creation.
1. At some point, I(not you) have to ask myself. Where did the big bang come from? I heard of multi verses. But the question will always be the same. At some point something or someone had to just Be. And I believe this someone is God who created us.
2. The bible doesn't really say the earth is young. It eludes that we are, but not earth. In the begining God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth WAS without form and void. I heard that the hebrew for WAS can be translated became. Also i have read in old testament that He didn't create the earth void. So i conclude that there is a gap between verse one and two.
So He doesn't tell us everything, is that really suprising?
3. He didn't create all the stars and stuff till like the middle of the week, so i conclude that the first half of the "creation week" could be days made up with larger time lengths than the last few days. This is just my theory don't go insane on me.
But i do wonder why people are so mad at the notion of God. And it really hurts what some of you say about Jesus. And about christians, think about this. If i believed that there was a gator around the corner--the corner you was heading for, and i didn't tell you, wouldn't that be pretty crappy of me. Whether or not there was a gator there or not, if i believed it but didn't tell you then how could you want a friend like that,...really.
Thank you,
Danny
1. At some point, I(not you) have to ask myself. Where did the big bang come from? I heard of multi verses. But the question will always be the same. At some point something or someone had to just Be. And I believe this someone is God who created us.
ReplyDelete****************************
Because science doesn't have a definite answer for what happened prior to the Big Bang doesn't mean Godidit. And more importantly, no matter how much you want to say it is different, your idea of God leads me to the question, who created God, and where did he get the stuff to create the Big Bang?
2. The bible doesn't really say the earth is young. It eludes that we are, but not earth. In the begining God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth WAS without form and void. I heard that the hebrew for WAS can be translated became. Also i have read in old testament that He didn't create the earth void. So i conclude that there is a gap between verse one and two.
So He doesn't tell us everything, is that really suprising?
*****************************
He hasn't told me anything.
3. He didn't create all the stars and stuff till like the middle of the week, so i conclude that the first half of the "creation week" could be days made up with larger time lengths than the last few days. This is just my theory don't go insane on me.
*******************************
Lots of people share your "theory"
But i do wonder why people are so mad at the notion of God. And it really hurts what some of you say about Jesus. And about christians, think about this. If i believed that there was a gator around the corner--the corner you was heading for, and i didn't tell you, wouldn't that be pretty crappy of me. Whether or not there was a gator there or not, if i believed it but didn't tell you then how could you want a friend like that,...really.
Thank you,
Danny
****************************
I'm not mad at the notion of God or Jesus. I just don't see any evidence in either because there is none.
As far as warning me of a gator, that would be something real.
Would you like it if Muslims came to your door every day and told you about Mohammed and Allah? Or if a JW came to your door every day and told you about their beliefs?
Beliefs should be personal, and not inflicted on others.
No one is telling you not to believe, just keep it out of my face unless you have real facts to back it up.
Thank you for your quick response.
ReplyDeleteI have sinced read some of your blog about the gap theory and dif. things like it. Does any of them say that the first part of the week was longer than the last. Cause The sun wasn't created at first, that's where we get our 24 hour days from,..anyway. I didn't say that my theory is proof, and i know it aint original alright.
I also know that having no explanation for the big bang does not mean God did it. I think what i wrote was, i believe it was Him.
I'm sure i would get irritated at people continually knocking on my door no matter what they wanted.
The point is that if you had, or thought you had information that was imperitive for my well being but refused to tell me, I wouldn't want you to be my friend. It would also mean that you could care less about me, regardless of whether your info was correct or you just wrongfully believed it to be so.
My point is that not everyone that tells you about Jesus are dickheads, some people MAY actually care. And a "christian" that wouldn't tell me about Jesus is someone i wouldn't want to be around, cause they obviously don't give a crap about me.
And you say to keep it out of your face, but you did post the blog. Of course, you didn't ask me to come to your site but come on.
Anyway i like your site. I feel that you are a little too antagonistic, but if that's what you think you should do then go for it. Thanks again. Danny
I like to ask creationists these following questions when they say they have "evidence" for intelligent design, though I never get an answer that is scientifically grounded. If one wants to put ID on par with Evolution in the way that it is examined and upheld, then provide the scientific answers to the following:
ReplyDeleteWhat are ID’s scientific predictions?
What are its unifying principles?
What experiments have been done to support your ID theory? WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY BOOK.
As for the use of the term "theory", many religious folks do not understand when the term "theory" is used in science. It does not mean "Guess", and is based on collected facts based on evidence and experiments that are reproducible.
Definition of scientific theory:
In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.
And as for where the big bang came from. While collected data is makes some very educated predictions, it is very lazy to just sit back and write off things that we do not know or understand with a simple "goddidit". Uneducated and lazy folks resort to the "goddidit" answer because that is the easiest explanation for them. And it is comforting for humans to delude themselves that we come from something bigger than ourselves and that that something actually cares about a speck of dust in the vastness of the universe with even tinier specks that live on the speck. And even crazier to think that there is a being that cares what is on specks of specks and actually can listen and hear all of the cries of selfish beggary from these tiny specks on tiny specks amongst zillions of specks in the vastness of the universe and that this being grants wishes to some, deprives others of their wishes being fulfilled, keeps track of all these smaller than microscopic specks and all of their thoughts words and deeds, of souls past, present and future along with being happy about being worshiped in one realm and running an eternal flaming penitentiary in yet another realm. If people really gave some deep thinking about these crazy beliefs, they would see just how insane and ludicrous it actually is to believe all this bizarreness. Just as bizarre as ancients who believed in Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman gods, Chinese gods, Nordic gods, etc. etc. There are thousands. Christians are just making one more god for themselves to use as a coping device to explain things they do not know, and too lazy to try to find out, and to provide an imaginary friend to give a false sense of support in this lonely universe we live in.
ReplyDeleteI assume some things about an atheistic world view, and if one or more of them is correct, I will pose a question for you. First, here are my assumtions.
ReplyDeleteThere is only a material universe, no spiritual one. We are here by means other than a creator. We came from nothing intellegent, nor are going back to anything intelligent after we die. Basically we are all dust and will return to dust, period. And if God does exist, he doesn't love us.
Danny, many will argue that there is no common atheistic worldview, but I do think there are many commonalities shared by atheists.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist is simply someone who says no to the answer "do you believe in God?" There doesn't have to be an explanation (especially a common one) for the answer of "no."
My worldview is that there is no evidence for God, and the world, the universe, and the history of time makes perfect sense without a God or Gods.
There is only a material universe, no spiritual one. We are here by means other than a creator.
***************************
There are no supernatural forces or beings needed to explain why we are here and why the universe exists as it does.
We came from nothing intellegent, nor are going back to anything intelligent after we die.
*************************
Correct. The world existed without me and my self awareness prior to 1961 and will exist without me after I die.
Basically we are all dust and will return to dust, period.
**********************
You are kind of repeating yourself.
But even at funerals religious folk say from dust to dust, I think.
Our atoms go on if you want to get technical.
And if God does exist, he doesn't love us.
**************************
If God does exist he hasn't given any evidence to back up his or her existence. Love or hate us, that isn't part of my worldview.
Then here is my question.
ReplyDeleteHow does morality and meaning make sense with your world view?
Now, i did not say that you are immoral. You may be a 100% more moral than me. This is not an attack on your morality at all, or your basic goodness.
Does morality MAKE SENSE in your world view? More importantly, HOW?
Danny, I've written tons about Morality. You can search my blog for older posts by keywording "morality."
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, morality is a term that is subjective from one culture to another. For example, in China it is morally acceptable to eat dogs and cats.
But for the biggies like rape, murder, and theft:
the reason we made it as a social species this far is because we have evolved empathy, as well as guilt. People without empathy and guilt are socio- or psyco-paths.
We can write down that God doesn't want murder, theft, or rape, but it is our innateness that knows this. We would have been extinct long ago, if we were prewired to find these things acceptable.
But this isn't just a human thingy.
Look at Bonobos and other chimps, the way their society runs.
Even mother crocodiles transport their young in their mouths with care from land to water and back again. If it was natural for them to chow down on anything between their teeth, the species would be extinct long ago.
Ok thank you. So basically, it makes sense in that we as a species would be extinct otherwise. That does seem to be the only way it would make sense. I do not believe rape and theft would wipe us out. But if everyone was ok with murder, yeah.
ReplyDeleteI see how evolution would bring us to the point of "morality". As a species it has meaning, and it matters. Individually however, I would still need convincing. Some convincing that it matters. We may have evolved to be like this, but does it matter either way, even if we went extinct. It really does not hold much meaning. So we were wired to be basically good by evolution, that still does not mean that someone who murders or rapes or steals is a bad person. It just means that they are not benificial to the survival of our species, but what does that really matter anyway? Does it? I am glad you are a "good" person, and am not trying to prove that you shouldn't be. You should be whether you are an atheist or not. But outside of the survival of our species what does it matter, what does it mean. And how can you call a rapist a "bad" person. Shouldn't we just say that they are not benificial to the survival of our species.
When someone does something that purposely hurts another, it could be deemed an immoral act. Rape in itself doesn't affect the survival of the species as far as benefit or not benefiting it so much. But it leaves emotional scars in many cases, which means that it is an immoral act in my subjective view.
ReplyDeleteIf we were programmed to accept rape, and robbery too, we wouldn't be a successful social species. There would be too much anarchy to cope.
It isn't a point as to what matters. In the scheme of things, it really is what matters to the individual that is important and gives meaning.
But the purpose of life for every animal on this planet, including humans is to try to ensure the survival of our species. And it doesn't matter if it is meaningless or not, we are hardwired to be driven to make sure the next generation makes it.
"And it doesn't matter if it is meaningless or not, we are hardwired to be driven to make sure the next generation makes it."
ReplyDeleteReally, i can do whatever i want. It does not make me a bad or good person. Yes, if we care about the survival of our species then we should lock murderers and rapist up. But there really would be no reason to be upset about these "injustices". They happened, that's it.
Ok here is an example.
Why does it matter that gas prices are high. Answer only as it pertains to your "world view" we are discussing. well answer however you like but you know what i mean. Why care that Bush gets rich off of me, why get so pissed off. Cause i am pissed about that.
Also.
ReplyDeleteWhy would it matter that someone was "lying for Jesus". Why would you be pissed at that.
Why would atheist be militant toward "Godidiots". It does not matter.
Again Danny, meaning of life is subjective. I value my time here, and I don't want Jesus or God in my face, just like I don't want Leprechauns and unicorns in my face.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone should have the same rights within a country, and the religious don't just try to get you to convert, they try to force their faith into politics and education.
I care about the future, though maybe I shouldn't, I can't help it, it must be innate in me to care, and I don't want children to be taught myths when they should be taught facts in science class for example.
I'm not throwing God in your face, i'm asking questions. But i will stop asking questions and make statements.
ReplyDeleteTo an atheist meaning of life is subjective, yes. Truth is subjective. Whats wrong or right for one person does not have to be wrong or right for another. Atrocities are subjective. Rapist being bad or good is subjective. Nothing really should matter except the species survival. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
and the religious don't just try to get you to convert, they try to force their faith into politics and education.
How do we force it into politics, we vote. We are a republic. Anyway, the constitution says "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion, or the free excercise thereof." Any law the congress makes for or against religion is unconstitutional. Says nothing about praying in school, JUST AS LONG AS THE CONGRESS DID NOT MAKE A LAW SAYING WE HAVE TO.
Anyway, you probably lied to your kids about santa claus, the most important thing in their life at the time, and didn't even have a good reason for it.
Danny I wasn't talking about you specifically when I wrote about putting Jesus or God in my face.
ReplyDeleteAgain, rape is not subjectively bad, it is pretty much objectively bad. Again, you are not understanding what I am writing. When we do something that hurts another person, it can easily be called immoral.
As for those who need a bible or God to guide their morality, which God? Without God would you go helter skelter and rape, murder and steal? I don't think so? Why not?
If you realized tomorrow there is no reason to believe in God, would you go out and rape?
And even Christians can't EXACTLY agree on morality issues like abortion, homosexuality, white lies (I don't have any kids btw), and the death penalty, for example.
What does your God say about white lies? Some Christians say a lie is a lie, no matter what, and some say it is OK to tell your child that Santa or the Tooth Fairy exists, for example.
Victor Stenger wrote up two different ways (backed by mathematical and physical evidence) the Big Bang could have arisen from nothing - neither is definite, of course. They were merely a thought experiment, meant to show that it is possible to explain the big bang without resorting to an "Uncaused first cause."
ReplyDeletebaconeater: Yeah, i should have known you were not talking about me specifically.
ReplyDeletesteven: wouldn't that make the big bang an uncaused first cause?
I know without a doubt that God MAY exist.
ReplyDeleteI believe that He does.
Right now I am reading up on SOME of the material that you people seem to respect, so as not to be totally ignorant of how you came to your belief. It is not my wish to be a total spin doctor, although it is in my opinion imposile to be totaly unbiased.
ReplyDeleteI have read some things from Victor Strenger, and on ID.
ReplyDeleteI looked up the QUANTUM...since it seemed a basis for his paper.
There can be no proof that God does not exist. As for ID scientific predictions, i wouldn't begin to know how to prove the existence of God.
WHAT I GOT from Victors paper is that GOD MAY NOT EXIST, THEREFORE HE DOES NOT. WE CAN EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE WITHOUT RESORTING TO GOD, SO THERE IS NO GOD.
The quantum thing: i would have to totally take that by faith because that is a dif. language than the one i speak. All the equations i saw, i couldn't read that and repeat it with understanding, i doubt you are a quantum scientist either. This however does not mean it isn't correct. But there is plenty of scientist on both sides and any of them would have me beat. UNLESS YOU BECOME AN EXPERT AT THESE FIELDS, YOU HAVE TO TRUST.
ATHEISM IS A RELIGION
Science is your god. It provides for you. It is all knowing...the answer to all problems. It's even the question. It's your cure. It's your begining and end. It can predict the future, knows the past. Nothing can defy it. All things are bound to it, and it holds all things together. You trust in it, believe in it. Science is the object of your faith. Replace the word science and it is easier to see this... Anything that has ever held these qualifications has been viewed as a god.
So, maybe you are not the only ones who do not like religion being pushed in your face. You are not pushing it on me, i came here of my own free will.
You are so hostile about God. I argue that even if there is no God, the belief in Him by some is neccessary for the survival of our species.
Just because something seems to have randomly appear as Victor Strenger suggested, does not mean there is no God. His paper also lead me to believe that He would never believe in God. He states that he just isn't smart enough yet to see the answer science gives, he will never consider God seriously. Based on his paper, if the earth stood still and he heard a voice in the sky say I AM GOD, he wouldn't believe. Because science has the answer for that too.
If you respond to let me know you are still reading, i will write back how science has failed. Also i will write the evidence that Jesus Christ is Savior. Evidence to me is not prove. Evidence in court is not always correct. I am not saying that i have proof, but i do have evidence.
Danny, I'm not going through your whole post, but quantum physicists don't have to be atheists or theists, it is that which is the difference between faith and fact.
ReplyDeleteDr. Ken Miller is a Catholic. He defeated ID in Dover. He is one of the top evolution biologists on this planet today.
If you want to call atheism a religion, you are way off base, or call science a religion too. It is nonsense. You have to change the definition of religion.
Is accepting the theory of gravity a religion?
As for your evidence of Jesus, please don't use the bible as your evidence. I'm not interested if that is the case.
Don't worry, i don't assume you agree with the parts you didn't respond to.
ReplyDeletebelief in gravity is not religion.Science is not God. What i am meaning is that Ahtiest trust science just like people trust God. In fact, If anyone trusts anything else in the same way athiest depend on science, we call it their god. Science is not God, and atheist may not call it God. But atheist sure depend on it just like anyone else trusts in their god. The attributes atheist attribute to science is way close to attributes most people attribute to their god, whether they have one or many. I wont repeat these attributes, i already wrote them. Last post was too long. two things, what does it mean to troll a site. and i am not going to use the bible for evidence, but i do not want to load this post and i got a meeting to go to.
take it easy.
Danny, either of us could become scientists, or at least could have.
ReplyDeleteSo their knowledge is something that can be tested over and over again, and it will yield the same possibilities and scientific theories.
Do you think that we need to have "faith" in science to accept gravity as being the best possible explanation for the way things falls to the ground?
Science doesn't require faith. I know that, I also know that I could have become a scientist and I would be able to explain many things and understand them better.
I also know that I could have become a rabbi and I'd be able to confidently explain nothing about the physical world using the bible.
It isn't science we trust, it is the methodology of science. It has given us real results and can be applied by any layman to any number of situations with very little formal training (although interpretation of the results may require some specialization). The establishment deserves no trust, the method, being naught more than a reliable tool, can be trusted fairly readily.
ReplyDeleteYou say belief in God is useless, but i disagree. And there is faith involved with science. The faith is the evidence. Someone figured out the laws that makes flight possible. Making the plane and getting in it was faith. Everyone uses faith.
ReplyDeleteThe plane in the sky is evidence, only made possible with faith. That's how the real world works, and it's in the bible. "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen."
The laws that make flight possible are the unseen. Flying is what was hoped. Making the plane and putting it in the sky is the substance and evidence of the laws. Faith is what drove us to go through with it. I just explained something about the physical world using the bible and i'm not even a rabi.
Please bear with me, this is all i got worth anything. It's evidence, not proof. Science gave me meth, cocaine, and crack. I used all of them without restraint for years. I tried a 1000 times a 1000 different ways to quit. No one can tell me i didn't want to quit. Not when i would be locked up hiding in my room from intense fear. Fear, guilt, and misery was my life. But i just couldn't quit, i wasn't strong enough. Jesus saved me from that life December 29, 2007.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you look down at a faith that has no earthy benefit, pie in the sky when we all get to heaven. Although i do believe in heaven, and that the only way we get there is to let Jesus be good enough for us, i have had benefits here and now. Without Him i would be scared..not just of hell but of life. Of everything. I would be miserable.
I wanted to be better. Someone told me God could help me. I asked Him. I'm better. It's the only thing that worked. God is not mad at us.
Faith does not have to be blind.
Of course that's not the first time i heard of God. And i did go to rehab. There are plenty of people who do rehab not everyone makes it i was kinda worried.
ReplyDeletesometimes still am.
The reason i write this post is because i want to be truthful, and do not want you to think i am lying. You can think the rehab did it, but i know in my heart that God did. And i still doubt too, but that don't change nothin.
Danny, the plane flying is a bad example. The plane flies because of laws of physics, the same laws that a apply to an apple falling from a tree.
ReplyDeleteDo you need faith to accept that the apple will not fall to the ground, and at a certain rate of speed as well?
Secondly, no one is denying that your faith may have been the largest contributor in kicking your habit, but it has nothing to do with evidence God exists.
If you are on a beach, and not the greatest looking dude there, and wanted to hook up with some cute girl there. You can easily convince yourself to "pretend" you are the best dude on the beach before you approach her. You can convince yourself that you are what you are not. And it may work, you may wind up with her phone number.
As for God healing, etc. If God could heal, if prayers could be met by something other than mind over matter or coincidence, why has an amputee never been recorded to grow back a limb?
Let me add, there are studies that suggest that religious people live slightly longer and may even be slightly happier (though happiness is hard to measure scientifically) than non believers.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't mean God exists.
If people with low IQs were to live longer, and/or be happier, would you strive to be stupid?
I would argue that the plane flies because of the laws of physics and faith.
ReplyDeleteThe laws of physics were always there. But the first flight...before anyone could observe that a human could use those laws to their advantage, could not be observed until a human used the laws to their advantage. The plane in the air is a direct result from mens faith in those laws.
Now, you and i can look up and observe-maybe now it takes no faith for us. faith is action, don't confuse it with hope. If i have faith Jesus is Lord i will probably at least try to do what he wants...action. If i have faith that these laws of physics works, even if no one has tried it, i will try it...action. Faith isn't mythical, it comes natural.
Faith is neccessary for the survival of our species. Without it we would have tried nothing new, except on accident. Maybe we accidently found out how to start a fire.
Anyway, come on man i thought that was cool.
And you want someone to grow legs. I would rather have one leg than live like i was living. But i can neither say God has or has not done that for someone. But it would not make someone believe in God. Because even if a preacher laid hands on someone then they grew a leg in front of everyone, there could always be another explanation than "God did it". I said it didn't prove anything. And also the bible verse was in a different post so i kept my word
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
But to answer your question about it...I do not know.
I mean, at least give me something, cause i was laying in bed thinking and boom, that come to me. You see in this case a white lie might would be ok.
ReplyDeleteThe first airflights weren't long distances. The theory that flight could happen proved to be realistic enough so refinements were made, and now we take it for granted.
ReplyDeleteAs for your example of a preacher getting a leg to grow back, I think that would make me a believer. The reality is that God only seems to cure and help diseases that non believers like me can attribute to modern medicine and doctors.
Growing a limb back instantaneously would be a miracle, and change my worldview.
ok. that's fair enough.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Since you have been an "adult", have you ever really sincerely asked God to reveal Himself to you, if He is real?
If you sicerely ask Him to i believe He will.
And, "if you are really there", would probably have to be in there somewhere for you to be sincere.
-----------------
Sincere equals be real about it.
Tell Him you don't believe in Him but if He is real you want to. somethin like that. If you already have ok, but if not then you haven't even seriously asked yet.
You do not have to believe He exist at all to do this. Just a desire to believe---if does happen to exist.
Danny, being human and growing up assuming God existed because that is what I was taught as a child, of course I spoke to God asking for signs, etc. But I grew up about it.
ReplyDeleteOur minds play great tricks, if you want to believe in coincidences and attribute them to God, your mind will let you.
But in reality, there is no reason to believe God exists.
The world makes perfect sense without him.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
ReplyDeleteThis is supposed to be a group of smart people and their credentials that got pissed about something on the t.v saying that the debate was over about darwin or something.
I would like to know what you think about it. There are like 3 articles you can read, but the list i think is a stand alone. I tried to sign my name to the list in order to see if just anyone could do it and i couldn't. You have to contact them or something. It's got their names and credentials and a statement they agree on.
---------------------------
I think it's kinda arrogant to think the world makes sense period. Whether there's a god or not. If it makes sense then why still try to figure anything out?
anyway if you let me on the rest of your site i promise to only post on this thread.
Danny don't peddle the dissent from Darwinism crap.
ReplyDeleteThere is no debate whether evolution happens amongst real scientists.
If you want to educate yourself, watch Potholer54's videos on Youtube.
He tell you exactly what science knows today and why science makes all the sense in the world.
As for being arrogant. What I mean is that everything I see has a physical not a supernatural explanation.
And I don't know what you mean by letting you in my blog. You are free to go to any post and comment anywhere. I prefer comments on one of the last 3 current posts.
Peddle. I just heard about it a couple of days ago and wanted to know what you think.
ReplyDeleteLike maybe: What you think about the people who signed it for one thing.
But i guess is all i get is "crap" for an opinion. Now i am disapointed. I guess even if you did say something it would prob. just be, They are stupid.
When i said i wanted to know what you thought i wasn't saying "haha" look at this.
-----------------------------------
I don't know i guess my comp. don't like your whole site this is the only thing i can get on of yours. It wasn't at first. and ok I will look at YOUR video reference.
Here's what i want to know now. Give me concrete reasons why i should take someones word over these people. Is it just because you say so. Cause i've never heard of any of these people or any of your people. They seem to have the credentials, just give me some objective reasons to disbelieve them.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
---------------------
Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and DISCOVERER(that sounds intelligent) of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. and many, many, many more.
Danny, these "professors" and "scientists" are hole pokers. Most of their objections against evolution have been completely answered.
ReplyDeleteThey have not published on article or had one scientific study that refutes evolution.
If evolution were false, the evidence against it would be overwhelming, just as the evidence against the earth being the center of the solar system is overwhelming.
Do yourself a favor, and if you have to believe in Jesus and God or whatever, do it the Dr. Ken Miller way, not the Ken Hovind way.
From what i understand, evolution means different things depending.
ReplyDeleteSome people say we evolved from apes.
I think it is obvious evolution in a way occurs. I think species do adapt.
I do not, however, think we came from apes, or that all animals comes from one common ancestor. I think we have stayed the same species while evolving. I do not think there is solid overwhelming evidence that we evolved from apes, fungus, or jumped species and families.
--------------------------------
A group of scientist call for "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory", and you call them hole pokers. Careful examination equals hole poking? You want overwhelming evidence of a negative, yet you have given no overwhelming evidence that there is no God.
Danny I'm not going to debate evolution with someone who wants evolution of man to be false so that his ancient book could be more correct.
ReplyDeleteYes, they are hole pokers and nothing more. The evidence that man came from monkey like animals who came from shrew like animals who came from reptile like animals, etc. is overwhelming.
Again, you should watch Potholers videos.
Why do you need to deny evolution of man? If you are honest, it isn't based on scientific findings at all.
yet you have given no overwhelming evidence that there is no God.
ReplyDeleteAnd god believers have provided no evidence for the existence of the entity you profess to believe in. None, Nada. Not one shred except your "faith" which is just thoughts and feelings inside your head. Things you choose to believe based on your desire to live forever. You are the one making the claim for the existence of a god, and going around trying to convince non-believers to accept your beliefs as true, so you should be the one providing the evidence. It is not up to us to prove a negative. However, at my blog, if you click on my link there is a post titled "Why the Christian God is Impossible" from a person who offers very good reasons why a personal god cannot exist.
Nothing great has come from belief in evolution or atheism. Atheism is not beneficial to the survival of our species. It has brought little worthwhile to us. We would have medicine with or without us coming from apes or whatever. Religious nations may or may not be bad depending on which nation, but all nations that have been atheistic have been and are horrible. Great scientist have believed in the existence of God.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Don't discuss evolution with me then, it's really a null issue anyway. What really matters is that God exists and He gave us a sacrifice for our sins--Jesus. You do know that is good news don't you?P.S-the evidence is in the doing, i tried to tell you that with the laws of physics and plane post.
-----------------------------------
Atheism has nothing beneficial to offer me whatsoever, you should really be the one convincing me that you are right.
So what I will do is wait. Wait and give you and opportunity to PRESENT TO ME OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO GOD, AND THAT JESUS IS NOT LORD AND SAVIOR. You can't do it. I do not need to bring overwhelming evidence to someone about them being wrong, when what they believe does not bring good anyway.
ReplyDeleteDanny, now I've lost all respect for you.
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter if nothing special has come out of atheism?
As for evolution, that is an ignorant statement. All medical research is based on evolution being fact.
As for evidence against God and Jesus, I can't provide it. I can't provide evidence against Leprechauns or an invisible man living under my bed who does nothing.
You make the claim about God, you provide the evidence.
As for Jesus, he most probably never even existed.
Baconeater: You COULD try to prove He doesn't exist, by proving we got here by means other than a creator.
ReplyDeleteSo far the furthest atheist have gotten, that i have seen, is to say-- The universe could possibly exist without a God, therefore there is no God. I see error in that logic.
-----------------------------------
Stardust: Not one shred except your "faith" which is just thoughts and feelings inside your head.
That's just not true. Faith is action. You don't really believe something til you act according. If you tell me to wait here cause you'll be right back. If i believe you, i will wait instead of calling a cab. Or if my brother told me he put 200 dollars in my account, i would go get it.
Faith is the action. And the action gives the evidence.
baconeater: "All medical research is based on evolution being fact."
ReplyDeleteI have previously stated that evolution occurs in that we adapt, so you must be talking about evolution in the way you said this, "man came from monkey like animals who came from shrew like animals who came from reptile like animals". No, all medical research is not based on that.
---------------------------------
"As for Jesus, he most probably never even existed."
That is ridiculous.
Danny, if we had this discussion a few thousand years ago, you could have asked me to provide another explanation for lightning to prove God doesn't exist. I wouldn't have been able to.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jesus, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he walked this planet. None. I know this because I started researching what Jesus looked like, and it led me to sites that showed a very good argument that Jesus was completely made up.
As for evolution and your denial that man evolved, I feel sorry for you. You are not basing it on science at all, but a stupid book written less than 2000 years ago.
baconeater: "Danny, if we had this discussion a few thousand years ago," So i guess i will be waiting a long time then.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jesus, read EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT. or don't. I'm sure hundreds of people would be tortured by the Romans because they were lying about Jesus. I'm sure that Paul, who had it made as a Jew, would give it up to knowingly be persecuted for someone who didn't exist. These are people that lived in the same realm and the same time as Jesus.
The Bible is considered very historically accurate and cited by many historians.
Stay tuned for quotes from historians, cause i know i can find them. plenty of them.
I'm sure hundreds of people would be tortured by the Romans because they were lying about Jesus.
ReplyDelete**********************
Lots of Muslims die for Allah. Does that mean their religion is correct, does that mean Mohammed was a Prophet? You aren't too bright and it is starting to show.
And I know I'm insulting you right now, but if I continue with you I'm worried you will dumb me down.
I'm sure that Paul, who had it made as a Jew, would give it up to knowingly be persecuted for someone who didn't exist.
************************
Again, that statement is just plain idiotic. We know little of Paul, and he may not have been a historical figure either. But Joseph Smith started Mormonism, did he start something that isn't true knowing it would lead to insults and some persecution?
The Bible is considered very historically accurate and cited by many historians.
***************************
Complete BS. Just theologians. No historians.
Stay tuned for quotes from historians, cause i know i can find them. plenty of them.
***************************
Don't bother, I've seen them all. Right from the first one by Josephus who observed Christians who by that time had believed Jesus was a real person.
Give me a quote from someone who lived from 1-40 AD. If he was such a miraculous man, you must be able to find tons of them.
You won't find any.
He most probably didn't exist.
baconeater: "Lots of Muslims die for Allah. Does that mean their religion is correct, does that mean Mohammed was a Prophet? You aren't too bright and it is starting to show." You are obviously not reading my post. I did not say that christians dying because they believe in Jesus--makes Jesus Lord.
ReplyDeleteI might lie about someone existing in my time. I might say i have a friend by the name of Jake, all the time knowing he actually does not exist. BUT I WOULD NOT LIE ABOUT IT IF I KNEW IT WOULD GET ME KILLED. There is a diff. You honestly want people to believe that: People who supposedly lived with Jesus would continue the lie after Romans and jews started picking them off. Now, you could make that argument for a 100 years later.
Insults and some persecution is vastly different than getting tortured: burned alive etc.
but ok, you don't want em then you want get em. If you want them ask.
-----------------------------------
I will continue to come on here from time to time to see if you have any logical explanation for no God. Or any logical explanation for the "never existing Jesus."
Nobody died at the time of Jesus for believing in Jesus. There is no evidence of this. The bible is not a history book.
ReplyDeleteYes, many people have died for their beliefs, including Jews, witches, Christians, Muslims, etc.
There were Christians who believed that there was a Christ, but that was waaaay after the "fact."
There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever existed.
You have no quotes from 1-40 AD either. No letters, nothing from Greek, Roman or Jewish historians either.
Jesus was an invention, and you are buying it, you also deny evolution of man because of your fairy tale beliefs. You deny reality for a myth.
Any hoot, you are free to infest someone else's blog.
You are too wilfully ignorant to engage me in a real discussion.
In other words, kindly buzz off.
I've said what I needed to say, and for any of my readers, they understand where I am coming from, and they also understand that it is futile to engage you.
I have no idea why you are continuing with me here. Do you think I'll even acknowledge that Jesus was a real person? Let alone believe in God? Do you think you are going to show me evidence for either?
The answer is a huge NO to all three, so you might as well go away and make a fool of yourself elsewhere.
LAST POST
ReplyDeleteThe reason i have continued with you here is because i like talking to people of a different mind. I do not expect you to change your mind because of anything i say, i never expected that. I mean, don't you ever get sick hearing people agree with you all the time.
Anyway, i'm off to look for that 1-40 A.D thing. but don't worry i will not infest your blog anymore.
Thank you for the opportunity to have a discourse,
Danny
The reason that nothing accounts as evidence for you is that it does not support your theory. Danny has not only provided extremely courteous responses to you but also given several solid arguments to support his beliefs. However because of your own refusal to consider the possibility that you in fact could be wrong then one must come to the conclusion that the random process within the intellect has removed the ability to consider the possibilities of inaccuracy. The other possibility is that you in fact do not really exist and are just a figment of our imagination and since I have evidence of this than I can chose to completely deny any of your biased arguments to support your presupposed evidence. Furthermore because I can now convince myself that you do not exist then I can determine that you are nothing more than a waste of space and anything that you say or do does not matter in the realm of reality.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that nothing accounts as evidence for you is that it does not support your theory.
ReplyDelete**********************
My theory? Which one? Don't forget, I used to be a believer, and I used to assume the Exodus happened and Jesus was a real person, and God existed.
Danny has not only provided extremely courteous responses to you but also given several solid arguments to support his beliefs.
**************************
Solid arguments to support his beliefs? Nothing but an attempt at wishful logic.
However because of your own refusal to consider the possibility that you in fact could be wrong then one must come to the conclusion that the random process within the intellect has removed the ability to consider the possibilities of inaccuracy.
*******************************
I went through the process that God existed, to God might exist, to there is no evidence that God exists and in fact, there are over 3400 Gods who have been believed in, during recorded history. That means at least 3399 were invented, so I say most probably, all were invented.
The other possibility is that you in fact do not really exist and are just a figment of our imagination and since I have evidence of this than I can chose to completely deny any of your biased arguments to support your presupposed evidence.
***************************
Another attempt at whacko "logic"
You guys are borderline insane.
Furthermore because I can now convince myself that you do not exist then I can determine that you are nothing more than a waste of space and anything that you say or do does not matter in the realm of reality.
******************************
If you can convince yourself that God exists, and Jesus was a real person, it should be easy for you to convince yourself that I don't exist.
First off you claim to have been a believer. A believer in what? One can believe in many things. I only ask because there are many variables which make up a belief system.
ReplyDeleteHis wishful thinking.
Again an attempt to justify your own wishful thinking. I see that he notes as I also have stated that we have no qualms with our possibility of inaccuracy but for you it has to be YOUR way that is accepted by everyone.
As for gods that might exist and most of the invented I do have to say that you were correct on one level and it is also the reason that men HAVE to believe themselves as a god. This does not prove that there was not a creator only that man chooses to not accept One. Again you have free choice and just because you choose to NOT believe in something does not mean it does not exist. Science has never been able to create something from nothing and yet we claim that this is the beginning? I know now that we also claim that it began from cells but those had to come from somewhere, but do we in turn claim that we do not believe science to exist because it does not have the ability to create without taking from things that already exist to create? No we still believe in it, we just do not accept their theory because it cannot be supported by their results. Sure we can clone animals and possibly humans but we cannot take the DNA from one subject and create a completely different species. Everything that we can do can only be done by things that are already present and the reason we have to believe that God does not exist is so we can say LOOK at what we can do or what we have done therefore we have to have these presupposed ideas present in order to be able to explain why we really haven't accomplished all that much.
Now as for the attack on us as being borderline insane one has only to look at your own logic to truly be able to make that deduction. Let me attempt to clarify. If I as a scientist want to prove a theory I simply record my theory and then perform a series of test to back it up, now because I have not achieved the results I have desired I simply alter some of the test realigning the input to achieve the desired test results to reach the goal of proving my theory. Now because I have achieved my goal of proving my theory I want everyone to believe it regardless of the steps it took to prove it. Everyone has to believe it to be true and those who don't will not be tolerated by the rest of us because they refuse to believe the results of my test. They are closed minded. Now this is exactly what you have done. We simply see the results in a different way. You look at them through your glasses and see the results you want to see and if it doesn't fit then you add another ingredient to make it fit. We may or may not do the same thing. I have no problem teaching evolution as a theory and teaching creation as a theory. You want evolution taught as a fact and that is the only acceptable thing taught. Nothing on creation or intelligent design. Now you tell me who is borderline insane? and you claim you are open minded and you want others to be the same way? The truth is this, you want open minded who believe your hypothesis as truth therefore it is the only thing that can be allowed to be taught. I guess if we were to determine that Fictional literature is the only acceptable form of literature we would no longer allow students to study the other forms of literature or perhaps we deem that US history is the only acceptable history in our eyes we can then deny that European history is inaccurate and cannot be trusted Hitler never existed nor did the atrocities of that era. The question I ask is what are you afraid of. Is it that people may not believe as you do or is it that as long as people believe in the possibility that creation existed it shows that there is a possibility that you may be wrong?
Hisway, I don't know why you delusional reality deniers need to post so much in order to try to make a point or two. I suspect it is because you know that if you just stated one or two paragraphs, you would get clobbered very quickly.
ReplyDeleteScience doesn't claim that something came from nothing. That is the claim of religionists.
I'm not going into detail over your mumbo jumbo of either disingenuous crap or just plain ignorance when it comes to science.
But we are made up of atoms, and atoms under the right conditions can theoretically change into life.
Early scientists believed in the bible and God, etc. But the evidence found contradicted an early earth and pointed towards evolution and an ancient earth.
All evidence found since then, confirms evolution, etc.
If evolution was wrong, there would be tons of evidence that scientists would be able to consistently test, to refute evolution. The fact is that everything found falls into the realm of evolution theory and an ancient universe. Everything.
Science is not a conspiracy to disprove God, but the reason you can't accept it is because it totally contradicts your stupid jackass book of myths written less than 2000 years ago.
That is what you base science on. It is embarrassing. You are an embarrassment to humanity.
What is the science behind intelligent design? What does it predict? Based on what evidence? Don't answer these questions, Fundies never do. ID is not science, and has no basis in science.
Jesus most probably never existed. You are living a lie.
"The question I ask is what are you afraid of. Is it that people may not believe as you do or is it that as long as people believe in the possibility that creation existed it shows that there is a possibility that you may be wrong?"
***********************************
I'm not afraid of anything. But I'm a fan of progress. And denying evolution halts progress. You creationists are jokes, but you inflict your delusions on children (a huge form of child abuse) and teach them LIES.
As for being wrong. I wish there was a possibility that there was an afterlife, but science explains everything, and history has shown that man created God and a need for the afterlife. No evidence for God or the afterlife exists. No evidence for magical Leprechauns either.
I know one thing. Your God (The Christian God) can't possibly exist. Jesus most probably didn't exist and for sure he was nothing but a mere mortal if he did.
Again everything always comes down to it being your way only. Bible and science goes together even now and again it is presuppositions that determine the outcome of any test being completed. As for atoms creating in the prefect environment where is the creation that they have developed. Science or your view of science is only acceptable when it supports your theory. Just because everyone wants it to be something does not mean that it is accurate which is the same argument that you throw at us. I will not get clobbered on evidence as proof because the evidence I have is the same evidence you have except you chose to view it based upon the earth being millions of years old which is theory based upon the conjecture that there is no Creator therefore when a test is completed using whatever method of determining age the test (which has been developed by those who determine the age of the earth and are performing the test) the result will ultimately be within their scope because it is predetermined. The reason you think you are infallible is not because science has proven it but because you have stacked the evidence of both to prove your side by refusing to look at it from an objective point of view. Your claim of evidence is also your downfall because of the lack of evidence in the evolutionary process from one species to another and while there are many arguments explaining it we have to admit that it is still merely a theory and not a fact. The fossil record neither proves nor disproves one from the other again because it is not a science but the interpretation of the facts. The same goes for any evidence towards Jesus Christ. While evidence certainly exists it is also discounted by others because they claim it is bias so where do we draw the line. Science is not proof of anything but the attempted explanation of things in which we determine its effect on us. If you determine to deny evidence because of the source then we as a people can deny any part of history based upon who reported it because of the effects it had on the world thus resulting in the denial of slavery, native American massacres, or anything else that proves the depravity of man in their past of course the issue is do we want to deny these things so as to make the world look better now than it really is? Your right to chose what you believe to be accurate is undeniable however to deny others the same right is unacceptable. You then chose to suppress others by denying them the same right claiming them to be uneducated or belittling them because of their beliefs when we could stand next to each other perform the same test receive the same result yet you will claim it proves your hypothesis and therefore you say it is a fact, while I can also claim the results prove my hypothesis and yet you will tell me I am wrong because your hypothesis meets the majorities desires to be true while mine supports the minority viewpoint. In any case I wish you a good week.
ReplyDeleteAgain everything always comes down to it being your way only. Bible and science goes together even now and again it is presuppositions that determine the outcome of any test being completed.
ReplyDelete******************************
Wrong. Evidence that science uses doesn't have presuppositions, no matter how much you want to say it.
As for atoms creating in the prefect environment where is the creation that they have developed.
*********************
The conditions do not exist right now. But there have been attempts. And I'm sure in the future, life will be created from atoms in a lab.
Science or your view of science is only acceptable when it supports your theory.
****************************
My view of science is based on the definitions of science, not gobblygook.
Just because everyone wants it to be something does not mean that it is accurate which is the same argument that you throw at us.
**************************
Most people would love to prove God did it. The reality is that evidence shows God didn't do it.
I will not get clobbered on evidence as proof because the evidence I have is the same evidence you have except you chose to view it based upon the earth being millions of years old which is theory based upon the conjecture that there is no Creator therefore when a test is completed using whatever method of determining age the test (which has been developed by those who determine the age of the earth and are performing the test) the result will ultimately be within their scope because it is predetermined.
***************************
There is absolutely no evidence for a young earth (any scientific evidence that is). You are completely wrong. You choose to deny reality because of your stupid little ancient text. End of story.
The reason you think you are infallible is not because science has proven it but because you have stacked the evidence of both to prove your side by refusing to look at it from an objective point of view.
************************
I haven't stacked the evidence. Nobody has. Science looks at things completely objective though you are completely wilfully ignorant to this FACT.
Your claim of evidence is also your downfall because of the lack of evidence in the evolutionary process from one species to another and while there are many arguments explaining it we have to admit that it is still merely a theory and not a fact.
******************************
You have no idea what a scientific theory is, so quit pretending you do.
The fossil record neither proves nor disproves one from the other again because it is not a science but the interpretation of the facts.
*************************
Fossils are facts, and there are no other consistent ways to interpret them, or Fundy scientists would have come up with a way by now.
The same goes for any evidence towards Jesus Christ. While evidence certainly exists it is also discounted by others because they claim it is bias so where do we draw the line.
**************************
You are making a presumption he existed. There is no contemporary evidence he existed. You are living a lie.
Science is not proof of anything but the attempted explanation of things in which we determine its effect on us.
*****************************
BS. Simple science explains and proves that warm air rises for example.
If you determine to deny evidence because of the source then we as a people can deny any part of history based upon who reported it because of the effects it had on the world thus resulting in the denial of slavery, native American massacres, or anything else that proves the depravity of man in their past of course the issue is do we want to deny these things so as to make the world look better now than it really is?
*******************************
Native American massacres were the result of bring in believers of the myth man named Jesus to North America. I'm not denying real history. You are adding stuff that didn't happen to it.
Your right to chose what you believe to be accurate is undeniable however to deny others the same right is unacceptable.
***********************
Peddling a young earth and man's creation less than 10,000 years ago is a LIE. I'm against lying.
You then chose to suppress others by denying them the same right claiming them to be uneducated or belittling them because of their beliefs when we could stand next to each other perform the same test receive the same result yet you will claim it proves your hypothesis and therefore you say it is a fact, while I can also claim the results prove my hypothesis and yet you will tell me I am wrong because your hypothesis meets the majorities desires to be true while mine supports the minority viewpoint. In any case I wish you a good week.
*****************************
You are delusional and borderline insane. I can see it. You of course can't. And probably never will.
Have a good week too.
Whoa, awesome thread.
ReplyDeleteMy $0.02:
"Danny I'm not going to debate evolution with someone who wants evolution of man to be false so that his ancient book could be more correct."
You hit the nail on the head, BEAJ. I attend (against my will because my Christian wife makes me - yeah I'm whipped) a Missionary Alliance church in Ottawa on a semi-regular basis (so I can play hockey on heir hockey team). The Pator, on more than one occasion has stood up during a sermon and said exactly that - that one cannot accept evolution because that means the words in the Bible cannot be true. And if they cannot be true then Christianity isn't real. They want their faith to be real so bad, they will purposely ignore science.
Deluded is being polite.
OT, We probably won't agree on much politically but you are now on my blog roll. Keep fighting the good fight against the fundies.
Hi Mike, this means I have to put you on my blogroll. And you link to Chomsky....YUCK!
ReplyDeleteFundies are wilfully ignorant. They need to invent reasons why they "think" that science is right about everything but evolution and the age of the earth, why there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, why there is no evidence for God, etc.
He he, yeah sorry. I might have to clean that up. Chomsky has his moments, but even I don't buy his anarcho-syndicalist stuff. I'm more of a market anarchist, left-libertarian - you know, Murray Rothbard and Mises, Sam Konkin and Karl Hess.
ReplyDeleteMy other blog is theConverted.wordpress.com, if you want to have a look (its not as active).
Please tell the McCain/Palin Campaign (preferrably politely) why teaching creationism in our public schools around America is superstitious and is not in our nation's best interests. These are the feelers McCain has out there, the way in which Americans can have a voice and be heard by his campaign:
ReplyDeleteContact his campaign directly here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
Or go to his blogs and leave a polite message about the subject matter wherever appropriate:
http://www.johnmccain.com/blog/
Remember, McCain does a lot of things right and is a great heroic war veteran who genuinely puts his country first, but Creationism is one key area where he is completely wrong and could potentially create a major setback for American students and businesses. We can't let America fall behind foriegn countries in the departments of Science and Technology because of his superstitious beliefs.
What would be evidence and proof of God's existence, for you?
ReplyDeleteNow, use that same demand for evidence and proof for the existence of everything... you will soon become a skeptic.
Science cannot prove that there exists a mind independent, external world. It cannot do this mainly because this is one of its assumptions (starting points).
There is no scientific evidence that there is an external world - a world which exists outside of, and independent of my mind.
So, taking most atheists demand for scientific proof...
I have as much scientific reason to believe in the existence of God that you have scientific reason to believe we aren't in the Matrix, or reason you have to believe that there are other people who actually exists apart from your mind, and independent of your mind.
Danny, no, scientific proof for God isn't required. What is needed is something supernatural to be seen, recorded, verified, etc. Like a beer floating from my fridge into my hands.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence for God or the supernatural, just as there is no evidence for Leprechauns, so believing in any of that simply makes no rational sense.